Well, not directly, but still. Sadly for the Sparrow – and more sadly still, I’m sure, for Patrick Muttart and the Conservative Party – as of this morning, not a word of this statement appears to have found its way into the post-hearing coverage, which really isn’t all that surprising, considering how late it went out:
From: “Ryan Sparrow”
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:41:57 -0400
To: undisclosed-recipientsSubject: Statement from the Conservative Party
Media reports today suggest that Patrick Muttart organized and administered regional media buys for the Conservative Party of Canada in the 2006 federal election. This is false.
Patrick Muttart was a member of the Conservative Party’s national campaign team during the 2006 election. He was responsible for creative and media strategy and not the financing or administration of regional media buys.
The difference between responsibility for media strategy, and responsibility for “the financing or administration of regional media buys” seems like a pretty fine line to draw, particularly given the testimony earlier this week from Retail Media vice-president Andrew Kumpf, who told the committee that Muttart was his “main contact” during the last campaign – and remains so even now, as the party prepares for the next election.
Retail Media officials also confirmed that Muttart was on the line for at least one of those now infamous conference calls, during which they were assured “by party officials” that the buys were legal, and his name – or his email address, at least – also appears in several emails filed by Elections Canada as part of the search warrant application.
Given all that, it’s easy to see how “media reports” migh have referred to Muttart as having “organized” the regional buys, despite the fact that he wasn’t directly responsible for “financing and administration” – although since I can’t find a single story emanating from Tuesday’s hearing that goes into such exhaustive detail on the mechanics of the buy that such a clarification would be required, it seems more preemptive than corrective at this point. It also suggests that the party is more worried about the optics of this case than they’re letting on. Which makes the fact that they put out this statement after the hearings had wrapped up for the week – and two days after Retail Media’s appearance – the most interesting thing about it.
Print
Comment
another Conservative that didn’t care how it was paid for. go figure.
Anyone know if Sparrow’s involved in the court case?
The Sparrow’s only role, as far as I know, is to direct the communications of the Conservative Party, although not, it bears noting, in the direction of the ITQ mailbox. Still.
Interestingly, he wasn’t on the scene at all this week – in the committee room, that is – which is odd, because he sat through all the preceding meetings. Sometimes he and I were the only ones in the audience, even. But now, when it involves hearing from actual witnesses, and not just listening to government members filibuster, he’s MIA. Like I said – odd.
“It also suggests that the party is more worried about the optics of this case than they’re letting on.”
As they should be. Their sabotaging efforts have severely backfired given the negative coverage that followed.
Nothing odd about it at all. Anyone who’s dealt with bureaucracy (for example) at all knows full well the resiliency that comes with the division of services.
That he hasn’t been dragged into the fray itself might help to explain why he’s being so wreckless. He just nailed one of the party’s feet to the floor.
It was perfectly legal. In and out! In and out! In and out! Why is Muttart distancing himself from something not only above-board but successful? And if not Muttart, who was the strategic, financial, and legal genius?
In, and out! In, and out! In, and out!
Still tough to say, but if I were Kehoe I’d be pissed.
The other part of the CONservative strategy is fairly obvious.
Stephen Harper latest widely reported theme: Parliament is dysfuntional. We should have an election. Which diverts attention nicely from who is causing the dysfunction and those pesky Ethics hearings. And the Occasional Goldstien screaming match is definitely more titillating the substance of the hearing which looks bad for the CONs…
So many issues to try to get ahead of, so little time. Harper is realizing IN-OUT isn’t going to get any better, more downside than up. He thought the next election was going to be a green-themed. Wrong.
Boy o boy I sure hope that ‘Being a good CONservative MP 101: How the disrupt parliamentary committees” handbook doesn’t surface after Harper tells us all about an unworkable Parliament. OK maybe I do hope it shows up. But at the right time and place. On national media outlets from coast to coast would be good.
Harper side note: Fixed date elections are a good idea, just not for moi. PS We love you NL, no matter when you joined Confederation.
I think the CPC didn’t expect this amount of coverage. The irony in all of this is that I think their original assessment was on the money. These proceedings would have indeed flown under the radar were it not for their own painfully obvious sabotage efforts.
Between Lowry’s on-the-record admission that he was told not to attend and Goldstein + Mommy gong show yesterday, how could the press NOT cover this story?
If there is a fall election, it will be interesting to see if the Tories continue to use in-and-out financing, given that they say there’s nothing wrong with it. If they don’t, what will that say?
Wow.
There is a lot of bath water drinking going on around here.
Yet no one is talking about the only real news made yesterday. Mayrand backtracks and says other parties candidates also under investigation!
How does the Liberal braintrust of commenters around here feel about Janke’s observations:
http://stevejanke.com/archives/270744.php
Huh? Huh? Love to hear the spin on it.
You can watch the moments yourself:
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/parlvuen-ca/admanager/asxgen.asx?url=StreamLogger/2008/2008-08/0000D7C9.wmv
Watch from 2 hours 13 mins to 16 mins
and watch around 2 hours and 56 mins.
Comments?
Giornowatch alert: Bruce Carson, erstwhile king and almost-sole occupant of the Senior Advisor box is getting a patronage apptt to head the Canadian school for the environment (what is that?), proving once again that the wheels of GiornoMobile they keep on turning. Now, when will Muttart’s appointment to Head the – let’s say – School of Strategic Studies be announced?
CSEE is a joint U of A/U of C/Lethbridge research centre. It’s a very peculiar appointment, but not a patronage appointment.
Is that School connected to the U of C research outfit that funded a “non-partisan” climate change misinformation camapign by the Friends of Science (sic) during the last federal election?
See http://gauntlet.ucalgary.ca/story/12416
- JV
Just a note to the commenter ‘in the know’ that when you put a bunch of links in a comment it often gets pitched straight into the waiting-for-approval queue, where yours is now. it’ll be fished out soon enough, methinks. Can’t do it myself.
It’s up now! But I should point out, in-the-know, that these filings are actually under review, *not* under investigation. That’s important to note, since the alternative could possibly be seen as libellous — which may be why the Conservative staffers at committee yesterday hastily revised the initial handout, which was titled “Candidates/MPs under Investigation”; the amended version referred to these filings, quite properly, as under review.
Since that came up during yesterday’s hearings, and I wrote about it at the time, I didn’t think to repeated what I said there, but to save you scanning through all that text: There are many, many reasons why a return could be held for review, of which expenses – particularly advertising, or any kind, really – is only one. In other words, just because a campaign return has not yet been finalized, it does not mean that candidate is being “investigated” – for in-and-outing, or anything else.
Finally, a quick list of Conservative MPs whose filings are also still under review, but who were not (as far as we know) amongst the candidates involved in the so-called “regional media buys” that have resulted in the current dispute with Elections Canada: Tony Clement, Jason Kenney, Helena Guergis, Tom Lukiwski and Nina Grewal.
And yet, at the moment, this post is still the only hit on Google News to include the party’s clarification on Muttart’s role, despite the fact that The Sparrow sent it out to reporters last night, and to the press gallery earlier today.
btw Kady, Edgar Bergen would be proud.