# Premier Gordon Cambell arrested for DUI



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I'm not a Gordon booster but at least he owned up to it. Many politicians would lie, deny and bribe their way out of such a charge. On the other hand, it shows that our Premier is irresponsible. It is rather shameful.


----------



## motoyen (Aug 15, 2001)

How pathetic! <A HREF="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1042240887606_41///?hub=TopStories" TARGET=_blank>	Updated Fri. Jan. 10 2003 11:55 PM ET 

B.C. premier charged with drunk driving in U.S.


</A>


----------



## islander (Jan 31, 2001)

He owned up to it?? How could he not? The story from Maui was broadcast all over the province, confirmed by Maui cops and accompanied later by mug shots of Gordo on TV. 

Personally I'm amused by the several ironies of this mess. We have an individual who has held himself up as a paragon of virtue as opposed to the 'corruption' and 'sleaze' of the previous NDP government. And, of course, after all of the accusations against Clark who was hounded from office (yes, I'm glad he went) while being investigated but before being charged, now we have a premier who has been arrested, jailed briefly and will reportedly not contest the charge. So Gordo will have a criminal record and Clark doesn't!

Will he resign? No, he'll enlist the support of his loyal troops, possibly be quite contrite and talk about his 'family' and changing his life and whatever. (And we already know the story about his father's alcoholism and subsequent suicide.) But Gordo's in an unfortunate situation when compared with Ralph Klein (whose alcohol problem did not involve DUI but, rather, drunken indiscretions at a homeless shelter). Klein is 'lovable' and folksy and all too forgivable. Gordo is a cold fish. He has always reminded me of a very strict, no-nonsense Calvinist (Presbyterian) minister. Well this Puritan has now received his comeuppance. But it won't make any difference--not to his continuing in office, not to the school kids who have to be driven over icy mountain passes in the dark to far-off schools because the Campbell government has forced the closure of local schools, not to the injured and sick who can't get adequate or prompt medical care because of other actions of this regime and certainly not to the well-off who will continue to enjoy the generous tax cuts implemented as soon as the BCLibs took office which have now resulted in record deficits.

But I'll enjoy the irony of it all.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Where's MacNutt? What's his take on all of this?










M


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I was amazed at the four pictures on the front page of the Globe and Mail. The first two have a smiling GC, seemingly posing for a campaign photo op. The next two are more somber, with him seemingly being told that he is under arrest and it is no laughing matter.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Well, how do you like that eh? I agree Dr. G. I thought the same thing about the photo's. But I must tell you all, I am still laughing at this. Not at someone driving juiced but that it was in not only another country but a county where no one knew who he was. It sounds to me like he was nailed by some small time county sherrif. Mr. Campbell was enjoying himself on a holiday, something very few B.C. er's can afford these days and better yet, he was in America where being the premier of a province means nothing and thus he was treated as fair game. Throw the book at him I say. Hey, everyone makes mistakes and I am all for someone who goes into politics and comes clean from the get go but this guy is like all the others. Above you and I and in his world he feels untouchable. The proverbial ego has landed. Anyway, what can be learned here? Perhaps we will see in the coming months. I still have a vision of him on the hood of a cop car being handcuffed, "I'm a premier officer, you know, like a senator?!" 
"Sure Mr. Campbell what ever you say."


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

timmer,

having the premier bend over the hood of the police car while being handcuffed sounds more like a scene from "Deliverance"


----------



## islander (Jan 31, 2001)

Re: Gordo's mug shots

I think the fourth one reflects either (1) the police officer's telling him to wipe that silly grin off his face or (2) his sudden realization that with a criminal record he may not be able to cross the US border again. I guess all those joint BC Premier - WA Governor meetings will have to held in Vic (or maybe White Rock?) now.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Rumour is that Gordo might resign. Anyone else heard this or have thoughts on it?


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Was that filmed in Maui?







I just saw the smilie mug shot of him grinnin away. Thats how faked and practised these people are. They see a camera and instincts take over. Would loved to have been a fly on the wall there when the deputy had to remind Mr. Campbell that "this is not a photo shoot sir." followed by, "do you even have camera's in Canada" followed by "Canada,that's next to Mexico right?" 
oh boy, I am gonna have fun with this one.








hope you are well


----------



## islander (Jan 31, 2001)

These shots are indeed the Maui police mugshots. Yep, the grin is as fake (and predictable) as they come for politicians and other 'personalities'. Remember John Gotti (the Teflon Don) grinning as he walked into the courthouse? But Gordo looked a bit more nervous than Gotti.

I don't think for a minute that Gordo will resign. It's not in character for him and, despite the seriousness of a DUI charge/conviction, I think it would take a more serious offense to force him from power. But he's clearly wounded. 

He has styled himself a moral force as contrasted to the previous NDP government. However persuasive he may have been in this regard to some in the past, I don't see him having nearly the 'moral authority' he apparently had in the past.

And don't you just love the reaction of the 'people' in various interviews, call-ins, etc.? I especially liked the woman interviewed on the CBC who wants to have a province-wide referendum on whether Gordo should continue in office. Hey, why not combine that with the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics plebiscite and throw in proportional representation and maybe another go with the Native land claims as well. 

