Dear Josh,

Good question.

So for all you Canadians who've been entertained over the years by our scandalous politics, please give us the low-down. What's the score?

Basically, there isn't one yet. Your post covers most of what is important to the issue and your analysis of "an admission wrapped in a denial" is pretty much what we see at the moment.

I agree. We owe you for years of scandal which has amused, entertained, terrified and shocked. Truly, it's been a spectator sport for us, although the occasional puck comes off the ice and hits one of us in the mouth. Those of us without a beer mug to our lips to break the impact end up loosing a tooth or two.

I'll start by saying that it has been an interesting week here. Sandra Buckler, our prime minister's communications director... ok, spin doctor, is probably overwhelmed at this point. I'll get back to that in a moment, but suffice to say that in the normal course of a week she's only ever had to deal with one bubbling issue at a time. This week three little nasties are swirling around the drain and she seems to have misplaced her plunger. JJ has put together an excellent summary which should frame that point.

For a close look at the Cadman scandal, Kady O'Malley has a good take on it. Start here and then go here, here and here. To wrap where we are at the time of writing is in Kady's post here.

As you can see, there is evidence piling up, including audio tapes of interviews with Stephen Harper, when he was leader of the opposition in Parliament, which implicate Harper in a bribery scheme to buy Chuck Cadman's vote when he sat as an independent member of parliament and was the one deciding vote that could cause the Liberal government of the day to either survive or fail. The rush to get his vote was predicated on one very ugly fact: Chuck Cadman was terminally ill and had only weeks to live.

The Conservative Party talking point, issued by Sandra Buckler, is to question the tape. You might refer to that as pure desperation. Nobody believes that line of thought, including the Conservatives themselves. This is where you see how Buckler has become overwhelmed and caught on the toilet with her knickers around her knees. She has ducked all direct questions regarding the incident and has tried to impeach the messenger. When asked about the "life insurance policy" and Harper's involvement and knowledge she produces... nothing. Yes, there are strawmen flying apart all over the place and Sandra is grasping at the bits of them that fly by.

There is some depth, Josh, which you would not know about. The fact that Chuck Cadman was near death weighed heavily on him and it was a part of his motivation for keeping the Liberal government alive. If he voted to bring the government down, Parliament would be prorogued and an election writ drawn up. That means that his status as an MP ends and, given the nature of his health, there was very little likelihood that he would have survived long enough to resume a seat in parliament. As long as he was a sitting MP, he remained entitled to a death benefit equal to approximately two years salary. That would be measured in hundreds of thousands of dollars; not the $1 million allegedly offered. Cadman made it clear in a couple of interviews that his personal financial situation was his primary motivation for not bringing down the Liberal government. I hate to speculate on the mindset of a man now dead, (and, I might add, a scrupulously honest man), but it seems that he felt the world, and the Conservatives, could wait for him to die. It wasn't going to be a long wait.

But in order for a minority government to fall, Parliament must vote "no confidence" in the government. That means either a direct motion from the floor or a bill which carries the weight of confidence with it.

That was what Harper had before him and there was no guarantee that another one would come along any time soon. So, it's worth reading The Gazetteer's input on this. Powerlust.

There is a twist. In fact, it's a big twist.

Dona Cadman, Chuck's widow, is the candidate for the Conservative Party in Surrey North. But Dona Cadman has been clear that everything being said about the attempt to bribe Chuck Cadman is true. That puts her at odds with the denials now coming from the Prime Minister's Office. Given the fact that she is actually a Conservative Party member and candidate, but is willing to verify the allegations of bribery is the power behind the scandal.

So the Conservatives have a problem. If they deny the allegations completely they're calling one of their own a liar. To most Canadians, Dona Cadman is the beacon of truth in this issue.

I know what you're thinking. Why don't the Conservatives write off Dona Cadman, and her family, and just ratchet up the denials? That is, after all, what Karl Rove would do.

Simply put, there's too much evidence to support Dona Cadman's story to make her out as anything but truthful. That's why Buckler started to question the taped interview. She can't call the Cadman family liars if there is corroboration in the form of tapes and... heh, the interviews by two prominent journalists with Chuck Cadman prior to his death.

Nevertheless, some of Harper's supporters have started to demand that the Cadmans be "placed under a microscope". That is quickly dispatched as being completely unnecessary. Dona Cadman did not make the initial allegation. That was done in a book by Tom Zytaruk. Dona simply agreed that what Zytaruk wrote was correct.

I could add that this scandal may appear mild by American standards set by the current Republican party. That's actually another point.

The Conservative Party of Canada is a rather different beast than Canadians have had in the past. They have patterned themselves after the US GOP and, something new, they started importing Republican political strategists to advise them.

Harper even had brought in Republican advisers, such as political consultant Frank Luntz, to give pointers on how the Conservative Party could become as dominant in Canada as the GOP was in the United States.

Yes. I know. A chill just went down your spine at the sight of that name. He's just one of them. The parade of Republicans through Conservative strategy sessions has been fairly constant.

Thus, where Canadians have always focused on substance in politics, these guys brought in the politics of fear and sleaze. That's not to say that the other side didn't engage in the same thing. It was the level of it which struck many of us. To be honest Josh, it was the kind of discourse of which we were aware but from which we thought we were immune. It was the kind of stuff we thought only happened in that place inside the "Beltway".

Harper rose to power in government on something of a backlash. No matter what anyone says, his plurality and minority government came as a result of a Liberal financial scandal that occurred in the government of Jean Chretien. His party was elected on a punishment vote. Notwithstanding, he only received 36% of the popular vote. Most of those who voted (and the turn out was abysmally low) cast their ballots for something else.

What Harper offered was clean, transparent and accountable government. He was good at displaying disgust at the antics of the Liberals who had clearly engaged in corrupt schemes of their own. What makes this whole bribery scandal so disturbing, even to some of his supporters, is that at the same time he was tearing apart the Liberals for their behaviour, he appears to have sanctioned the same kind of behaviour by operators in his own party. In short, he was and is a hypocrite.

To sum up, Josh, the RCMP are now investigating complaints and the Parliamentary Ethics Committee has been requested by all three opposition parties to probe the Cadman bribery scandal.

Harper's Conservatives have yet to answer direct questions regarding financial offers made to Chuck Cadman. They have not explained how a terminally ill man could be covered with a $1 million "life insurance policy". Most of us believe that is an analogous term the Conservatives used. No licensed underwriter would issue such a policy. It's like calling your Rottweiler "Homeowner's Insurance".

And that's where we are, Josh. Glad we could offer a diversion from things in your neck of woods, but remember, if Jon Stewart was commenting on this he would give us all a look and then say, "You call that a scandal?!!"