MULRONEY MEMOIRS: A BASKET CASE TRIES TO SETTLE OLD SCORES

I had been suffering from writer's block for several days. Feeling guilty. About disappointing my legions of readers. Hemingway used to call it 'black ass.' I was suffering from 'black ass.'

What to write about? Stelmach? Harper? Borrrrrrrrring! Afghanistan? Not boring, but God, if people don't get it about Afghanistan by now, they probably never will. What to write about?

Muldoon to the rescue! I might have continued staring at my computer screen in a state of suspended animation indefinitely were it not for Muldoon (as Canada's 18th Prime Minister is referred to by that splendid rag 'Frank Magazine').

We found out this morning that - oh, hell, let's call him by his real name -Mulroney mustered up the courage to really let the seven year deceased Trudeau have it. According to Mulroney, Trudeau wasn't morally fit to lead because he failed to support the war against Hitler and that he [Trudeau] opposed the draft during the war.

Mulroney was obviously smarting from Trudeau having called those who supported Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord names. For those who must be reminded or who have forgotten about what Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord were, these were basically constitutional bribes of power advanced by Mulroney and his Federal government to the Quebec separatist government to sign the constitution. Trudeau had called Mulroney and his ilk 'weaklings,' 'cowards,' 'snivellers,' and 'eunuchs.' Trudeau had said this in the inimitable understated way he said such things when he became pissed at weaklings, cowards, snivellers and eunuchs, who for their own aggrandizement, personal and otherwise, tried to turn Quebec into a province quite unlike the others.

As always, whenever Muldoon speaks, two things happen. First, you remember what a basket case he was and is, and secondly, you learn something new.

As to the basket case Mulroney, his outburst reminded us of his penchant for self-destructive over statement and exaggeration, his unrelenting passion for a glowing place in history that he believes is owed to him, and his holding his bete noir Trudeau responsible for the death of his pet constitutional proposals which, in his mind, would have stopped the separatists in their tracks and led him to time immemorial fame and glory.

The facts are these.

Mulroney's big mouth - his penchant for self-destructive over statement and exaggeration - consistently got him into trouble while he was in office (recall him telling the reporter that a good politician had to know when to 'roll the dice,' to win, and he had won Meech Lake by 'rolling the dice' at the right time - saying this, when he hadn't yet won Meech Lake, which he went on to lose).

Mulroney's unrelenting passion for a glowing place in history led to his constant preening and mugging before the cameras, and more blarney than the Canadian people could ultimately stomach, all of which was instrumental in the destruction of the Progressive Conservative Party.

And finally, there is no doubt that Trudeau fought effectively against Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accords. But to credit Trudeau alone for their defeat - when they were rejected by every region of the country, is to give the great man far too much political credit. In fact, the Canadian people had figured out for themselves that Meech and Charlottetown were power bribes to Quebec that would make that province different and more powerful than the others. And so Canadians rejected them. By the way, Stephen Harper seems to have learned something from the Mulroney experience with Quebec. He is not bribing Quebec with power. He's doing it in the old-fashioned way - with money - as witness his last Budget.

So much for the basket case. Now what have we learned? We learned or at least were reminded that Mulroney still believes - and probably others of the now-defunct Progressive Conservatives - that Trudeau brought down Meech and Charlottetown.

If this is so, then by implication Trudeau's attack also led to the Tories defeat at the polls in 1993, because clearly, the nation's revulsion at Meech and Charlottetown was a major reason for the Tory debacle. And it was this debacle - the grotesque Tory defeat in 1993 that left them with two seats - that destroyed the Tory Party. And so it follows, if it was Trudeau who defeated Meech and Charlottetown, then it was he who destroyed the Tory party. Thus, according to this school of thought, Pierre Trudeau's effectiveness as a national leader did not end in 1984 when he left office. No, it carried on through 1993 and therefore, not only were Stanfield and Clark his victims. So were Mulroney and Kim Campbell.

Like Samson, Trudeau slew them all. If I may carry the biblical analogy a bit further, it can be fairly said that he slew Mulroney and Campbell with the jaw bone of an ass!

Wow! What a career! Of biblical proportions! 25 years of beating up and finally destroying the Tories! Longer than Mackenzie King!

One final comment. Mulroney says that Trudeau wasn't morally fit to lead, because as a young man in his very early twenties he did not support the war against Hitler nor the draft. Well, what about the moral fitness of a leader who accepts $300,000 is cash delivered to him in 3 instalments in quiet hotel rooms by an unsavoury businessman who for years has been fawning over him in order to get contracts for his clients?