It's a hoot, even by BC's somewhat extreme standards for political behaviour.


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Wow, so much chatter over so little really.

Keeping in mind I dont really like the guy, here are my thoughts.

I'd like to see him resign. Why is that? Well, in the past he has been quick to call for others to resign when an issue like this has popped up in their lives so that they can take care of it. He also aplauded an MLA who did leave his post because of a police investigation he was involved in. 

Ultimately though, I doubt he will resign. Gary Collins (Finance Minister) has been all over the news talking about how this issue is a personal issue, not a political one and how in the past the issues have been a more direct interferance to their duties as an MLA or Miniter. True enough I guess, but he is supposed to be the leader of the province, and shouldn;t he be setting a better example?

But he is trying now (although I doubt the media will play much of his apologies and remore and etc), he has publicly vowed to never drink again (according to the radio this afternoon, and to apparantly seek a professional opinion about whether he has an actual drinking problem or not. Until now he only considered himself a social drinker.

In the end, he will still be our premier, the media will bring it up every time they talk about him probably, and the Air Farce and other such comedy troupes are going to have a field day with this for months on end (probably to the point where it isn;t funny anymore), and really, not a lot will change.

--PB


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Posterboy - I agree - tempest in a teapot but I suppose the hypocracy of being so "upright" about other's human foibles will catch lots of rotten vegetables being thown his way.
Perhaps the best thing might be to take him down a notch in being judgemental.
"To err is human" et al.









I mean tears are a bit much over too much to drink. Still sounds like a hypocrite from middle earth here. But then what to we know about the strange land across the mountains


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm certainly no fan of Campbell's government... but I find it slightly ironic that someone about whom there has never been any intimation that he may have a drinking problem, and who committed the damn stupid mistake of driving home after having a few, is being hounded to resign... why is this ironic? When one considers that Alberta's Premier had been in a perpetual pickle for years, running the government while full to the gills, a man who assaulted-while-drunk a bunch of homeless guys at a shelter.

Man, Canadian politics....


M


----------



## islander (Jan 31, 2001)

Personally I'd like to have one of those T-shirts with Gordo's mugshots plastered all over it that were already being seen on Commercial Drive in Vancouver Sunday. Something to wear on the newly more or less almost privatized BC Ferries in the coming months.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Premier's statement
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20030112/wst ate2/Front/homeBN/breakingnews

Article in today's Globe & Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20030112/wprem0111_2/Front/homeBN/breakingnews-front-newsletter


----------



## rogueToe (Dec 13, 2002)

He should step aside until he's completed his sentence, which would likely be a matter of a few months. After that, the people can decide his fate in the next election.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I found it a real matter of farce that Campbell said he'd never drink again.

That said: Does this charge have anything to do with Gordo's leadership abilities? I agree for other issues he should resign but this one I'm unsure about. Can anyone convince me that this charge is directly detrimental to Gordo's leadership (NOT reputation) as Premier? I'm interested to hear what people have to say. Many of my friends here, who despise the man, feel that his leadership role and this stupid mistake on his personal time shouldn't be conflated. 

What do you think?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Is "conflated" an actual word? If so, it must be one of the many that I am unfamiliar with. 

As for Premier Campbell's unfortunate brush with the law, I have only this to say....

He is hounded daily by a group of paid "protesters" that follow him _everwhere_ he goes and scream insults at him when he tries to speak in public on any subject. We're talking 24/7 here. Personally....if I had to put up with that on a daily basis, I might just have a few drinks when I was away from the nonsense in some tropical vacation spot.

Having said that, I do NOT condone drinking and driving! No way in hell!!   

I just think that we all need to cut the guy a bit of slack for being human. Not many of us could put up with the sort of daily harassment that he has had to endure for he last two years. All while he is doing _exactly_ what we elected him to do. This Province has suffered terribly in the last ten years and we desperately need to get it back on track. He is proceeding with that agenda and the latest poll results (taken _after_ the impaired charge hit the news) shows that he and his Liberal government would still beat the NDP in an election if it were held right now.

Thank God!  

I mean, hey...it's not like he was part of a criminal family that is heavily involved in the drug trade...like Ujal Dosange.

And it's not like he was in the pocket of the mafia-run unions or accepting favors from some Greek gangsters....like Glen Clark.

Or even stealing money from the poor and handicapped charities by hosting Bingo games in halls he controlled and then charging "rent" for those halls that exactly matched all the take from those Bingo games....like Mike Harcourt.

So...does anyone here in B.C. _really_ want to dump Gord Campbell and go back to the bad old days?  


Didn't think so.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Sorry, but when were we talking about our past years of bad government? We were talking about whether we feel that Gordon Campbell should be leading our _coming_ years of bad government.

Like I have said before, the NDP was bad but I am not so sure the Liberals OVERWHELMING majority is such a good alternative.

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think we are talking about dumping Campbell, here. Or pehaps forcing him out of office for something that pales in comparison to the well-documented criminal behavior of his NDP predecessors.

