Wikipedia revised & why Senate Scandal NOT Sponsorship Redux!

People who should know better are comparing this latest Senate debacle with the former Liberal Sponsorship Scandal. Wishful thinking? Desperation to make the Conservatives as bad the former Liberals? I don’t know for sure but that is how it seems.

For example, Chantel Hebert, usually one of my favourite journalists, wrote a column this week on how Nigel Wright could destroy Prime Minister Harper. She made a few good points until she mentioned how this scandal is similar to the Liberal Sponsorship Scandal.

In fact, she somehow made this current “scandal” sound worse because [former Prime Minister] “Martin was not in charge when the sponsorship program went off the rails and he had not hired those who ran it.”

Also this week, we had Liberal pollster Frank Graves writing a short post at the iPolitics blog. In fact, Graves actually referred to the Senate matter as Adscam Redux.

Which means, other media will now pick up on this and repeat it ad nauseam with the view that if you tell an exaggeration often enough, people will start to believe it.

Well, we have to put a stop to this innuendo now because they couldn’t be more wrong. The Sponsorship scandal involved missing millions spent on advertising contracts for little or no work. The Sponsorship Scandal or Adscam also involved cash passed in brown envelopes to Quebec Liberal Party operatives — cash that belonged to the Canadian people.

In other words, no matter how the national media or pollsters spin things, as I wrote yesterday, there was no public money involved in this Senate debacle other than alleged expense account over payments — and those are and were the responsibility of the individual Senators involved. The bottom line is that Prime Minister Harper demanded that the alleged overpayments be paid back, or arrangements made to pay them back — with private money,

However, this lazy comparison clearly shows how desperate the federal Liberals and their supporters are. How desperate? Well, it seems quite a bit given both the Wikipedia entries for the Sponsorship Scandal and the Gomery Commission have been edited and revised. Plus, the Wikipedia entry that used to be on Adscam has disappeared altogether. Specifically, where there used to be information about the misused and stolen $40 or $43,000 million, now the entries show only a couple of million dollars missing or in dispute.

So, I am left with two questions:

  1. Who, I wonder, is attempting to rewrite history by changing the Wikipedia entries on the Sponsorship Scandal?
  2. Is there anyone who can access the Wikipedia sites to re-include the incomplete and missing information?

C/P Jack’s Newswatch.

27 thoughts on “Wikipedia revised & why Senate Scandal NOT Sponsorship Redux!

  1. That’s disgusting all around. Adscam was over $40 million from the taxpayers of all of Canada tossed to the wind to buy votes in one province. The guy who enabled it simply shrugged and said “what’s a few million…..?”

    Let them try to revise this, we can bring it right back at them to remind people just why the LPC is still where it is and should remain.

    There’s no comparison between the Adscam and the Senate, we at least can find out where the money went, with Adscam we never will.


  2. Liz, Further to your comment, just now, the PPG journalists are all flogging the Senate thing. Latest is asking what the $13,500 legal bill was for. I felt like responding, none of your business. So, it seems you were right over at BLY, they ARE pooping out because they have nothing substantive.


  3. A poll on national newswatch shows this ‘scandal’ has had little effect on the Conservative base. Thus by this point in the frenzy i doubt it will. The media hysteria is likely going to be just preaching to the choir for those of the left/’progressive’ set.

    Frenzy after frenzy, I expect 2 or 3 more media white noise storms before we get to the election.

    But true, Hebert seems to be losing her perspective – a rare dent in her credibilty.


  4. One problem, Hebert is not comparing the two scandals. She is comparing the reactions of the Prime Ministers to the scandals.


  5. And the Liberal are scoffing about a second cheque….What about Chretien’s legal expenses back in 2011….

    In February 2011, Chrétien was awarded $25,000 in compensation for legal costs associated with fighting the federal appeal, although he had asked for $70,000.

    This next $200,000 is associated with the original Federal Court judicial review. Chrétien had asked for $300,000, detailing the nearly $400,000 he had spent on lawyers’ fees over the years.

