Rae Calls Mulcair "Mini-Harper"

Bob Rae must be afraid of Tom Mulcair stealing some of his mojo, as today he called the new NDP leader a "mini-Harper", a moniker that is surely offensive in left wing circles. Personally I don't think Mulcair is anything like Stephen Harper and that the comment is more offensive to the Prime Minister than visa versa. The NDP would be lucky if their new leader is as effective and efficient as the man who currently leads a majority government. The comment shows that there is some concern on Rae's part that Mulcair is either a threat to his long-term chances at forming government, perhaps just a short-term threat to steal television time, or both. This much is clear, the Mulcair era is beginning with some nastiness by the Liberal leader, which might be a sign of things to come. Stay tuned...

Three Cheers For Pandas!

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's trade mission to China has been a roaring success. Not only did he secure Canada billions of dollars in trade agreements, but he scored Toronto and Calgary a pair of pandas. Nice touch! Granted, there are some people who don't want us to sell resources to China or accept their pandas. Rather what we should be doing is boycotting trade until they change their foreign and domestic policy to something that's more agreeable with Canadian values. Evidently making public statements disagreeing with Chinese policy is insufficient, we should cut off trade altogether until they change (because doing so will surely make them change course).

The poll question today on the CBC's Rosemary Barton Show was; is Canada putting trade with China ahead of human rights? 83% said yes. It's ridiculous that Soloman has started naming his polls "the ballot box question", when most of his loaded questions are completely irrelevant to how people vote. I'd like to see Rosemary permanently take over for Evan. The better question is; should Canada halt trade with China until they adopt more agreeable foreign and domestic policies?

Stephen Harper Attends Hockey Games

Stephen Harper may or may not attend the Winnipeg Jets home opener in over 6 weeks, and evidently this is headline news at the CBC (must be a slow month). "Call it a perk of holding the highest elected office in the land: if there's a big game in the life of his hockey-mad country, Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems able to snag a ticket, even when an event is sold out and his attendance is arranged on short notice." Today's poll question; does it bother you that the Prime Minister attends NHL hockey games? When the PM attended a Stanley Cup finals game in Boston, the opposition erupted in outrage despite Harper paying for his own ticket. It is quite common for politicians to attend sporting events, but rarely does it lead to media criticism. This is quickly becoming a new theme by which the left is attacking the PM.

Meanwhile at the Globe Jane Taber is accusing Stephen Harper of creating his own brand of populist nationalism which includes embracing the British Monarchy and being a hockey fan; and you can expect a lot stories like that from Jane over the next 4 years. To say that Stephen Harper should not be allowed to attend NHL hockey games would be absurd, just as it is to accuse him of having a sinister hidden agenda when he does attend.

Stephen Harper, The 2nd Greatest Prime Minister?

I'm not sure what is the bigger news story, that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is now regarded as the greatest PM (since 1968) by 19% of Canadians (putting him in second place, well ahead of Jean Chretien), or that 36% of Canadians still think Pierre Trudeau is the best in a new Angus Reid poll. The momentum however belongs to Harper, who has jumped from 11% last year to 19% after winning a majority government. By the time he wins his 2nd majority, Stephen Harper should be the unanimous choice as the greatest leader in the history of Canada...

I'd be curious to know how Quebec sovereigntists voted in this poll since they have never had one of their own in the top job. 48% of respondents picked either Trudeau or Chretien, so that should provide some indication of who Gilles Duceppe and his ilk might have selected as Canada's greatest Prime Minister.

USA Debt Ceiling Raised, Yet Global Markets Collapsing?

Hold on a minute, I thought all the experts were telling us that if the USA did not raise their debt ceiling, they would lose their AAA credit rating? And yet, the debt ceiling went up, and the credit rating still went down? What kind of madness is this? Now global stock markets are plunging, despite Obama reaching a deal to drive the United States deeper in debt? How is this even possible? Maybe just maybe, the answer to a debt crisis is not going deeper in debt? Obama should be on the phone with Stephen Harper asking him for advice, because his administration as been leading the American economy into the abyss. Obama is in over his head, and he needs help.
Canada is in comparatively great shape, but if the United States collapses we will feel the pain because we sell so much to our southern neighbours. I'm just responding to all those who said the debt ceiling had to be raised to maintain America's credit score, but you did and the rating fell anyway. Good work. Taking out new credit cards to solve the problem of maxing out your previous credit cards doesn't solve any damned problem.

The End Of A Liberal Era?