In Hawaii, a DUI charge is listed as a "misdemeanor". This is why he only had to pay three hundred for bail. A Federal Criminal offence would have had bail in the tens of thousands. 

Do we really want to dump this guy for something that the Hawaiian government considers a misdemeanor?

And what would we have running our Province once he was gone? Even Liberal insiders say that he is the glue that is holding the Provincial Liberals together. Without him, there could be a Left-Right split inside the party and the whole thing could come apart.

That could force an early election and allow dissafected voters to choose enough NDP and GREEN MLA's to form a coalition Government that would have just enough seats to form a new Provincial government.

If you don't think that this is a seriously scary thought then I respectfully suggest that you should have another good hard think about it. A REALLY good hard think about it!

So...I say again...compare Gordo's minor infraction with the serious criminal behavior of the NDP clowns that he replaced. THEN decide if you actually want that sort of Government to come back again anytime soon. Because that's exactly what is at stake here if he is forced out of office. Our new budding prosperity would be stalled, the best and brightest would again begin to leave for greener pastures and our debt would probably triple. (our Provincial debt grew by almost four times during the NDP years and our credit rating dropped to it's lowest level in history...we also became a "have-not" Province for the very first time) The interest payments on that debt would eat up so much of the general revenue that whatever Government was in power would be forced to cut social programs and close even more schools in order to pay the bills.(they certainly wouldn't be able to dump any overpaid Government Union types to balance the budget, and the Greens want to declare the whole Province a "no-logging, no-mining, no-commerce-of-any-kind-zone") The Ferry system would remain the horrid expensive money-losing mess that it currently is and liquor policies would remain locked into a paternalistic post-prohibition mode that the rest of the world has abandoned long ago. Property values would again drop back to the historic lows that they were during the NDP decade and new capital investment (read:JOBS) would stall out. 

The Big Unions would be running the show again....with a lot of input from the radical environmental lobby. Oh joy.

And we would have to pay all the bills for this....with a rapidly shrinking paycheck.

Scary stuff, indeed.


Give Gordo a break. He's only halfway though his first mandate. It will be well into his second before we realise how well the Province is doing under his stewardship. It certainly was that way in Alberta with Klein. And in England under Thatcher. And...well, you get the idea.....

Stop it now, for this minor infraction, and we will likely enter another dark decade of decline like the one we just emerged from.

I don't want that.....I don't want that at all.

Do you?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

If you've read my previous posts, you already know what I think of the issue.

The only reason that I would like to see him actually even consider resigning is because of his past attitude towards other members of goverment caught in similar situations. He argued fiercly for those who didn;t want to go to go, and apluaded the ones who left freely. Now here he is, in a situation where if it were not him he'd be talking until he was blue in the face about how the affected MLA should be resigning.

I do think he is doing what he thinks is best, but there is no way I can feel comfortable with such an overwhelming majority government. There is no one to even offer an opposing view, not that I'd necessarily agree with an opposing view, but second opinions and viewpoints are kind of essential to our type of government.

And no matter how many times you tellme he is doing a better job than anyone else would, I won't ever feel comfortable with that kind of majority.

--PB


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

Welcome back Macnutt. You can find the word conflated in Bush's dictionary, page 3.
Keep the good weather going, barring any unforeseen delays, I shall be there in Feb.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

I agree Posterboy, he shat on others for less and Macnutt, all due respect, but whether drinking and driving in Hawaii is a misdemeanor or not means nothing. Back home, on the land he governs, it is a serious offence. I think there is a blaring differnce here. by that account, he would have been better off smoking pot, just not in the US where there is zero tolerence. I do however, see much of you other points macnutt. You make sense. And, yeah, welcome back.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

In other words, I'm not hearing any real convincing reason for Campbell to resign. I'd also like a strong opposition but then again I'm not sure I'd prefer any of the current choices (like the coalition you mentioned MacNutt). 

- Conflated:
1. To bring together; meld or fuse: “The problems [with the biopic] include . . . dates moved around, lovers deleted, many characters conflated into one” (Ty Burr, Entertainment Weekly May 18, 1994). 2. To combine (two variant texts, for example) into one whole.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cynical Critic:
*In other words, I'm not hearing any real convincing reason for Campbell to resign. I'd also like a strong opposition but then again I'm not sure I'd prefer any of the current choices (like the coalition you mentioned MacNutt).*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wouldn;t even have to be a strong opposition, just have enough seats to be called official! I don't think an extra ten (I think 12 is the number that is needed to be called an official party) seats for the NDP would make a huge difference, nor would 12 seats for any of the other parties to at least get a second point of view in there.

I realise that it would most likely be ignored and over ruled anyway, but it needs to be presented.

I haven't really heard a really convincing arguement for him to go either, except because of how hard he's been on others in the past. Just because I have come to expect some level of hipocracy in politicians, doesn't mean I have to like it.

