We get the feeling you’re tuning out, Steve

FESCHUK: It’s year four as PM. Do you know where your cabinet ministers are?

by Scott Feschuk on Saturday, August 14, 2010 2:17pm - 0 Comments

Dear Steve,

We’re just going to come right out and ask. Are you bored with being Prime Minister? Are you bored with us? After four years, it feels as though the magic is gone from our relationship. You seem about as interested in your job as John Baird is in nuance.

We don’t communicate like we used to, that’s for sure. Despite the turbulent times, you haven’t delivered a major speech to us since the first week of March—and the content of that address, to mark the return of Parliament, could be reduced to two words: “Olympians? Yay!” How are we supposed to understand what you want, or know what you believe in, or remember what you look like?

And let’s be honest: you’ve started taking us for granted. Remember how creative you used to be? How hard you’d work to win us over? We’ll never forget the way you wooed us by assailing Paul Martin as a child pornographer and ridiculing Stéphane Dion as a Taliban-hugging cupcake. You were the bad boy.

But when you spoke to caucus recently, the best you could come up with was a recycled bit about how Michael Ignatieff wants an “unnecessary election.” Come on: Ignatieff has his party at 28 per cent in the polls—we both know the only thing he wants is the last year and a half of his life back.

Frankly, Steve, it feels as though we’ve run out of new things to do together. It was so exciting back in the beginning: the GST cut, the second GST cut, the pretending to care about climate change. But lately? Your last Throne Speech was most notable for proposing a day to honour seniors and an award to honour volunteers. Steve, we’re a youthful and vibrant nation—we want to be inspired and challenged. And you’re giving us policy that’s the equivalent of turning in for the night after Wheel of Fortune.

What’s happened to you? You used to be so spontaneous! So passionate! When’s the last time you decided on the spur of the moment to get out there and deny a gay some rights? Or humiliate a well-meaning public servant. Or demean an institution by appointing Mike Duffy to it. It’s been a while, is all we’re saying.

Which leads us to our next point. Forgive us for being so blunt, but Steve—you’ve kind of checked out mentally. You vanish for long stretches. You avoid contact with us. You’re so distracted that your cabinet ministers are starting to, you know, actually do things. Did you hear that, Steve? Your cabinet ministers are out there thinking and talking. IN PUBLIC.

So we get Peter MacKay saying we need to spend $16 billion on fighter jets because our existing planes don’t make pilots feel cool enough. And we get Stockwell Day vowing to build $9 billion worth of prisons because he believes there are huge numbers of unreported crimes taking place every day—like identity theft and, presumably, feminism. And we get Tony Clement, whose efforts to defend the government’s changes to the census are already being turned into a reality program entitled Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? No, Apparently Not.

We know you’re not perfect, Steve. No one is. We’re fine with you boasting about your management of the recession we couldn’t possibly have had because we hadn’t already had it. It’s cute. And we love how you pretend you’re a libertarian even as your new House Leader proclaims that we don’t need budget cuts to eliminate the massive deficit—we just need to “contain the growth of spending within government.” We all have our fantasies. Sometimes we imagine we’re Belgium. Harmless fun.

But Steve, you can’t let it end like this. We’ve put in four years. We’ve seen you through bad times and good times and, what’s it been, five prorogations? You lose track after the first.

We’re willing to accept some of the blame for the way things are. Our brief tryst with the opposition coalition was tawdry and hurtful. But it’s up to you to rekindle the spark. Maybe we can try out a little role-playing to spice things up. You be the adored, mustachioed despot and we’ll be the compliant press gallery, okay? That one always turned you on.

Sincerely,
Canada

Bookmark and Share
  • hollinm

    Harper after 4 years of abuse by the parliamentary press gallery and others has decided to ignore them. The media don't much like it and so are pulling out all the stops in an effort to convince Canadians that Harper is not the man for the job of PM. Nice try boys and girls but it ain't working. Look at Ignatieff's leadership polling numbers.
    People like Feschuk and Wherry are simply preaching to the converted. The rest of us know we are being provided with solid government who is trying to change the Liberal way of managing the country.

    • danby

      Ignoring the press is a sign of strong leadership? No, but playing the abuse by the parliamentary press gallery…. victim card is.
      Sounds more like a guy who can't sell his side of the debate and decides he's just not going to play anymore.
      Feel free to explain how this approach is accountable, transparent and serves the people of Canada.

      • healthcare insider

        I love this article. It really hits home especially when my most endearing memory of the much loved Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau is from when he gave reporters and his fellow Canadians the finger. Yes this man who was voted one of the greatest Canadians treated the press and the citizens of this country with open disdain. Of course I forget he belonged to the "Natural Governing Party" of the country and was a rich lawyer for Quebec, unlike Mr. Harper who is just a middle class accountant who belongs to the party that was voted in and dares to ignore the press and happens to hail from the wrong part of the country. Shame on him.

        • danby

          No matter which party is in power, the PM has a responsibility to face the press.
          Issuing press releases in lieu of taking hard questions; staging fake town hall meetings; ducking out the back stairs on Parliament Hill – it`s bullsh!t and I would say the same thing if the PM was red, blue, orange or green

          • Mike514

            I agree, but does the media take some of the blame? "In lieu of taking hard questions"? Really? The media asked the PM questions about some play that no one's ever heard of, and some useless poll, instead of questions with a bit of substance like the census controversy. Where's the hard question in "Are you worried about polls?" Even Feschuk was complaining about this a few days ago, and Paul Wells let loose a controversial Tweet (which he later apologised for) about the situation.

          • danby

            Agreed.
            Has the PM's avoidance of the press cowed the media? Is there a message of intimidation radiating from the PMO? Is the media just dropping the ball?
            Regardless, I have a sneaking suspicion that access to the PM will change when the new Sun media TV station launches. Look for Mr Harper to sit down to seemingly probing, but ultimately friendly interviews. Stephen Harper will be far more available when he can control the message. And once FOX north starts scooping the other networks, is total media submission far behind?
            I sure as hell hope not. We rely on the press to hold all government feet to the fire; all this blogging debate keeps the flame alight, but too few people read it. The issues and debates that shape Canada belong in the forefront of the news, but are too often buried behind sexier soundbites.
            Damn it. I'm feeling old and getting cranky!

