Earnscliffe hiring?
Babble on.
From the Washington Post, hardly a strong supporter of the current White House, some advice for Paul Martin after his anti-American attack ads failed to deliver an election victory:
As for Mr. Martin, perhaps he will be tempted again by the example of Mr. Schroeder, who has taken a job as an agent for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Does Hugo Chavez need another lobbyist?
Ouch. I bet they've never even heard of Earnscliffe, and they still manage to hit the nail on the head.
In fact, maybe Paul could bury the hatchet and call Jean for help getting the inside track.
Babble off.
posted by Babbling Brooks @ 10:20 a.m.
8 comments
8 Comments:
Creepy. The author of the post article at yahoo looks very familiar with the situation. Maybe they do know who Earnscliffe is but just didn't want to say.
Anyone inside Washington of either party is well more versed in how to turn public office into private position. No tips form the North needed.
I was wondering exactly how long it would take you to spin some sort of slur on the U.S. out of this, Alan. To be honest, I thought you'd be much quicker.
It is not in any way a slur to point out the fact that certain right in the American Congress and leaders in corporate America are being investigated, charged and jailed in a way that people of the right in Canada gleefully predict for the certain Liberals in Canada. Pointing out this fact in relation to the US is no more a slander of that beloved neighbour (my home for a month in 2005) than rightly speaking ill of the Liberals is a slander against Canada.
If you are the person of honour that I know you are then you will see now that the only slur is yours and it is against me. But I appreciate these are tender times when fact get in the way of theory. ;-) I will thumb wrestle you next time we meet to re-establish my honour and I have thrown down the mitten at your feet as notice thereof!
Yeah, Alan, except what does that have to do with my post?
A U.S. paper points out that anti-Americanism in an election doesn't necessarily score 'allied' leaders enough points for a victory anymore and in a spate of schadenfreude suggest a sordid lobbying job for said defeated leader. I tie in the fact that it's not unheard-of for Liberal ex-PM's to lobby in sordid causes.
And then you somehow make it all about K Street? Hunh?
You reached to find something derogatory to say about the U.S. when the post was really about anti-Americanism not working in elections across the west these days.
I don't hesitate to apologize when I feel I should, as you well know. But your off-topic sniping deserved a rebuke.
I do not feel that it is either off-topic or sniping but it is my fault not to make the connection more clearly. One of the problems the right in governance in the US and the Liberals here (as well as others) have is the move on to the next job. Both are dealing with it at the same time yet your post appears to make it a particular disorder suffered by those you would not support (Martin, Schroeder).
My point is that it is a disfunction not of "the left" as those-who-say-heh might say but a possible disorder of the governing. You may say this is an overly broad comparison but I say this is a continuum of one ethical malaise that is currently a huge problem in the US right as much as our leadership as well as Schroeder. I may have not made that point well but I was certainly not slurring the US - which is a mischaracterizing leap I would not could not make with you.
This is especially your idea that I am a source of spinning against the US which is untraceable given all the power of the Internet and the google that lays before your hands. It is for that that the mitten of honour still lays before you.
Then we are talking at cross-purposes. I was talking about anti-Americanism sending former leaders into exile, with the cushy and sordid lobbying being an offhand crack.
You've latched onto the lobbying as my main point, and extrapolated that I was undeservedly smearing the Canadian left.
Not so. In fact, I'm on record as smacking a Conservative MP whose lobbying history draws his current impartiality into question. Moreover, your disparaging comment about those-who-say-heh is off base as well.
I will admit that where I saw anti-Americanism, you were only questioning my perceived bias against Liberals and towards Republicans (I guess). My apologies for blaming your wrong-headed attempt at rebuttal on incorrect motivations.
You're not anti-American, you've just missed my point, and rebutted a position I don't hold.
How's that for a mitten in the snow.
The great Pax Babblanumis is declared! Good for you, too, sir as I trained as a youth in the Romanian thumb wrestling academy.
I will try to be less obtuse in future though that is a personal characteristic many have asked me to shake.
Post a Comment
<< Home