--PB


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

I was born in BC in 1950 and have lived here most of my life. This has afforded me a local participation in the insane world of BC politics for a long time. What a ride! I have raged, laughed and wept at the peccadilloes that regularly arise during the process of self-government in this land. For the most part, I have found a high level of detachment necessary to get on with my life. The DUI incident involving Campbell is just another float in a continuous parade of moral hypocrisy within the group of people who style themselves "leaders". Why should any of us be surprised?









One of my children suffers from a totally disabling mental illness. In an attempt to create a nugget of normalcy in his shrouded life, my wife and I worked very hard at having his condition evaluated by professionals and it was agreed that his condition was totally disabling and lifelong. This was 3 years ago and he was granted a small disability pension from the provincial government. Last summer, the current Liberal government notified us that my son's condition would need to be re-assessed or his meager income would be lost. This precipitated a 6 month crisis in our lives; not because of the income that might be lost but because of the process that needed to occur to complete the forms the government said were required. My son's response to the burden placed upon him to reiterate information that the government already had was...."I will kill myself before going through this again". If he had no one to look after his interests, that is what he would have done. In many similar cases, death was the result for people who lacked family. The reason the provincial government used to justify their actions was " we have a responsibility to account for the taxpayers' money". How comforting to know our "leaders" have only our welfare at heart! Pardon the cynicism. 

The point of the response I am making is this: one shouldn't expect anything better from this political system. It makes no real difference who is in office, since someone is always going to suffer. My experience has been that the weak and disabled are still easy prey - there is ample historical precedent for this. The resignation of one "leader" only to be replaced with another 'leader" makes sense only if you believe that we are in charge of our own lives and these people truly can be effective in the delivery of government for everyone. I am past such hope. 

I hope this opinion does not lead the forum too far astray. I joined this community because of the well reasoned arguments that are deposited in the forums. Feel free to overlook this post.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No way would I ignore your post! It has some very valid points and I, for one, think that ehmac is _just_ the place for any and all of us to express our views.

I feel terrible that your son has to go through this silly validation excersise again! It's not right! This sort of thing happens far too often when we are forced to deal with the Provincial bureacracy...or _any_ well-established bureacracy. 

And it SUCKS!!

What I think that we all have to consider here, though, is that Campbell's Liberals have to change the economics of this Province. We can't simply keep borrowing to pay for social programs...no matter _how_ relevant or necessary they are. Borrowing this year causes interest payments next year, and that is money that can no longer be spent on the good things. Eventually....all of the social programs would have to be cut to pay the accumulated interest. NONE of our tax revenue would go toward schools, hospitals, roads etc. ALL of it would end up paying interest!

THAT would REALLY suck!!

Under the previous government's policies the Province would simply have kept on borrowing larger and larger amounts of money to maintain the social programs until one day the axe would have fallen and we would have to shut the whole thing down. (it happened to New Zealand!)

Under the Campbell Liberals we are seeing deep and serious cuts that will return the Province to an equilibrium that will, eventually, allow us to maintain or even increase spending on the programs we so desperately need.

The previous Government would have simply masked the problem until it was unworkable and we would have been hit with the horrible reality at some point in the not so distant future.

Klein made the same sort of deep cuts to get Alberta back on track and it's working very well indeed! Doctors and nurses are paid better in Alberta these days than anywhere else in Canada. They now have the leeway to spend actual revenue...instead of borrowed money...on the things that Albertans deem necessary. This is referred to as _sustainable_ social programs.

BTW-I was in Alberta for the first five years of Ralphie's Government and...believe me...a LOT of people hated his guts during the first term! When he started making the cuts and reorganising the Government of Alberta so that they weren't paying for everything by borrowing huge sums, people were calling for his head on a stick!

Now that everyone can see what he was trying to do...and now that the Province is running so very well...even his harshest critics are showing some grudging admiration. Heck, the last election was virtually a coronation and the opposition leader that ran against him lost their own seat!

Give Gordo the benefit of the doubt and hope like hell that he is sucessful in what he is trying to do. We will ALL be the better off for it if he accomplishes what we elected him to do. 

But there will be some pain involved in getting there, no doubt.

With Gord's way (or Klein's or Thatchers et al).... we get to keep our social spending. The other way will mean we will lose it for sure!

Your choice.

PosterBoy: I agree that a helathy opposition is a very good thing (and, yes, I read all of your posts very carefully)

Trouble is....if Gord Campbell is forced from office halfway through his first term and a snap election is called then we wouldn't have ten or twelve NDP as a good opposition....we could concieveably have the Liberals AS the opposition to a coalition of NDP and Greens!

If this isn't a recipie for total disaster, then I don't know what is! Pray Gordo get's through this rough spot (I think he will)

Cynical Critic: my apologies for questioning wether "conflated" was a real word. I stand corrected...and slightly conflated...er...I think. Or some such thing.

Lotus: give me a call when you're out this way. I'll show you my delightful little island paradise if you have the time (and if my business schedule gets a little less hectic)


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I think one of my professor's assessed the situation correctly: Campbell was arrogant and uncomprimising as a majority leader, but hopefully this DUI experience will humble him some.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It already _has!_  

Now let's let him get on with the job at hand.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macnutt, despite the fact that I don't really like the guy I don't think that Gordo should leave as he is genereally agreed to be the glue that holds the whole place together. regardless of whether a new Liberal or a coalition of something else took over everything would probably decend into chaos. Even a lot of Liberals dont think that they could function very well without him.