At the Calgary Stampede this weekend Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave a speech declaring the end of a Liberal era in Canada. "As with disco balls and bell bottoms, Canadians have moved on." While I agree with our fearless leader than the "era" of the Liberals allegedly being Canada's "natural governing party" is at an end, I do believe the Liberal Party itself will survive. There are too many crazies in the NDP to hold that house of cards together, and unless the Liberals fold into the NDP, all they need to do is bunker down while the orange wave dissipates.

In the near future Liberal leaders won't be chosen on electability, but rather their ability to raise money (though the two are likely correlated to some degree). Will the few remaining and many former Liberal boosters open up their wallets for Bob Rae? Only time will tell, but that may be the greatest measure of his value (or lack thereof) to the Liberals that will determine whether he leads the Party into the next election. How much money he can raise will be more important than poll numbers. The Liberal era might be over, but I don't think the Party is dead just yet.

What To Do With The Canadian Senate?

Today on Power Play the media panel discussed the upcoming Senate "reform" legislation to impose term limits, which allegedly might die in the Senate despite the Tory majority in both chambers of Parliament. This then led to speculation by Oliver and Ibbitson that if this legislation fails the Prime Minister might move to abolish the Senate altogether. There seems to be more support among the Premiers for abolishing the Senate than electing it; ergo it would be easier to pass a constitutional amendment to scrap it. I'm not convinced that Stephen Harper will change his strategy to abolition. Today's poll question; should the Canadian Senate be elected, abolished, or unchanged? I asked this question in January 2010, and 71% of respondents wanted an elected upper chamber. Has your opinion changed in the last 15 months? I support electing the Senate and giving the chamber more power and responsibilities. I do not support the Senate as it currently exists.

Here are the results from some of my previous poll questions on this subject.

CANADIAN SENATE? (Jan 2010)

Elect it (71%)
Abolish it (24%)
Hands off it (4%)

SHOULD SENATE APPOINTMENTS LAST FOR LIFE? (Nov 2010)

No (95%)
Yes (4%)
Undecided (1%)

SHOULD CANADA HAVE A REFERENDUM ON SENATE REFORM? (Feb 2010)

Yes (76%)
No (24%)

When Should Stephen Harper Retire?

Here we are, not even 2 months into a Conservative majority government and already the media is clamouring about the heated race to replace Stephen Harper as leader of the Party. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that Mr. Harper was retiring anytime soon. Today's poll question; when should Stephen Harper retire? He's only 52 years old, so he has at least 20 years of productivity left if he even wants to keep the job that long. Prime Minister is a very difficult and demanding job. If he leads the party into the next election and wins another majority, why would he leave before 2020?

What if the Tories win 4-6 consecutive majorities? That will not be as difficult as it sounds once we destroy the Liberal Party. Should we continue with the status quo for the next 2, 3, or 4 majorities? I think we should retain the services of Stephen Harper for at least 3 more majorities. Who should be the next leader of the Conservative Party? Get back to me in 2025...

And yes, my tongue was in my cheek writing this post, responding to the latest media speculation of a behind the scenes power struggle to replace Stephen Harper.

Should The Prime Minister Fly Commercial?

If the Prime Minister of Canada is flying somewhere on a personal trip, should he be flying on a commercial airliner? That is today's poll question. For security reasons he presently has to fly on a government jet if he wants to travel to a hockey game, and this seems to have angered CTV's Barney Fife. Elizabeth May is also furious about the Prime Minister's carbon footprint. Since I rarely agree with Lizzy on anything, the fact that she's pissed off gives me more confidence in the Prime Minister's actions. Perhaps we are far enough removed from 9/11 that hijackings are no longer a concern, with airport security advancing by leaps and bounds, that we can put a high value target like the leader of our country on a civilian airplane.

What do you think? Should the PM fly with the rest of us if he wants to make a personal trip? He is paying $1000 (the commercial airline equivalent of a flight to Boston) to fly on a government jet to attend the hockey game. This will not cover the whole cost of the private flight, and that's what had Fife so worked up on Power Play.

Stephen Harper Goes To Boston

In two short hours the Vancouver Canucks and the Boston Bruins will face off for game 4 of the Stanley Cup finals in Boston and the Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper will be in attendance. This is a critical game for the Canucks who were blown out in game 3 and need to reclaim control of the series. Hopefully this will help motivate the team to maximize their performance, though I'm not sure all the Canucks European players hold any reverence for Canada's democratically elected leader. Harper was good luck during the Olympics, so it can't hurt.

The Prime Minister will be paying for his trip out of his own pocket, or at least what it would cost him if he were to fly commercial. For security reasons our leader flies on government jets which will cost more than the $1000 he's putting up. This begs the question whether or not our Prime Minister should travel on commercial airlines for personal trips. That's a good idea for a poll question. Are we far enough removed from 9/11 that hijackings are no longer a concern? Airport security has improved by leaps and bounds in the past decade; so is it now fair to expect our commander and chief to fly with the rest of us?