    The Attorney General of Canada argued it should only be $36,205, pointing to federal guidelines for compensating parties for legal expenses.

    But Lemieux used his discretion, echoing the view of a Federal Court of Appeal justice who said the case was one of public importance involving the reputation of a former prime minister.

    A source close to Chrétien said he would not be commenting on the award ruling…”


  6. I’m thinking the fact they’re comparing the Sponsorship scandal to the Senate revelations is very telling, an obvious clue their larder is empty of fodder and they’re not too smart to boot.

    In politics you don’t remind people of your less than finest deeds and expect them to trust and support you.


  7. I’m so fed up with this trumped up garbage I’m avoiding any and all things to do with “news” outlets.

    Let’s face it: The usual suspects, thinking they’ve got Harper on the run, are pretty much p***ing themselves with glee. That’s all this is about, nothing more or less.

    Peter Foster sums it up as “Harper Derangement Syndrome”….


  8. Liberals and their Luvin’ Media can not rewrite the Gomery Report.
    …Liberals used a Ministry of the Crown, the Dept of Public Works,
    to launder stolen taxpayers money in a kick-back scheme that sent cash back to Liberals, including 12 Liberal Candidates and directly funneled $1.6 Million to the Liberal Party of Canada. ($1.1M ??)


  9. Kevin, you are right that she is comparing reactions but the comparison still is to the Sponsorship Scandal. The reactions would not be comparable given how different the scandals were. But, that is my point. Even Hebert is looking for connections where there are none.


  10. Al — It truly is a derangement syndrome. I didn’t like the Chretien Liberals but I don’t recall this kind of never ending venom from anyone in the media. Even after the Sponsorship Scandal landed, it wasn’t this bad. Mr. Martin sunk himself with his dithering over priorities. Plus we were ready for a Conservative, albeit a pragmatic one, government.


  11. Wilson, I used those Wikipedia links all the time and something did recently change. Before, the $40 million amount that is still unaccounted for was identified. Now, its not unless I am just not seeing it.


  12. I think Turdeau is being groomed by the Chicago gang. Note, that he has hired one of the Obama’s campaign managers (sorry I forgot his name). I think that is why his great candidate for Toronto Danforth is one from the U.S. I also think Turdeau is also being financed by the U.S.


  13. Lyndia — As soon as I read your recent comment at 2:10pm, the thought that went through my mind was: So, how is that working out for Obama? LOL

    The person who should worry is Mulcair. I suspect Trudeau will win most of the current NDP seats in Quebec. Can’t say I’d want him as the Official Opposition, but it would be better than gov’t. But, I suspect the matter may be different in 2019, or at the very latest, 2023.

    The reality is, and I think they know it, the Liberals will come back someday unless they are destroyed in 2015.


  14. If wiki is being edited and changed incorrectly, I think anyone can register and edit. I recommend everyone register and change it back, or at least get in touch with the powers that be.


  15. Anne in swOn — I had to remove your comment about the former Montreal Liberal. It could put me at legal risk. Please do not say real names without the term “allegations.” Otherwise, it can be considered libel, whether true or not.


  16. Thanks, Sandy, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to know what we are allowed to say these days because of the litigation threat hanging over our heads. Even quoting from and citing online sources can be a no-no.


  17. Anne — If ever in doubt, add the term alleged. And, don’t mention too many real names. You will notice I referenced the former Montreal Liberal. I would have know who you were referring to. 😉

    Don’t stop commenting. Just leave it to me to figure it out. I just don’t want to upset anyone.


  18. Don’t worry, Sandy, I won’t stop commenting. I’ll just trust you to know when to take my foot out of my mouth. lol


  19. Well, Ontario Girl, the Sun link fits under both stories. What ever happened to the Sun? After the barn burner speech last night I think the media just look petty. Everyone I speak to (Liberals included) can see what the media is doing and only those who have Harper Hate/Derangement Syndrome are affected — you know the people who rant in their comments under the MSM columns. Sometimes when I read what they write, I wonder why they are not arrested their words are so hateful and dangerous.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.