Sunday, September 24, 2006

Fact Is Dion Campaign Broke The Rules

I blogged earlier of three campaigns that provided the Strategic Council Poll with confedential membership lists; appearently, quite disturbingly no one is shocked or dismayed. Maybe because everyone likes Dion, Dryden, and Brison, I for one do. But I'm not blaming the candidates, unless they knew. Odds are however it was their campaign managers who lacked the judgement necessary or who were underhanded and purposly and knowingly broke the rules.

For those of you who do not know the situation, in the strategic poll Dion and Dryden got supremly higher numbers then what they had been getting. It turns out, here that they supplied the poll with their membership lists. So wonder of wonders, their numbers go up, looking way better then before.

For more reading on the shadowy actions of Dion in him breaking the rules you can go here

Scott Brison is also accused of this, but as Personally Penny pointed out, his numbers should have been alot higher. So I personally agree with Penny.

Now I've already had the commentors trying to downplay this, which is just Orwellian to me. How can you deny something is black? No matter what they say I'll always see four fingers, I'll always see that the Liberal Party RIGHT NOW is investigating those campaigns. That's a fact! You can't spin that.

So far, the party is still investigating. Party national director Steve MacKinnon said, “Needless to say, using our membership lists for anything other than the intended purpose . . . troubles us. Membership lists are the property of the Liberal party and they are not to be disseminated to anybody on whim.” (glad to see that it’s about the party’s property rights, not members’ privacy interests - ed.)

Dion’s campaign director, Mark Marissen, claims “his camp received legal advice that it was within the bounds of the agreement to give the membership lists to the Globe strictly for the purpose of conducting a poll”, pointing to terms of the confidentiality agreement that permit the lists to be used by “an outside source” if the source signs a confidentiality agreement.

Some commentors have noted what's the harm? Me qualm, and it may be just a little reflex of mine, is when someone breaks the rules they get punished, especially when they break the rules, agreed upon by the party for their own advantage. Mark Marissen even admits they did it, currently he's saying they thought it was by the bbok, but this is just one more incident highlighting Mark's questionable methods.

Another example of hopefully just Mark's "accidents" and not Dion's was that during the last leadership convention, Jean Chretien requested that leadership camps in his riding allow an "undeclared" slate win so as not to politicize his role in the convention. At the convention his delegates would be fair game. Jean was granted this request.

After this precedent, Paul Martin made the same request to all 10 leadership camps, and after much consideration, 9 agreed. One refused. The refusal came within days of the Form 6 submission deadline, and came from Stephane Dion, despite the fact the request was conveyed to Dion via two Martin-ites turned CanaDions: Tim Murphy and Mark Marrissen. The refusal from Stephane was in very poor taste. Perhaps it's because he has no ground organization and required all the delegates he could get?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

They didn't break any rules.

Of course you are allowed to poll the list - what's why they give it to you.

5:03 AM  
Blogger Bizarro said...

Hey LF&T...I noted this earlier in the week. You might like to see the comments;

6:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How is it a fact?

It is an allegation. ONe that is not true.

Get your facts straight.

7:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Off with their heads I say!!

7:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kennedy is using a paid phone bank too - and they gave thier list to Ekos for a poll last week.

7:16 AM  
Blogger Ed Hollett said...

What you are doing is accusing Strategic Counsel of conducting a fraudulent poll and the Globe of printing a fraudulent poll.

Even if the three camps had supplied lists of their supporters to the pollster, he would have had to deliberately and knwoingly allowed himself to be manipulated to produce the "dramatically" higher results than produced in other polls.

You might also want to think about what lists were allegedly provided. You seem to be suggesting the lists supplied were lists of partisans for the particular candidate. The news story makes no such implication whatsoever.

That makes two substantial additions to the story you have made - without any evidence.

7:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is complete nonsense. A poll is confidential. Both Dryden and Dion campaigns confirmed the veracity of the lists. Are you suggesting that Dion supplied a rigged list?

8:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Odds are however it was their campaign managers who lacked the judgement necessary or who were underhanded and purposly and knowingly broke the rules."

If you have an accusation to make you shuold attach a name to it and indicate what rule was broken.

8:37 AM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

-Tell me why Dion, Dryden and Brison are being investigated if it was the strategic council being fraudulant?

-It is a fact, Marissen has admitted to it, his defence is beyond weak. Read the articles and my blog before commenting, thank you.

-Did Kennedy break the rules? I didn't think so.


10:29 AM  
Blogger Steve Kanter said...

If they needed to ask a lawyer whether it was wrong before hand or not, it goes to show even they had doubts about whether it was within the bounds of the agreeement.

10:49 AM  
Blogger robedger said...

You know that there is a difference between being investigated and being guilty, right?

I am not a lawyer, just a lowly law student, but I do think that it was within the rules to give the membership lists to the Globe strictly for the purpose of conducting a poll, since the terms of the confidentiality agreement permit the lists to be used by an outside source if the source signs a confidentiality agreement, which the polling company did.

12:12 PM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

Law student? Really? Because you don't seem to argue very well. You first admit that he is being investigated, then you just refuse that Dions actions were even remotely shady, in that he broke the rules. So then what is the motivation for the investigation?

I know the Liberal Party wants to make itself look bad right? Actually thats why it has Dion, Dryden, Volpe, and Rae. They may not be guilty but they knew theyre actions bordered on guilty, thats why Marissehn consulted with a lawyer before continuing. So just acting on the margin ogt guilt has had national news stories about their behaviour, which doesn't make anybody look good.

Maybe comment when you've completed law school, because you have no solid argument.

1:53 PM  
Blogger robedger said...

What is wrong with you?

Let's review my comment:

point #1: there is a difference between being investigated and being guilty. Do you dispute this?

point #2: what happened was within the rules. Do you dispute this?

What you're doing is smearing candidates and making unfounded additions to the original story, as Ed Hollett points out above. Just so we're clear, another word for 'making unfounded additions' is lying.

By the way, consulting with a lawyer is not a proof of guilt either. Consulting with a lawyer is a sign of due diligence.

You're totally off the deep end on this one, and every time someone points that out to you in a reasonable manner, you resort to ad hominem attacks.

Now, before you reply, I want you to think long and hard about how you have conflated the notions of allegation and fact, and how you have also made unfounded allegations yourself (read:lies). Then I want you to ask yourself what kind of person resorts to ad hominem attacks and smears.

2:38 PM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

This is another example of a killer argument. You begin with a guarenteed truth, then follow it up with conjecture.

Point one, there is a difference between investigated and proven guilty. That s beyond obvious.

Point two, I dispute that what they did was in the rules. How do you explain the Liberal Party investigating it? Because they think it'll be fun?

You can keep repeating your 'points' all you want, but it'd be nice if you addressed mine. That's how an argument works.

5:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home