The best man for the job—well, the best one around

His approval rating, like his party’s, has slid, but Stephen Harper is here to stay

by Andrew Coyne on Monday, May 4, 2009 12:15pm - 89 Comments

The best man for the job—well, the best one aroundHere’s how bad things have got for Stephen Harper: people are taking Garth Turner seriously. The former journalist, former Conservative, former MP’s gossipy tell-all of his time in Parliament, Sheeple: Caucus Confidential in Stephen Harper’s Ottawa, with its lengthy, verbatim quotes from private conversations with the Prime Minister, has attracted the sort of respectful attention usually reserved for more substantial works. And far from being dismissed as the sour grapes of a perpetual grandstander, his tales of ill use at the hands of Harper and his aides have raised only rueful clucks of “sounds about right.” Among Conservatives, I mean.

It’s been like that lately for the Prime Minister. His party is rapidly losing what meagre altitude it had gained in the polls; tensions are high between its Progressive Conservative and Reform factions; and the bizarre, self-inflicted crisis over Brian Mulroney’s party membership was resolved only after some small but striking displays of defiance by caucus members. Little wonder that speculation among the political class has grown: that Harper’s grip on power is slipping, that he might leave or even be forced out before the next election.

It’s not going to happen. Whatever Harper’s mistakes of judgment, however grating voters may find his personality, there is no obvious alternative to him as party leader, nor is one likely to emerge in time for an election. Bloodied as he may be, diminished as his reputation surely is, he’s not going anywhere: not of his own volition, and certainly not against it.

That isn’t to understate the Conservatives’ present distress. From a six-point lead in the polls, on average, in January, the Conservatives have drifted to a two-point deficit in April. Support is falling everywhere: they are in a three-way dogfight in B.C., have fallen eight points back of the Liberals in Ontario, and in Quebec—oh God. At 35 per cent in a Léger poll last September, the Tories are now hovering around 10 per cent. In some polls, they’re trailing the NDP.

The odd thing is that the public gives the government pretty good marks, all in all, for its handling of the economy—remarkably so, at a time of rising unemployment, falling output and exploding deficits. Six in 10 respondents to a recent Ipsos Reid poll rated the government’s economic performance at C or better. An Ekos poll finds nearly half of Canadians believe the country “is on the right track,” a question that is usually strongly correlated with support for the party in power.

Yet just as many respondents said the government was “on the wrong track.” Those polled described the Harper government as cautious, rather than visionary, though their own preferences leaned distinctly to the latter side. It’s hard not to interpret these results as a referendum on leadership. It is surely no coincidence that the Liberal surge began more or less the day Michael Ignatieff replaced Stéphane Dion as leader. More tellingly, the Tory slide has been accompanied by a significant increase in public disenchantment with Harper: Ekos finds 54 per cent disapproval of Harper’s performance, nearly twice as high as for Ignatieff.

On the other hand, polls still show Harper leading or level with Ignatieff on a range of traditional leadership questions: “best prime minister,” “strong and decisive,” and so forth. Understandably so. No one doubts Harper’s abilities. He is easily the most impressive political leader of his generation. It’s his style, the way he does politics—the chippiness, the intolerance of dissent, the relentless partisanship—that puts people off. Once, people would have described him as dull but decent; a bit of an ideologue, but a straight arrow; principled, consistent, ethical to a fault. Now, the word that more usually comes to mind is Machiavellian.

Yet even his reputation as a strategist has been tarnished. The leader who was once known for playing “the long game,” preferring to build his political capital rather than take short-term political profits, has succumbed, under the pressures of minority government, to the temptations of tactical advantage. For a time, against Dion’s uncertain opposition, it seemed to work. The Tories ran the table with the Liberal leader, emerging triumphant in a series of parliamentary tests of will that were the basis of Harper’s alpha-male reputation as a “strong leader.”

Bookmark and Share
  • bettie

    Wasn’t going to reply to this article… but that sentence, ‘He will never be loved’… I don’t know about that. I love him as a leader. To see him in action, albeit from a distance, gives me confidence. I feel good hearing him speak. He is so respectful of everyone, pausing to talk, showing interest. He shows respect even to the media who often are trying to eviserate him, and answers their questions fully and in detail. He has broad shoulders upon which to carry the burden of a nation, and he does it well. To me, he is not superficial, but genuine.

    I think Canada can be very thankful to have him as a leader at this time. It’s easy to criticize. And by the way, if the media are so smart and have all the answers, why aren’t they governing?? (I realize this sentence is a red herring).