          • Sigh

            Well, I must be old and cranky too, because I absolutely agree.

            Damn it.

        • Jon Pertwee

          a middle class accountant. Obviously you dont know how much a chartered accountant bills for. About the same as my lawyer. Duh!

    • L.Lea

      I can't even believe their are sillies around that either believe this "media abuse" ploy or still act like they believe it for "public" consumption. Well Harper can REALLY fool some people ALL of the time.

      Take a look around and tally up how many of our media outlets are right wing. Then quit your whining.

    • Olaf

      Haha, lighten up. I feel like certain people should be banned from reading Feschukian prose.

      • Stewart_Smith

        Well at least this time he didn't start off with the… I couldn't be bothered to read past the title line (although it could still well be true).

        • parnel

          hollinm is a tory crackpot. Nothing more needs to be said about him. He is all over the blogosphere sucking up to the Harpercrites. I've yet to see one word of criticism about his favorite party so one can be assured he's as much into democracy as Harper is.

    • real conservative

      This is as close to the truth as it gets. The media in Canada think they are the government and that the government is their stooges to do the work. Sorry but as an enlightened voter, I call a foul on the media's meddling. Time to butt out!

    • albertaclipper

      Dead on "hollinm". I've noticed lately that the print media has stepped up it's attacks on Harper and his ministers. I also agree that Iggy's leadership polling numbers are in the toilet with the Canadian people and that's another reason the print media is becoming more boisterous and more vicious.

  • been there

    Canada and the Provinces deserve some non-political salesmanship with management backed by positive transparent parliamentary action for all. .. We all know that the country cannot be prosperous without proper taxation produced by productive numbers of dedicated workers in all areas. .. Lobbying and spending to create votes without the transparent evaluation of input of all elected officials and their loyal assistants by anyone more interested in his hair style is not acceptable. .. Press on with a positive media evaluation. .. Thanks Macleans!!

  • O'Neill

    I know i'm getting bored with Feschuk articles especially when he thinks he represents Canada.

    • Jon Pertwee

      oooh he doesn't represent you. Wah waaahhh! Crybaby

  • Philanthropist

    The PM is not trying to be a celebrity. Good.

    • L.Lea

      Sure he isn't. How soon you forget the Beatles tune that all the media went gaga over (like that wasn't rehearsed). The way they ooohed and ahhhed over it made me think I was in the USA. Good grief.

      And then the myriad of big athletic stars: rubbing elbows with Gretzky and others. Oh no, that's not trying to be a celebrity or have celebrity rub off on him. Barenaked Ladies, Bryan Adams… If Harper wasn't trying to use their celebrity he wouldn't make sure his PR cabal wouldn't take pictures & publicize them or invite the media for photos.

      It's pretty transparent for those who have a brain.

      • Holly Stick

        I'm not sure where Nickelback fits in your theory.

      • guest

        What an idiotic thing to say, you probably have no education and have a low self-esteem.

        • guest

          The reply is for LLea

          • craigola

            Thanks, Homer.

    • cooper

      He is a groupy to be sure. He crams his head in to be photographed with Cherry and the Ladies and thinks it will give him some reflected glory. He is an abomination as prime minister.

    • Stewart_Smith

      Is Philly trying for satire or is he just stupid?

    • coretemp

      He's not trying to be a PM either. That's not good.

  • http://parliamint.blogspot.com parliamint blog

    If you check out our blog, you can see where Minister Toews has been…..I am sure the PM doesn't know about that !

    • Jan

      Have you sent this accusation directly to Toews because I don't think dropping this little bomb on the internet is the way to go?

    • wilson

      As if 'progressives' would attack Toews on those accusations……..

      • Jan

        It's the hypocrisy, wilson that is always the real sin. And he's already been found guilty of that. If you're going to preach family values, you had better be squeaky clean.

        • Mike514

          I personally demand perfection from my politicians. Anything less is unacceptable.

          • Jan

            I just think if you're bonklng the help, you shouldn't be preaching family values. Call me old fashioned.

  • Ariadne

    If a writer resort to this kind of writing and infantile picture tweaking, then there is something really wrong with Canadian Journalism. If you wish to be funny, hire a cartoonist! Don't tell me Macleans runs out of those too.

    • Sean

      You do realize Feschuk is billed as a humour columnist in the magazine, not a journalist? (Though I've gotta say Amiel's threatening to take over that slot, of late.)

      • David_M.

        I've noticed this has to be pointed just about everytime Scott has posted something cheeky about the PM.
        It serves to help define what it means to be a modern conservative supporter.
        It didn't take me long after Mr. Harper was first elected to realize that I just simply didn't belong. I can't even tell for certain if my support was even wanted.

    • Jon Pertwee

      hmm political caricatures have been around for longer than you Ariadne. So in the words of the conbots: suck it up and deal with it. I dont like hearing your crap but I realize you have a right to express your crap but lighten up.

      You know you wont crack and break if you manage a smile.

  • wilson

    'You be the adored, mustachioed despot and we’ll be the compliant press gallery, okay? That one always turned you on.'

    Heh, funny stuff FESCHUK !!
    Did you just say 'uncle'?

    Unlike the unelected leader of the Official Opposition,
    Prime Minister Harper won't be begging for your forgiveness,
    and promising to do better.

    • kblack

      The leader of the Official Opposition is unelected? How does that work, exactly? You might want to check your sources.

      • wilson

        Iffy was appointed leader, not elected by LPC grassroots, he lost to Dion, and then in a bloodless coup, toss Dion out.

        • Jan

          When are the Conservatives scheduled for a leadership review, wilson?

          • Jon Pertwee

            watch it. Words like that will get Wilson talking to the gulag guards about you.

          • wilson

            I don't know Jan.

          • Jon Pertwee

            ah it didnt come with the talking point package.

          • Jan

            Who are you Jan.?????

        • DerekPearce

          How come Conbots are so obsessed with the leadership machinations of the Liberal party? Um… how 'bout how the Conservative Party is technically based on deception because MacKay promised Orchard he wouldn't merge? Oh, it doesn't really f-ing matter. (And it doesn't.) From now on, every single time I hear a clutch-the-pearls over how Iggy became leader I'm going to bring up how MacKay BETRAYED his party to let Harper become PM. Fairsies?

