Harper’s Christmas interview with Fairchild

Paul Wells on how the PM might as well have his own show on Fairchild by now


On Christmas Eve the PMO sent reporters two interview transcripts. The Prime Minister had spoken to Quebec’s TVA network, and to Fairchild Television.

It’s not entirely true Stephen Harper seeks only friendly interviewers: just about the only party his TVA interrogator Jean Lapierre hasn’t represented in Parliament is Harper’s Conservatives. But Harper returns most frequently to outlets that sit at the intersection of (congenial welcome) and (useful audience).

Which is why he might as well have his own show on Fairchild by now.

Fairchild, as you may not know, is the leading Canadian broadcaster in Cantonese and Mandarin. The PMO certainly knows. Here’s Harper at their Toronto studio in April, in the second week of the election campaign:

I have just realized, and am not surprised, that this interview took place on the precise day I decided I was wasting my time watching my colleagues on the no-access bus ask four questions a day.

In the last three days of the campaign, while the no-access bus was congratulating itself on being tough on the PM right to the end, Harper gave three separate interviews to Fairchild, which claims an audience of 500,000 Chinese Canadians nationally.

So here’s Harper’s Fairchild year-ender. As one measure of the shifting landscape of media influence in this country, I note in passing that neither the Globe and Mail nor, to be fair, Maclean’s, received such an interview. (The Globe’s star reporter made do by printing the prime minister’s cocktail-party chit-chat. We make do by blogging about Fairchild.)

One thing that’s obvious in the transcript is that the reporter, whose first name Rita is all we were given (Rita Giang? Fairchild viewers help me out?), can hardly believe her good fortune. Here are her first few questions:

1. First, thank you so much for the opportunity, and I would like…

2. I would like to congratulate you for the majority win in May. Critics say that you have done all the things you say you were going to do in the campaign, so there… are there anything left to be done?

3. What is the most proud of achievement so far?

4. And you have attended so many international conferences: G8, G20, APEC. You met many foreign leaders. Have you established close relations with leaders you met? And some of them you met many times? You think that’s important for developing good policy that benefits our country?

The rest of the interview proceeds apace. (Please don’t take me to be mocking the interviewer’s imperfect English; it’s incomparably better than my Cantonese or Mandarin.) She hardly subjects Harper to a mauling. Even when she asks about a sensitive subject, she does so in a sensitive way: “We are also criticized for not caring about the environment. We withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol. And in your vision, what’s a good, healthy environment policy?”

But tone in these things matters less than we think. Over at TVA, Lapierre and Paul Larocque phrase their Kyoto question much more dramatically, but they get an identical answer from Harper. Like, nearly verbatim. Here’s the version he gave Fairchild:

Well, first of all, I’m very proud of this government’s record on the environment. I think we have one of the strongest records in many decades. We’ve created new land and marine conservation areas at a record pace in this country. We’ve got a chemicals management plan that’s world-leading. In terms of climate change, our position as a government has always been clear, that to have an effective climate change treaty, you have to have one that includes all the major emitters, and includes most of the world’s emissions. And if you don’t have that, you will not have an effective treaty. The Kyoto accord at its height included less than one thirds of emissions, now it’s something like 15 percent of global emissions. You can’t control emissions if you don’t control 85 percent of emissions. So our view, that’s not an effective treaty. And through various recent conferences at Copenhagen and Cancun and Durban, we are pushing hard for an effective international global treaty.

The other thing that leaps out is, as is almost always the case when any politician is interrogated by somebody who does not work full-time in Ottawa, there are more questions about what a government does, and fewer about perception and process. There’s a bare minimum of hockey-book crap in the Fairchild interview, nothing about polls, no hand-wringing about decorum in the Commons. And, surprise surprise, this deferential reporter gets some news out of the guy.

On a trip to China, eagerness and a spot of embarrassment. “Well, you know, we’ve certainly indicated to China that I’m willing to go. Whenever Chinese leaders want to issue an invitation, we’ll accept it. So really, the ball is in their court.”

On the year ahead, riffing on a question about the Occupy movement, some significant hints: “I think also we must realize as a nation that we’re in an extremely competitive world. Not just competition with our traditional competitors in Europe and the United States, but from all the emerging economies. And we’re going to have to do a lot of things right, work very hard to sustain our standard of living. And as the year goes forward, you know, this government will be coming forward with a number of major initiatives to really bolster the long-term prospects of the Canadian economy.”

And…well, that’s it, pretty much. Year-end interviews rarely make history. But they make news, and where this PM chooses to make news is part of his game.


Harper’s Christmas interview with Fairchild

  1. “Never listen to what a politician says, watch what he does’…..Harper has quoted this old saw himself.  Unfortunately nobody seems to be doing so.

    If the press, on or off a bus, thinks they have ever been ‘tough’ on Harper, they must have attended some fluff school of journalism.

  2. What’s always bugged me about Harper’s policy re. Kyoto is the fact we did little or nothing to argue our position from within Kyoto, or suggest alternatives. Other then turning up at the conferences and making like a speed bump, what did we do? Have we been sending high level delegations to China, India, Brazil in order to bring them onside? Are we networking with ngos? Being supportive of UN inniatives?What did we do to help the Obama administration to battle effective CC measures through congress?
     Given we are a cold Northern country which is already experiencing significant effects with lots more to come, this posture is almost criminal in its abdication of responsible governance.

