The difference of course being that Karl Heinz Schreiber was successful in his influence peddling efforts with Brian Mulroney in a way that Stephen Harper was not with Chuck Cadman.
This difference in influence peddling outcomes can be explained by the difference in the “bribees” and the “bribers” in the two situations.
As a briberer and influence peddler, Karl Heinz Schreiber is charismatic in a way that Stephen Harper clearly is not.
In addition, Chuck Cadman had moral standards that exceeded Brian Mulroney’s. Chuck Cadman was on death’s doorstep and Brian Mulroney had, according to his spokesman Luc Lavoie, "money pressures, since he was "not a rich man" at the head of a young family with certain lifestyle expectations.”
Evidently in Brian Mulroney’s rarified world of “entitlement”, this passes as an acceptable excuse for accepting $300,000 cash payments while in office, or not reporting one’s income or GST with Revenue Canada.
Chuck Cadman on the other hand had different standards and different considerations. His was not a world of entitlement. He entered politics for reasons vastly different that those of Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper.
Stephen Harper has sought power and influence in much the same way that Karl Heinz Schreiber did. Stephen Harper by his own admission wasn’t beyond attempting to bribe Chuck Cadman with a $1 million life insurance policy to buy Chuck’s vote and bring down the Liberal government and trigger an election.
This incident involving Stephen Harper and his attempt to bribe Chuck Cadman with an insurance policy is not an isolated event. Stephen Harper did the very same thing with the 2.5 million Canadians who were fearful of the Liberals and the Liberal’s review of income trusts in the fall of 2005. Stephen Harper coldly calculated that he could appeal to this block of voters in the 2006 election by offering them an insurance policy by declaring that:
“You know where the Liberals stand on raiding seniors nest eggs, whether it is death taxes or taxing income trusts, a new Conservative government will never let this happen”.
As we all learned to our great dismay, his insurance policy proved to be completely illusory.
This fraudulent income trust promise also tells you a lot about Stephen Harper, which is that he has a hidden agenda ad is willing to sell out to the highest bidder in his quest for power.
Stephen Harper ostensibly changed his stance on income trusts on the false and unproven notion that income trusts cause tax leakage, when in fact he was simply bowing to the pressures of Corporate Canada’s Controlling Elite (CCCE) to shut down the lemonade stand across the street, in order that the status quo would remain unchanged, and Canada thereby fail to evolve in accordance with the clear wishes of the investing public. Great long term policy decision, not. The fact that all Canadians will lose is of no concern to Stephen Harper. since it is not he or his instigators who will be making up for the loss of $1.4 billion in annual taxes. Their world or entitlement remains fully in tact.
The other examples of Stephen Harper’s vote pandering briberous ways are legion. Quebec is the perfect example. Other example take the form of lame initiatives like the Senior’s Council or the recent announcement involving product safety measures are all empty policies that sound great but amount to nothing. For example,
If Stephen Harper weren’t the duplicitous person he is, and was truly concerned about product safety, do you suppose that he would have fired Linda Keen as the head of Canada’s Nuclear Regulatory Safety Association for the mere fact that she was doing her job admirably, but in a way that caused Stephen Harper political harm. The only product safety that Stephen Harper is concerned with, is his product safety. He doesn’t sweat the small stuff, like retirement security, nuclear safety etc. etc.
As influence peddlers go, Karl Heinz Schreiber gets my vote, Stephen Harper does not.
It's high time for Harper to get deported.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Posted by Fillibluster at 6:35 AM