Justin Trudeau: The man who makes Stephen Harper tremble

Paul Wells on how the new Liberal leader deals with the PM

by Paul Wells

‘Root causes’: ‘There is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded,’ Trudeau said of the Boston bombing

Mathieu Belanger/Reuters

If you want to be the calm at the eye of the storm, it helps to be calm. Justin Trudeau is figuring that part out.

On Monday, Trudeau’s (pause to count on fingers) ninth day as leader of the plucky underdog Liberal party, the wavy-maned MP for Papineau exited the House of Commons and parked in front of a scrum microphone in the Centre Block lobby. He was greeted by the customary mob of journalists badgering him for autographs. Just kidding! No, we had Tough Questions for him.

What did he make of his latest exchange with the Prime Minister, which came after five questions from the NDP, a party the scribes are basically ignoring this month? “I asked a substantive question,” Trudeau said, once, twice, three times. But Stephen Harper preferred to send mockery in return.

Surely this will be a theme of Trudeau’s spring: he would like to be considered more than a pretty face. He asks substantive questions. If Harper can’t give substantive answers, or won’t, Trudeau hints, well then we’ll know who’s low on substantivity, won’t we? Substantivosity. Substantiveness. Substance? Never mind. We’ll know what needs knowing.

One of the scribes asked Trudeau about the root causes of the Boston Marathon bombing. The goal here was to get him to say something reminiscent of the answer he gave Peter Mansbridge less than two hours after the murders happened: “There is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society.”

That comment, which could be taken as eagerness to sympathize with terrorists instead of hunting them down, led to a week’s excitement in Ottawa and wherever Conservatives worry about a Liberal renaissance. Harper came out of the London funeral for Margaret Thatcher and, before any of the reporters there had raised Trudeau’s name, said: “When you see this kind of violent act, you do not sit around trying to rationalize it or make excuses for it or figure out its root causes. You condemn it categorically, and to the extent you can deal with the perpetrators you deal with them as harshly as possible.”

In turn, Trudeau said Harper was politicizing a tragedy. Later he announced he would use a regularly scheduled Liberal opposition day to encourage backbench Conservatives who are quarrelling with Harper’s office over the amount of freedom they have. The government’s House leader, Peter Van Loan, promptly announced he was postponing the Liberal opposition day so MPs could debate a terrorism bill that has been wending its way through the Commons in lethargic fashion.

Van Loan could not explain why he saw no need to debate the bill for the first three days after the Boston bombing, before upending the schedule of business on the fourth. It began to seem that the Conservatives’ legislative schedule is determined by the need to hurt Trudeau before he hurts them.

Over the weekend I reported that Harper’s government has budgeted $10 million for a five-year program of research into the causes of terrorism. So Harper’s government is actually keenly interested in root causes, except when it’s Trudeau talking about them.

By Monday, much of the righteous fury had gone out of all parties. In debate on the terrorism bill, the Conservatives had nothing fiery to say. In his Monday scrum, Trudeau demonstrated that butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth. What about those root causes? “There are a lot of questions still to be asked,” he said blandly. But the first thing to do was to thank the police for dismantling an apparent terrorist ring in Canada. “This is the kind of work that the men and women of Canadian law enforcement agencies need to continue doing,” he said, “and they have our thanks and our full support on that.”

I pressed him on the proper treatment of terrorists. “We support [the government bill] broadly,” he said, “and we have supported it throughout the long time that it has wended its way through the House.” A pirouette and he was gone. Short answers with few moving parts. Something new.

All Harper had to do was zip up, and Trudeau’s comments would have stood alone for all to judge by their lights. He didn’t figure that out until after he had used a funeral to pick a fight. For the leader of a party that will be lucky indeed if it can simply stop losing seats, Trudeau has a knack for making his opponents do dumb things—simply, as far as I can see, by existing. In Quebec City, Trudeau paid a courtesy call on provincial party leaders. Jean-François Lisée, normally the brains of the Parti Québécois, convened a news conference to denounce Trudeau as a “young prince” who had summoned all three leaders like “vassals” to a single meeting. Problem: Trudeau had made no such request. Lisée wound up apologizing lamely on Twitter.

When Pierre Trudeau died, Stephen Harper wrote that he “took a pass” on the fights against Nazism and Communism. He believed, surely still believes, the old man was evil, or blind to evil, which is the same. He suspects the same of Justin. Anger wrecks his judgment. He has that in common with Lisée. In my years in Ottawa I’ve seen other politicians who polarized debate so effortlessly they drove furious opponents to dumb mistakes. Jean Chrétien was one. Harper himself is another. Apparently young Trudeau has some of that too. It’s a handy attribute.

On the web: For more Paul Wells, visit his blog at macleans.ca/inklesswells




Browse

Justin Trudeau: The man who makes Stephen Harper tremble

  1. Why don’t you ask Justin why he was absent for that all so important Liberal motion on MP’s “free speech”?

    Why so many opposition MP’s were absent?

    • A motion putting members statements in alphabetical order isn’t much of a barn burner, actually, it’s pretty lame.

      • Lamer than a hockey book written by a Canadian who can’t skate?

        • Wow. It must be spring. I can’t recall seeing you get so feisty before. :)
          I like.

          • The SH can’t skate meme is goin to take me places!

          • Well, you’re going to look awfully foolish when SH, in his next attempt to one up the kid, skates out to centre ice at the saddledome with a piano on his back. Course he’ll have to try that next year now.

          • Stanley Cup game, 2014: Harper sings the National Anthem from centre ice while accompanying himself on the piano. Sadly, all eyes are turned to watch Justin and Sophie dancing together in the locker room.

          • Wow, awkward. Poor girls: the cute little one in the vid, and also me for having to see/hear that again.

          • It’s all about me. He even stole the little kids limelight. Poor little kid’ll probably never sing again.

          • As I recall, she sang Lady Gaga’s gay anthem: Baby I was born this way, which must have really rotted Harper’s socks off.

          • This would be an awesome comical attack ad, a-la spirit of the great SNL Bush-Dukakis attack ads.

          • If your picture is any indication, you look like a bit of an intellectual yourself. Are you going to tell us you are a ‘jock’?

        • You don’t have to skate when you won’t take media questions

        • or has been writing his hockey book for the past 10 to 15 years.and probably still on chapter one if even that.

        • These hits on the non-athletic…are you going to bully Liz May and Mr. Mulclair too?

    • Just watch, I bet Wells won’t ask. Isn’t it infuriating when these media hacks won’t do your bidding?

      • No it’s not dog, because it is typical of the media party to support the Liberals, that is probably why the MSM is laying off people due to declining readership, even their E-versions can’t make up for lost advertising revenue.

        • I think everyone knows that JT was in NL beaten down yet another bully. He is like a superhero, flyin here & there, making things right before moving on to the next challenge.

          • Savoir Faire is everywhere!

            Jeez, I hope someone else gets that reference…(I”ll make mincemeat outta that mouse).

          • Hey, thanks! I haven’t heard that anywhere but in my head for about eleventy million years. And now we know that you, and me and Pickngrin are all of the same vintage.

          • staying quiet so I’m not outed as “vintage”

          • Yes, not quite the value of an antique, but no longer shiny and new either.

          • I remember…. though I wish I could forget…….

        • OK, so let me see if I’ve got this straight: you’re saying that the MSM are clinging to their profligate “liberal” bias despite their own best corporate interests. I would have thought their investors and shareholders would be clamoring for a shift to the lucrative salvation of a right-wing viewpoint.

          I don’t seem to see that happening (much). I must have missed it. I’m so confused.

          While you’re at it, perhaps you could explain for me why the avowedly right-wing Sun TV is whining before the CRTC as we speak for inclusion in basic cable packages because they’re admittedly drowning in a sea of red ink. According to your analysis, they should be doling out dividends to their investors by now.

          Thanks for the help.

          • Zing!…You may have given him a logic migraine…

          • How’s your buddy Lilgert doing there aground on the lee shore?

          • Lil…who?

          • Don’t play innocent, kcm2.

          • Got it. Thx.

          • Duh! The penny drops, finally. .,Q of the N.

            Took her many a time.

          • Their investors and shareholders are the same leftwing nutbars that are members of the NDP and Liberal parties, more accurately the union pension funds, enough said dawg.

            As for Sun TV, why shouldn’t it be included with basic cable as CBC, Global and CTV are?

            If the CRTC had any relevance at all we would be able to choose the individual channels that we want instead of packages or tiers, but the CRTC is irrelevant, it should be put out of it’s leftwing Trudeaupian misery, no more funding for you.

          • Drat! You’re onto us.

            It’s all a huge conspiracy, including the “left-wing” media, their enablers at the CRTC, the unions, the banks, insurance companies, and all the other large institutional lenders. Oh, and the opposition parties. And I almost forgot Elvis…he’s in on it, too. He knows the secret handshake and is at all the meetings.

            All deliberately sliding into bankruptcy because of their stubborn insistence on investing their money in MSM who cling to their silly left-wing worldview.

            As an economic conspiracy theorist, you make Marx seem like an amateur parish philosopher.

          • Early into the sauce today eh dawg?

            The liver is evil it must be punished.

          • Nope, my needs are simple and this is ‘way more fun than substance abuse.

          • Sure dawg, whatever you say.

