Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Please refer to Ritz v. Good Taste

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, June 8, 2009 10:09pm - 13 Comments

Of course, there is a precedent for ministers of the crown making uncouth remarks about the suffering of Canadian citizens in private only to have those comments later broadcast publicly.

Tags: chalk river, Gerry Ritz, Lisa Raitt, listeriosis, wayne easter

More by Aaron Wherry

Anon

But, Ritz wasn't on tape, was he?

http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

He was, I believe.

john g

Of course, there is a precedent for ministers of the crown making uncouth remarks about the suffering of Canadian citizens in private only to have those comments later broadcast publicly.

Yes. They get reelected with 60% of the vote in their riding, up from 54% in the election before they opened their mouth, and they keep their job because they didn't do anything wrong.

http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

He also had the election cycle to bury his story and wasn't on the ropes to begni with from a previous gaffe. Regardless of how one wants to interpret Raitt's remarks and mistakes thus far, the government is going to have to take it on the chin the next couple of days politically, and what Raitt said is awful optics. May have nothing to do with her abilities to do the job, but if it was about the ability to do the jobs, the list of PMs, and Cabinet Ministers, would likely be much different.

sbt

If I were the government I'd rather be talking about this than the deficit.
john g

what Raitt said is awful optics

Sure it is. But there is not a doubt in my mind that politicians of every stripe think of issues this way and talk this way in what are supposed to be private conversations with trusted staffers. This is hardly a revelation. Politicians are by their very nature ambitious people, and it's not surprising that they will give thought to how they can look good while handling an issue.

When the news of a tape came out I was worried that Raitt might have been guilty of a racial slur against Aglukkaq or something like that; that would be a different story. This conversation may not be pretty but it's hardly a firing offense for Raitt. For Macdonnell on the other hand…clearly this person was out of her league.

http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

I don't necessarily disagree in terms of firing Raitt b/c it affects her job performance (I also was worried it was going to be a racial slur), my point is though, this inside baseball stuff is going to be covered, and it's going to be spun, probably in a pretty negative way. The question is will the government want to have this around its neck while it plays out in the media.
Ted

I disagree.

I don't think every politician sees the need to "roll the dice" with such important files, and certainly not for the sake of career ladder climbing.

http://farnwide.blogspot.com/ SteveV

And, the chief difference here, calls for the Minister's resignation were already on record before she made her comments. And, it wasn't an attempt at humor.

Throw in this Baird angle, and she's reached critical mass.
Kat

The media outlet that had the tape didn't think it was a story. It only became a story because of the aide who left the binder behind.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if this aide didn't even know what was on the tape she had lost until the reporter called her this weekend for her opinion, which is why she tried to get the story stopped.

This sounds more like the aide having a really, really bad week and Raitt is getting caught in the splash.

Every politician is going to learn from this and as soon as any meeting is over, the very next question will be: Is the tape recording off?

Charles H.

No, it's not that they didn't think it was a story. I'm sure had they listened to the tape 5 months ago when they got it they'd have thought it a story even then.

It's that they didn't feel the right to listen to the tape until after the staffer in question (who they were holding it for) had resigned. At which point they realized that they had a Minister on tape acting like a shallow opportunist and ran with it.

Critical Reasoning

Holy weak analogy, Batman.

CAPS

Yes, it is a weak analogy. Ritz was making fun of a situation where people had died and was attempting humour (very weakly) by wishing a similar death on his political opponent. Raitt was only talking cavalierly about a situation where people could possibly die.

I can see your point.