That said, the original point of my original brief rebut to your first post was that I don;t think that digging up the past ten years of non gordo politics really answers the questions as to whether Gordo is 
a: fit to lead
b: deserving of our respect anymore
c: just another jerkoff politician who won't let go of power.

--PB


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macnutt:
*....This is hardly dredging up data from "ten years ago"....

.....We need someone like him to institute the policies that will put this Province back in the black and ensure our economic health for the future.
The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.....
*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I was referring to the entire reign of the NDP, which was about a decade, give or take.

True something needs to be done (why do I think I am going to be getting a huge response to this?) but at the same time, I don;t exactly agree with all of the cut backs to essential services (especially health care).

I mean, sure, cut back some in the problem areas, and by all means re-structure, but seriously, how many of the hospitals in places like Delta needed to be closed? Now residents of the area are faced with a 40 minute ambulance ride, instead of 5 - 10 mintes. if you are in bad shape that ride could be your last.

What about LGBaker's situation, does _everyone_ need to be re-assesed?

What about UI? I have been on UI in the past when it was still using the NDP's rules (which were more generous) and it was a joke then.

I do seriously agree that stuff needs to happen and that what he is doing is in the best interest of the province, but I don't think that it is necessarily happening in the best way possible.

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Further to my last post:

I reread what I had just written and I realised that I had not properly addressed your itemised questions regarding Gord Campbell.

So here goes.....

a)is he "_fit to lead_"?

Answer- ABSOLOUTELY! I can think of no one else on the visible horizon who has all of his attributes or the resolve to lead this Province out of the dark depths that ten years of NDP mismanagement has inflicted upon us. It's a horrible, thankless job with a very small paycheck attached to it (our Premier gets paid ten times _less_ than the CEO of a medium-large company in this Province....despite the fact that he actually _RUNS_ the whole Province). And he gets screamed at every single day whenever he appears in public. By people who are employed by the fat cat Unions who have been bleeding us dry for the last decade....and who were resoundingly defeated in the last Provincial election, but can't admit that fact.

Do you recall Big Business ever funding a paid group of "protesters" to follow Glen Clark, Mike Harcourt or Ujal Dosanj around all day every day and harp on publicly about their well-documented criminal connections?

No? I didn't either. This guy is our best....and possibly ONLY...hope for a return to reality around here.

Is he fit to lead! Boy howdy! is he fit to lead!!


B)is he "_deserving of our respect_"?

Certainly seems like it...considering he didn't benefit from this scandal economically and he expressed great remorse for it in public. He also fessed up to his mistake within two days or so. None of the NDP _ever_ actually admitted that they'd actually done something wrong. Harcourt never EVER confessed to stealing from the poor and handicapped. Clark CERTAINLY never admitted to being in bed with the mafia-run unions (even though he has been in their employ since he left high school) and Ujal Dosanj never EVER spilled his guts about how he went from a poor janitor to a multi-millionaire within a short five years while his whole family struggled to control the drug trade and murdered dozens of competing drug dealers. Far from it....only a year into his (unelected!) term as Premier he was photographed with his arm around a prominent drug dealer, who was also his nephew, at a major "family" wedding. This drug dealer was murdered later that week in the ongoing drug turf war and Ujal deflected the resulting media frenzy by calling the newsmen "racists".

Yeah right.....  

Compared to the alternative....and considering his behavior overall....I would say that YES! Gordon Campbell does indeed deserve our respect. No question at all.


C) is he "_just another jerkoff politician who won't let go of power_"?

Not hardly.

Gord Campbell has told us _exactly_ when the next election will be. He has actually passed legislation that limits each term to four years from the election date. This is _unprecedented_ in Canadian politics! Or, for that matter, in the British version....from whence we derive our flawed, patriarchal and one-sided system that so closely resembles an elected dictatorship with no set term of office.

Don't like him? Then you know exactly what day you can vote him out! No one in any other Province can say that. And we couldn't either, until Campbell gave us that particular bit of security. The NDP...if you recall...hung on to the bitter end for both of their terms, despite the fact that poll after poll showed that more than 85% of the people in this Province wanted them GONE. For several _years_ before they finally had to call an election by law, by the way.

Is Gordon Campbell going to "cling to power like a jerkoff politician"?

Yep....until exactly four years after he was first elected. To the very day.

Then you can dump him if you so choose.

Until then....be thankful that he is here. And hope that he manages to make the changes that he says he will. Our future _depends_ on it.

BTW- Just in case you think that I have some sort of unreasonably positive view of this man and his abilities....or (horror of horrors) you chose to believe that this is some sort of reverse racism thing where I will defend anyone of Scots descent who is in a management role, then allow me to dispell this misconception right now......

My family (Clan) seat is located (was located) right next door to the powerful Campbell clan in southwest Scotland. Their castle is called "Inverary" and ours is called "Dunderave".