        • Conservative talk radio floods the dial…. but that would not fit your hockey stick media model, so you better omit it?

        • Maybe that explains how frequently MSM trashed Ignatieff and Dion.

    • If he was absent, it was probably because Harper switched the Liberal opposition day (at the last minute) from Monday to Wednesday in a pathetic attempt to exploit Trudeau’s “root causes” remark.

      Edit: Trudeau was already scheduled to campaign in Newfoundland and Labrador on Wednesday. He was supporting Liberal candidate Yvonne Jones in a by-election called when Conservative minister Peter Penashue resigned over illegal campaign donations in the 2011 election. (Penashue is running again in the by-election.)

    • It’s called “sneaky CPC tactics”

  2. Harper is, at most, simply too anxious to add another Liberal head to his trophy wall.

    • Or enraged his disgusting attack ads are not having the desired effect.

    • Well played. Not sure why, but this made me think of “The Kingslayer” from the ever popular “Game of Thrones”. With that said, I think it would be more accurate to compare him to Joffrey.

      • You’re right. He is definitely a “Joffrey”

  3. I don’t think that I’ve ever heard a third-place party sitting at 43 points in the polls described as “lucky indeed if it can simply stop losing seats.” I don’t think anyone would have said that about Reform in the 90s or the NDP if they had ever reached such a point.

      • Judging from the Cons’ over-reaction to Trudeau’s coronation, apparently they do.

        • Over-reaction?
          Really?
          Certainly there exists a rational distinction between reality and phantasm.
          Where is the rational argument.

          To Mister Twitt:
          I am not the accused.
          You are not the crown prosecutor.
          And questions are not rational arguments.
          Thank you very much

          • C’mon, he’s the rookie leader of the 3rd party, “in over his head” according to the Con star chamber. As such, they should be simply ignoring him.

            Instead, they’re targeting him with attack ads and losing no opportunity to belittle him.

            So yeah, I would say “over-reaction” is the appropriate term. If their strategy doesn’t work, over-reaction will crest into “hysteria”.

            I’m not that big a fan of his, but I love how he brings out the worst in Cons.

          • Yeah, you’d think if he is in so far over his head, they’d just leave him be until he makes a real gaffe; ridicule him a bit; then move back to either promoting their policies or treating the NDP as the Opposition. The more attention the CPC pays him, the more press he gets. And there are a lot of people looking for ANY excuse to toss the CPC who may find the guy getting all the attention a great bandwagon…

          • Right on the money

          • They’re carpet-bombing the country with attack ads against the newly elected leader of the third party two years before an election.

            What, exactly, about that reaction says “measured and level-headed” to you?

        • The Cons are certainly pooing in their pants.

      • More than I believe the pols

    • He’s just stating a trend; Liberals would be wise to not lose focus of Wells point.

    • Polls are one thing and campaigns are another. To win a campaign you need an organization on the ground and you need the ability to raise money. LPC has quite a ways to go on both.

  4. “In studies of the social origins of the German Nazi Party, the new middle class of white-collar employees and civil servants has received scant attention.”
    http://abs.sagepub.com/content/41/9/1237.abstract
    —–
    Justin Trudeau editorial Globe Apr 2013:
    “However, anxiety is growing among the many millions of middle-class Canadians that progress – the core ideal that gave rise to and sustains those values – is under very real threat.”
    ——-
    Steve Pinker – But the newest research is showing that many properties of the brain are genetically organized, and don’t depend on information coming in from the senses.

      • Come on, Paul, isn’t it obvious? The evidence is incontrovertible. Justin is literally Hitler.

    • “I find a naturalistic understanding of human nature to be indispensable to leading a wise and mature life, and it is often exhilarating. Wisdom consists in appreciating the preciousness and finiteness of our own existence, and therefore not squandering it; of being cognizant of what makes people everywhere tick, and therefore enhancing happiness and minimizing suffering; of being alert to limitations and flaws in our own judgments and decisions and passions, and thereby doing our best to circumvent them. The exhilaration comes from understanding that we are a part of natural world; that deep mysteries can be explained; and that the world — including our own mental lives — can be intelligible, rather than a source of superstition and ignorance. Yes, mortality sucks, but given that it exists, I’d rather know that than be kept in a childlike state of delusion. ”

      –Steve Pinker

      • Surely what Pinker calls the natural world is not a phantasm?
        Surely it is not the case that natural reality is unknowable.
        Why?
        Because appearance is not reality.

    • Luv that last one. At times,your capacity for self irony is quite simply astonishing.

    • Brain or mind?
      Truth or phantasms?
      Certainly there exists a rational distinction between scientific and non scientific neurology.
      Why?
      Because it is not the case that ultimate neurological reality is unknowable.

  5. HARPER LOOKS FOR ROOT CAUSES

    “…Harper’s government has budgeted $10 million for a five-year program of research into the causes of terrorism. So Harper’s government is actually keenly interested in root causes, except when it’s Trudeau talking about them.”

  6. “Over the weekend I reported that Harper’s government has budgeted $10 million for a five-year program of research into the causes of terrorism. So Harper’s government is actually keenly interested in root causes, except when it’s Trudeau talking about them.”

    Shameless hypocrisy and political opportunism. And Harper has to gall to claim he’s the “principled” choice.

    • Um….. Is this your first taste of Canadian politics? Good grief – hypocrisy and opportunism has been a part of the game since our country was founded. Don’t hate the playah – hate the game! ;)

      • “Don’t hate the playah – hate the game! ;)

        I’m of the mind you should hate the players and the game. One can’t exist without the other.

        • Why hate either? If you want to change the game, then be a game changer, not a hater. Which is kind of what I feel Justin Trudeau is trying to do.

          • Agreed – I also believe JT is trying to change the game as we know it these days, and this is in part why I am more drawn to defend him. Continuing with “the game” analogy, in its current form, it’s like being forced to endure “the trap” system of hockey all the time. One of my bigger concerns is not so much with JT, but with Liberal supporters themselves. Fact is (which the right relentlessly exploits), the Liberal brand has been flat for quite some time. I don’t know if enough time and suffering has transpired for it to rebuild itself with a new purpose. When the Conservatives were crushed by Chretien, it took them many years to rebuild, rediscover, and find common ground. The old guard of liberal supporters often don’t seem willing enough to compromise for any greater good, and seem more determined to wage internal battles that damage them in the process. Going back to the game, the best teams are the ones where the players and the fans are united with a common purpose and focus. Weak teams are the ones where players pursue their own selfish needs.

          • All well and good. But I don’t see a sound justification for underhanded and morally questionable behavior in that post.

          • I don’t think that post was necessarily intended to endorse the CPC…

          • And look at what they (the Conservatives) came up with… One shudders. It’s like Frankenstein’s monster. I hope it gets put out of its misery in 2015.

          • The monster you fear lives on in Ontario where it seems no amount of wasted billions on pet projects is enough to scare any sense into people.

          • Trudeau knows that, I believe he is going for the two campaigns syrategy. He has an adventage over Dion and Iggy, even if he loses he will do better, people like him but don’t trust him yet, that’s why most wont vote for him next election yet.
            He’ll make mistakes, that’s to be expected, how bad, only time wull tell.

          • Oops *will*

          • Some good musings…..the liberals became dependant on gilded supporters and had no real grass roots organization….the Reform, Alliance, Conservative movement had a common cause and goal and that was to replace the entitled, smug, arrogant, greedy, corrupt liberals whose only real support was limited to large city centers in BC, Ontario and Quebec. It takes years to build that grassroots and the country isnt as starry-eyed as it was in 1963. The other reality is that eastern canada no longer dominates the country economically….the west wanted a seat at the table and we now pretty much control that table. If Ontario slides back into the hero worship of a Trudeau the ROC will stand firm and away we go back to the bad old days of east vs west.

          • If the game involves being underhanded and manipulating people to the detriment of others, it’s a toxic game and the people who play it are ultimately contributing to a net negative. That’s why you hate *that* game and the people who play it (Although agitation is more accurate for me than ‘hate’ which I don’t believe is a remedy for anything really). Just because people are playing doesn’t mean it’s something to tacitly condone and dismiss.

            If the game is bad, change the game but don’t play the same one.

      • Hypocrisy and opportunism and not-hypocrisy and not-opportunism.
        Which side is more and which is less?
        The Western establishment is less and the morbid eastern establishment is more.
        Why?
        The Western establishment is the least corrupt.
        The morbid eastern establishment is the most corrupt.
        East is east and west is west, never the twain shall meet.
        In the Halls of Oriental Despotism.

        • and your point is?

          • And your point is?

    • Harper has built his own name, whether you like it or not. However, Shiny Pony is here simply because of the name of his father.

      • Frenchie77. He certainly has built his own name. And its becoming more and more unattractive. His attack ads are creepy. They make Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, who obviously okayed them, look creepy too. Nobody wants to be governed by creeps.

        • Far better to be governed by Shiny Pony, a guy riding his father’s coat-tails. Yes, this will work out much better.

          Look, clearly you’ve got a hate for harper- but at least you know the man and what you hate about him.

          With shiny pony, what is it about him that attracts attention other than his name? What else can you possibly be voting for?

          Without his name he is a joke, with it a credible PM.

          • My goodness, you sound like a ReformaTory under threat. Worried?

