Andrew Coyne: Stephen Harper’s story — and reputation — still hanging on by a thread
Look, it’s still possible for the MSM to cling to the narrative that the PM didn’t know about the illegal activity going on in his office (that he gave the “go ahead” to, according to Wright in an email). What’s wrong with Coyne and the NatPo giving the PM a fair shake you might ask?
Consider their presentation of the choices:
Knowing about the crime vs. authorizing the crime vs. being so dumb as to not realize there was a crime? “What’s the truth?” we’re asked in a rhetorically suggestive sort of way.
They are all false choices, given the information in the RCMP ITO. There’s a little thing known as Ministerial Responsibility. Let’s let John Baird explain it, as only the best orator in the House can? “One of the essence [sic] of our Parliamentary democracy.”
The Prime Minister is responsible for the alleged illegal actions of Wright. The PM must resign or accept another serious consequence for appointing someone capable of bribery and breach of trust to run his office. If he knew and/or authorized the crime, the RCMP can later charge Harper too. The priority now is to maintain the dignity of the office and position of Prime Minister, by encouraging the current schmuck to vacate the position.
Will the media work toward this mission, or the one indicating the Prime Minister retains credibility after being caught in multiple lies while speaking in the House?
I note that Coyne was pissed off by my critique of his work two weeks ago when he dropped the Senate scandal to pick up a now forgotten Trudeau smear. I don’t blame Coyne for being a willing cog in the wheel of the corporate MSM who’d really rather not risk destabilizing their country by seeing a sitting Prime Minister leave office mid-term (Wait, wouldn’t big news generate more views?). I’m sure Coyne is a very nice guy when he’s not sniping back that I should eat solid food.
I get that it’s tough coming up with a corporate-head approved national opinion each and every day about one of the touchiest subjects when small-talk runs dry (politics). Especially since snippy bloggers might take offense to the opinion when it’s about something they really care about. I just don’t see the consistency between saying the PM and Duffy have been “discretely blackmailing each other for the better part of a year”, and a headline like the one today. Does a PM who engages in blackmail deserve the benefit of the doubt still? The National Post is too forgiving, for us to keep our democracy much longer.