Go Canucks!

Kelly McParland's Beautiful Deconstruction Of "Stop Harper" Girl

If you have not yet had the chance to read Kelly McParland's piece today on the now infamous "Stop Harper Girl" who protested the throne speech, it is a must read that will make you laugh and think. This was a ludicrous incident that requires sarcasm and humour to adequately summarize. Kelly nails it. He's on the Roy Green Show right now discussing the article, which I strongly recommend listening (I subscribe to Roy's podcast for free on I-Tunes).

There were plenty of ways she could have registered her protest, but there is a lot of competition in the protest business, and standing on a sidewalk handing out pamphlets doesn’t get you on the front page of the Star. So Ms.De Pape worked up her sign, smuggled it into the Senate chamber and revealed it for the photographers. After being heaved out by the sergeant-at-arms, she was ready with a press release and a pal ready to schedule interviews with the media. Very slick.

"Stop Harper"

The newest darling of the CBC is a 21 year old naive Senate page who stood up during the throne speech holding a sign that read "Stop Harper". As you can imagine she is quickly becoming a "hero" with those who do not like our Prime Minister. Having just watched an interview with her on CTV, I would caution the left to watch this interview before proceeding with idol worship. I don't want to say she's an idiot, but she is clearly lacking either intelligence or good judgement. She goes on to say that "Harper's agenda" is so dangerous that we must all rise up with creative civil disobedience in order to stop him. Yeah "Stop Harper", that's very creative. Doing so in the Senate isn't creativity, it is having the opportunity as an employee. In reality all she succeeded in doing was getting on the news and getting herself fired. Really the only thing you can do when you watch this kind of immature stunt is to just laugh.

I'd like to know how much that job pays and who hired her. I wouldn't hire her to work the cash register at MacDonalds, let alone put her in our "sacred" Senate. How does someone like that get this kind of job? Maybe we should be encouraging more of these clowns to show up at work with signs, getting themselves fired?

Did Harper Trick Ignatieff Into Forcing Early Election?

At the start of the 2011 election campaign, some pundits were musing that Stephen Harper in fact engineered his own defeat and tricked Ignateiff into forcing the early election. This theory was born from the fact that the Liberals were trailing significantly in the polls when they decided to bring down the government, which had a lot of people scratching their heads. Generally elections are forced by parties who sense "winning conditions", but those tea leaves did not exist for the Liberals in March.

It is more likely Ignatieff's ignorance that forced this election instead of an elaborate rouse by the Prime Minister, but I suspect that the PM wanted the Liberals to defeat the government, if he sensed a majority on the horizon.

As I wrote on March 27th:

"This is a plausible thesis considering the lead the Tories have in the polls, leaving a lot of people scratching their heads wondering why the opposition would be so recklessly foolish triggering an election when they are so far behind. If the Tories win a majority, this "historic" contempt of Parliament vote will be forever viewed as one of the dumbest political blunders in Canadian history. The opposition might have done the Prime Minister a giant favour by forcing an early election, and it might be exactly what Stephen Harper wanted."

Harper Invades Quebec!

Oh no, it is exactly as Scott Reid and Paul Martin feared, if given a majority government Stephen Harper would invade Canadian cities. Shortly after winning a large majority, the armoured personnel carriers started rolling into Quebec. As we speak they are putting up sandbags around a small community, possibly to entrench their position for the battle ahead. I'm sure they are not there to protect the citizens from a natural disaster, this is part of Stephen Harper's secret agenda. This is what Scott Reid predicted, that's how I know it is true...

Soldiers with guns in our streets, in Canada. I'm not making this up.

PS: I do want to say thank you to those people (military and civilian) who are putting their own safety at risk to help protect others. Keep doing what you do!

Stephen Harper: "George Bush Without The Warmth And Intellect"

Nice to see Heather Mallick is taking the new Conservative majority government gracefully. Of course that is intended as a statement of sarcasm, not unlike how Heather would cite the warmth and intellect of an ex-President she clearly considers to be an evil idiot. Her sentiments were echoed by the scattering of left wingers who called in to Vancouver talk radio on Tuesday. There was a lot of "Canadians are stupid", "blah blah blah George Bush blah blah blah", "you will get what you deserve" etc etc etc.

To be honest, this kind of hatred doesn't bother me in the days after the Tories won a majority. I'm in a very happy place right now. It amuses me to listen to Charles Adler read Heather Mallick's column.

