Veiled hypocrisy

Douglas W. Judson

Dear editor:
Last week’s “news” column submitted by John Rafferty amounts to little more than manufactured truths and veiled hypocrisy.
Without doubt, the accuracy of Conservative MP Dona Cadman’s mailing about Rafferty’s support of the long-gun registry must be upsetting to our New Democrat MP, but readers could benefit from putting his huffy reaction into context.
If his latest litany is any indication, it would seem our representative is falling prey to his own delusions about the New Democrat record on this important issue, not to mention his own mastery of what he calls “the lowest form of politics.”
As reported last spring, Rafferty proved himself to be incapable of warming a seat during a vote before the House of Commons on the long-gun registry. His absence was in clear contravention of one of his campaign battle cries–itself an unsubstantiated promise considering his party’s record of support for the registry.
In sum, when it came time for leadership on the issue, Rafferty went to the john.
With his action on the issue falling in the range of muzzled to dishonest, perhaps Dona Cadman’s mailing has illuminated some truth on the matter.
Rafferty’s litigious threats against Cadman strike a painfully ironic note when one considers his own attempts to mislead constituents. In April, 2008, Rafferty accused sitting MP Ken Boshcoff of “not showing up for work,” and had his elected partisans issue a number of attack mailings to this effect.
This was a bare-faced lie considering parliamentary records verify Boshcoff’s near-perfect attendance for House and committee proceedings.
I would press Mr. Rafferty to explain how his abuse of parliamentary mailing privileges before he was elected did not constitute efforts “undertaken for the single purpose of confusing and misleading you and others into voting for [his] party,” as he put it last week.
Of particular interest is the fact that Rafferty’s criticisms were rooted in the Liberal position at the time of abstaining from confidence votes to avert an election that was unnecessary.
Today, even if we forget about Rafferty’s absence during the gun registry vote, he and his party are ambitiously “rubber-stamping” the same Harper agenda they derided up until this September–and on far less rational grounds.
After these shifty shenanigans, one might question what “good name” Cadman allegedly has tarnished.
It is disappointing to see that even after his lengthy stint as riding-hopping NDP candidate, now elected, Mr. Rafferty has yet to dispense with his pageantry designed to cloud constituent judgment.
Clarity, of course, is a higher-order commodity vastly despised by New Democrats. Clarity exposes their uncosted election platforms, fallacious rewriting of history, and record of outlandish priorities, set with the assurance of perpetual opposition status.
Clarity means that constituents can see the mediocre man behind the curtain, and can see that despite his bellowing, smoke, and mirrors, he has no idea how to get Toto back to Kansas.
Clarity is the greatest threat to the NDP—a party that busies itself with fanning the flames of divisiveness and mobilizing people behind outdated ideology, not ideas in the best interests of our riding.
This New Democrat’s incompetence and irresponsibility should not become Northwestern Ontario’s chronic affliction.
Douglas W. Judson
Emo, Ont.