RackNine sues Pat Martin and NDP for $5 million
What do you mean - you haven't seen me rant for years against Martin? I'm better than he is at being a loudmouth. I just don't attract as much media blowback.
Of course, and as I said, I expected it. But if I were to just assume and make an accusation I might rightly get called on it. Nothing wrong in checking. Also, I don't think your feelings toward him are unfair.
I agree with you about him making accusations which were reckless enough that he finds himself accused of libel. On the other hand, I think it is fair to target Racknine insofar as they should have at the very least done a bit of due diligence to ensure that they didn't actively assist in the commission of a crime, unknowingly or not.
I think their reaction and lack of proaction, like that of the PM, is telling. And again, I don't hope that Martin shuts up. I just hope he smartens up.
Put yourself in the shoes of the brain trust at national campaign HQ. If you are going to do a black op like this you want as few people to know about it as possible, and that they be th emost loyal. The logical place to plan the logistics is in the riding campaigns. But that means way too many people involved. That would not be the rule, and the Guelph case may even have been a freelancer who heard about what was going on.
Even planning and running this out of national HQ would involve a lot of people and be heard of by quite a few more. It would make sense to contract this out to a small frim of loyal Conservatives.
Yes, this is a logical surmising of what may have happened. It once again relates to the concept of Plausible Deniability.
The best explanation and dramatization of Plausible Deniability that I have seen occurs in Oliver Stone's "JFK" in the scene with Donald Sutherland's 'Mr. X'. (Sutherland is of course the father of Keifer Sutherland, the grandson of Tommy Douglas! )
As 'Mr. X' explains, in this case involving the Kennedy assassination, when you have plausible deniability the goal is to make sure that no one in the power structure hierarchy knows anything about the specific details of the operation. As he states, "There are no compromising connections, except at the most secret point."
No vote has been taken, nothing's been written down on paper, but everyone knows what the objective is - Kennedy must die. Someone in the chain is chosen to arrange some of the details of the operation, and someone else is chosen to arrange another aspect of it. But no one person knows exactly how it was arranged.
(Sutherland is of course the father of Keifer Sutherland, the grandson of Tommy Douglas! )
The latest Conservative strategy today is:
1. Blame it on Elections Canada (Maurice Vellacott)
2. Tell the Liberals to open their books (Dean Del Maestro)
Winston wrote:Actually, this statement exonerates the "rascals": "Surely these young punks didn't unilaterally construct this massive conspiracy...". He assigns the blame to the "masterminds", not the "RackNine rascals".
Ah I see... so if I said, "Surely that young punk Winston wasn't acting alone when he shot JFK - it had to come from way higher up", you would see that as "exonerating" Winston? I guess we read English sentences differently.
The last House Select Committee on Assassinations declared it most likely that Lee Harvey "Winston" did not act alone and that it probably was a conspiracy. And Lee Harvey Winston had to be killed because he was likely both a conspirator to the assassination as well as their designated patsy.
And it's obvious that the Harpers thought they could get away with it by denying any and all connections to the very methods which tainted the last federal election in Canada. The bottom line is that the election was tainted regardless of who ordered the banana republic style election rigging.
If the Harpers' phony majority wasn't in question before, it is now. Harper will be as hated by Canadians as Brian Mulroney was by 1991. Watch for the "blowback" to unfold in weeks and months to come.
Fidel, how confident are you of that happening? So far we are being told by the Canadian press & pollsters that unless Stephen Harper is personally implicated in this scandal, there is nothing to see here. Don Martin & Nik Nanos said on CTV today that polls show no effect on the Conservatives, John Ibbitson, Margaret Wente and others are busily writing columns saying that the Opposition is overreaching and that such electoral fraud might happen in Russia, but not Canada.
The emerging narrative is that this was just a few rogue individuals and that no one connected with Harper or the Conservative central campaign would try to engage in electoral fraud.