We are NOT friends!

My family was hounded and swindled and chased out of Scotland by the Campbells and our lands and castle were illegally siezed by them in the late seventeen hundreds. We were left peniless and desitute, despite the fact that we had been there for a thousand years _before_ they moved in. We were forced to leave our ancestral lands and ended up here in Canada without a pot to p*ss in. Nothing! We pretty near starved to death! A lot of my family died because of the Campbells....and it took us a couple of generations before we managed (though sheer grit) to regroup and make something of ourselves. Meanwhile, our ancestral homelands in Scotland were occupied by sheep. Campbell-owned sheep. They got rich while we starved.

Wait...there's more...

They also were responsible for one of the most despicable acts in Scots history....the "Glencoe Massacre"...and this horrid act was visited upon one of our closest allies, the MacDonalds. Like most members of my Clan, I was taught at an early age to give the Campbells a wide berth and NEVER EVER trust any of the scoundrels at any time.

And....if you know anything about the Scots, then you know that grudges among us run deep and are not forgotten easily...and they are often settled decades or more after the original offence. By the children, or even the great granchildren of the offended Clan. Usually with a long sharp instrument. We rarely forgive and we DON'T forget. Ever. 

Nope....I have no great love for ANYONE named Campbell. Not by a long shot.


But this guy makes good sense. He is our best hope. He is, perhaps, our _only_ hope. We desperately need to get this Province back in shape....and he is JUST the guy who can do it.

If I can forgive him for all past and present sins and raise my arm to cheer him on, then perhaps all of you can cut him a bit of slack as well. Give it some serious thought, before you call for him to step down.

I can tell you this, lads and laddies, if this Campbell steps seriously out of line and turns out to be a slimy snake who doesn't deserve to run this Province, or tries to screw us royally in any way at all, then I'll be the very first in line to punch his ticket home. I _promise_ you.


Trust me on this.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Agreed. I was simply pointing out what we would have to look forward to  if we hounded him from office.

Especially when it is a rather minor offence compared to the seriously criminal and destructive behavior we have had to endure from the NDP.

BTW- Glen Clark's exposure as a mafia-union hack was brought to public light only four years ago and Ujal Dosanj was our Premier only two years ago...despite the fact that he is the most prominent member of a major crime family here in BC.

This is hardly dredging up data from "ten years ago"  

I was simply reminding all of us what we might have in store if Gordo was dumped this early on.

When you think about it, what he did was pretty much small potatoes compared to his recent predecessors. And they all hung on like a barnacle fastened to a flat rock.

He made no money on this particular scandal (unlike the others) and it did not concern Provincial business...or even happen here.

My take on this.... Give him a break and hope that he stays on.

No....scratch that...._pray_ that he stays on! No matter how much shreiking and booing the paid protesters inflict upon him on a daily basis....and no matter how much abuse the unionised media heaps upon him during every waking hour of every day. We NEED this guy right now! We need someone like him to institute the policies that will put this Province back in the black and ensure our economic health for the future.

The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

Trust me on this.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Since I didn't want to hijack the federal election thread with a side track on Campbell's drunk driving scandal, I found the ehMac thread from January 2003 and decided to add to it to set the historical record straight for ehMacians.

At the time of this thread, all the information around the incident wasn't in.



MacNutt said:


> My take on this.... Give him a break and hope that he stays on.


You can see that the standard response from Campbell's right-wing supporters, like Mr. MacNutt is that it was no big deal.

Actually my main problem with the whole issue and how Campbell and his people handled it was that he knowingly lied to the public once he was caught and he spun the events, with great help from a compliant BC media to blunt the criticism. The short version: Gordon Campbell got away with lying to the public.

*What happened in January 2003, the long version*

Early Friday morning January 10th, 2003 Premier Gordon Campbell, vacationing in Maui, was arrested and jailed for drunk driving. Later in the day the story hit the news like a hurricane.

The press went into a feeding frenzy, with the notable exception of the Vancouver Sun and got their hands on the famous mug shots, showing a drunken, smirking Campbell. 

Campbell flew back to BC and scheduled a press conference for Sunday January 12th. In the intervening time there were many calls for him to resign, especially since he had loudly demanded that many others resign at the slightest whiff of scandal or impropriety. He had previously forced a backbench member of his own caucus to step down when he was involved in a disturbance at his parents home, for which he was charged.

Only 2 weeks prior, a 13 year old had been killed by a drunk driver in Langley. The public climate towards drunk driving was not very forgiving at that point. Many stories circulated that Campbell might be announcing his resignation at the press conference.

Campbell's people were putting off all requests for information until the press conference. Reporters wanting to know what his blood alcohol level was were rebuffed.

At Campbell's tear stained press conference on Sunday afternoon, he said "it was terrible mistake and I will face the consequences." and "I know I will have to re-earn your confidence. This is my responsibility and I am truly sorry."

His version of the story as he told it at the press conference was that he had been drinking wine at a dinner party with friends that evening, but that he had switched to water later in the night. He said that he had consumed three martinis and "two or three glasses of wine" that evening.