Which Party Leader Will Lose Their Job First?

Today's poll question; who will be the first political leader to lose their job after the election? Ignatieff, May, and Duceppe have all been colossal failures. Jack has exceeded expectations, though he'll be lucky to get his new supporters to polling booths on election day. If I had to guess, Elizabeth May will be the first to go. Her own party has been trying to turf her for over a year, while Liz has done everything possible to block a leadership review.

As for Iggy, it depends how much of a hurry he's in to get back to Boston. Perhaps one of the reasons for Liberal decline in Quebec are Habs fans not trusting the Boston guy. I could see that. Duceppe is facing catastrophic loses, which could see Gilles getting the ceremonial guillotine.

Many have been musing that the failure to win a majority will be the end of Stephen Harper. I'll believe it when I see it, though it is not impossible. My personal opinion is that Harper has been a very effective leader at navigating a volatile minority parliament. It is very rare in Canadian politics for a minority leader to survive for 5 consecutive years.

Are We All Canucks?

On Thursday before the start of the Canucks 2nd round playoff series against Nashville, Stephen Harper made a rare appearance on a local Vancouver sports talk radio show and said that the whole country is behind the team. In this same show, one of the guests talked about how there were a significant number of people in Calgary sports bars cheering for Chicago in game 7 on Tuesday. Another said that many people in Toronto were not cheering for Vancouver, which is now Canada's last team in the playoffs.

So are we all Canucks? That is today's poll question; are you cheering for the Vancouver Canucks to win the Stanley Cup?

Vote For Public Services?

Thursday I found myself listening to Vancouver talk radio, and there was a curious commercial that did not endorse any political party, but it did take a swipe at Harper for wanting to support big banks. The message of the ad was encouraging voters to vote for more public services, an ad paid for by public employees. There was no discussion of whether to vote Liberal or NDP, just Harper bad, public services good. For full effect our public employees should have just referred people to strategic voting websites to vote for the most likely non-Conservative to pick on election day.

Some on the right are angry at Harper for increasing the size of the civil service, but if public employees are getting such a glutinous ride, why are they buying advertising time trying to defeat the Prime Minister?

"Ignatieff’s rebuke of Harper majority hailed as Liberal ‘turning point’"

Interesting headline at the Globe and Mail Wednesday, where Iggy was being praised for a victory in the 2011 English language debates. Who is their source? The Liberal campaign manager. The fact that it came from Donollo is not included in the headline, and headlines always gets more attention than what is written inside the article. The headline as it stands is extremely misleading, because it is the opinion of the person running the campaign. Dimitri Soudas, the top guy for Stephen Harper thought that the Tories won the debate, but Jane Taber didn't turn a Soudas victory statement into a national headline. Jane is quite an active spokeswoman for the Ignatieff regime, which is becoming even more apparent during an election period.

The Globe happens to be running a webpoll pointing to Stephen Harper as the clear winner of the leader's debates. Instead of applauding Harper as the winner, Taber is trying to spin the debates as a historic turning point for Ignatieff. There is nothing wrong with having a partisan opinion, so long as you state your partisan leanings prominently on your posts. Pretending to be impartial when you are anything but is disingenuous. The same applies to Kady O'Malley.

Great Canadian Debates 2011

Congrats to Stephen Harper on a job well done in tonight's leader's debates, where he was calm, cool, and collected while Ignatieff just came across as a grumpy old man. To those pundits who presumed that Iggy was a great debater because he went to college have to be a little bit embarrassed after Tuesday's performance. Jack Layton did surprisingly well, I'd say the best showing I've seen of him since he became NDP leader. The best moment of the night came when Layton cornered Ignatieff on missing 70% of votes in the House of Commons. Iggy had no clever retort and was clearly not expecting this question, as his response was just an angry "how dare you lecture me on Democracy". It was the closest thing to a knockout punch.

Listening to some of the analysis, the consensus is that Ignatieff lost (if you don't count Duceppe, who was so bad it was almost funny). In the French debates, Harper and Layton need to just do what they did tonight, while Iggy needs to take a sedative of some sort and try to be more like Harper. Many are saying that he missed an opportunity to discuss and present the Liberal platform. He spent too much time on the offensive and came off as uncomfortably abrasive. Mansbridge was making jokes about the opposition trying to "provoke angry Steve", but nobody had to "provoke angry Mike"; he was proudly displayed for all to behold. Of course Mansbridge was trying to spin the results as Harper getting lucky with podium placement. Whatever helps you sleep tonight Peter.

Harper and Layton won, Ignatieff and Duceppe lost. I'm glad that Elizabeth May was not invited.