          • I make it a point to never refer to them as Tories. They’re not. Calling them that would make them sound benevolent!

          • Absolutely, although I am not a reformtory or whatever name you have for them these days.

            The liberals would not stand a chance in hell of winning the next election with any other candidate. This is why shiny pony is the candidate, he has the one thing, the only thing, the only new thing which can possibly help win an election – his father’s name,

            Of course, the liberals can never admit that this as a reason as surely as the tories can never admit that harper just really isn’t a charismatic leader.

            The vision of the left, of the liberal party politics just can’t bring anything new to the table which canadians would vote for. However, bringing in the trudeau legacy allows all sorts of media swooning and boomer reminiscing, somehow the preceived glory days are just around the corner.

            It is of course, just delusion – but it is the only thing the left has to offer, so offer it you must.

          • JustinTrudeau is being supported because he is a charasmatic leader and is inspiring hope in Canadians who have been sorely disappointed and deceived by Stephen Harper and a Conservative Party who got in to power by promising to be be ‘transparent and accountable’.

          • Interesting that you call Justin Trudeau “Shiny Pony”, this says much more about you than it does of him. People who name call are usually psychologically insecure uncertain individuals who have difficulties with self esteem. And yes sometimes delusional.

          • I think his advantage is that a lot of people, including me, were cynical about his entry into politics. I was an admirer of his father but literally rolled my eyes when I heard he was running. But at the end of the day he did not run on his name – he worked for all of it, and he deserved to win.

            His famous father works against him just as much as it works for him. He must endlessly be subjected to comparisons – and he is not the great intellect his father was. Of course neither is Harper or Mulcair, but they do not have to suffer the constant comparisons.

          • Ludicrous, it is the legacy of his father’s name which has put the spotlight on him. To consider that it is a problem he must suffer is to totally delude oneself.

            Garneau worked hard, much harder and accomplished much, much more than trudeau – but he lost, he lost for one reason and one reason only: his name was garneau and not trudeau.

          • He did not lose: he dropped out before the end of the race. Why do you have to lie to make a point — all the while calling others delusional. You’re making stuff up; pathetic.

          • dropping out is considered winning in your books? Talk about making stuff up

          • Actually it is not ludicrous at all. Does Stephen Harper have to prove that he is his “own man” over and over again? Because I kinda think he doesn’t.

            I could not help but notice you failed to address the point about how Justin must always face comparisons to his father.

          • Read it again, or maybe read it for the first time

          • Oh oh, a typo in your own name — that’s weird. Poser.

          • Maybe you wrote it with invisible ink?

            Or maybe it is just in your head, kind of like your “logic”.

          • While Marc Garneau is a brilliant man, he unfortunately does not come across very strongly. He is an intellectual who could have done an excellent job as PM, but the Harper Conservatives used dishonest and disreputable ads attacking intellectuals, (Stephane dion and Michael Ignatieff) and hence have destroyed the repute of intellectuals for power in at least the foreseeable future. Mr Garneau came to understand this and other issues and stepped away from the current leadership bid to SUPPORT Mr Trudeau.

          • MG withdrew because, as he put it, “numbers don’t lie”. He was going to lose the leadership contest to Trudeau and so did the logical thing – he withdrew.

            The notion of him withdrawing because, at least in part, of being concerned about CPC attack ads ignores the fact that he went into the leadership contest quite aware that these ads would be coming. This was not new information, and thus would not have prompted a change in course. The leadership polling data was new information, and that’s what prompted the change in course.

            Also, I’d argue that the CPC attack ads were not against intellectuals, per se, but about perceived weaknesses in 2 specific intellectuals, Dion and Iggy. There is a difference. E.g., the “just visiting” theme would have been just as effective against a non-intellectual who had been out of the country for 30 years.

            And, lastly, I’d argue that MG is not an intellectual in the sense of Dion and Iggy. MG holds a doctorate in electrical engineering and thus is highly educated in a discipline that requires the practical application of complex scientific and mathematical concepts. Whereas, I’d hazard that most people think of an intellectual as someone who is highly educated and uses that education to ponder more abstract and philosophical concepts which may or may not have immediate practical application. So MG is not so much an intellectual as he is highly educated IMO.

            So, IMO the likelihood of MG quitting the leadership campaign out of concern for CPC attack ads is as about as high as the likelihood that pink unicorns run wild in Stanley Park.

          • Anyone who criticizes a person and refers to them as ‘Shiny Pony’ or any other disparaging name is in fact making an ad hominem attack and hence has no credibility.

          • That is what they consider wit in their little echo chamber.

          • Frenchie77: you’re so far out to lunch, you’ve missed dinner too!
            Personally, I rather liked when JT, as MP for Papineau, called Peter Kent a liar in the House; I prefer Canadian MPs/PMs to have ethics, courage, passion and intellect. I was also happy that JT was smart enough to beat his brawnier opponent, Senator Brazeau, in the ring at that charity event. I’m especially pleased and proud that JT chose NOT to engage Harper’s ‘creepy’ negative politics; good for him! Harper’s attack ads are a slimy American political tactic that should never have been imported into Canadian politics. Also, I have no doubt that the great man who was the finest PM in my lifetime, Pierre Trudeau, (IMHO) raised his sons very well indeed and I trust that they have a strong vision for Canada; one that, unlike Harper’s neo-cons, is Canadian not American and builds up…not tears down.

      • You know, this CPC “Shiny Pony” meme is incredibly immature and just nullifies any point you are trying to make. It makes you sound like a complete idiot. So I suggest you try a different tack (unless “complete idiot” is the image you’re going for…)

        • Keith, you are so right. Name calling and finger pointing belong in the schoolyard, and the elementary school at that. I thing the Cons must have a recent Communications Grad in their basement thinking up catchy epithets for JT. These can then be added to the weekly playbook for MPs, spokespersons, PR people and committed web trawlers. Unfortunately, the kid obviously attended the U. of Facebook and Twitter

    • What exactly is meant here by the words cause?
      Is it the case that the two words in the statements above mean exactly the same thing with regards to the precise meaning of cause used by the two different subjects? Otherwise the argument is fallacious. The argument is missing a premise from the rational doctrine of causation.
      In other words, the writer assumes that both subjects are talking about the same causation.
      Either they are or they are not, that is the question.
      Obviously the writer knows what causation really is:
      “Harper’s government is actually keenly interested in root causes.”
      Or does the writer really know the exact difference between real and pseudo causality? Where is the rational doctrine of causation, even in rough paraphrase?

      Abandon sophism.
      Come into the stronghold of American Idealism.
      And you will see the light of day.

      • are you off your meds? you certainly come off as crazy. You are only sounding coherent to yourself…FYI

        • Coherent?
          What exactly is it that you call coherent, is it appearance or reality?
          Please advance a rational argument.

        • I’m almost thinking he’s a computer program built to post crap in political articles and not a person at all.

    • And, they hired a sociologist to do the research. Harpercrites!

  7. ”…All Harper had to do was zip up, and Trudeau’s comments would have stood alone for all to judge by their lights…”
    Obviously the media thinks Trudeau should get a pass for his comments ‘terrorists have feelings too’.

    • Perhaps that’s because that doesn’t remotely resemble what Trudeau actually said. One must remember it’s the Conservative Party spreading slander and lies, not the “Media Party”…

    • Do you even know what quote marks mean?

  8. I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be to be a dipper these days. Poor Mulclair. It’s gotta be like a nightmare Prom, standing on the dance floor while everyone watches his date making out with someone else. And sadly, nothing he says or does will stop the tonsil hockey from happening. It really must suck.

    • I feel his party had the full year head start before the LPC leadership to solidify relationships with those who supported them in the 2011 election. Having Trudeau’s image to compete makes for a difficult road ahead indeed, but Mulcair’s own words and actions in his first year as leader also created his reputation. Unfortunately for Harper and Mulcair, pendulums do swing and it’s only a matter of time before optimism and positivity are more popular to Canadians than feeling fear and anger. I think Trudeau makes people feel good and that’s pretty hard to beat (hope it lasts a good while too). And I smile to think how crazy that makes the current prime minister.

      • So you think the pendulum is going to swing back to progressive sounding Liberals who rule from the right again?

        • Hmm, I would like that question unloaded, please.

        • Better than being ruled by conservative-sounding populists and opportunists, methinks.

    • Must suck.
      Or must not suck.
      That is the absolute truth of what must be.
      Why?
      You know why or you do not know why.

      • Christopher, check in with a good psychiatrist,you’re rambling again.

        • You are a good psychiatrist?
          Really?
          Words are a dime a dozen.
          As Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Mao discovered to their chagrin.

  9. At least Lisée offered to buy him a beer after his meltdown. That’s half of Harper’s problem – he takes himself so damn seriously. I imagine he couldn’t wait to get out of that church and in front of a microphone.

    And while i think[and hope] Trudeau will eventually blossom into a decent politician as well as a political celebrity, i have to agree – what has he done to merit all this anger?…been the son of a legend…that’s it? That’s why his opponents come over like the Don trying to explain why he has nothing personal against Swedes…but!