    • Mike T.

      In fact, if we could all cut Bettie’s son a bit more slack, we might be surprised at what a good job he can do!

      • bettie

        You know my son?? Now that’s interesting since I only have daughters!! You are an excellent example of the ‘long jump to conclusions’.

    • Not Employed by PC party

      Ahhh, infiltrated by the Conservative Party. How cute!

      Now get to work doing something more productive.

    • Douglass

      “He is so respectful of everyone, pausing to talk, showing interest. He shows respect even to the media who often are trying to eviserate him, and answers their questions fully and in detail.”

      Thats utter nonsense. The PM has never shown this side of himself to the Canadian public. I wont argue that its not there at all, but if it is, it is certainly well hidden.

      • Paul

        Not hidden at all. If you make the effort to meet him, and I have, polite and respectful apply. Of course, it does not behoove the media to show that side of him. It doesn’t fit the picture they try to paint.

  • http://Thebestmanforthejob—well,thebestonearound gordon

    The title says it all, he is the best the refomers can come up with. It’s a blessing in disguise, Isn’t 3 yrs. enough, enough of the partisan bickering and division caused by harper and his regime. Every time harper speaks he helps iggys cause. Every time he speaks he goes down in the polls. Keep speaking harper. The crappy part is he will be the opposition leader, more mudslinging and hateful rhetoric. His photo reminds me of a blue eyed devil. i’m sure he has horns under his ken doll hair.

    • DT

      yes, because we all know that the LIberal Party of Canada has not a single partisan bone in it’s hopelessly decrepit body and has never been known to pick a public fight in the name of political gain or pull a hopless publicity stunt in hopes of embarassing thier opponents. Nope, they are the shining example to the world of non-partisan, let’s all play nice, honest broker politics. No other motive there at all.

  • Goodie

    I also Love this Prime Minister. I think he is doing a good job and is an honest man. I hope he will be Prime Minister for a long time yet.

    • iggythepiggy

      Me too, I agree, he is great!

      • http://deleted Sandi

        Given your response name and your comments – are you 8 years old?

        • Geoff H

          Sandi, I suppose that you’d consider a simple show of agreement “Me too, I agree, he is great!” as not “wordy” enough to get the point across?

          Nice touch there insulting iggthepiggy. “are you 8 years old?”

          I’ve found name calling and swearing to be a crutch for simple minds that can’t put forth a reasonable argument. It wold be nice to be wrong in your case.

          • sw

            You mean simple-minded name calling like making your online nickname “iggythepiggy”?

  • Dot

    Yet even his reputation as a strategist has been tarnished. The leader who was once known for playing “the long game,” preferring to build his political capital rather than take short-term political profits, has succumbed, under the pressures of minority government, to the temptations of tactical advantage.

    Ok, but what if he is still playing the “long game”, the game having been changed to do what is best strategically for Stephen Harper, rather than the Conservative movement? Wouldn’t that be even more consistent with the counsel in The Prince?

    We already know how much he enjoys being PM and its perks, prestige etc. – he has said as much. And I think just last week one columnist (Don Martin?) was musing about something I had thought about quite some time ago – where does Harper end up post PM? He’s not a lawyer, has no appreciable business experience, doubtful he’d have many contacts withing gov’t to lobby/influence at some distant time. I dunno – some think tank somewhere?

    Perhaps this is as good as it gets, personally. Stretch it out as long as possible…. maybe that’s the strategy.

    • hosertohoosier

      You don’t need to be a lawyer to be rich as an ex-prime minister. Anyhow the firms that pick up guys like Chretien don’t use Chretien’s lawyering skills (which I don’t think Chretien has used since the 50′s). Mike Harris – not a lawyer – got appointed to a bunch of corporate boards. So did Brian Tobin. It isn’t even about connections (though clearly Harper has valuable connections or he wouldn’t be Prime Minister), it is prestigious to have these guys on corporate boards. Alternately, Harper can do paid speeches – Clinton has made millions doing that. Nixon wrote lots of books in order to rehabilitate his image as a great statesman. I think Harper wants to be PM, but it is more about the job than its perks. Harper likes being in charge, and after politics he won’t be in charge of anything.

      And to your larger point – what is good for the Stephen Harper is good for the Conservative party. Without him it risks division, dissent and collapse. Succession battles are not healthy for a party. Turner’s jealous pursuit of the Liberal crown did him in, as did Martin’s, while Dion was surely undermined by Ignatieff.