          • wilson

            There was a merger vote,
            unlike Iffy's appointment, and then the 2 leadership challengers were 'persuaded' to drop off the ballot.

          • Gayle

            Heh.

            A merger vote, where all kinds of reform party members were permitted to purchase conservative party memberships and vote in favour of a merge.

            Good one wilson.

          • Halo_Override

            I'm spearheading a movement to call that sort of internet argument strategy "Orchard's Law".

  • Emily

    I loved this one…bang on! Thank you.

    • Jim

      The Prime Minister is planning for the future.

      • Jon Pertwee

        Wow how deep Jim. Did you take all of 3 seconds to come up with that?

  • Lizz

    Harper seems to have lost the plot : perhaps he realizes now people are starting to laugh at him, the end is nigh.

    Time for an election : or a new leader of a real Conservative Party.

    • wilson

      LOL, Harper has been PM for 4 1/2 years, but first he united the right, then was elected leader.
      He is in the history books for leading the longest running minority parliament,
      and if the Libs don't find the courage to bring down the government this fall,
      he will be beating his own record.
      PMSH has been in politics since 1984.
      Iffy since 2006

      We have a REAL Conservative leader.
      You Libs stick to appointing your own,
      we like to elect our leader, and then stick with him.

      • Lizz

        You do not have a real conservative leader : you have an old reformer pretending to be a conservative. You lemmings have been hoodwinked again. Over you go.

        • wilson

          Darling, Reformers are Conservatives.

          Or maybe by a real conservative leader, you mean some one like Joe Clark, who supported Paul Martin.

          • Lizz

            I am not sure you know what you are talking about : must be past your bedtime.

          • Jon Pertwee

            or beyond her grasp.

          • wilson

            Oh, I get it.
            Liberals liked it when the PCs were Liberal lite, that's where the LPC went shopping for a majority. Now they have to hold their noses and beg for Dipper support.
            Conservatives didn't like Liberal lite, and that's why there is no longer a federal PC party…….gone.

          • Gayle

            Harper has learned that if he wants to maintain power, he has to appear to govern from the centre. That is why all these so-called "conservative" measures are done on the sly.

            It was just too bad for him that the census change was noticed.

            Harper knows Canadians want a liberal government. That is why he is pretending to be one.

      • tedbetts

        Other than some minor tinkering on crime, and the dumb census change, and create a huge deficit, what has Harper done that is conservative? And does it compare in any way to the hundreds of extremely non-conservative things he's done.

        • DerekPearce

          Well, cut KAIROS' funds, axed the Court Challenges programme, shifted pork from Lib to Con ridings, appointed Con Senators, fired Ablonczy for Pride funding, cashiered Rights and Democracy 's board members, axed arts funding, bullied the GG. Other than that, not much. ; ^)

        • wilson

          'what has Harper done that is conservative?'

          LOL
          And the next Liberal statement will be that Harper and his right wing ideologies have changed Canada, destroyed her!!!

          You Libs gotta pick one avenue or the other…
          either Harper is Liberal lite ,
          or Harper is an old Reformer and destroying liberal Canada

          • Gayle

            OR, Harper is pretending to govern like a liberal, while he covertly makes changes that he hopes will not be noticed.

            The world is not black and white my friend. There are more possibilities and choices than the limited selection you present.

          • tedbetts

            Wilson: I answer for myself and my own views.

            And in my view, on fiscal matters, Harper has moved the goalposts to the left with record breaking spending, then breaking his own record, then shattering it with the stimulus, without even trying to make any meaningful cuts (except to the military which he cut by $2B this year alone and cancelled orders for equipment and tanks the military desperately needs), creating regional development agencies, corporate welfare, expanding the Canadian Human Rights Commission, etc..

            (Except for the creation of the deficit: that is classic conservativism a la Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Stelmach, Eves, Mulroney, and any other conservative I can think of.)

            It's no wonder he has to go ideologically stupid on stuff like crime, census, rights, foreign policy, etc.

      • OntarioTown

        But he's lied and misinformed and misrepresented you – how can you be okay with that?

    • ChrisInKW

      Or rescue the remaining Red Tories.

    • Paul

      SEEMS to have lost the plot? Once he started reading the Bush/Cheney script for governance, I don't think he ever recovered.

      • wilson

        But Paul, that would make PMSH very conservative,
        and the posters above say he's done nothing conservative.

        • coretemp

          No, that would make him very NEO-conservative.

    • Anon 001

      or a new leader of a real Conservative Party

      That's it, isn't it? Replace Harper? You betcha. But with whom?

      With the Canadian Sarah Palin, Sarah Glover or Candy Hoeppner? With Steve Junior, Pierre Polievre? With the Pillsbury doughboy, Jason Kenney? With Stock "Don't make me laugh" Day?

      Harper has made sure that he's surrounded with idiots and morons who will always make him look good by comparison. Pure genius, I say.

  • Anon 001

    Harper's not tuning out. He's just tired. He's tried everything and still 65-70% of Canadians won't vote for him. All those Economic Action Plan ads, G20 summit, Olympics, Queen, hundred of photo-ops …. and yet, not even a dead cat bounce for Steve. Must be terribly frustrating for him.

    • wilson

      Cons 145,
      Libs 77

      Cons 145
      Libs + Dippers 114

      • DerekPearce

        As of 2008. And that's seat count, not actual votes which you well know.

        • wilson

          57% of the federalist (no seppies) seats in Parliament were won by CPC MPs.

          vote share %
          CON 37.63
          LIB 26.24
          NDP 18.20

          combined LibDip 44.44
          + Green/Other /Ind 8.96% = 53.40% did not vote CPC
          64.79% did not vote LPC

          foolish to include seppies, those votes/seats are not available to Federaist parties

          • Gayle

            I think you mean it is inconvenient to include Bloc votes – kind of ruins your little theory with facts.

          • Jon Pertwee

            seppies? Are you really that linguistically stunted?

          • Gayle

            No. She just adheres to the school of thought that believes silly names are subtle insults.

