Matthew Yglesias considers Packer.

I consider this another reason to try to enhance understanding of the fact that when it comes to political outcomes it’s the fundamentals that matter most. Interest in the horse-race aspects of politics is to some extent inevitable, but to understand the horse-race properly you need to spend more time trying to understand what’s actually happening in the country and less time paying attention to spin and positioning.

George Packer considers the way we discuss this stuff.

Broder wasn’t analyzing Palin’s positions or accusations, or the truth or falsehood of her claims, or even the nature of the emotions that she appeals to. He was reviewing a performance and giving it the thumbs up, using the familiar terminology of political journalism. This has been so characteristic of the coverage of politics for so long that it doesn’t seem in the least bit odd, and it’s hard to imagine doing it any other way. A couple of weeks ago, the Times ran a piece by its lead political reporter, Adam Nagourney, about a Republican strategy session in Hawaii: “Here in Honolulu, the strains within the party over conservative principles versus political pragmatism played out in a sharp and public way, especially as the party establishment struggled to deal with the demands of the Tea Party movement.” The structure of the sentence, and of the article, puts the emphasis entirely on tactics and performance. This kind of prose goes down as easily and unnoticeably as a glass of sparkling water, with no aftertaste. Readers interested in politics drink quarts of it every day without gaining weight. And Broder and Nagourney are at the top of their game.

Included among the hundreds of films now online from the National Film Board is History on the Run, an entirely fascinating documentary about the media and the 1979 federal election that climaxes with a technical explanation of how best to light Joe Clark’s chin.

Aside from the fashions, technologies and attitudes toward indoor smoking, I’m not sure much has changed.

Stephen Harper, Nov. 21, 2009. We believe strongly that Canadians’ freedom is enhanced when journalists are free to pursue the truth, to shine light into dark corners and assist the process of holding government’s accountable.

CBC, today. Harper flew back from Switzerland today.  While in the air his office announced the appointment of five new Senators and the Supreme Court ruled he has the power to decide to ask if Omar Khadr could be repatriated. What does Harper have to say about these developments? Nothing. Journalists travelling with Harper are being kept on the plane to ensure the Prime Minister doesn’t face any questions in his short jaunt from the bottom of the staircase to his waiting limousine.

The Prime Minister’s Office has helpfully sent the press gallery these 13 seconds of video (sadly, no audio) of the Prime Minister receiving a “national security briefing” from four of his ministers. Interesting to note that Peter Van Loan is apparently not allowed to sit or speak during these meetings and must, instead, hover silently at the Prime Minister’s side.

The Scene. He opened with pleasantries—”Happy New Year,” he said—and then a joke.

“I’ve hope you’ve all had a good rest. Time with your families,” Michael Ignatieff said, surveying the cluster of reporters in front of him. “Now your family’s thrown you out and told you to get back to work? Same here.”

Aside from a working crew tearing up the front steps to Centre Block—access to our democracy, quite literally, being demolished!—Parliament Hill was quiet and dark, security guards standing around without much to mind. Mr. Ignatieff stood at a lectern in the foyer, behind him the closed doors of the Commons, behind them a group of university students participating in a mock Parliament—the closest the chamber will get to functioning democracy for some weeks yet.

Mr. Ignatieff proceeded with his prepared remarks.

“Mr. Harper prorogued Parliament, shut Parliament down on New Year’s Eve, when he thought no one was looking,” he reviewed. “He thought Canadians didn’t care. And it turns out they do care … Canadians are not as cynical as he thought.”

So it is that our cynicism apparently has its limits. Or perhaps it is merely that some don’t appreciate having their cynicism so unashamedly confirmed. Either way, here we are, openly and heatedly discussing the parameters of Parliamentary democracy, tens of thousands of Canadians signing up for a Facebook group that trumpets the word “proroguing.”

“We’re listening,” the Liberal leader continued. “And we’re going to be going back to work.” Continue…

A little over a year ago, the Hill Times checked up on the relationship between Stephen Harper’s government and the press gallery—a saga that has gripped the nation like nothing since the Vancouver Grizzlies. In between anecdotes of this glamourous existence, the Prime Minister’s press secretary, since departed, offered this explanation of the official view.

Mr. Teneycke said he didn’t agree that there are cabinet ministers who don’t speak to the media, and that in Canada’s Parliamentary system the 45-minute daily Question Period is the primary way in which ministers answer questions about their files. ”Ministers are available in Question Period to answer questions of the elected opposition, that is the system that we have, that is the primary way by which cabinet ministers in a Parliamentary democracy are held accountable,” said Mr. Teneycke. “If media have additional questions from time to time the primary way by which ministers are held to account is via an elected opposition through the House of Commons.”