      • Mike T.

        It most certainly is about connections. You think anyone was paying Harris to give well-thought out advice?

        • Dot

          Maybe on the golf course. As a former club pro, Harris no doubt he can schmooze.

          I’m not so sure about Harper making money giving speeches. Who will pay to hear him? I think the well will dry up quick enough. Maybe a talking head gig on Fox.

  • Durward

    Those who are pre-conditioned to hate Conservatives will read this tripe others who think for themselves will not, Garth is an idiot with an idiots agenda.

  • Objective Observer

    I find it quite funny to read in the media, and blogs, various quips about Harper and the Conservatives being partisan and causing bickering….. yet, whenever an opposition party member is interviewed in the media, or observed in Question Period, about all I can see is partisan bickering and political posturing…. and telling us all how evil Harper and the Conservatives are supposedly. Certainly the Conservatives do some of this, but any objective observer can see it is the current state of affairs in our governments, and ALL parties are contributing their fair share to it.

    • Ted

      Has anyone in the other parties lashed out at a provincial government? Has anyone called any provincial premier the “small man of confederation” because he wanted equal representation in the House of Commons for his province? Has anyone in any of the other parties said “Quebec should quit their whining”? Has anyone lashed out at the elected representatives of a province the way Harper has attacked the Bloc and the very existence of the Bloc?

      Here’s two more: Has any party leader in government spent more time campaigning against the opposition than for its own accomplishments and platform than Harper? Has any party leader – after years of broken promises and abandoned principles and questionable/unethical accountability and election financing and MP bribery actions – accused another leader of having “no moral compass”? Actually for the last two questions, the answer is yes: Paul Martin, and Canadians let him know exactly what we thought of that on January 23, 2006.

      And today feels a heck of a lot like the early fall of 2005.

      • sbt

        “And today feels a heck of a lot like the early fall of 2005.”

        No, it doesn’t. Martin lost that election largely because he was incompetent and there was finally a viable alternative, not because he was an over-the-top hyperpartisan. That’s why Liberals should be attacking Harper’s competence if they actually want to win the next election.

        • Ted

          “No, it doesn’t. Martin lost that election largely because he was incompetent and there was finally a viable alternative, not because he was an over-the-top hyperpartisan. “

          Well, Harper has shown incompetence and now there is a viable alternative, so there is that too.

          But remember, the start of the 2006 election, Martin was way ahead of Harper in voter preference and personal leadership numbers. Martin then went and campaigned on nothing but “Canadian values” and the other guy is scary, and not on policy or vision or anything. It was basically the same kind of rhetorical hyperpartisan campaign as he ran in 2004.

          Harper ran the same kind of campaign as Martin did in 2008. He has run out of any ideas or plans. It’s all negative with Harper. Just like with Martin.

          • Geoff H

            And you’d consider Iggy to be a viable alternative? That man changes positions so often he should have roller bearings under his bottom.

            The Conservative party of Canada can’t campaign about how scarry Iggy is because he won’t commit to a policy long enough to have signs printed. Calling yourself a Canadian is not the same as living here your whole life. Heaven help Iggy if he tries to bring down the government. He still signed his name on the bottom of that deal with the socialists and seperatists. Bet on that one coming up during any election (s) for as long as Iggy’s heading the Liberal party of Canada. I know I’ll be reminding everyone I meet about that.

    • Craig O.

      Yeah, all parties are rather blindly partisan. That’s ok.

      What irks me about Harper (and Iggy’s not shaping up to be much different) is that the values or strong policies will get thrown by the wayside if it means staying in/gaining power. Then partisan politics takes on a whole new meaning – rather than being “I’m right and you’re wrong”, which is legitimately true in many cases, it becomes “I’m good and you’re bad”, which is never true. Basically, it descends from oversimplified debate into sheer name-calling.

      Harper took partisan politics that extra step, from dumbing down legislative policy for the masses to not talking about policy at all. That’s why he gets accused of being so partisan while the other parties don’t get such accusations. Give Ignatieff some time though…

  • S. McCabe

    Heaven help Canada if Kenny ever rises to be Prime Minister. The man has an intense dislike of anyone who is not from the West. I can just imagine how we would fare in the Atlantic region under his leadership. We think we have it bad now: with him in power, we would be toast.