    I even agree some of his root causes stuff was cringe inducing – but not for Harper’s reasons. Harper should have let them stand out as the comments of someone who is still a bit underdeveloped, maybe even callow. The contrast between Harper the statesman and the “kid” would have spoke volumes.[ i think Mulcair has done a better job of this...but then he admired the late Trudeau, if not the present one, who he probably has nothing personal against.

    But everything is personal with Harper. For that reason alone i think JT is going to destroy him. And not because he's a genius either. He's just political kryptonite for Harper.

    I tried to imagine how JT's dad would have delt with that[ or JC]. He would have stood outside the church[ making sure it was an inconvenience to be bothered that day of all days] or walked away and allowed himself to be turned by a badgering Wells[er reporter] and smirked[ a smirk for Chretien a shrug for PET]…’ what do you think about your kid’s views on root causes Prime minister?’…’I don’t know! What do you think it says!’ Walks way.[ probably still smirking/shrugging]

    • The media didn’t even mention Trudeau or the “root causes” comment. Harper left that church and shot himself in the foot.

  10. The only reason why the shiny pony is even in politics is due to his father’s name. I find the hyprocrisy of the left in supporting shiny pony absolutely stunning. There is absolutely nothing else about him that merits discussion, yet here we are with another media piece giving him ‘credibility’ and numerous supporters trying to justify that really, he would be the best PM.

    If this guy had any other name than trudeau none of us would know anything about him.

    This is what the value of leftist poltics is today in Canada, absolutely nothing. Nothing new to contribute, no understanding, no compassion, no economic sense, nothing – but a name and yet for the left this more than suffices.

    • Are you saying that no one should ever enter politics if they have family history within that field? Are you completely ignorant of the many times this has been the case in ALL political parties throughout our history (and throughout the globe)? It’s your outrage that is stunning, as it reveals that you are ignorant. Your hypocrisy would come full circle if you were situated in Toronto (which for all I know, could actually be the case), where you would be yelling “Subways, subways, subways” beside your good buddy Rob Ford, who is identified as an “everyman” despite being spoiled and pampered his whole life via his familial connections.

      • Where did I write any of the things you attribute to me? If trudeau had any other name no-one would be seriously considering him as PM. But he does, and so you do and in doing so you must perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince yourself that it is logical.

        Call me anything you want, try to deviate from the truth all you want, this simple fact cannot be made to be anything other than it is.

        Without his name built by his father, this man would be considered a joke for a PM. With it, it is the glorious rebirth of a royal dynasty

        • Facepalm. I did not attribute all that much to you. I did ask some questions, and poked fun at your weak logic. What you don’t seem to grasp is that dissecting the mans heritage is an idiotic thought experiment, in the sense that anything that you come up with would be based on sheer fantasy. It goes without saying that JT and the life that he knows has been shaped by his father’s name, and his experiences with his father. It is impossible to view him in any other context. Political history is filled with many people who have entered under similar circumstances. JT might turn out to be a dud. He might also turn out to be a great leader. Only time will tell, and not your prophecies.

          • Please, enlighten me where my logic is weak. Tell me how without his father’s name we would even be discussing him.

            Prophecy – do you even read your own writing, you are the one convincing yourself that he is prophesied to be the great one. You are relying on his heritage, I haven’t made any claim to that other than his name, which is this context isn’t really his – it is his father’s that attracts you.

            By the way, in your review of political history -did you ever read how little time pierre actually spent with his family, hmmm I wonder what type of influence the mother may have had on shiny pony. I guess this is all just par for the course in the making of a great liberal leader.

          • You and Brazeau seem to have a lot in common.

          • Tha wouldt be the same Brazeau that got the crap beaten out of him by Trudeau. Watch out Harper, you are next!

          • And your take on Dubya, please?

          • It’s his fault for being his father’s son though…you have to give em that.

    • The politics of name calling is equally lame and undermines any point you wish to make.

      • Did you tell that to Trust Fund Trudeau when he was calling a Minister of the Crown a “piece of shit” on the floor of the Hoc?

        • He was out of line and apologized – as he should have. PVL did the same, as you may recall.

          Now, Frenchie is out of line, but compounds it with more foolishness about six year old girls. classy

          R.O. if you think calling him TFT, or some blogger calling Harper a Nazi or some other equally stupid bullshit opens up good conversation, then I’m sorry I wasted your time.

          Frenchie is perfectly entitled to his opinion and I am not trying to silence him, but when I’m reading comments and come across terms like “shiny pony” or “dictator”, I find it undermines the argument.
          None of us are perfect – but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t aim higher than shoe piddlin’ name calling

          • Let me clarify a little

            It is just as offensive to me that the left uses name calling, specifically repeated use of the name trudeau to try and apply the legacy of his father to him. Yes, this is his name – but if his name was jones, would we be arguing about him now.

            The answer is No, the name trudeau is being used for the sole point of claiming legacy. This is offensive to me, the fact that the left supports a candidate solely for the name of his father. It should be offensive to any democratic voter, but it is not. No, somehow you claim to be offended by the term shiny pony.

            Shiny pony can be just as equally applied to justin trudeau as the legacy of his father’s name of trudeau. Both are not in any way really applicable to him in his role of a politician. I understand this point, you do not.

          • The answer is Yes, and I say that with the exact same amount of reasoning behind it as you’re demonstrating.

          • If the answer is yes then delusion structures your world, not facts. Garneau was a much better candidate, he didn’t lose to trudeau the man – he lost to trudeau the legacy.

          • Oh.. I understand this now. You’re just butt-hurt about how your “better” candidate didn’t win and are looking for ways to justify it beyond the simple fact that Trudeau has the charisma and likability that your favored candidate didn’t.

            Was Garneau the better policy maker? Probably. Do policies win elections? If they did, both Dion and Ignatieff would have been prime minister, and Joe Clark wouldn’t have lost in 1980.

          • Except Trudeau is his name. Are you suggesting he should have changed it just to be taken seriously?

      • Shiny Pony or Trudeau – who is really doing the name calling.
        The left relies on the trudeau name calling to somehow claim the ‘glorious’ history of his father.

        I call him shiny pony because of his beautiful hair which is appealing to the intellect of a six year old girl.

        My name calling is much closer to the truth than the left’s, but at least I know that my name calling is just that- a name. For the left, it is nearly a religion.

        • “I call him shiny pony because of his beautiful hair which is appealing to the intellect of a six year old girl.”

          Uhuh.

        • My name calling is much closer to the truth….

          Is not

          Is too

          Uh- uh

          oh Yeah?

          Sez you

          You’re a poo poo head

          I know you are but what am I?

          My Dad can beat up your Dad

          No way…..

          Ya happy now Frenchie?

        • Frenchie77 your insecurity vis a vis women is showing

          • I didn’t coin the term, but I do think it is most applicable.
            BTW, you don’t think it is a little misogynistic to assume I am man. No, of course not -yours is the greater good.

        • “The left relies on the trudeau name calling to somehow claim the ‘glorious’ history of his father.”

          Can’t argue with that logic – calling Trudeau by his actual name is the equivalent to referring to him by any made-up name. Because made-up nasty names are MORE ACCURATE than the name on Trudeau’s birth certificate. Breathtaking.

          • If you’d read my post you’d understand that I already recognized that point, and countered with the simple fact that without the name trudeau he wouldn’t even be in politics.

            Clearly his supporters will never concede they are voting for the legacy of his name and not him, much better to jump through all sorts of mental hoops and convince yourself that you really know what you stand for rather than just admit ‘shiny pony’ is really your political ideology.

          • “… much better to jump through all sorts of mental hoops and convince yourself that you really know what you stand for rather than just admit ‘shiny pony’ is really your political ideology.”

            As opposed to jumping through all sorts of mental hoops to maintain your baseless characterization of people who disagree with you.

            Have you considered widening your sources?

          • Like there isn’t enough trudeau supporters on here to provide a adequate sampling basis.

          • But maybe we are all the same person with different names, like you and Francien and Freenchie.

          • So by your reasoning George “Dubya” Bush should never have been allowed to run for the presidency of the US? (I’d be the first to agree he should never have been elected, but his name is nowhere near the top of my list of reasons…)

        • You sound like you are jealous of JT

          • Many other emotions come to mind, jealous isn’t one.
            I do detect a lot of ‘love’ though for jt coming from his supporters here, guess that’s OK – it’s all rational for sure

        • What the f@#$ are you saying.

    • While we’re considering the matter of politicians who have limited relevant experience and who are “in politics due to [their] father’s name”, can we all turn our attention for a moment to exhibit B, Elmer McKay’s young lad over there, Peter, the toy soldier whose experience relevant to that defence portfolio was…was,ah….was…[somebody help me out here].

      • Right -so the argument he did it first is enough to justify your position in canadian politics? Again, nothing new from the left.

        BTW – look at the heat dumped on Palin – so can we bring that example into the fray. Or is ti all better because this time it is your team doing it.

        I don’t think anyone should come into poltics because of their name or connections, I dream of the day that we begin electing politicians based on their actual ability. Shiny pony certainly ain’t the dawn of that day.

        • Right -so the argument he did it first is enough to justify your position in canadian politics?

          Nope, not at all, because that would be resorting to the same cheesy logic as your crowd use every time you dredge up *ADSCAM* to justify all the Cons’ less than pristine ethical conduct in office.

          It’s merely to remind you that it’s only fair to apply the same standards/expectations in assessing the qualifications of others as you are willing to accept (overlook? excuse?) among your own.