BUSH'S PAL STEVE HARPER: EVEN BRIAN COULD BEAT HIM

Brian Mulroney was a pretty good politician. He had charm. He had the gift of the gab. He spoke the official languages with equal facility. He had the pizzazz and tools to keep his caucus loyal. He was Prime Minister for nine years.

Oh, he wasn't perfect. He was misguided and rash on some issues - i.e. Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord come to mind. He had some sleazy friends who to this day haunt him still. He pandered to Quebec.

And he talked too much. According to Mulroney, Canada was not only in debt. It was 'bankrupt.' If the rest of Canada rejected Meech Lake, they would 'humiliate' Quebec. On the verge of getting Meech Lake approved by the Provinces, he bragged about knowing when to 'roll the dice' to win the day. Holdouts in Newfoundland and Manitoba read about the braggadocio, and promptly scuttled Meech Lake. For further proof of this unfortunate penchant, one need only quickly skim Peter Newman's 'The Secret Mulroney Tapes.' As a result, Mulroney blew his cherished but (probably) misguided dream of being a constitutional giant as was his idol and bete noire at the same time, Pierre Trudeau. Quebec never did get 'a distinct society' designation in a Constitution finally containing its signature.

Mulroney's tongue got him into more trouble than enough. Most certainly it helped shorten his political days in the sun.

By 1993, Canadians were sick of him. They threw out the Tories leaving them with an embarrassing 2 measly seats. Thirteen years later, they edged back into power almost by default but this time with the Party changed and leaning decidedly far more towards the lunatic fringe right.

Bush's pal Steve Harper, the current Prime Minister, is certainly not a clone of Mulroney. Where Mulroney was charming and witty. Harper is brittle and humorless. Mulroney wanted to govern for everybody. Harper, in his heart of hearts, wants to govern for an economic elite.
Whereas Mulroney could usually exercise enough discretion so as to avoid being attacked for bribing Canadians with their own money, Bush's pal Steve, has no such fetters and just last week bribed the people of Quebec with new Equalization funding which supposedly addressed a 'fiscal imbalance.' In fact, it was a gift of Canadian taxpayers' money which Quebec Premier Jean Charest promptly used to give his people a 700 million dollar tax cut, designed to improve his fortunes in next week's Provincial Election.

Neither was Mulroney mean-spirited. He could debate with the best of them. He could make his points forcefully and with humor. Never in a public forum was he mean-spirited or nasty. With Mulroney it was Marquis of Queensbury rules all the way.

Yes, Steve Harper is no Brian Mulroney. The current Prime Minister is not only witless and humorless. He also has a very nasty side. In Steve's world, it's alright to accuse Paul Martin of supporting child pornography, or to accuse leading Liberals as being anti-Israeli. Its also OK for him to accuse, with the protection of privilege in the House of Commons, a Sikh Liberal MP of voting against the extension of Anti-Terror legislation to protect his father-in-law who was on a supposedly secret RCMP list of potential witnesses respecting the Air India Inquiry. And just last week Stevie found it fitful to accuse the Liberals of being more supportive of Taliban prisoners than Canadian soldiers.

Nasty, indeed. But it also shows the Mulroneyesque fault of both rashness, and not being able to keep his mouth shut.

What all this is leading up to is this. Stephen Harper has most, if not all, of Mulroney's negative attributes, but few if any, of his positive ones. While Mulroney had wit and charm. Harper has neither. While Mulroney was civilized and fair, Harper has a McCarthyesque penchant for character assassination. While Mulroney had a good relationship with the press most of the time, Harper's press relations are poisonous. While Mulroney handled the public finances with considerable discretion, Harper has no compunction of blatant vote buying beyond a scale seldom witnessed in Canada. While Mulroney actually tried to keep promises, Harper casts them aside with undue haste and little concern (Income trusts, resource revenues not to be included in Equalization). Whereas Mulroney appeared to be human, Harper appears as a highly partisan and nasty robot.

On the negative side, they were both reckless - Mulroney with Meech and Charlottetown and over-the top rhetoric, and Harper with his 'Quebecois as a Nation.' And both talked too much - Mulroney with his personal aggrandizement and 'roll of the dice' type bragging, and Harper with his reckless accusations against his competitors.

And so, I like the chances of Stephane Dion being the next Prime Minister of Canada after the next election. Bush's pal Steve Harper has had a pretty easy ride of it for the past few months. But any day now, the press and the Canadian people are going to wake up to the fact that he can't even be positively compared to an un-laundered Brian Mulroney - let alone to a man of impeccable character, honesty and brains. Then, they will reject him.