    • Geoff Small

      He’d probably “let the Maritimes fail” the way ppl think GM and Chrysler should have been “allowed” to fail. I doubt Harper thinks much differently the way he snubbed Danny Williams and arrogantly proclaimed that he could win his majority without Atlantic Canadians voting Conservative – and we all know how that turned out, with Williams’ ABC campaign proving the PM dead wrong, as a good portion of those 30 or so seats on the East Coast that locked out the Tories could have put them into majority territory.
      Make no mistake, small c conservatives, Harper is a divider, holds none of the “progressive” views that made the party of Mulrooney, Clark and Deifenbaker electable. His political success has consistently depended on bitter regionalism (as has that of Duceppe, but that’s another story) that polarizes west and east, rural and urban. He has alienated Quebec (which he used to court rather half-heartedly at best), bitterly divided Ontario and BC, dismissed the East Coast, and duped the prairies into thinking he stands for their sentiments and values (while saying nobody else does) when in practice he finds those values expendable.
      When he’s finally out of the picture (and sitting in opposition), his Frankenstein fusion party will probably turn to another ex-Reform MP from “out west” for fear of empowering true blue Tories like MacKay who represent the only real chance of the Conservatives having a truly national appeal.
      Coyne is right about the factionalism in that party, but he stops short of calling a spade a spade: the Conservative Party is a marriage of convenience, with its best, most flushed-out goal having been the task of actually assuming power. Policy jokes at our expense like the GST cut are emblematic of that party’s real problem: they have no ideas, just right-leaning thinking.
      If every member of that caucus actually got to debate policy, and every one of them was actually taken seriously by their fellows, the party would be so rife with bitter divisions over things like Mulrooney’s legacy it would split in two. That original pursuit of power (what Harper and other Carl Rove-like strategists deem an end in itself), and now the pathetic and desperate cling to it, is what is keeping them from disintegrating.
      I have to say that progressive voters – and by that i mean Red Tory voters and centrists who voted for Cretien – will determine the next election (which had better come sooner rather than later, Liberal fundraising jitters be damned), as they have for the past 25 years. Harper’s expanded mandate was due to these kinds of folks staying home last October, a mistake I doubt they will make again if Iggy plays his cards right – and there’s little doubt that he’ll fail at that.
      Is Harper really the best they have right now? Maybe. But like Coyne once said, “there’s always a better politics out there.” By the transitive property, I say there are better, blue-er Tories out there, too. They’re just not interested in Harper’s party while men like him are running it.

  • Gaunilon

    The problem with Harper isn’t that he’s Harper, it’s that he’s become a CPC version of Chretien.

    We don’t need an operator at 24 Sussex, we need a patriot. Someone who does what seems best for the country even at the expense of himself and his party. Ironically this would probably also be best for the party, since people would be inspired. It’s Ciceronian: the courses of righteousness and expediency are ultimately the same.

    • Wayne

      CPC version of Chretien hmmmm. on the one hand you meant this for an insult but it may just be a compliment as well depending upon how much you respected Chretien for making the tough calls – an interesting twist this one is.

      • hosertohoosier

        Harper is the opposite of a Chretien in a lot of important respects for this discussion (I like both Harper and Chretien, for the record). It is true that both are ideologically pragmatic, while also being dogmatic partisans out to win at any cost (Chretien routinely called the opposition “unpatriotic” for say, asking questions about productivity growth). Both, faced with a different sort of economic crisis, adopted bold economic policies of the sort most of their supporters opposed (Chretien slashed spending, while Harper raised it).

        However, they differ critically in a lot of other respects. Harper’s approach to questions of succession is to quash it all and control the levers of power himself. Chretien let his cabinet ministers get a lot more of the limelight – which made his team look better, but also gave him considerable room over say, adscam (if adscam happened under Harper, nobody would believe Harper didn’t know about it). The downside is that ministers took credit (namely Martin on the economy – remember when Martin was Jesus?) and undermined Chretien’s leadership. Chretien’s solution didn’t help either – he tried to groom successors and play people against each other.

        Their appeal is opposite as well. Chretien is most like Joe Biden in his appeal – he is sort of like a nice old grandpa who, though a bit of a bungler, is quite endearing. Chretien’s English is worse than Dion’s (and his French is way worse), but you never got the sense that he cried himself to sleep over it. Chretien’s humble roots are emphasized by his very lack of eloquence, and so he is a pretty relateable, down-to-earth guy for a career politician.