          Failure to do so is generally known as hypocrisy.

          • Ahh yes, everyhting is morally equivalent. Somehow, though – it is better when liberals do nasty stuff, after all only they really have the good of the country at heart.

            If this is the extent of your justification, then you have at least come to the conclusion (at least sub-consciously) that you’ve got nothing left and prefer to stalemate than possibly admit a re-think is in order.

          • Try to stay on topic here, if that’s not asking too much. I believe you started this thread and we’re talking about comparative credentials and readiness for office, not “moral equivalency”.

            With regard to experience for office, it seems that Cons have a totally different set of standards by which they evaluate – actually, I think the term is rationalize – their own standards and judge their own “talents”.

            In this case, you’re suggesting that Elmer’s young lad there, who won his riding largely on his daddy’s name recognition, was endowed with great experience when he became Minister of Foreign Affairs at the age of 41, a year younger than Trudeau is now.

            Different universe you and your ilk are in, though, so wee Pete is OK, while Trudeau is “in over his head”.

          • I don’t really care for ‘comparative credentials’, you are making them. You won’t find me defend, ever, the placement of a person into a position solely for the sake of a family legacy.

            My point is simple, without the name of trudeau being involved this debate would not be happening.

            Justin Trudeau is a candiate for PM only because of his name and the attribution to him of his father’s legacy. If he had any other name he wouldn’t even be in politics.

            So keep debating moral equivalency, it doesn’t matter and won’t change this simple fact.

          • Is “moral equivalency” a term you just learned at school today? If so, you should have learned enough about the concept to know that it isn’t relevant in this conversation.

            I can let this one go, too. I’m not a card-carrying Lib and I’m not one of Trudeau’s flag bearers, so I think I can learn to overlook your inconsequential opinion of him.

            There, I just did.

          • Shiny pony (along with his supporters) is riding his father’s legacy, it is not an opinion it is a fact, You can choose to pretend that somehow, he is the best liberal candidate possible based on his vast qualifications alone, but it would just be pretending.

          • I don’t care where he gets his mojo, as long as he continues to give Cons a real case of the yips.

          • enemy of my enemy is my friend eh! Hell of a way to pick a leader

          • More precisely, it’s ABC – Anybody But Cons. I agree it’s not the most desirable way to exercise one’s franchise but I’m pretty sure I have legions of kindred spirits.

            Too many years of enduring a government that’s morally bankrupt does that to people.

          • And let’s not forget that McKay Jr was himself the leader of the PCs before he sold out the franchise to Harper & Co.

          • Yup, not just an intellectual lightweight, but a disingenuous one. He’s been “in over his head” for the better part of a decade.

      • Let’s not forget SH himself. Prior to being elected PM he…ummm…worked in the mailroom at Imperial Oil, was a less-than one-term Reform MP, then went to head up an organization that whinged about high taxes and third-party campaign expenditures. Justin’s c.v. is positively stacked in comparison.

    • Oooh…shiny pony!

    • By your logic Preston Manning was wrong to enter politics since his father was the premier of Alberta.

  11. There is something you younger people won’t understand.
    Many of us bristle just hearing the name Trudeau.
    Many of us from the rest of Canada still remember Trudeau the elder setting things up so the rest of Canada subsidizes Quebec.
    We subsidize Quebec daycare – like parents in Ontario and elsewhere are not important.
    We subsidize Quebec students education. Trudeau the younger won’t change this.
    Canadians everywhere pay higher prices for dairy products to subsidize producers mainly located in Quebec.
    English is almost outlawed in Quebec the only province that needs to be bilingual; and if you think Trudeau the younger will change this you are a fool.

    The name Trudeau = Enemy for many of us in Ontario and the rest of Canada who only want fair play for all Canadians.

    • Do you feel that we currently all are getting fair play? Does it make sense to judge the son according to how a decades-old memory of his father makes you feel? Do you think that is fair play?

      • Mulroney the Conservative Prime Minister from Quebec was no different than Trudeau; he moved the CF18 contract out of Winnipeg into Quebec.

        The problem is the spoiled child of confederation; Quebec.

        We are not going to fix the spoiled child of confederation with another Quebec Prime Minister who gives into their blackmail.

        • But your comment indicates that “spoiled child” has also not been fixed by the Alberta/Ontario prime minister currently in power. I find it strange that Canadians like or dislike entire provinces — do you think we should ask Quebec to separate? Who do you trust to fix your problem, and how would they do that?

          • In Harper’s defense, he has stopped pandering to Quebec in the past 2 – 3 years, either because there are no political gains for him here, or for strategic reasons, or maybe both. There was an excellent article on this subject a few days ago – unfortunately, I don’t remember where I read it. Possibly in the National Post.

            But I don’t immediately get the impression that Trudeau would pander to Quebec as his dad or Mulroney once did. On the contrary, he’s said some pretty bold things against Quebec separatism, in stark contrast with Mulcair’s wishy-washy stand on clarity, % required to win a referendum, etc etc…

            I feel that while Harper chooses to ignore Quebec, Trudeau (from what I’ve seen so far) would actually engage Quebec, but in a tougher tone than most would expect.

          • I recognize Quebec as a country – Stephen Harper, in Parliament

            Give your head a shake, child.

            Harper IS Mulroney 2.0

          • …except for the fact that Harper said no such thing.

    • Harper’s had seven years to change all that…I wonder when he’s going to make a start?

    • “Many of us bristle just hearing the name Trudeau. Many of us from the rest of Canada still remember Trudeau the elder setting things up so the rest of Canada subsidizes Quebec. ”

      Many of us think you should get over yourselves.

      • We will let you get over the national public debt of Canada, since your taxes will being paying for it.
        Interest and payment of the debt is less money for the sick and elderly who require the proper medical treatment they deserve when they need it the most.

    • So it’s Ontario . . and the rest of Canada. Way to go.

    • We had the Mulroney years, the Harper years, and arguably even the Chretien years to right those alleged wrongs. So why are you blaming the kid? Why aren’t you haranguing the people who currently have the power to do what you want done – and who clearly have no intention of doing so?

      Is this some biblical, “sins of the father” thing?

    • I.e. “I punish the son for the sins of the father.”

  12. Justin Trudeau has been Liberal leader for 2 weeks. All he and the Liberals have done so far is whine about Conservative ads, which means we are still talking about the ads and looking at them again and again and again. Justin went to Labrador to campaign? I imagine he did but all we hear about is him whining some more about the Conservative ads.

    The Liberals could have had an accomplished astronaut and rocket scientist for a leader but no they preferred celebrity flash and looks. This will cause a sugar-high in the polls but will wear off quickly. Justin Trudeau has nothing to offer except his image. He has to defend that image because if the Conservatives (and NDP) are successful in tearing it down, he has nothing else to fall back on. How can he show he has judgement, experience and wisdom for national leadership that will counteract the Conservative caricatures of him?

    The justinoverhishead camapign was something that Marc Garneau should have done but didn’t. It was all so predictable. How could the Liberals have convinced themselves that the media love would immunize Justin from any rough treatment from the political pros like Harper and Mulcair? Was there nobody in the Liberals braintrust who could say that the way the Liberals took down Stockwell Day (by mocking and ridicule) would be the exact same way that the Conservatives will bring down Justin Trudeau?

    • No…they preferred kryptonite to Harper. It’s turning out to be the smartest thing they’ve done politically in years.

      Mulcair’s response to Trudeau has so far been that of an adult. Harper, a petulant little 7 year old.

      • The Liberals have bet their party’s survival on you being right.

        The current situation reminds me somewhat of how PM Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals (and the media) treated Joe Clark back in the 1970s (disdain, derision, object of ridicule, not up to the job, Joe Who?…etc.)

        • Yeah, i remember all those scummy ads they ran day after day too.
          Clark lived up to some of that narative. Stop blaming the media. It will be the same for JT – his challenge is to rise above “in over your head.”

          No reasonable person is saying the tories can’t say that…as always its the WAY and the means many have a problem with. You guys can never NOT over egg the pudding, can you! Must be something in the water, or the paranoia that drives you on?

          • This is the 21 st century not the 20 th. Grow a brain and quit referring to the past while we refer to the here and now.

          • Start by taking your own advise Einstein. Who initiated this thread?

    • Indeed, WK (the man behind barney – Day ridicule) has been quite critical of JT stating that they will not launch counter attacks. Pundits south of the border have also criticized this, comparing it to how the Tea launched the birth cert. attacks on Obama, where Obama ignored for many years, but eventually had to answer the call by providing the documents.

      You make some good points, but I wonder why you don’t keep the laws of causality in mind? Also, it’s like you ignore history. Both Iggy and Dion were accomplished, and how did that pan out? Both tried to ignore the initial smears, but ended up paying a heavy price for that. If we are going to be more honest, I think you’re unhappy that JT is responding, because you really hoped history would repeat itself.

      Lastly, I think all of this hype over JT’s credentials is a red herring.
      History has taught us that there have been many individuals with even
      less expertise that have risen to the occasion. More importantly, here
      in Canada, we elect MP’s, and not a leader (such as in the USA).
      The strength of leadership is beyond one man – it depends on the team behind him.
      We will only find out what this might be once we know the quality of other liberal candidates.