FAST EDDIE AND THE QUESTION OF 'CHARACTER'

Jim Silye is a friend of mine. More than thirty years ago he plied his trade with the Calgary Stampeders in the CFL as one of the best punt return men in the business. He was fast and he was fearless. And he took a lot of punishment, including hits to most of his body. And his head.

Which may explain why, when he first went into politics, he joined the Reform Party. He was elected as the Reform MP for Calgary Centre in 1993. He did not run in 1997, but returned in 2000 to run (and lose) in the Federal Election in Calgary West as a Progressive Conservative - an odd switch given that in those bleak days for the PCs under the second coming of Joe Clark, most of the switching was taking place away from the Tories towards the Reform/Alliance (for which 'RA' is a convenient acronym).

Jim took another kamikaze foray into politics in 2004 when he ran in an Alberta Senate Election - again, as a Progressive Conservative. The Federal PCs were still highly unpopular in Alberta at the time with the still clear memories of Mulroney, the GST, Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord, still etched in the minds of the body politic. Silye went down to defeat once again.

Since then, Jim has stayed away from public life and, like the writer, restricts himself to being an observer of the passing parade. Is he plotting a switch to Social Credit? That would seem a natural step for him, given his early deft move from the RA to the Tories. Or is he planning on joining the new Federal Tories (to be consistent, now that we have the Reform/Alliance/Tory amalgamation the appropriate anacronym is 'RAT.')? Is Jim going to join the RATs? No one knows.

But what we do know is that Jim is a cheerleader for new Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach. You see, Jim received a complementary copy of my first blog article 'Dead Fish' from me, as did the rest of my personal Email contact list. Rising to the bait, Jim then burdened my many friends and admirers on that list with a 'Reply to all', challenging my conclusion that Eddie was on his way out, and indeed, invoking the Premier's virtues of 'character, conviction, and commitment',suggesting further that these were "were qualities unknown, unfamiliar and unpracticed by many Liberal politicians that we both know."

The second part of his statement I can hardly quibble with, except that the adjective 'Liberal,' for the sake of accuracy, should have been deleted. Both Jim and I know plenty of politicians from all parties lacking 'character, conviction and commitment.'

The qualities of 'conviction' and 'commitment,' can be found in men and women, both good and evil. One can't deny that Adolph Hitler, Idi Amin and Pol Pot had 'conviction' and 'commitment.' They were not good qualities. Those qualities are positive and good only if combined with 'character' and by that both Jim and I would mean 'good character,' so that the whole bundle means good, positive leadership, as we Canadians understand it in a democratic sense.

Which brings me to Fast Eddie Stelmach's character as he has begun to reveal it to the people of Alberta. The most recent clue of his true nature is the scheme to sell intimate access to the Premier, to rich Albertans who wish to put up $5000 to his Party's coffers. Upon hearing of the scheme, Albertans, Oppostion parties and the news media expressed outrage - both at the cost, and more importantly the concept. I mean, selling intimacy is rather poorly regarded, even with our society's more permissive outlook on human behaviour. I mean, that's what hookers do.

Stelmach got the message and backtracked, scrapping the scheme. He lamented that the outrage was 'a bit of a perception' and claimed not to have paid a whole lot of attention to what was happening. But is he returning the $5000 chunks already received? No, thank you very much. He will keep the money anyway. That's Eddie the politician. A man of principle, right?

Another example of the real Eddie came during a courtesy visit of the Leader of the Federal Liberal Party Stephane Dion to the Premier's office in Edmonton earlier in the week. By all reports, they had a pleasant meeting and discussed some issues. However, when Dion was about to leave, the Preem refused to pose for a picture with his guest. That's Eddie the Statesman.

He's already showed his true colors by booting out from his Cabinet many urban MLA's who happened to support Jim Dinning in the Leadership Contest, and transferring power to his rural pals. That's Eddie the magnanimous healer.

And he joined the lynch mob on the hapless Harvey Cenaiko who tried to do the Premier's family a good deed by promoting his son within the Alberta Sheriff's organization. Instead of just refusing the helping hand, he made a big deal of it press-wise, rubbing poor Harvey's nose in it after he'd already been turfed from cabinet, thus deep-sixing Harvey's political career forever. That's Eddie the Party Loyalist.

So, to my friend Jim Silye, that is the 'character' of which you speak. 'Character' is the trait that separates good leadership from bad, courage from cowardice, loyalty from betrayal, statesmanship from pettiness. Albertans are waking up to see that the Tory mobs have elected a man who appears thusfar to be wholly deficient in 'character' . . . unless its the character of a weasel.