Thursday, June 02, 2005

Notes on Reading the Grewal Transcripts, Part 3

Before we continue, it's necessary to consider if Gurmant Grewal's explanation of gaps is to be believed. I'm not wholehearted about this, but I do think his explanation is plausible. Certainly it's more plausible than Ujjal Dosanjh's accusation--er, explanation.

Anyway, the third file contains selections from various phone calls between Grewal and either Ujjal Dosanjh or Tim Murphy between May 17/18. (It's important to emphasize that these are selections, not the entire transcript.)

There's some to-do about the Ethics commissioner, but it seems obvious that both Dosanjh and Murphy are leaving that one alone. It's pretty clear from that transcript that all three are discussing getting an apology out of Citizenship minister Joe Volpe rather than putting pressure on the Ethics Commission. (One sort of gathers that getting Joe Volpe to apologize is equivalent to pulling his molar.)

The transcript has seen fit to highlight this passage from Murphy:

TM: The point I was making is, obviously the key is something like this happened, the first question people will ask you is, well what were you promised, did you seek it out or did they seek you, were you promised anything, did you ask for something. I think, we want answer to all those questions to be ‘no’. then we can be honest about that, right. So that we can be able to say, actually that can be a better position for you to say that you will be principled. Then you can say that no, I took the principled position. No one bought me with anything, right. In that world where someone like you is taking a principled decision, a courageous decision and the guys that make contribution to the community, an effective MP the guy who play an important role and will play more important role. Right and so but I thing if something happens tonight or tomorrow. We need to be able to answer honestly all these questions to the media at that time right, look what Scott Brison did, that is how it exactly happened with him, right. He was able to say no. that there is no promise made, obviously he hope to he can play an important role. And over time that is exactly what happened, right. I think we need to do on that basis. So that we can all be honest. I think that will be better for you from positioning point of view. And you will be able to say, ‘hang on a second, no no, I do it from principle’, right. Its not about me getting anything, nor anybody offering me anything. It is the right thing for my community and for my principles.

Technically speaking, this isn't an offer, but a way to spin the acceptance of such an offer. There's a certain irony in reading how a Liberal strategist uses terms such as "principled" and "courageous" for what is unquestionably an unscrupulous action.