      • here in Canada, we elect MP’s, and not a leader

        You’re right, but practically speaking, no one goes around saying “I voted for (insert name of obscure MP here).” They say “I voted (Party leader or name of Party).” If they say they voted for a particular party, that party is immediately associated with its leader.
        Furthermore, the leader is the most visible member of any party. No one looks at Trudeau, thinks “yeah, he’s in over his head,” only to add “but gee, that Garneau would be a great science minster, so I’ll overlook the leader’s shortcomings…”
        Note: Due to the tone often found on these comment boards, it behooves me to add that this isn’t meant as a partisan comment condemning Trudeau – we have 2 more years to form an opinion of him. I’m just giving my thoughts on how people perceive MPs and party leaders.

    • Garneau, is that you?
      :)

  13. Not a chance! Trideau is only a man, if he eats, sleeps, eliminates like everyone of us, he is only human so why should Mr. Harper fear him? Mr. Harper fears no man but God, his Creator. Mr. Harper is obedient to the voice of the Lord and he often pray and ask for wisdom from high.

    • My guess is he may fear Pierre Poutine

  14. “All Harper had to do was zip up, and Trudeau’s comments would have stood alone for all to judge by their lights. He didn’t figure that out until after he had used a funeral to pick a fight”
    Really?
    Where is the rational argument?
    How do you know what is going on in the mind of the Prime Minister of Canada?
    This journalist implies his hypotheses, if they really are hypotheses and not phantasms, are actuality–but in no wise advances any sound journalistic argument.
    This is shoddy Canadian journalism.

      • Or maybe “phantasms” at their best?

        • May be or may be not.
          That is the truthful question.
          Unless of course truth is a dream.
          Pravda

      • Thank you for the correction.
        This key board is for the birds–it is curved.
        Make the next piece better.
        If you have the mental power.

    • blog [blawg, blog] noun, verb, blogged, blog·ging.
      noun
      1.
      a Web site containing the writer’s or group of writers’ own experiences, observations, opinions, etc.,and often having images and links to other Web sites.

      • I at first thought the same thing, but then realized this isn’t a blog post, it’s an editorial/opinion piece copied straight from the dead-tree edition.
        The key to identifying articles copied straight from the ‘zine version (as opposed to blog posts) is the laughable suggestion at the end, asking readers to visit Wells’ blog online (For more Paul Wells, visit his blog at…), that the editors hastily copy-pasted with the rest of the print-edition article.

      • Certainly true experience is not false experience, namely what is not really experience, ie, delusion.
        Experience is not real?
        Really?
        Observation is not real?
        Really?
        Opinion is not really opinion?
        Heady stuff, the annals of sophism.
        The problem is some people are liars or insane.
        Do round squares really exist?

        To TJCook:
        Meaningless verbal cotton candy?
        Is that like a round square?
        Heady wine indeed.

        • I love that you use meaningless verbal cotton candy to decry “sophism.” Heady stuff indeed.

          • Meaningless verbal cotten candy?
            Is that like a round square?
            Or the square root of a fly?
            Heady wine indeed.

  15. I don’t think Harper’s scared of Trudeau, I think he’s just being prudent in destroying any credibility he might have had with the electorate from the get-go.

    • I agree with you harper is doing an excellent job in destroying his own credibility judging from the poll results after the attack ads.

      • Polls never prove what is actually happening.
        Why?
        They are based upon statistical inferences.
        It is the correct interpretation of the polls that is important.
        Where is your rational statistical argument?

  16. Justin Trudeau is the man who makes Stephen Harper tremble?
    Why?
    What could be, what might be, what can be, what would be …
    Shoddy journalism.
    If my aunt were bald she would be my uncle.
    But she is not bald and she is not my uncle.
    Wishful thinking is not exact science.
    Is somebody giving Paul Wells envelopes stuffed with cash?
    Because they are not getting a very good deal.

    • Since Wells basically answered that question himself, with a shrug…as in i don’t know?… you might want to reevaluate your opinion?

      • He answered the question himself?
        Really?
        What exactly is it that you call a question?
        How many angels are on the head of a pin?

        • I don’t know? Are you hearing different voices in your head than i am?

          • You hear voices in your head?
            Really?
            In that case ignore these posts.

          • You hear voices in your head?
            Really?
            I am very sorry for you.

      • Reality is not appearance.
        Is that what you call an opinion?

    • Just to be clear, if your aunt were bald she wouldn’t be your uncle. She’d be your bald aunt.

      • Is that what my aunt really would be?
        Without the rational distinction between what would be and what would not be the road to actuality is very long indeed.
        Where is the rational argument?
        Words are a dime a dozen.
        Shrugs are also worth a dime a dozen.
        How long did you spend in the public schools of the morbid eastern establishment?
        Obviously their sophists did a good job.

        To Lord_Kitcheners_Own, since my posts to you are being deleted:
        Congratulations.
        But where is the rational argument?
        Hint: Therefore, thus and consequently are some required words.
        It is not the case that ultimate political and economic reality is unknowable.
        Why?
        Because appearance is not reality.
        Thank you Sir or Madam, have yourself a very nice day.

        Now all the posts are in place.
        Is there a ghost in the machine?

        • Disqus *really* needs an ignore feature.

          • Really?
            Why?

          • As soon as I see his name I skip to the next post. Not as good as an ignore feature, but one does what one must…

        • Is that what she really would be?

          Yes.

          Without the rational distinction between what would be and what would not be the road to actuality is very long indeed.

          Perhaps, but if your aunt loses her hair, she’s still your aunt. It’s really not that complicated. It’s axiomatic.

          Words are a dime a dozen.

          Indeed. They’re also conveniently paired with definitions in dictionaries.

          Shrugs are also worth a dime a dozen.

          Shrug.

          How long did you spend in the public schools of the morbid eastern establishment?
          Obviously their sophists did a good job.

          I probably spent way too much time in school, but I think I was indoctrinated with the knowledge of how to look up a word in a dictionary pretty early on in the process.

          • Congratulations.
            Therefore you are right and I am wrong?
            Where is the rational political and economic argument?
            Hint: Therefore, thus, consequently are some required words.

          • Congratulations.

            Thank you.

            Therefore you are right and I am wrong?

            On this point, yes.

            Where is the rational political and economic argument?

            I’m not sure that there is a political or economic aspect to the question of whether or not hair loss is a significant enough change in your aunt’s existence to transform her from being your aunt into being your uncle. Perhaps you could clarify this for me.

            Hint: Therefore, thus, consequently are some required words.

            OK.

            By definition, your aunt is your aunt because she is either a female sibling of one of your parents, or the female spouse of one of your parents’ siblings. Thus, since hair loss changes neither the gender, nor the marital status of your aunt, therefore, the status of your aunt’s hair follicles is immaterial to her status as your aunt. Consequently, if your aunt were bald she would NOT be your uncle.

            As I said earlier, it’s axiomatic.

          • Congratulations.
            Now where is the rational argument?
            Hint: Therefore, thus and consequently are some required words.
            It is not the case that ultimate political and economic reality is unknowable.
            Why?
            Because appearance is not reality.

          • Get the message?
            Good.

        • Congratulations Lord_Kitcheners_Own.
          But where is the rational argument?
          Hint: Therefore, thus and consequently are some of the required words.
          It is not the case that ultimate political and economic reality is unknowable.
          Why?
          Because appearance is not reality.

          • Yes, Why?
            Where is the rational argument?
            Good journalism is unknowable. Hint: consider the ultimate economic reality.
            WHAT’S THE FREQUENCY KENNETH?!?

          • Kenny Boy the frequency is called Western Conservatism.
            That is the rational argument.

          • /facepalm

            of course, you vote conservative. the deluded often do

          • Really?
            What is the rational distinction between appearance and reality?
            Do you know?
            Please advance a rational argument.

          • i’m pretty sure christopher’s never heard of r.e.m..

          • Or experienced it, judging by the ravings that seem to indicate serious sleep deprivation ;-)

  17. http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/politics-made-pierre-trudeau-will-lightning-strike-twice-with-justin/article11153921/?service=mobile

    I was a little surprised this missed the usually eagle eye or AW or PWs. It’s pretty fun read for those who think their memories are never faulty.

    Hey PW! Where can i find that apparently marvelously pissy reply English fired at one of your pieces? [ according to Potter if i remember] Never could find it.[ suppose i should email you but i'm too idle for that]

  18. That would only be based on your support of everything Justin, right Paul? The kid who trades on his old man’s name and has not had an original thought during adulthood vs a person who has had to slug it out in the political area for decades and has been playing the Progressives like fools?

    When you’ve finished massaging Justin’s back for him tonight, maybe stroll over to the local community college for that evening course in journalism.

    • What about Harper’s FIPA deal with Communist China? Does China takeover Canada for 31 years? They say, Harper has been sneaking in thousands of foreign labor. It wasn’t only for RBC. Then there is Harper’s Omnibus bill that permits China to sue any Canadians, blocking China’s way into Canada. China sued in BC to take the mining jobs.Chinese miners earn, $800 per month. I believe this is in court as we speak. However, they know the judge will favor China. The BC miners had to speak Chinese Mandarin, to have those jobs.? China will be taking the timber and mines from Vancouver Island. Rumor has it, China is taking the resources, in the High Arctic. China will be taking most of our jobs. I just read Harper told Police, they were not to speak to his M.P’s, unless they have Harper’s approval.

