I wrote this over at Ben's this morning about the relative hugeness of the refusal of Federal finance minister Ralph Goodale to step aside while the RCMP conducts a criminal investigation into a possible leak of information from his department:
It really should be the only thing so far that is huge since the writ dropped. "Beer and popcorn" and a blogging fool were personal stupidities. This is a criminal investigation of a cabinet minister. Is there a problem with the non-stop accusations of the blogosphere that we can no longer tell the difference? Hey - I am going to make a post about that...gimme it back...gimme...it...back (pop!). There.The dangers of blogging this time is to those invoved in the all scandal all the time crowd that cannot tell a big problem from a little one. So far the GOTCHA moments have been, first, an unkind (but technically correct) comment by a high placed government-side staffer about another party's proposals on child care and, second, a resignation over a really, really stupid series of blog postings by a slightly less well placed government-side staffer who actually jumped on his sword fairly quickly. These two gotchas add up to zippo.
But Ralph's situtation is different. For the background of the story, read Stephen Taylor's post of 15 December. What is being alleged is some sort of leak to the marketplace allowing certain investors to make a bundle before an official announcement. Didn't Martha do jail time for just saying something like that didn't happen, regardless of the findings of whether she participated in it?
Lesson for blogosphere: this is what big looks like.
Comments
The Tiger in Exile - December 29, 2005 9:51 AM
I had a suspicion -- in part, because Peter Mansbridge was so determined on the matter on The National.
The other stuff is just background noise, I know. Revealing of a mindset, sure, but not really something that sticks.
But, you know, I thought that Adscam was big. And I thought that the delayed confidence vote combined with the Stronach move combined with the Grewal tapes was a big deal. So I don't trust my own judgment on what is huge or not, anymore.
Alan - December 29, 2005 9:59 AM
I was restricting my hugeosity to things arising within the election so, yes, those things are big, too, but not as the local US used car guy says "HUUUUUUGGGGG-AH". And yes there are points to those who can name the used car dealer in question.
The Tiger in Exile - December 29, 2005 10:05 AM
I was unclear -- I'm not disagreeing with your post or with your comment, not at all.
I'm just saying, when those other things had about as much impact, in terms of dislodging government support, as a pebble dropping into a lake, I don't know what huge is.
As for used car showmen, the only one I could name was the late Al Palladini...
Alan - December 29, 2005 10:14 AM
What is huge? What an excellent question.<p>I had become so accustomed to members of the conservative cabinet of NS being investigated by the police in the 80s, by the Saskatchewan Tories being jailed in the 90s, by inquiry after judicial inquiry after judicial inquiry now reviewing the acts of the Harris government, I thought that these things only happened to Tories. What is huge is whether something like this could have actually occurred.<p>But one thing is key to whether this is really huge. If the call for Ralph to step down is based on Ministerial responsibility without personal involvement, I think that is slightly less huge. We have a month left of the election and it would be wise not to have a key member of the cabinet step down if they themselves were not actually involved - who would replace them? Who could get up to speed? Is there any available former Finance Ministers able to take charge? Oh...yes, of course. I forgot.