It will, of course, be another two months before cabinet ministers are held so accountable. And for those of you keeping score at home, by the time March 1 arrives, the Prime Minister—owing to international travel and a photo with the national lacrosse team—will have submitted himself to a total of six such exercises in accountability over a four month period.

Tim Naumetz reveals the Prime Minister’s way in and out of Question Period each day.

For at least two years, following his battle with the press gallery in 2006, Harper has snubbed the front door of the Commons for Question Period. He established a covert route to get to the Chamber from his third-floor Centre Block office, ducking down through a narrow hallway behind the public gallery atop the west side of the Chamber, down a small staircase, and then scuttling into the government lobby through a back door across from the House Speaker’s Chamber.

Arriving and leaving the Centre Block, his motorcade now pulls up beside a renovated House Speaker’s entrance at the West side of the building. Harper whisks in and out as his sun-glassed Mountie bodyguards give cover.

No Prime Minister has ever avoided the front entrance to the Commons and no one, at least outside of Harper’s inner circle, understands why Harper does.

Strolling casually around the House of Commons foyer yesterday, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan happens upon a group of reporters. A delightful exchange of pleasantries follows.

Question: How long have you had the report from the Commissioner of Firearms?

Hon. Peter Van Loan: The report from the Commissioner of Firearms has to be tabled tomorrow which it will be.  I know that some information – some information on it will be coming out shortly.  Some of it has already been released in the public accounts.  The one that I know has attracted some interest is the number of times that the police access it which is close to three and a half million times.  What’s very interesting about that statistic is of those three and a half million times only 2.4 percent of the time is it actually information about the registration of a long-gun that would eliminated by the long-gun registry.  If the bill to eliminate the long-gun registry is passed and becomes law, 97 percent of the times that the police utilize that information from the firearms centre would continue to be in place because of course the bill does not eliminate the requirement for licensing of gun owners and only, as I said, 2.4 percent of those queries had to do with information related to long-gun registration.

Question: (Inaudible)

Hon. Peter Van Loan: I am referring to the 2008 statistics.  And what’s more interesting -

Question: (Inaudible)

Hon. Peter Van Loan: If I could finish, what’s more interesting -

Question: You haven’t answered my question once yet though.

Continue…

Congratulations are due to Peter MacKay.

In a startling reversal of roles, it was Defence Minister Peter MacKay asking the news media a big question when he proposed to a CTV news executive Saturday.

MacKay asked Jana Juginovic, director of programming at CTV News Channel, for her hand while they were in Boston, where she is on a one-year fellowship. She said yes immediately, according to sources.

No word yet on how Larry Miller is taking the news.

Rob Silver responds to Glen Pearson’s response to Andrew Coyne’s suggestion.

The dichotomy Glen buys into is either you say nothing (the “safe option”) or you put out lots of smart, detailed policies (the “risky option”). The risky option is akin to political suicide and therefore the safe option must be followed at all costs … The real dichotomy is between communicating your ideas well – whether those ideas are bold or more of the same – versus communicating your ideas poorly.

Former anonymous source laments press gallery’s use of anonymous sources.

Bit tardy in getting to this, but here is the late Doug Fisher’s last column for the Sun, reprinted on the occasion of his recent passing.

I carried the opposition MP’s mentality into journalism. Over the years, my opinions have been more critical than approving of whatever government has been in power … The arrogance of government, its overwhelming control of Parliament, and the opposition’s weakness were a big theme during my four parliaments as an MP—much discussed on the Hill and in the press. I carried that theme with me to the press gallery and have often written about it.

After nearly 50 years, I can only say that government has become immense, the prime minister’s office is vastly bigger and more powerful, more attention than ever is paid to party leaders and in particular to the prime minister, and the House of Commons—whose weakness we bemoaned back in my time in it—has withered almost to insignificance…

Today’s MPs are easily as able and hard-working as during the Diefenbaker years — as well as better educated and provided with far better facilities and support services. Paradoxically, they play a far smaller, less important role than MPs of yore, undermined over the years by a hardening of caucus discipline and by the swelling cadres of aides and spin doctors in the offices of the prime minister and the other parties’ leaders.

Courtesy of the Sun’s Elizabeth Thompson, video of Jack Layton’s poignant performance at the press gallery dinner in 2005.