      I have no use for Trudeau, he supports Harper’s FIPA deal. I have no use for Traitors, what-so-ever.

    • How do you know he hasn’t had an original thought, have you met him, spoken to him? I’m a little tired of people who have never met Harper or Trudeau constantly sounding off about each man’s personal ideas and beliefs as if they know the person.

    • Coming so late to this party and the best you can do is attack the messenger? Take a table right over there with the other ethical bottom-feeders. They’re all equally versed in the art of ad hominem arguing.

  19. Shouldn’t it be “wound” its way through Parliament? Not picky or anything . .

    Everyone was shocked at what happened in Boston, I’m wondering if anyone asked Mulcair, in a closed interview, what he would do as PM – two hours after the shock hit us all. It seemed almost unfair since Trudeau is leader of the third party, not even Opposition. Thoughts can go in all directions. Memo for future, contact people in the disaster area immediately afterwards, and before talking to media.

    People certainly treat him as if he already is PM.

    • I don’t think people will now, support Trudeau. Seems he approved Harper’s FIPA deal with China, People in this neck of the woods, certainly won’t vote for Trudeau.

  20. Pauly, My Little Pony Justin does not make Stephen Harper tremble, but he does make folks of the non-progressive left who lived through daddy Pierre’s reign like me, tremble like hell. He and Barry Obama to the south could read from the same teleprompter, since they share the same socialist lack of ideals, and like the slobbering main stream media of the US, you Paul, are only too ready and willing to cheerlead for the Justin just as US media bow at the alter of Obamunism.

    • Your ad hominems make your arguments worthless and petty.

  21. He failed at and quit teaching.
    He tried engineering and flunked out.
    He was a CBC mini-series bit actor.
    He tried geography and terminated that.

    He tried politics and finally succeeded as Papineau riding MP in Montreal.. his first full time job at age 36!
    Then he had one of the worst attendance records in the HoCs instead preferring celebrity speaking engagements at $10-20K a pop while campaigning for the Liberal leadership!

    Now he is the vastly popular Liberal leader, beating out BobRae, Garneau, Martha, Joyce, others, for the top job. It was a virtual social media coronation!

    From failure to failure to failure to failure… and now as Liberal leader he is determined to be PM of all of Canada, his ultimate level of incompetence.

    Will Canadians embrace Justin the Son of PET, and make him the leader of Canada? 2015 here we come!

    • He is determined?
      Really?
      What really determines him?
      That is the first question.
      Why does it really determine him?
      That is the second question.
      Where exactly is it located?
      That is the third and last question.

      • You are arguing with yourself… and losing!

        • Where is the rational argument?
          Words are a dime a dozen.
          As Hitler, Stalin and Mao discovered to their chagrin.

          • PET.
            Loved Chairman Mao.

          • Is that your rational argument?

          • So did Richard Nixon.

    • OMG, are we getting like the U.S., where there were two Roosevelts, two Bush’s with the slim potential of a third, and God forbid, Hillary.
      Does Canada really need a socialist progressive family dynasty? Let’s hope Canadians aren’t that tiny minded.

      • Pray tell, what is wrong with socialism, or being progressive for society and human rights?

      • So the man shouldn’t be in politics because his father was? Tell that to Preston Manning, Peter MacKay and Paul Martin.

    • Trudeau in a way then is following in Harper’s footsteps. Harper dropped out of The University of Toronto, was a member of his high school’s Young Liberals Club, but quit that, worked for the Progressive Conservatives until he quit that. He resigned as the Policy Chief for the Reform Party. Harper’s only real job in life was a short stint in the mail room and computer room at Imperial Oil. He was helped in his first election as a MP by a $ 50,000 ad campaign from the National Citizen’s Coalition.

      • Not exactly, because PM Harper has a BA and MA in Economics which makes him eminently qualified to lead the country. Justin has a BA in Literature and Education with no political participation in the country until 2008 when he ran in the Papineau riding election.. et voila.. he won and became an instant potential Liberal leader!! Now Justin is reveling in his new job as Liberal Leader and Thespian too.

        • Degrees in Economics are just about the worst qualification for someone actually in charge of the Economy. The “Dismal Science” is all about theories and models,based on cherry-picked statistics, not reality. I know because I have been there, being told that because it works in theory it must work in practice. Old joke – if you lay 100 economists end to end they will never reach a conclusion.

          • Having a degree in economics without ever having worked as an economist does not make Harper an economist any more than having a degree in history makes one an historian. It just means he has an arts degree.

        • Harper has a BA and MA in Economics

          And yet he completely ignored all the warning signs about the 2008 recession, denying even the possibility long after most economists had accepted the reality. Yup – those degrees served him (and Canada) real well.

    • “PM of all of Canada, his ultimate level of incompetence.”

      Being the PM is the ultimate level of incompetence, eh? At last – the real reason Harper won his majority!

    • Papineau.
      Aside from two short years.
      Under Liberal control.
      Since 1953.
      Talk about.
      A tough battleground for JT.

      • Steven Harper has had one real job in his life – as a mail sorter.

        Steven Harper’s other job was lobbying Canada to dismantle Canadian public healthcare in favor of a US style system for the National Citizens Coalition.

        Harper is a traitor. Trudeau is a patriot.

        Trudeau will lead our country well into the future. Harper will be a footnote that incredulous children will marvel at – they voted for ‘that’ guy?

        • The Canadian Labour Congress thanks you for your post. It’s impressive that you managed to fit so many of our favourite talking points into a single post. Well done!

  22. I don’t get the headline. Justin Trudeau makes Stephen Harper tremble? Really? Stephen Harper went up against Paul “Juggernaut” Martin and prevailed even though Martin had all the advantages (50%+ in the polls, complete control of Liberal Party aka Team Martin; tons of money, incumbency and an adoring media among other advantages). I very much doubt Justin Trudeau makes Stephen Harper tremble.
    So where are we now? Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are still talking about the Conservative ads (Justin’s ad in French thankfully did not mention Conservative ads but it was all me, me, me, du style grand monarque) and the media is trying to deflect from Justin’s excluded terrorists blunder, which only brings back attention to the blunder in the first place. So the first 2 critical weeks for “Introducing…Justin Trudeau!” are squandered. Now the political world goes dark for the Stanley Cup play-offs (I am sure the Vancouver Police are now reviewing the sociological literature on “Root Causes of Stanley Cup Riots” to be prepared just in case) and then the summer break and the cottage and no-one will give a fig about Justin Trudeau or anything to do with politics. Then in September there will be probably be a throne speech, and Canada-EU free trade deal to ratify and an announcement on building of Keystone XL. Politics, like life, goes on.

    • Sooner or later, governments get worn out and voted out. All governments. That is the one thing you can count on. And it’s pretty hard to not think the cons seem rattled lately. And yes, life goes on.

      • The only time I think we saw Stephen Harper “rattled” was at Belinda Stronach’s floor-Xing but that turned out to be a very good thing for the Conservatives.
        Its early days and JT is learning. After his excluded terrorist blunder (and it was a blunder, despite the media trying to make excuses or blame Harper) and he was very careful not to repeat it. He was categorical in his statements about the VIA Rail plot and made sure the Liberals supported Bill S-7. He is learning which is good. There is no minority government so he can take his time. I thought Chantal Heberts article was perceptive…Trudeau needs to build economic credibility to recapture votes of Manley liberals. The “attack” ads making JT to look silly and un-serious were obviously designed to show that Trudeau cannot be trusted to guide the economy, the only issue that voters care about.

        • It was not a “blunder”… it was his ardent belief that muslim terrorists are misunderstood and must be embraced into Canadian society. Justin’s advisor Alghabra is also a muslim extremist who believes Iran should be “engaged”. Trudeau is a pro-Castro, pro-muslim, pro-Khadr Liberal quebecois garcon… believe it.

      • Our economy.
        Has done well.
        Under Harper.
        The envy of the G8.
        Whats the problem.

        • 900,000 new jobs

          what they failed to mention is over 400,000 or nearly half of them were temporary foreign workers..

          classy Conservatives = Mulroney 2.0

    • That is easy. SH made very simple campaign promises, dumbed down his campaign rhetoric, and appealed to small issues to hurt the other parties. Plus Ad-Scam Ad-Scam Ad-Scam… now he will have his own controversies to work through. Talking about himself, JT, is intro ducting himself, talking like a real person… the other parties should worry, it could be about character and personae this time around… It could be about, “Do I want to vote for this person and would I have a beer with him”

  23. It shouldnt just be Harper who is trembling it should be Canada!!!! Very scary if this man wins and becomes PM. And with the help of the media in canada who love him and fawn over every word he says, he probably will win. It makes me sick how foolish people are.

    • Scaredy cat. Why don’t you say what you fear from Trudeau? Add some meat to your fearful post.

      • Mainly his relationships with Al jazeera and Fidel Castro. He seems to like communist leaning leaders. His brother did a documentary with Iran and he is Justins Right hand man

        • So you are frightened because he knows an ancient Cuban leader, a media outlet, and has a brother who has some kind of relationship with Iran. Peter McKay is married to an Iranian woman; Stephen Harper is doing business with communist China and letting them buy into our country, and Stephen Harper’s former communications director is now a vice president of a right wing “news” outlet that is currently shilling for public funding. So are you scared now too?