      • OntarioTown

        23 low
        25 high
        60% chance of rain
        84% humidity
        …that's today's weather in my neck of the woods – and we all know weather changes

  • Holly Stick

    Wrote Scott in jest: "…When’s the last time you decided on the spur of the moment to get out there and deny a gay some rights? Or humiliate a well-meaning public servant…"

    Unfortunately not in jest: "…Stogran joins a long list other federal government appointees who've been shown the door, including Peter Tinsley, former head of the Military Police Complaints Commission and Linda Keen, the former head of Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission…"
    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100813/nationa…

    • Jim

      Funny that he never fired the Afghanistan whistle-blower Colvin.

      • Gayle

        Nope. Once Colvin is free of government restrictions, he might write a book or something.

        • Jon Pertwee

          which would make him a book ahead of PM Hockeybook

  • Ceeger

    This writer ends his/her article with, 'Sincerely, Canada.'
    Typical leftist mentality – thinking he/she speaks for everyone.
    I think the next election shall prove him/her wrong.

    • Keith in Brampton

      1) It's a humour column

      2) Given the polls, he speaks for about 70% of us

    • Jan

      Ceeger, of course speaks for 'real' Canadians.

      • Jon Pertwee

        yeah those that wear tinfoil hats

    • DerekPearce

      Typical rightist, zero sense of humour.

    • OntarioTown

      Typical response from the humourless angry right.

    • Halo_Override

      Are you suggesting Scott Feschuk is a hermaphrodite?

      Scott, are you/you gonna put up with this?

  • Harbles

    Bravo Mr. F.
    You are a true source of national pride like the Tar Sands, Hydro Electric Power, Canada's Military Peacekeeping history etc.
    No Wait. I mean that in a good way.

  • wilson

    David Akin, we are the ‘eternal opposition’

    on Rutherford, Thurs, Aug 12th @ 10:28 AM http://www.am770chqr.com/other/audiovault.html

    Rutherford: “Do you think the press gallery has a general political view ?”

    Akin: “Yes, and here it is:
    We fashion ourselves, and you may think this may sound the wrong thing, as the quote ‘eternal opposition’.

    In other words, I think whether it’s the previous guys, Martin’s guys, you know Prime Minister Martin’s guys or whatever ……..
    we’re always on the side of the opposition.

    We’re not elected. We’ll never be elected. We’ll never be in power. We’re constantly the opposition … and this may be one of the reasons people generally turn off politics …

    • Emily

      Actually the media always supports the govt, no matter which party it is.

      • wilson

        Ummm Emily,
        read what Akin said………. he admitted the media has taken it upon themselves to be the 'eternal opposition'

        • OntarioTown

          Well, duh – that's their job. To challenge and try to keep politics honest.

          David Akin? Who would believe him now?

          • Jon Pertwee

            Id David Akin said the sky was green would it be green? Come on wilson its called journalism not Akinism.

            Cripes. You need to look at the world less simplistically. Dont take so many opinions as fact.

          • JonPertwee2

            And you need to stop being such an idiot!

          • Jon Pertwee

            somebody's bitter…

    • knick

      "David Akin, we are the ‘eternal opposition’"

      If only!

      The press gallery has only started taking time away from celebrating Harper's 'brilliance' to take a close hard look at what he's been doing to the country since it became so obvious that the fish is rotting.

    • DerekPearce

      So in future some day (not soon, that's cool) when the Libs are back in power, I fully appreciate in advance your defence of a Lib government in having to deal with the future "eternal opposition." I guess you were on Chretien's side way back when Milewski was going after the APEC story, eh Wilson?

      • wilson

        Wouldn't be the first time I have said that the media are attacking Liberals,
        tho they do have a vested interest in who leads 'their' party.

    • hollinm

      wilson….you are right………there is quite a difference in reporting the news, presenting both sides of the argument and allowing the public to make up its own mind versus a parliamentary press gallery that practices pack style and advocacy journalism. How many editorials has the Globe and the Star written on the census issue. The media are not bystanders as their supporters try to imply. They have taken a position on the census, prorogation, H1N1 and other issues and are doing their best to convince Canadians that the government is wrong and the media and those that oppose the government are on the right side of the issues. There is not much balance on any particular issue. It is all one sided.
      Akin let the cat out of the bag. The media view themselves to be an unelected opposition party and so anything a Conservatives government does will be criticized with all the fury and torqued headlines that can be mustered.

      • wilson

        ''..and this may be one of the reasons people generally turn off politics …'' says Akin

        Media driven game playing,
        our national media is the worst.

        Macleans is a good example of pack journalism,
        Wherry is Mr copy paste.

        • Jon Pertwee

          ha ha that's pretty rich coming from the Queen of copying and pasting.

          Hollinm getting backed up by wilson? Wow, that's a chasm of credibility there.

          • JonPertwee2

            Yes because everything that comes out of your mouth nakes sense, post something that makes sense or get out of here.

          • Jon Pertwee

            ha ha sure. Guess someone's irked.

      • danby

        If I'm not mistaken, the Globe and Mail endorsed Stephen Harper in the 2008 federal election

        • Jon Pertwee

          shh dont let those pesky facts get in the way of wilson and holinm. They dont care for facts and reality just froth, intolerance of different opinions, and ideology.

          I mean if David Akin said there was a giant chocolate statue of Stephen Harper in Estevan Saskatchewan, hollinm and wilson would be the first people driving to see it.

          "But David Akin said…"

          Geez.

    • RunningGag

      Oh, don't even get me started on Rutherford. If he was half the man he was when the Liberals were in power, I might still have a modicum of respect for him. Alas, as soon as the Conservatives took power, he turned a blind eye, and sucked straight from the teat.

      Too bad we elect our Senators in Alberta, Dave. You'll have to go move to one of those commie provinces out east.

      It shouldn't need to be mentioned that the purpose of the press is to hold the government accountable. That, of course, means that they will perpetually be in opposition to the government. And, considering Mr. Harper's election promise to be transparent and accountable to the Canadian public, shouldn't he (and you) support this?

      Unless, maybe he figures that he can be transparent and accountable by ignoring the people's advocate?

  • Ryan

    Less taxes, less social programs, more freedom. Let's get Canada back to where it should be, as the great northern beacon of freedom that all the world would wish to emulate.