He vowed never to drink again. There is a history of alcoholism in his family, his father, an alcoholic had committed suicide and his brother, business reporter Michael Campbell an admitted alcoholic had sworn off drinking.

At the question and answer part of the press conference he side-stepped questions about whether he would resign or whether his drunk driving was a criminal act. It is considered a misdemeanour in Hawaii, in Canada it is a criminal act and is prosecuted much more severely here.

Here's where it gets interesting. Campbell claimed to not know what his blood alcohol level was when he was arrested. Reporters trying to confirm his BAC with the Maui police were told that they couldn't release that info, but it would have been communicated to him at the time of his arrest. In any case they had sent the results to Campbell in Vancouver. Campbell's people promised to release the BAC readings to the public whenever they got them.

In the meantime, a wave of sympathy was building in public opinion for Campbell's plight. Many felt they could put themselves in his shoes, having gone a drink over the line without intending to and they may have been pulled over. His tearful statement at the press conference and his sad family history were weighing in his favour in the minds of the public. A common sentiment at the time was "He's suffered enough with the humiliation he's had to go through". "It's something anyone could have done" was another common refrain. Mr. MacNutt's comment from that week and Vandave's comments today in the federal election thread reflect that sentiment.

A couple of snap polls were commissioned and the results appeared on Tuesday. Both indicated that a 2/3 majority of the public accepted the Premier's apology. Things were looking up for Campbell. It seemed like only left wing cranks wanted him to leave, most people already seemed ready to move on.

All questions about the premier resigning seemed to be losing steam. Campbell put his head down and started to get back to business as usual meeting with his caucus.

All this time reporters had been trying to find out the BAC reading, finally it was released by Campbell's office on Wednesday. It was .149 - close to double the .08 legal limit. That was the jail breathalyser reading, taken an hour or so after he was arrested. The roadside reading was .161

Experts in the field estimated that Campbell would have had to consumed 10 drinks to have reached .08 in the time frame that Campbell claims to have been drinking, 5:30 pm to shortly after midnight. To have then reached .161 he would have needed to drink another 4 at least in rapid succession.

This means that Campbell completely lied at his tearful press conference about how much he had to drink that night, his story of 3 martinis and 2 or 3 glasses of wine and then switching to water was clearly impossible. Over the time period he wouldn't have been over the limit, especially since he claimed to be eating dinner as well. The fact that he and his staff has managed to avoid making his BAC reading public until after the quick polls were commissioned showed that he had something to hide and he knew it.

On the next day, reporters in Maui were able to get a description of his actions on the evening from the arresting officer. On the advice of his lawyers on the following Monday Campbell's office released the police report of his arrest. It wasn't pretty.

The Maui police had spotted Campbell's rented SUV going 70 mph in a 45 mph zone. Where he was arrested was on a dark, winding road and the police observed him weaving into oncoming traffic and driving off the shoulder of the road when they pulled him over. When they hauled him out of the car he had trouble standing up and they had to help him.

During his night in the drunk tank, a Vancouver Sun reporter got an eyewitness account from another frequent inmate there. He claimed that Campbell was so blotto that he slept on a mattress that was soaked with urine, too drunk to heed his warning no to sleep in that corner of the cell. The Vancouver Sun refused to run the story from one of their own staff reporters, it only surfaced weeks later in a local Vancouver weekly.

Even though this radically different version of events from the Premier's was making some waves in the media, much of the Vancouver media was downplaying it. A second snap poll was never done to see if those who were willing to accept the apology of someone who had one drink or two over the line and got caught might have changed their minds. Campbell was a bottle or two over the line and while you might find quite a few people who could understand getting in the car after having an extra glass of wine, you wouldn't find many who can understand getting in your car when you are falling down hammered.

To call this an error, as many of the Premier's defenders do is laughable. And it's clear that Campbell lied to the public, spinning his story to make it appear that he what he did wasn't really that serious, only one drink over the line, when he knew damn well that it was very serious.

Campbell and his staff refused to talk about the subject after that and the media never pressed him on the fact that he had been caught in a lie, as well as withholding information about his arrest and BAC.

He was lucky in two ways. First he managed to spin the story just right so that the timing of the favourable polls, commissioned by a compliant media, appeared just at the right time and secondly he was very lucky that he didn't run anyone down or that would have been the end of the story.

A month after the incident, Campbell met with Mother's Against Drunk Driving, as he had promised to do and he boldly vowed to make BC the a national leader in impaired driving enforcement. He never has spoken on the subject publicly again and refused to address MADD's criticism of his government's weak impaired driving law reforms. MADD has called BC's drunk driving laws a mockery compared to most other provinces.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

It just occurred to me people might see this antique thread title and think, "What again?"

Oops.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Well said GA.
"Insincere" doesn't begin to truly describe the man, or the party in general. I'm still amazed the Lib spin doctors didn't figure out a way to blame the previous government for Campbell's conviction.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It just occurred to me people might see this antique thread title and think, "What again?"
> 
> Oops.


Well, you did get a chuckle out of me!