          • I also hate that he thinks Quebecers are better people than people from the west

          • Ah… so we have one person who bought into the attack ad… the CPC backroom boys will be thrilled! Did you cough up the 25 bucks too?

          • I know truth

          • That misquote was taken out of context and deliberately misconstrued; anyone able and willing to think for themselves could see that. I think you’re just scared. Period.

    • Now we learn that Justin is sympathetic for the Islamic cause in Canada and the World… along with Castro’s Cuba. Several of his closest advisors are muslim extremists. Nice guy… eh??!!!

  24. From the other side of the world, political debate in Canada is looking increasingly bizarre. But there’s no mystery about the root cause either for Harper’s political success, or the visceral dislike of him that so many feel. He appeals to that streak in our character that gets us through the winter with nothing left over for the less provident. It is not a gallant quality, and altho it may be foolish, a lot of us fancy ourselves having a bit more class.

  25. Stephen Harper. The man who makes Justin Trudeau look like a naive kid.

    • JT: the man who shows Harper to be a venal, nasty hypocrite.

  26. harpers fear of JT is quite obvious. is it JTs openess and his honesty that creates this viseral fear or is it the fact that canadians see JT as not only a better leader but a better person. i am surprised that progressive conservatives still support the harper govt ands it fiscal incompetence.

  27. The difference between Harper and Trudeau is that Harper has isopropyl alcohol in his veins, Trudeau has blood in his.

    • And your post gets 19 thumbs up. That shows how intelligent these posters are!

  28. Most of the comments are the same non-sense than with last two Liberal leaders. What’s definition of insanity: doing (in this case wrting/commenting) the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

    • Hey – it works for the CPC; they keep making promises, fail to deliver, and people keep voting them in…

  29. wended – good word

  30. Inkless Wells, another Liberal Media Party Hack!

  31. Harper does like to condemn things that suit his purposes while in the same breath claim himself as the man of action. He beggars the F-35 question and supports action (not Canadian troops though) against the bogey man, Iran.
    ll Duce rides again.

  32. This comment was deleted.

    • I hope he tracks you down and sues you. I would.

  33. One thing we should never forget is that Justin knew Castro so well as a young boy, he called him Uncle Fidel, and Fidel came to his father’s funeral. Makes you wonder don’t you think.

    • Makes you wonder what exactly? I mean seriously, entertain us. Im pretty sure something along the lines of the ” root cause of terrorism is terrorists” about to come from you.

  34. At this time of all the handwringing over disaffected young people who don’t vote, has it not occurred to all our Trudeau naysayers, that JT is an exemplar of the younger voter who has been engaged, made himself informed, followed a non-traditional employment path, and has now decided, (actually quite a few years ago), to get into public service. Harper, JFK,J Kenney, Pitt the Younger,Obama, all did the same thing. Started young. As a side note, Younger voters do not see JT as particularly young, they sure see a lot of current politicians as pretty old and out of touch.

    • Trudeau is counting on the college and university kids for votes. They are not stupid but he thinks they are unless they are from Quebec because as JT would says Quebecers are just better………may get him a few votes there. His father tried to destroy Canada. He is back to finish the job. Almost like bush Sr. and Jr. in the States.

  35. .Very typical of the Harper government. How we forget that this is a party of three. Reform, Canadian Alliance and the Conservative. Three different ideals lead by the school yard bully.

    • Canada.
      Is top performing economy.
      In the G8.
      Whats the problem.

      • Actually, it is’nt.

        We have the fastest growing population in the G8, though, thanks to Mulroney setting immigration at 250,000 a year and no-one has done a thing about it.

        Cheap unskilled labour is good as is chronic unemployment – for corporations that employ such people. It keeps costs down.

        Harper could have done something about immigration in the nearly 10 years he has been in power. He’s done nothing. I can only assume Harper likes us importing 250,000 people a year. Every 10 years 2.5 million immigrants or almost 10% of our population..

        • So you call yourself “progressive”, yet you’re virulently anti-immigrant. Fascinating.

          • We cherry pick our immigrants using the points system to ensure we get the best of the best. Then they immigrate here and find out “whoops…..your credentials aren’t up to Canadian standards. If you’d just go back to school for another 4 years (at your expense) you can become an engineer here too”!!!! Employing teachers from India as custodians because their qualifications aren’t high enough is not “Progressive” at all. It is a horrible immigration system. It serves nobody’s best interests My best friend is a lawyer from Romania that speaks five languages. He’s working as a night auditor at a downtown Toronto hotel. How is that helping anyone?

  36. This article should be titied, ‘My Buddy Justin’.
    My fav part . … “A pirouette and he was gone. Short answers with few moving parts.”
    If Canadians are foolish enough to elect a Camp Counsellor to their highest office, it’ll at least be entertaining to see the rest of the world eat Justin’s lunch on the international stage. That will be the Apocalyptic Entertainment at it’s finest.

    • People like you elected a mail sorter who didnt graduate until he was 35, who went on to spend our money at record speeds, growing the largest deficit in Canadian history and aslo growing the national debt to an unprecedented height.

      If you cannot be bothered to educate yourself on these salient *facts*, please do Canada a favour and STAY HOME on election day, if you would vote for Harper’s ‘conservatives’ again. These people have nearly driven our economy into the ground.

      • …and your academic credentials?

      • News flash: the relevant figure is deficit as a percentage of GDP — by that measure, the deficit is very far from “the largest in Canadian history”. The deficits under Trudeau, Mulroney and early Chretien were all larger. Go read a book or something.

        • The “deficit” under Chretien turned out to be 10 years of surpluses and balanced budgets.

    • Pretty hilarious since you probably voted for the guy who bragged that he didn’t even have a passport until he became PM.

  37. We have a government.
    That has a majority.
    And has done well.
    With the nations finances.
    Despite global slowdown.
    Canada is top.
    Performing economy in the G8.
    Harper has done.
    A great job.
    We are the envy.
    Of the world.
    Why on earth.
    Would you want.
    To rock the boat.
    And take a chance on.
    A wildcard.
    With only his family name.
    And few suspect credentials.
    Who wants to change.
    Everything.
    Newsflash Libtards.
    Canada is dong just fine.

    • We have 400,000 temporary foreign workers in country, a record high deficit and national debt. Harper has increased the debt faster than ANY prime minster before him.

      Harper has done NOTHING for Canada. Harper has tweaked some environmental laws to help out the oil and gas industry in Alberta. That’s it.

    • Excellent!

  38. Really, Inkless? Maybe you can return to being a fly on the Liberal wall?

  39. Wells you sound like a Bieber groupie grow up

  40. Any Canadian to vote this kid in as PM is a fool.

    • Let’s all hope canadian remember that we are a country who did best through a recession due to the experienced people running it. Not a boy with no experience.

      • We did as well as we did because of policies implemented long before the CPC came to power – many of those policies ones that Harper and Flaherty intended to dismantle until the US banking collapse showed just how unwise that would be.
        The “experienced people” you need to thank are Harper’s predecessors.

  41. Wells is an official JT apologist. The kool-aid for the personality cult of Jr. is very well dispersed.

    The media party should just become the communication division of the LPC. Just saying.

    • Shades of ’68 Mike…just a different set of characters.

  42. So now we have gone to from reality to plain fiction with regards to Justin Trudeau making Steve Harper tremble? What have you been smoking recently to come out with such inane nonsense? See your doctor immediately and get treatment for whatever ails you before its too late.

  43. Acts 12:21-24…….

    21 So on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat on his throne and gave an oration to them. 22 And the people kept shouting, “The voice of a god and not of a man!” 23 Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died.
    24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.

  44. Whenever I see Trudeau cavorting on TV, I can’t help but think of the old Monty Python sketch, “Upper Class Twit of the Year”.

    • JT is a twit. That is for sure.

  45. I think Paul Wells writes a thought provoking and insightful article on Tory jitters over Trudeau the Younger…

  46. Are you guys that Liberal? The day JT was elected as leader the PC’s had a party.
    Afraid of a guy with a loose mouth full of inappropriate comments, no experience but just a name…..wake up.

  47. Paul Wells doing his best imitation of ‘yes master’

  48. This article is an empty diatribe that says, well, nothing ……

  49. I have young grandchildren. Each of them has a better handle on reality than the Liberal leader.

  50. I tremble too at the idea of haveing Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister!

    • Oh please, can’t be any more disastrous than Harper has been so far.

  51. And why the hell was this useless tit campaigning and raising personal money while on taxpayer dime? Morons that like this waste of skin should be deported to a shithole

  52. Did I read that correctly? $10,000,000 to research the cause of terrorism? My word. I’m pretty sure that the root cause of terrorism almost always boils down to someone doesn’t like your politics, or someone doesn’t like your religion. Understanding the cause of terrorism isn’t going to stop it. There are always going to be fanatics willing to die for their political cause or religion. Unless we segregate people into groups of similar faiths and political views and never let them interact with people of different faiths and political views there is no way to stop terrorism.

  53. It’s really nice that Trudeau has an echo chamber in the press who will tell the uninformed voter what nice Mr. Trudean meant/said/did against the evil Harper.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *