Weak, defensive arguments simply make them look guiltier

(photo)

The two high profile Senators facing massive public criticism offer up weak arguments for what appears to be fraudulent use of public funds.  Duffy has been staying away from the press, so it was an avowed “pal” of his, Times Colonist Iain Hunter to tries, but fails to defend the ex-journalist who won’t defend himself publicly.

That’s probably why all the snide and vexatious comments that have been made recently about my pal Michael Duffy are made outside the Red Chamber: No one in that august place has the guts to make them there — at least not directly to his happy face.

Let’s leave aside “his happy face” as other words come to mind.  Of course no one in the Senate will say certain things in Chamber to his face.  He is under investigation and Hunter knows there are rules about what can be said in either House.

It saddens me, too, that members of what was once our common craft have joined the hue and cry against Duffy and Pamela Wallin, both former “journalists,” trying to run two or more households in addition to their Senate duties and trying to keep track of the cost of having to fly between them as those duties require.

Excuse me?  Are journalists part of an exclusive club with some unspoken rule that they must never criticize current or former members even when those members have serious allegations against them?  Journalists are supposed to be impartial, and that includes not shying away from honestly reporting on those of their “common craft.”

Have those of us who have waited by our telephones for a summons from the Prime Minister’s Office in vain had our perspectives clouded by jealousy?

Oh, I see…Hunter shows his nature here and why he has such empathy for Duffy.  He’s like that self-serving ex-journalist, hoping his biased work as a journalist will earn him a Senate appointment.

At the end of an impressive career, (Duffy) found himself in a place where respect is expected and honour pretty well taken for granted.

Wrong, Hunter.  Respect must never be expected, but earned, and Duffy has failed miserably on that score.  Senatorial appointments, although they are often used that way, must never be a reward for past, partisan services, waiving responsibility and accountability from that point on.  Some excellent Senators have earned and held our respect, others have not.  That is their doing.  We owe them nothing, unless they earn it in their current service to the public.

A lot of the Senate rules were written long before airplanes began to foul the air and “resident” needed defining. If today those rules appear rather open-ended, it’s natural that parliamentarians with weighty affairs of state on their minds might stumble through the opening.

Cry me a river.  Wrong again.  According to Senator Carstairs, the expense rules were recently updated and are very clear.  And if certain Senators are too overcome by “weighty affairs” to take the time to spend public funds responsibly, then they should quit.

Pamela Wallin chose to publicly attempt to defend herself against allegations of porkbarreling and chooses to obfuscate through misdirection. 

 

She says she is happy to be in public service but believes she deserves some privacy.

 “There is a point of privacy here and people don’t appreciate what they’re asking of you when they ask that. I don’t think anyone would want to go and put their credit card numbers on line and I don’t want to put those (health card) numbers.”

When you have to be that obviously deceptive with your rhetoric by using false analogies, you end up looking guilty.  No one is asking for her health card number, only proof of what provincial health card she holds.  Fair request considering the questions related to her place of residence and the related use of public funds.

“The reality is the Senate is changing and it’s no longer the image of old white guys sitting around smoking cigars. We are active, I can’t do my job sitting at a desk in Ottawa.”

Again, this is separate issue.  We know that travel is required and we offer travel allowances for that reason, but these travel expenses need to be scrutinized to avoid abuse of public funds.  Easy matter for Wallin to clear up if she is not at fault - simply opens her expenses to scrutiny.

But nice attempt at gaining sympathy by mentioning “old white guys.”