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> What I think that we all have to consider here, though, is that Campbell's Liberals have to change the economics of this Province. We can't simply keep borrowing to pay for social programs...no matter _how_ relevant or necessary they are. Borrowing this year causes interest payments next year, and that is money that can no longer be spent on the good things. Eventually....all of the social programs would have to be cut to pay the accumulated interest. NONE of our tax revenue would go toward schools, hospitals, roads etc. ALL of it would end up paying interest!
> 
> THAT would REALLY suck!!
> 
> Under the previous government's policies the Province would simply have kept on borrowing larger and larger amounts of money to maintain the social programs until one day the axe would have fallen and we would have to shut the whole thing down...


So, with the benefit of hindsight, this sure warrants comment.

NDP -> Increase debt to pay for social programs = bad;
Campbell faux Liberals -> Cut social programs AND increase debt to pay for *tax cuts* = good??????

Well, that's just crazy. The NDP governments may not have served BC well, but the wretched government you have now will have consequences that will take eons to repair. Many don't necessarily notice the consequences of program cuts right away, as the people who tend to suffer most immediately are the voiceless or in the minority, as happened in Ontario - homeless people, mental patients, people on welfare... 

Over time, though, the poisonous tentacles begin to spread and impact on everyone. Toronto's infrastructure is rotting, our transit system is falling apart, you can't walk down a main street without passing mentally ill people (who were once better cared for) sleeping on grates, hospital emergency rooms are a nightmare, community centres and other facilities are stripped down or eliminated. 

It's great to talk about cutting waste and finding ways to deliver programs more efficiently. It is a delusion to think that it is the answer. Harris didn't do it and Campbell isn't doing it. For every gram of fat they cut, they cut a kilogram of meat. That is reality. 

People have to decide what kind of society they want to live in and they have to be ready to pay for it. You can pay for it with taxes, or you can pay the way we are in Ontario (or the way BC will, when the pigeons come home to roost).


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Experts in the field estimated that Campbell would have had to consumed 10 drinks to have reached .08 in the time frame that Campbell claims to have been drinking, 5:30 pm to shortly after midnight. To have then reached .161 he would have needed to drink another 4 at least in rapid succession.


I don't mean to derail this thread, but I have to say that I find this tidbit quite frightening. Ten drinks in about 6.5 hours and a person might still be (barely) legal to drive? Even taking into account that Mr. Campbell doesn't seem to be of slight build, that's pretty unsettling. I'm not small either, and I know that if I drink ten in seven hours, even with food, I'm far from being in any condition to operate a vehicle.

I can only conclude that if these experts are right, then .08 is almost certainly too high as a legal limit.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

iMatt said:


> I don't mean to derail this thread, but I have to say that I find this tidbit quite frightening. Ten drinks in about 6.5 hours and a person might still be (barely) legal to drive? Even taking into account that Mr. Campbell doesn't seem to be of slight build, that's pretty unsettling. I'm not small either, and I know that if I drink ten in seven hours, even with food, I'm far from being in any condition to operate a vehicle.
> 
> I can only conclude that if these experts are right, then .08 is almost certainly too high as a legal limit.


Which is why Mothers Against Drunk Driving and others called for and expected the government to lower this line, possibly to .05. Campbell reneged on his stated support for stronger drunk driving legislation, when in 2003 he so stridently proclaimed he would make BC the toughest province for drunk driving legislation, after he himself became a convicted drunk driver. The resulting legislation that came out earlier this year was weak and derided by MADD, who acknowledged that Campbell had used his meeting with them after his arrest to simply look like he was doing the right thing.

It couldn't become an election issue because Campbell had so successfully spun the issue of his arrest that it was considered in bad taste to refer to his arrest or even mention it or the subject of drunk driving at all during the election, an unwritten rule that the opposition meekly followed. Seriously. "The poor guy, with his family history has suffered so much, it's reprehensible to use that against him" was the kind of stuff that was said.

The guy lied to and misled the citizens of BC during the whole thing and now it can't even be spoken of. He had no intention of "coming clean" as his defenders have said. Such a pile of BS. Yeah he made a mistake, a bad one. But he was determined to lie about the nature of it to hold on to power and he managed to do that. You have to give him credit for cunning.

You actually have to drink a fair bit of booze over several hours or have several quick belts in succession to get over the legal limit. To get over double the limit you have to be determined to get plastered. 

Most people know that if they can feel the slightest effect at all, they should not be driving. Many people will not drive at all if they've had anything to drink. I believe that the law in BC, as it stands, is that a person can get a 24 hour roadside suspension, even if their BAC is lower than .08. A driver just has to exhibit obvious signs of impairment. That .08 number is the bottom line for being charged with a DUI offence.

Living in a place with no transit at all, I either make sure I have a designated driver or I limit myself to one drink for every 2 hour period up to a max of 3. If I know I am already tired I won't drink at all. If I'm in Vancouver, where driving is a lot more complicated, I'll make those limits lower. The Premier of BC didn't seem to be capable or didn't care enough about other people to make that kind of common sense decision.


----------