    “And we’re going to have to do a lot of things right, work very hard to sustain our standard of living. And as the year goes forward, you know, this government will be coming forward with a number of major initiatives to really bolster the long-term prospects of the Canadian economy.”

    Harper’s real focus is pretty obvious. CC is as far down his priority list as he can possibly shove it.Clearly he sees the world  primarily as a  dog eat dog competion. He even has the chutzpah to claim the ball is in China’s court.
    As PWs likes to say – nothing just happens. If you really want a truly inclusive international emissions treaty you have to make it happen – that’s if you really care at all!

    • i see  no reason why we should have bent over backwards to make Kyoto work — particularlybecause we are a  Northern country. GW willbe a net gain for us.

      • Obviously you don’t understand the situation.

        • Of course we are too stupid to understand that if we establish unrealistic targets that it will destroy our economy. Get real Emily!

          • If you’re too stupid to understand that targets have to be set and met, you’re too stupid to understand we won’t have an economy to worry about.

          • Get stuffed! You really are a moron.

          • @hollinm

            Ahhh yes, it’s little hollinm bravely standing up against the world’s scientists and economists.  LOL

      • I did not say we should have bent over backwards to make Kyoto work. I said why not work from within[ or without for that matter] toward getting the big emitters to come on board. Other then turning up to say we thought Kyoto didn’t work we did nothing,nothing positive at all.

        Net gain eh! You’re sure about that are you? Not even  CC scientists can say this with any certainty.

        • How do no know whether the government worked constructively behind the scenes or not? Everybody just assumes. Because Tin Lizz May and Megan Leslie of the NDP say they sabotaged the conference doesn’t make it so.

          • There is such a thing as the Foreign Press (if you don’t trust ours),
            NGO’s,  foreign governments, the U.N. etc. that reports and comments on these things, h. 

          • I am sure you read and watched absolutley everything you could find that would confirm your daily rants against the government.

      • The point is, Harper says he wants a more inclusive agreement with more realistic goals but is he actually doing anything to facilitate that? 

        • Shorter KC. I’m sure everyone’s glad for that. :)

          • No kidding…

      • You represent the big story of the year as far as I’m concerned. 
        Canadians don’t care about global warming. And they don’t care about polar bears. And they don’ t care about what happens to people living around the equator or Africa. 
        And they don’t care if Harper helps kick the global warming UN initiatives a decade down the road.  
        They don’t like Kyoto, and they already said no to Stephane Dion.
        They don’t believe or respect scientists. 
        They love Rex Murphy, maybe even Lorrie Goldstein, and they agree with them that Al Gore is a phony. 
        And they love the idea that the weather will be better in Canada.
        And they love the tar sands and the jobs.

    • “What did we do to help the Obama administration to battle effective CC measures through congress?”

      It’s cute that you actually believe that the Obama administration actually tried to put CC measures through congress. The Democrats had a supermajority for the first two years after he got elected. And rather than take on the greatest challenge of our lifetime they decided to tackle health reform rather half-heartedly. I think we know where their priorities lie so quit trying to blame Harper for Obama’s inaction. It’s pathetic.  

  3. Maybe paul Wells has never heard the saying… If you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything at all.

    • You think it’s “not nice” to point out that the Prime Minister of the country chooses to give year-end interviews to none of the major media outlets in the country, but instead to two media orgs with a smaller more focused reader/viewership?

      • I thought CTV broadcast to all of Canada. Where do you live ?

        • The interviews mentioned were to Fairchild and TVA (aka Quebecor).  I just looked at the post again to be sure I hadn’t misread.  Nowhere is there any mention of CTV.

          • There is, in fact, no assertion that he gave interviews to “none of the major media outlets in the country.” The piece amounts to an acknowledgment that Fairchild is a major media outlet. They didn’t need my permission, or the PM’s patronage, for that. They earned their audience the old-fashioned way: by offering programming a lot of people want to see. 

          • I watched Harper give a year-end interview on CTV just the other night.

      • I wouldn’t talk to them either. Have you not seen some of the reportage and commentary that has and is going on?

        • OMG!



          • Hatred is not criticism.

          • No, hatred is a figment of Con imaginations.

            Cons hate, so they assume everyone else does.

          • Criticism is not hatred.

          • Much of the nonsense that passes as “criticism” of Harper on here and in the media certainly is.

          • Criticize. That’s all you do Emily. So no wonder people object. That’s all you are good for. Name one thing that Harper did since May 2nd that you approve of without any condition.

          • Mmmm no.

            I criticize Harper…and nobody objects but Cons. LOL

            I don’t approve of ANYthing he’s done, holly…and why you think you can demand my approval I don’t know.

            Too much eggnog?

          • Ah, the old reverse onus with a twist – ‘I demand you prove to me that you don’t hate Harper’.
            I always find that one amusing.  Silly, but amusing. 