        Harper, by contrast, is a right wing Al Gore. His selling point isn’t “I’m a regular guy like you” (only with an opponent like Dion could a message like that fly), it is “I don’t feel your pain, because feelings are for chicks. I’m smarter than you, and I will get things done.” Harper is limited as a politician because his lack of empathy is both a selling point, and a turnoff for many voters (especially women). Whenever Harper uses his “small voice” he detracts from what makes Harper Harper.

        When Harper ran a policy-oriented campaign, he swung the electorate behind him and beat Martin. When Harper put on a sweater-vest, he blew an early lead, only taking it back late in the campaign (in part by capitalizing on a disastrous Dion interview). Harper broke 50% in the polls by yelling at Dion, while bashing socialists and separatists. Today Harper trails the Liberals, as parliament cooperates moreso.

        Low-empathy doesn’t always work out for Harper – it blew the 2004 election for him, for instance, and created the constitutional crisis in the first place, but it is still Harper’s most successful political skill.

        • Wandering

          That’s all wrong; even the punctuation. Read what Harper’s supporters express, right here in this thread even, to get a sense of how he appeals to them.

          It’s a big mistake to assume rationality when that’s clearly not the case.

          • peimac13

            Wondering, have you ever supported any arguments? Or do you have the the ability to construct your own? Please don’t critique punctuation if you’re own is sloppy.

        • Ted

          Actually, Chretien did not let his cabinet members speak, other than Martin, for the first year or so until they got used to being in government. Harper is basically the same. The difference being that Chretien did not allow anyone to talk about government business other than himself and Martin; Harper doesn’t let anyone speak, period, except occasionally now some get to speak on government business only. And, given what comes out of their mouths, can you really blame him?

        • keith c

          good post. i disagree that Chretien’s English is worse than Dion’s though. Over the years Chretien spent so much time in English speaking canada that he honed a schtick in English with a strong accent but that was easy to understand and endearing. Bit of an unthreatening, cute uncle tom figure for English Canadians, if we’re being honest with ourselves. Dion spent so much time in Quebec City and francophone circles that though his vocabulary in English is no doubt bigger than Chretien’s, he is really hard to listen to at length in English.. it doesn’t feel natural, the intonations and rhythm are off.
          I think Dion’s English and its effect on the ROC voter was the under-written story of the last election, more out of our national politeness than anything else…

  • Craig O.

    Should we just measure the sheer testosterone in the sweat of the leaders as they campaign and decide who the PM is by that yardstick?

    • wafer

      No, we should also do a surprise audit and the candidate with the least number of pink neckties will become the PM.

      Seriously, we need people who project authority, leadership and control. Harper is the best we have now and Iggy has none of those things.

      • Craig O.

        Yes, we need people who project authority, leadership and control. So why are you spouting things about manliness? There are plenty of guys (and gals) who act manly and don’t have any of those three things, and equally many who don’t act manly in the traditional sense, yet have those qualities.

        It doesn’t matter how much damn raspberry tea someone drinks. What matters is that they can make the tough decisions with strength, wisdom and clarity and then be able to communicate effectively with that same strength. What colour of necktie they wear is irrelevant.

  • Wandering

    Here’s how bad things have got for Stephen Harper: people are taking Garth Turner seriously.

    They can get much worse….such as when people take Andrew Coyne seriously.

    • peimac13

      Consider it done.

    • Derek Pearce

      Why the gratuitous insult to the author? That’s lazy.

      • Critical Reasoning

        In Wandering’s case, it’s not so much laziness as incompetence.

  • peimac13

    Canada has become a country that requires its potential leaders to cast as aside hard principles for soft ones in order to become elected and hold power. Chretien would and did what was necessary to become elected but had absolutely no vision beyond advancing the Liberal Party in history. Martin( so he claimed) had so many principles Canadians decided he could never act effectively on on any of them. Harper has had lay aside many of his own personal ideas and giving basic points in order to lead the Conservatives to the government bench. Ignatieff is following this model in hopes of success.
    As a whole Canada is diverse and becoming more so. Old style stump speeches and grand platforms aren’t able bring enough people under one tent on their own anymore.

  • http://angrycanadian.ca Jim Morrell

    When you think that you are the only person in the country who knows best – about everything – the likelihood of Harper changing course is slim to none. And to quote another inept right wing leader, “Slim just left town.”
    Let’s look at the facts: Harper has engineered the mess he currently finds himself in. To alienate Quebec and anger the majority of the country with his rhetoric and scorched-earth politics – all this in a few months…it’s an impressive feat. The name-calling and lame attempts to use scare tactics a la republican party; it ain’t going to work. Harper is going down hard in the next election because he has given people a reasons to vote…against him. All the gagging of officials, refusal to stand up for Canadian citizens overseas, and insane, almost manic obsession with control, it needs to end. Harper’s time has come and gone. We need to move forward with rationale leadership.

    • hollinm

      Iggy is rational? You have no idea what the man stands for nor have you seen any policies. Just because the man can speak English properly does not qualify him to be PM of the country.

      Iggy sat on the sidelines for 30 years while the country was being torn apart through two referendums on its future and the FLQ and the October Crisis. He did not even care to make a guest appearance on Canadian TV. In fact I never heard of the man until he was plucked back from the U.S. I know I am one of those boors who lives in Canada and has not read any of his writings but I have a life to live.

      The fact remains that Canadians do not feel the way the media and the elites of this country feel about Mr. Harper. When this recession is over they will continue to support the party because the alternative is not acceptable. Any political party who steals from the taxpayers does not deserve to govern no matter who the leader is.

    • Geoff H

      Jim, when you say “stand up for canadian citizens overseas” you couldn’t possibly mean that 15 year old kid that was particpating in attempting to kill our (Canadian and US) troops right?
      YOU COULDN’T SUPPORT SHOOTING AT CANADIAN AND US TROOPS COULD YOU?
      If that’s the case, I really do wonder if urban Ontario is too stupid to be a part of Canada.
      My friends in the armed forces deserve your support even if you don’t support the policies of the government that sent them there. You can start by re-thinking your policy on shooting at Canadian troops. It’s not a speeding ticket or being caught with a joint in your pocket. This is a real crime and battle fields don’t allow for second guesses after the fact. It’s kill or be killed for our troops and they don’t have time to ask if the enemy is under 18 before returning fire.

      Being almost old enough to drive may not make you an adult, but you do know right from wrong at that age. If someone fires a gun or throws a bomb at an officer of the law or a member of the armed forces, I’d think that at that point, he/she was trying to kill someone and pehaps they should be prepared to die. That kid is lucky the troops had the character not to just leave him to die in the field because I swear to you, I would have.

      • Geoff Small

        Um… the United Nations classifies Omar Kadr as a child soldier. That means, under the UN charter, he was entitled to rehab and similar treatment. END OF STORY. Just because the Americans are charging him as though he were a youth offender rather than a captured enemy soldier (but treating him like he is NEITHER, cuz their leaders thought the Geneva conventions were too “quaint” for America’s new phantom enemies) is no excuse for disregarding the international stipulations that Canada agreed to uphold. I don’t know if you are aware, but even in “kill or be killed” situations, the Geneva conventions still apply, even if the other side does not abide by them – that’s what makes us “better” than them. Kadr is our citizen, and whether we choose to try him under OUR criminal system or not should be up to us. Under US law, and definately under our own, Kadr’s murder charges could be thrown out and ruled as manslaughter in self-defense (especially if the normal “rules of war,” out of some twisted logic, can’t apply).
        You may not like it, but that’s the legal ramifications of his case.
        Harper wants to steer clear of that whole mess, but Kadr’s return to this country is made inevitable thanks to Obama, so we might as well get used to the idea. Harper would rather live in denial (much like Bush did) and abandon citizens he doesn’t like. The same is true of Canadians on death row in the US, many of whom were convicted on circumstantial evidence in a flawed justice system (which, depending on the state, has an abysmal record for miscarriages of justice) that Canadians have rejected time and again. Harper condones those executions, since it’s in line with his ignorant, empathy-averse right-wing worldview.

  • Chuck VS Macleans

    LMAO, watching you PPG people back peddle is to funny.

    PS:”Long game” to the PPG is two weeks. Sorry Andrew, long game to me is summer 2010(and it started when the budget was passed).

  • Observant

    This is what Ignatieff openly advocated only 5 short years ago when he was a ‘we Americans’ Harvard professor of human rights:

    “To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils : indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war.” – Michael Ignatieff, NY Times Mag, 2004

    Now if a Conservative politician has stated this, he would be branded as the second coming of Hitler .. but since it was a so-called liberal “intellectual” who supported the Bush regime to the hilt, the MSM overlooks it and dares not broach this heinous state of mind. Ignatieff freely and sincerely wrote this and there can be no withdrawal of such a travesty of democracy, not to mention it’s legality since the Bush regime perpetrated the recommended acts of torture, denial of rights, even preemptive war.

    Andrew ..???

    When will the Canadian MSM hold Ignatieff accountable for his past since he left Canada and would not have returned if he was not plucked and parachuted into a safe Toronto Liberal riding, presumably to be the Liberal intellectual and eventually it’s next leader??

    • Evan from the GTA

      Here Here!

      Everyone called Harper bush’s puppet when bush was in charge, claiming that harper was in the pocket of american interests.

      But when Iggy actively jumps in bed with the Bush entourage, not a single editorial is raised in the MSM.

      Hypocrisy, thy name is Journalism.

      • Ted

        Where did Ignatieff praise US conservativism as Harper did? Where did Ignatieff speak to US audience and bash Canada as Harper did? Other than Iraq – and for different reasons – what issue did Ignatieff and Bush agree on, the way Harper has agreed with Bush on Iraq, tax cuts, tax cuts being more important than balancing the budget, increased defence, stricter immigration rules, tough on `criminals` laws, equal marriage, gay rights, and the whole conservative dogma?

        Show me that and then we can start talking about the bias of the media.

        • Observant

          Well, Ted .. if you notice, I am presenting Ignatieff’s past record for scrutiny and accountability, not Harper’s. Please address your comments to Ignatieff’s heinous statement and tell us what kind of mind would even concoct such horrid, even criminal thoughts.

          If you and any other Liberal supporters can convince me and Canadians that Ignatieff represents Canadian Values after promoting torture, assassination, denial of rights and even preemptive war when he lived and worked in the USA … then I am living in the wrong country.

          I want to hear from Andrew Coyne on this legitimate issue of Ignatieff’s credibility to be a Canadian prime minister. Where are you Andrew … we are waiting …???!!!!

          • Geoff Small

            Um… did you take into account Iggy’s profuse reversal on that piece? These guys are allowed to have Mia Culpas, just like Trudeau did when it was revealed that he was fascinated by Fascism as a young man in the 1930s.

  • Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com

  • MikeS

    Harper is the Captain Kirk of Canadian politics, and Iggy is Mr. Spock.

    • Douglass

      Give me Spock any day. Kirk constantly ripping off his shirt was always such a turn off.

    • Evan from the GTA

      You’ve got it all wrong…
      Harper is obviously spock (persona)
      And MacKay is definetly kirk…

      • Mike T.

        Harper would be Bones McCoy.

        Iggy is Sarek, maybe Picard.

  • Zeph

    I am only trying to help you, Ron. Because things like “well you have your Garden Gnome as a leader” is an obvious cry for help. Honestly, I’m not sure how this insult makes any sense, but it may just be a sign that you need to spend a little more time with real people and a little less on blogs/twitter… One thing is sure, you certainly don’t help yourself by blaming your peculiar behavior on the liberals.

  • hollinm

    Harper is the best choice to lead the party in the foreseeable future and as well PM.

    As my wife says Iggy looks like the Grinch in the Xmas classic. The Grinch who stole Christmas with his arched eyebrows and stern look gazing down on the inhabits of Whoville.

    Iggy is sickening to listen to and to watch. Ordinary Canadians are going to find it tough to find any common ground with this guy and if he keeps talking in that high flutin’ rhetoric he will see the eyes of many voters glaze over as he tries to tell them how they should feel and what they should think. He comes across as patrician, arrogant and an elitist. If we see many pictures of he and Bob Rae attending the opera we all know how we the working masses will view him/them.

    Harper is not perfect but as AC says when the Conservatives and the other opposition parties start defining the Count we will see him doing the dance of the seven veils as he tries to defend his past positions on Iraq, torture and higher taxes and begins flip flopping like a fish out of water.

    Iggy is now officially the leader of the Liberal Party. Let the fun begin!

    • Gaunilon

      What the hell do “arched eyebrows”, “flutin’ rhetoric” and “comes across as a patrician” have to do with anything? Who (other than truly irrational people) really cares about Ignatieff’s personal looks or style? What matters is policy and integrity. In those respects Ignatieff’s record is alarming. Harper’s is not much better, but this is a recent turn of events. Harper used to be much better.

  • Sea Otter

    Surely Andrew Coyne is wrong about the inadvisability of replacing Harper right now. After all, knifing a sitting Prime Minister worked out SO well for the Liberal Party in 2003!

    Any Tory seriously considering a putsch against Harper (and I suspect there almost none) has rocks in his head. Regardless of whether or not you like the guy, a leadership bloodbath right now is the last thing the Party needs. It would be a pyrrhic victory for whomever ended up taking the crown. (Just ask Paul Martin how well it goes when you take over a party after a lengthy, bitter civil war.) Harper helped put the party together, and has improved his party’s standing in every election he has contested. As such, he has earned the right to determine his own future, period.

  • EI-EI-O-say can you see

    Harper turns 50, Ignatieff turns pensioner.

    Why does Ignatieff keep talking about what he’s going to achieve for Canada in 2017?

    Reality hasn’t quite set in for Michael has it?

  • Blues Clair

    ” the desperate, borderline unconstitutional lengths to which he went to stave off a vote of no-confidence”

    Edit.

    • Geoff H

      Where was the rest of this post from? Did it start with Dion, Layton and Ducep arranged…? Because the GG should have called an election which would have destroyed the Liberal party and perhaps the NDP. The only real winners in the union of Larry, Curly and Moe was the Bloc who suddenly showed all of Quebec that they had the power to influance national politics.
      Thanks Dion for helping to re-awaken the Bloc voters.
      After they split from Canada, Manitoba, Sask and Alberta can go our seperate way and we’ll all be ahead, well except for Ontarion (the only province which supports the LIberal party regardless of how much they steal from the rest of Canada).

      • Blues Clair

        “Where was the rest of this post from? Did it start with Dion, Layton and Ducep arranged…? Because the GG should have called an election which would have destroyed the Liberal party and perhaps the NDP. The only real winners in the union of Larry, Curly and Moe was the Bloc who suddenly showed all of Quebec that they had the power to influance national politics.
        Thanks Dion for helping to re-awaken the Bloc voters.
        After they split from Canada, Manitoba, Sask and Alberta can go our seperate way and we’ll all be ahead, well except for Ontarion (the only province which supports the LIberal party regardless of how much they steal from the rest of Canada).”

        Edit.

  • Ted

    I’m guessing you haven’t seen the video of him shooting that AK-47 in southern Turkey in the 1990s.

    But, that’s OK, Harper is such a manly man. No one has sat at a desk as a career politician in such a manly way. The way he pushes those pencils! And there is just something so macho about asthma and not playing sports and being angry that makes me drool! He is the one who should have been on the cover of that GQ magazine and “sexiest intellectual” by this magazine.

  • Linda, Ottawa

    I like Steven Harper very much and think he is doing a good job…He has had a lot to handle and he has. When was the last world recession?

    It seems there doesn’t have to be an heir in the ranks, just go to the US and recruit one, maybe go to France, get more Que votes. I definitely prefer Steven Harper to Ignatieff, I don’t like his manner, I don’t like the way he speaks to the Canadian people. He has been elected once, in his safe riding that he doesn’t live in. YOU THINK HE IS READY TO BE PM – i FEAR THE DAY THAT WOULD HAPPEN.

    • Ted

      “When was the last world recession?”

      Not to be too cute about it but… the last time the Tories were in power federally.

    • Geoff Small

      Iggy’s actually ran for office twice – in 2006 and 2008. But, yeah, it is a safe Liberal riding…
      And you seem to be easily frightened… are you sure you’re not a US citizen who’s willing to give up civil liberties every time our national leader says “BOO?”

      • Linda, Ottawa

        Ignatieff was actually acclaimed in 2006, when he was elected in 2008 his own words trying to be cute I guess – I have never been elected to anything before. This election in 2008 was surrounded with many not quite right things going on. Lots of info on the net from people who were there at the time.

        Trudeau turned down a “safe riding” saying it wouldn’t be right and he didn’t want to take the easy road. I really think an MP representing a riding should be living in that riding, To be acclaimed and you don’t even live in the riding and you just arrived from a 30+ yr absense from the country. What is that?

        There are good MPs in both parties, honest, hard working people, and they are doing it to change things for the best, Ignatieff isn’t one of them.

  • Derek Pearce

    Cool- I was going to vote Tory for the same reason!

  • Derek Pearce

    Who’s idea was it to have that ad on the home page with two torches a burnin’ on either side of Harper’s head? Heh.

    This summer and fall are going to be fascinating, seeing all four parties dance around trying to score points and get the best electoral advantage. Will anything of substance get done?

From Macleans