    The first step is a majority for Harper so he no longer has to play these stupid games with the Canadian liberal media.

    • Emily

      Since 70% of the country thinks you're crazy, that's not going to happen.

      YOU go live in the bush, other people want civilization.

      • wilson

        74% of Canadians did not vote Liberal

        • DerekPearce

          And 63% didn't vote Conservative, so it's a wash.

          • wilson

            11% difference is a wash?
            Maybe in liberal math, but outside the Enchanted Forest, that's a huge difference.

          • Jon Pertwee

            yeah but you're response does nothing to prove your point. Back to the copy and paste list to find an answer!

      • wilson

        And a correction Emily
        62% of Canadians did not vote Conservative,
        74% of Canadians did not vote Liberal
        82% of Canadians did not vote NDP
        90% of Canadians did not vote Bloc

        • tedbetts

          And a correction Wilson:
          Only 21% of Canadians voted Conservative, the lowest level of support of any Canadian PM in our entire history. With everything going his way – the Liberals in disarray and nearly bankrupt (both financially and intellectually), record breaking spending to self-promote, record fundraising, the media lapping up everything he says and regurgitating every talking point – in the 2008 election fewer voters Canadians voted for him than in 2006! The only thing that has saved him these 4 years is a hapless opposition, a hapless Liberal leader and a hapless media. Canadians don't like him and don't trust him and don't share his vision of Canada.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            the Liberals in disarray and nearly bankrupt (both financially and intellectually)

            Ted, I'd be interested if you could expand on your point that the Liberals were "intellectually bankrupt" in 2008. In what ways?

          • tedbetts

            In that they did not offer policies that even tried to connect to the priorities of canadians.

          • Mike514

            Canadians don't like him and don't trust him and don't share his vision of Canada.

            I believe the best measure of the Canadian electorate's "mood" is how many people feel the PM is taking this country in the right direction. From a Nanos poll taken in December: 33.2% of Canadians think the country is headed in the wrong direction while Two-thirds of Canadians, or 64.3% felt the country was headed in the right direction.

            I always felt this was a better way of gauging whether Canadians share a government's vision.

          • tedbetts

            Actually polls in the spring through the summer have shown that, while more Canadians think the country is headed in the right direction, an increasing number of Canadians think the government is headed in the wrong directly.

            So clearly Canadians think better of our nation than we do of our government or its vision.

            I always felt this was a better way of gauging whether Canadians share a government's vision.

          • Mike514

            I'd argue that "Canada heading in the right direction" and "government heading in the right direction" are interchangeable.

            Even if you disagree with the above statement, the same poll that I quoted also states "Two Canadians in three, 68.9 percent, give the government and PM a passing grade." Despite being stuck at below 35% in the polls, almost 70% give this government and PM a passing grade.share a government's vision.

            All this to say that stating "only 21% voted Conservative" is probably not the best way to gauge support for this government, its vision, and the PM.

          • tedbetts

            If they are interchangeable, then why are the numbers so different and moving in opposite directions?

            No, Canadians know that government is only a part of the economy and the country. When you poll Canadians on the two questions in the same poll with the same people – direction of Canada and direction of the government – and you get two very different answers, it means something.

            The poll you quoted was 9 months ago before the prorogation hit. What was really interesting was in the spring when the economy was clearly in recovery and we did so well in the Olympics, etc, that is when you had the split. Before that, the government direction numbers were better than the country direction numbers, but in the spring it flipped. And it has continued to deteriorate for the Conservatives ever since, even as Canadians feel better about where their country is going.

            Only 21% voted Conservative is about the best way you can guage support for this government, its vision and the PM at the end of an election campaign, really the only poll that matters. On our current views, we clearly think Harper is trying to lead us in the wrong direction.

          • s_c_f

            Only 21% of Canadians voted Conservative, the lowest level of support of any Canadian PM in our entire history

            That's FALSE, by a wide margin. In the first 10 Canadian elections, less than 21% of Canadians voted, in TOTAL. In fact, at least half of all elections had a smaller percentage of votes for the winner.

            And in fact, it was actually 15% of Canadians that voted for Harper. Even so, at least a third of Canadian elections had a lower percentage of votes for the winner.

          • tedbetts

            Ok, scf, 21% of eligible voters, the smallest percentage of support ever for a PM. Ceertainly well of Wilsons lies.

          • s_c_f

            yes, but… once again, while almost a true statement, that's a misleading statement: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/14/we-get-the-fee…

            Firstly, the number is wrong, it should be 22%, not 21%.

            Secondly, that figure is only true because the number of registered voters is very high by historical standards, so that even when voter turnout is average by historical standards, when you measure the turnout relative to registered voters you get an abnormally low number.

            In other words, a high number of registered voters in the last 5 elections or so is the primary reason your statement is true.

          • tedbetts

            Not so at all. It has nothing to do with "registered voters" but the population of Canada and those who are eligible to vote. And by historical comparisons, the lowest spot goes to Harper 2008 and the third lowest goes to Harper 2006.

            That's not misleading. That's fact. Once again, I'm having to apologize for facts and reality having such an anti-Conservative bias, but we understand very well why Harper doesn't like accurate statistics.

            Harper has the weakest mandate from the Canadian people. Ever.

            More to the point of this thread though, Wilson made the completely false claim that over a third of Canadians support Harper which is patently false.

          • s_c_f

            It has nothing to do with "registered voters" but the population of Canada and those who are eligible to vote

            That is a lie, and the data that proves it can be found here. http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present…. http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/historical-tu…
            which was collected from Elections Canada, and is the historical data that has been collected and disseminated by Elections Canada, the data which you are attempting to use to mislead people.

            It is quite easy to see that Harper's election numbers are by no means unusual historically. It is also easy to see that votes cast as a percentage of population has not changed much. It is also easy to see that votes cast as a percentage of registered voters is what has allowed you to spout your lies and misleading statements. You can do the number-crunching yourself if you wish to be educated, which I suspect you don't, you prefer ignorance.

            I'm tired of debunking your falsehoods and misleading statements. If you wish to remain willfully ignorant and dishonest, then so be it. I will stop correcting your errors, it's getting ridiculous.

          • Holly Stick

            If you are are harking back to 1867, only 11.2% of the population HAD the right to vote, according to your second link; no women of course, and precious few other people. I believe you had to own some property to be eligible to vote. So when 8.3% of the population voted, that was a 73.1% voter turnout. Not comparable to today when women and other undesirables (ethnic groups, poor people) get to vote.

          • Holly Stick

            And from that second link, about historical turnout:

            "…Unfortunately, there are some fundamental problems when one tries to compare voter turnout over long periods of time. Because "turnout" is simply the percentage of the people on a list of eligible voters who actually vote, the reliability of that measure depends entirely on the accuracy of the list of eligible voters. In most of the second half of the 20th century federal election lists were compiled by door-to-door visits. Many people were not included on the lists who would otherwise have been entitled to vote. People who had no interest in voting could simply refuse to answer questions when the enumeration officials visited a neighbourhood.

            As a result there has never been a completely accurate registration of all eligible voters. Various methods of compiling voter lists may have left from 5 to 15% of possible voters off the official lists…"

          • s_c_f

            Also, Harper received more votes than the winners of 36 of the 41 federal elections.

          • s_c_f

            don't share his vision of Canada

            That's false. As Mike514 points out, since 2/3 feel the country is headed in the right direction.

          • Jan

            Harper is the most wonderful prime minister – ever. Is this what you want to hear?

          • s_c_f

            I don't really want to read anything but good comments. If someone says something false and dishonest, I'll point it out. What you've said is not even measurable.

            If Ted had said Harper received the smallest percentage of votes from registered voters, he would have been correct. But that's only because we reached a very high level of registered voters (over 70%) in the 5 elections or so, and thus the voter turnout relative to registered voters is low by historical standards. The voter turnout relative to the population in the last election was average by historical standards.

            Ted decided to cherry-pick his statistic to make Harper look bad, and not only that, he twisted the wording of the statistic enough to make it false.

          • wilson

            'Ted decided to cherry-pick his statistic to make Harper look bad, and not only that, he twisted the wording of the statistic enough to make it false. '

            just wanted to repeat that….

          • Jon Pertwee

            more of your copying and pasting wilson?

            Never an original thought in that head of yours. At least none of your own.

          • tedbetts

            Actually Wilson I was correcting a fabrication of yours when you falsely claimed that 62% of Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives. The correct number was 78%. That's not cherry-picking, that's called fact checking.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Since we're playing meaningless semantic games involving voter turnout, I'll point out that only 36.9% of the Canadian electorate voted for a non-Conservative candidate in the last election.

            The remaining 63.1% either voted for a Conservative candidate, or implicitly supported the status quo by not voting.

          • Gayle

            Ha ha.

            That is completely illogical.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            It's as logical as the claim that Harper "only had the support of 22% of Canadians", which is my point in a nutshell. Hence the "meaningless semantic games involving voter turnout".

          • tedbetts

            Actually, it is meaningful or meaningless depending upon how you actually use the data.

            For example, it is completely meaningless to assume that a large majority of Canadians support Harper because so many people didn't vote. That is speculation and wishful thinking. Makes for an interesting discussion but the data is meaningless.

            However, when refuting a direct and specific claim about the exact level of support Harper has – claiming only 62% of Canadians did not vote for him or that Canadians support him and his vision – saying that 78% of eligible voters did not vote for him is quite a direct and complete refutation of Wilson's claim and therefore very meaningful to this dicussion thread.

          • Phil

            or implicitly supported the status quo

            That's a generous interpretation…..but I suppose that's what semantic games are all about.

            Carry on , then!!

          • Mike514

            Ted, I'd have to respectfully disagree with your reasoning. As Crit_Reasoning states, we're playing with semantics, even though you're technically correct.

            With your logic, Harper reduced the GST by 28.6%, not merely 2%. Is it technically correct? Well, yes, but…

          • tedbetts

            Not at all. When someone says X is true, and you provide evidence that X is not true because of Y, there is nothing semantic about it. It's a correction. If you then use Y to prove something else, possibly it's semantics.

            Wilson made a factual claim about what Canadians think that only 62% of Canadians did not vote for Harper. I provided data showing she was wrong since 78% of Canadians (at least Canadians who are eligible to vote). That is all that I attempted to do with that data.

            I also threw in a fact that, in my opinion, is quite important in analyzing the Conservatives and that was to say that Harper has garned the lowest level of support from eligible voteers of any Canadian PM in our entire history. Now you can debate the importance of that – to me, it shows that his electoral success has more to do with a divided opposition and a weak Liberals than his popularity – but that is a fact and it does have meaning.

          • Jon Pertwee

            Mike 514 picked out a poll that is 9 months old. That's pretty stale data to back a straw man argument on SCF. The more recent polls show a quite different response

          • s_c_f

            It would have been helpful for you to post a link. Regardless, I think it's likely that any recent poll should easily debunk the statement: "Canadians … don't share his vision of Canada".

          • s_c_f

            Here we are: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/08/05/ekos-poll…
            51.9% say the country is headed in the right direction: August 5, 2010

          • Jon Pertwee

            Yeah that explains the headline Support for Stephen Harper's Conservatives Slipping. Im not sure whether you're being disingenous or just stupid SCF

          • s_c_f

            Someone in there I've tried to find some logic and failed. I responded to your request for a more recent result of the same type of poll and now you're talking about something completely different, along with the usual brainless insults.

            BTW, don't even bother with such stupid headlines. If you really want to see what the polls are saying, go here: http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html

          • Jon Pertwee

            You know scf the interesting thing is Ive found several different media organizations who carry the same poll you cited with a different interpretation than you managed.
            http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/05/poll-suggests-…
            http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/census/article…
            http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/08/04/ekos-po…
            http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/otta…

            None of these interpretations is hardly favourable. Ive included links to all the stories I could find that carried the same poll. Now I did endeavour to find a variety of sources but Im sure you'll have some froth about MSM liberal biases etc… whatever.

            You seem to associate people thinking Canada going in the right direction as support for Harper. I think only a rabid partisan could view it that way. I dont know anyone that wakes up and says "Thank you Stephen Harper for putting this country in the right direction" It just doesnt happen.

            Really, this poll could be twisted to favour any interpretation that the presenter wanted: as you so effectively proved. Obviously it's just weakened your argument.

          • s_c_f

            You seem to be putting a whole lot of words in my mouth. None of this relates to anything said so far, apart from the fact you've found a few polls you should have linked to previously.

          • tedbetts

            You are really a piece of work scf.

            You accuse others of cherry-picking when they bring up relevant on-point data to correct someone else's spin, and then you go not only cherry-picking facts but then extrapolating incorrectly from those facts, making them mean something they don't.

            Fact: the poll showed Harper's support dropping and the whopping 11% gap down to 1%. You ignore that.

            Fact: the poll shows 51.9% of Canadians think the country is going in the right direction, and you take this to mean Canadians share Harper's vision for Canada… but….

            Fact: the poll also shows that, directly on this very point, 47% of Canadians think the government is going in the wrong direction and only 41% think the government is
            going in the right direction, continuing a trend that has seen Harper's wrong direction numbers keep going up and his right direction numbers keep going down.

            And worse for him are the latest Ipsos numbers which showed Ignatieff, certainly behind Harper, but staying put but Harper's personal numbers going down and for the first time Ignatieff's momentum numbers and positive/negative numbers better than Harper's.

          • s_c_f

            I'm a piece of work? Are you kidding me? I spend time to correct your falsehoods and you double-down with even more lies!

            Fact: the poll showed Harper's support dropping and the whopping 11% gap down to 1%. You ignore that.

            tedbetts, here is what the polls are saying: http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html

            You are cherry-picking two polls to indicate a 10% drop when in reality polling shows very little change. That is called "dishonest" or "misleading" commentary, there is no way to get around it. Fact.

            Your other two "facts", I'm not sure what to make of them, because they're not really saying anything, and you've not provided any evidence for the statement that "Harper's wrong direction numbers keep going up and his right direction numbers keep going down", so based on your track record, which is not good, I'll consider that statement another lie until I see the evidence.

            Finally, your last paragraph is the usual bull of picking a couple of polls to make a statement when in reality it's just the individual polling errors. If you look at polling trends (check my link), it's easy to see you are being dishonest and misleading.

          • tedbetts

            Again with the cherry-picking and changing the channel scf?

            I'm not cherry-picking polls or facts, scf. You are the one who picked that poll and claimed it showed Canadians shared Harper's vision because they think the country is going in the right direction, deliberately ignoring the question that was directly on point and shows the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

            Frankly, I don't put much stock in polls, especially summer polls. I am only responding to your and Wilson's falsehoods and misleading use of statistics.

            No wonder conservatives don't like statistics. Not only do they usually undermine conservative arguments, but they don't even know how to use them or read them correctly. LOL.

          • s_c_f

            Fact is supposed to mean "truth". Your facts are misleading and dishonest spin. Here are the facts, not those things you are attempting to describe as facts which are not.
            http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html

            The gap between Harper and Iggy has grown from January when they were nearly tied. Since then, the gap has remained fairly constant, between 5 and 8 points. The current gap is about 5 points. The largest gap this year was about 8 points, in May. Fact.

          • tedbetts

            I'm really sorry facts and reality don't suit your arguments scf and have such an anti-scf bias.

          • s_c_f

            Well, it's easy to see you've conceded the debate with these last two comments, which frankly, add nothing of interest and are rather childish. You're welcome.

          • Jon Pertwee

            well it's hard to debate when the goalposts change.

          • Mike514

            Please link to a more recent poll. I merely Googled "government direction canada poll" and chose the first (Nanos) poll that appeared.

            In any case, my point was that "government heading in right direction" can sometimes be substantially higher than a government's support in the polls, or at the election box.

          • wilson

            Wow, so just 15% of Canadians voted Liberal!!

          • Jon Pertwee

            wow changing the goalposts as always wilson. Maybe just coming up with an effective retort would be enough. Too hard for you?

    • DerekPearce

      "Less taxes, less social programs, more freedom. Let's get Canada back to where it should be, as the great northern beacon of freedom that all the world would wish to emulate."

      And don't forget Twirling, twirling, TWIRLING TOWARD FREEDOM!

    • OntarioTown

      Tell me Ryan (and how old are you?) – what freedoms are we missing, and how oppressed do you think we are.

      Funny, when the right don't have answers and want to defend Harper's mistakes and lies they resort to this freedom crap.

      • wilson

        We are a little bit more free now that the census police have been given a pink slip.

        perhaps Ryan lives in Ontario were Premier Dad treats adults like children, unable to be responsible for their own life.

        • OntarioTown

          Wilson – please focus – I was asking Ryan, not you.

          Boy, you are out in panic mode today with ridiculously OLD talking points.

          Oh, and Wilson, do you have ADD? We weren't talking about Ontario and McGuinty. The discussion is "federal" politics and Harper.

          Stop panicking and let little Ryan speak for himself. He's probably looking up his talking points notes right now.

          • s_c_f

            Are you capable of speaking without condescension or derision?

          • OntarioTown

            Was I speaking to you? No!

            I should think that Ryan could speak for himself and we're still waiting

          • Ryan

            Every little bit more of freedom helps. A trend towards reducing taxes rather than raising them, via outrageous things like the HST or eco fees, would be a start. Now I gotta pay an extra 8 cents a litre because our government wants to fund eco crap. Heck, these guys want to do crap and trade too.

            Ontario needs a government more now than ever that is willing to make the cuts despite the screaming to reunite Ontarians with their money.

  • Margaret

    LOL Thanks, Mr. Feschuk.

    That's really good.

  • anon

    Where do journalists get their breath-taking sense of arrogance, entitlement and self-righteousness? The conceit of this man. It really turns my stomach. Time for a reality check.

    • DerekPearce

      Oh, wait, did you mean Feschuk? I thought you meant Harper…

      • Jon Pertwee

        I thought he was talking about himself.

    • wilson

      oh, I think Wells has him beat in those departments anon.

      • Jon Pertwee

        Yeah but you have us all beat in pretentiousness and copypasting wilson

    • Jim

      From politicians I think

  • connie

    Tough on crime, we see more more ships of illegal Tamil refugees are coming.it is a joke.Vic Toews said tough and did soft. Funny.

    • Jan

      Toews harrumphing on the 6:00 o'clock news is supposed to scare them off it seems. He's like Mel Brooks in Blazing addles.

  • Lizz

    Who will succeed Harper? I think it is time to consider a leadership convention in that party. Who can lead them out of the minority mire?

    • DerekPearce

      Interesting point. After his next minority the caucus will get restless, if they're not already.

    • Jon Pertwee

      Who says they will win?

    • JSC

      I'd vote Danny Williams for PM.

    • wilson

      ' I think it is time'

      and conservatives care what YOU think!
      Yah, real tough being 'mired' in government for 4 years and 8 months, and counting…..

      Who can lead the LPC out of oppositiion?
      the #3 pick from the Liberal B Team, Rae?

      • Jon Pertwee

        keeping the spirit of democracy alive right wilson? "Dont talk unless you agree with me" Are you just a walking talking point?

    • Reverend Blair

      They should make Deanie Del Mastro leader. He's funny when he gets mad…big red face, scowl, that dim look in his eyes that lets you know he hasn't got a clue what's going on. He'd be the perfect face for what passes for Canadian conservatism these days.

  • DerekPearce

    Hot 'stache, shame 'bout the policies.

  • Paid Con Poster

    Conservative Fatigue Factor

  • Stewart_Smith

    Truly great photo, and yes you conservative folk really, really ought to lighten up. This was pokin fun, not a serious attack on our beloved PM.

    On a serious note, I will be fascinated by what Mr. Harper does this fall. I have been a Harper-hater since day 1, but I certainly have to admit he is often at his best when cornered. Whether it be putting Maddog Manley in charge of major policy development or tickling the ivories, he has on numerous occasions pulled off something remarkable just as his strong negative numbers seem to be catching up to him. (Conversely, he seems to be equally adept at letting his inner bastard out if things are going too well)

    It is good to have something to look forward too, now that the end of summer is in sight.

    • parnel

      stewart, I think stinko Harper will see a different opposition in the fall. the population's mood is changing and people are tired of the bullying we get from the people who are supposed to serve us. Iggy's tour is making him credible in the eyes of the general public and the tory scandals are starting to grow. The opposition have been carefully sharpening the axe to chop this government's head off and go to the people.

      • wilson

        go to the people!
        i agree

  • WarHammer

    According to skewed polling the media wishes you to believe the Conservatives will never hold more than 33% of voter's confidence. Trolling for the ignorant as always, it's laughable…let’s have an election and we will see the true numbers!

    The MSM loath Harper because they are in control of absolutely nothing, so they will spin and fabricate any "tempest in a teapot" to turn public opinion sour in their sorry attempt to torpedo him at every turn.

    The media are the real enemy here, not just the opposition!

    • parnel

      sorry pal, the real enemy here is Harper and his single minded approach in attempting to force change on moslty unsuspecting Canadians. They are waking up thanks to the MSM.

      They loathe Harper like the majority of Canadians. Our current political system is allowing him to slither around like the snake he is.

    • Stewart_Smith

      WarMallot is absolutely correct. Kady O'Malley split an infinitive in my face yesterday and Inkless threw a sarcastic phrase through my window. This war with words has to stop! Its like these people think ITS THEIR JOB TO CRITICIZE THE GOVERNMENT!

      • wilson

        I thought it was their job to inform Canadians…….
        give us facts, without bias

        when did journalism become being the 'eternal opposition'?
        do they teach that to future journalists, or are they re-taught pack journalism by their employer?

        • Jon Pertwee

          Well wilson, a journalists job isnt a simple as that of a dog fetching a ball. And some of those journalists become columnists who write articles based on gasp!!!! Opinion!

          I know it must be terrible for you that they dont publish articles that agree with you only. I imagine you must be absolutely pallid with anger over the liberal MSM influence in the entertainment section!

        • coretemp

          Actually, in a "modern democracy" (that's what we're supposed to have here, remember?) part of the job of the media is to take the government to task, yes. And yes, they do teach that in journalism schools, and have since the 1920s at least. Nowhere in any journalism courses will you ever be taught that the media is supposed to be "without bias" with regard to politics, because there is no such thing as an unbiased political opinion.

    • YourCat

      Well hey there WarHammer, FreakDumbinion is calling your name. Folks, when characters like Warhammer defend the Cons (and they always do) RUN!

    • rainbow

      I definitely agree with WarHammer. Something strange IS definitely happening with the media of the country. Clearly, they loathe Harper and Conservatives and want them out, without questioning their own prejudices. The recent whining about who the government picked to ask a question is a case in point. And they have gone from being "reporters" to "advocates" of one political party, which they try to push at every turn – meanwhile trying to drown out and crush the one the voters have chosen. Then they critcise the Conservatives for not getting out their "message" — through such a biased media?____The one-sided coverage of prorogation as though it hadn't been done 150 times already – and of the long-form census which is in fact an intrusion into privacy – is a case in point. Where are the civil rights advocates?____And one thing about Feschuk's writing – it isn't even funny – his comments are just mean and petty and show a breath-taking sense of superiority and self-righteousness.

  • Judge Roy Bean

    Too bad the author wasn't born 80 years earlier, he could have been part of that whacky Germans propaganda machine. Lemme guess, this guy hates Harper and loves all things left. Vying for a Senate seat or a Governor Generalship, are we?? They used to look down upon yellow journalism, This guy is in a left wing loon league all his own.
    What a waste of valuable moments of my life reading this drivel.

    • TJCook

      Yes, because this lighthearted bit of satire is exactly the same as Nazi propaganda.

    • Jim

      @Roy LOL

      • Metro

        If he were vying for a Senate seat, surely he should pander to Harper the way Duffy did?

    • danby

      Godwin's law – it never fails

  • Stewart_Smith

    FESCHUK!

    I noted this morning that "someone" has been charged with trying to light a fire under PM Harper.
    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/08/15/24susse…

    Apparently the Mounties caught the guy pouring lighter fluid outside 24 Sussex, they were about to stun him when they noted he was already in that state. The similarities to you just keep on coming.

    From the article, "The man's name, (Feschuk) hasn't been released and, as of early Sunday, no charges had been laid."
    Even if you get away with this, I hope you learn a lesson. Hollimn will be watching!

From Macleans