          • On another comment thread a while back, Emily stated that she didn’t even approve of Harper’s apology for residential schools abuse.  That’s how twisted and warped Emily is.

          • @865444ea1a3aec1b5f1890dd40359673:disqus 

            Oh, now I’m REQUIRED to approve of something Harper does?

          • You didn’t get the memo – once a day we’re to stop what we’re doing for a full minute and think positive things about Stephen Harper. 

          • Hah!  No, I musta missed that gem.

          • Perhaps this is why the Liberal Party is in shambles.  You people take politics way too personally.  Harper is a politician.  He just so happens to be the one leading the country at this moment in time.  There is no way any of us who voted for him are as invested in defending him or proping him up as you and your ilk are in tearing him down.  I hope it gives you great personal satisfaction because it won’t give you anything else for 3 + more years.  I think I have told you before that I find your venom a little bit disturbing but if enjoy Emily, go right ahead.  I hope it gives you and your friend Jan a reason to get up in the morning….a life, if you will.

          • Well, I’m not a Liberal, so I wouldn’t know

            However, you can oppose someone on their ideas and directions in this country. It’s quite legal.

            In fact, it’s expected. It’s the basis of our parliamentary system.

            I think you’re the one taking this personally

          • Surely there is something he is doing right? It can’t always be attack, attack, attack. There is no other option in Canada today whether you like it not.

          • Well other than the fact he hasn’t yet worn a Mickey Mouse light-up tie, I can’t think of anything hollinm.

            It isn’t a buffet you know, where you can pick and choose….it’s a whole ideology, a whole worldview on his part.

             “This political party stands for values that are eternal … this country will either adopt our values or it will fail.” Dec. 20, 2001  Stephen Harper.

  4. …any interview with harper is useless as it’s more like Jeopardy than journalism…….he gives answers and the reporter phrases the question……….

    • You spend too much time in front of your television set. Enjoy the new, freer and more prosperous Canada. .

      • Where is that exactly?

        • Check my next post.

          • Nah….Canada is both stagnant, and censored.

            A one time donation is pointless.

  5. Paul, you certainly have served some Liberal cheese and wine here…

  6. It is no secret that Harper does not have much use for the gotcha journalists who occupy the parliamentary press gallery. As Wells aludes to they are more interested in tactics, strategy, process. Oh the process. How mean is the PM to the opposition parties? How come he imposed time allocation so often? Oh, the party picked on Irwin Cotler when there is four years until an election. Somehow I don’t believe the people of Mount Royal would miss the fact that if Cotler shows up on the ballot in four years time that he did not retire. So he skips the gossip Queen (Taber) of the Globe and Mail. However, I would have liked to see Coyne and Wells tag team him. I am sure he would have survived nicely despite the questions asked.
    Other media outlets appreciate interviewing the PM. However, the gotcha pack of wolves in PPG think it is their devine right. Not in Mr. Harper’s eyes.

    • “However, I would have liked to see Coyne and Wells tag team him. I am sure he would have survived nicely despite the questions asked.”

      I doubt it. If they had effective control over the script and agenda, and they had really tagged him, you would be crying the blues and calling macleans out for being a bunch of low life, gotcha, PPG wannabes.

      • Not so. I want the PM to be asked tough questions about real issues that matter to Canadians. Do I care about Irwin Cotler? No. He is a big boy and will survive. Do I care that time allocation is invoked after years of debate? No. I could go on. However, I would like to hear his answer on some of the specific provisions of the crime bill. I would like an answer as to why $50 million was squandered in Tony Clement’s riding. I would like an answer to the new copyright legislation that is coming down the road. I would like to know if Harper intends on revamping the income tax act to make it less complicated and remove some of the subsidies for individuals and corporations. I want to know why the feds are funding arts and entertainment. The big question why are we funding CBC for $1.1. billion annually. None of these questions in my mind are gotcha questions. I am sure Coyne and Wells could handle it. They are serious guys sometimes.

        • Pass on your view of cotler…it’s entirely cynical and not worth serious consideration.

          The question on the crime bill, gazebogate,copyright legislation,IT,Funding arts and entertainment/cbc, have all come up in one form or another in committee. The govt seems to have little serious interest in debating them, much less accepting ammendments. But as you say you don’t care if time allocation is invoked excessively or incamera procedure abused. The years of debate is just hyperpole, didn’t Vanloan claim a couple of hours was more then enough?
          It is the duty of the govt to debate these questions within Parliament. Harper’s govt can’t even manage this; what on earth makes you think they’re interested in debating them seriously with Macleans?

          • Its not cynical but if this is the kind of stuff that gets your shirt in a knot then you have some real problems.
            Once again I repeat. It will be the Canadian people who will decide whether the government deserves re-election. Not political junkies like us nor the gotchas journalists that occupy the press gallery in Ottawa.

          • Of course it’s cynical. Don’t take my word for it read what conservative pollsters like Bruce Anderson had to say on the subject. It’s you who have the problem my friend. Process is vitally important, as is a perception of basic fairness – both were violated in Cotler’s case…even the speaker pointed this out. It’s not situational as you seem to think. Whether or not”Canadians”choose to agree is beside the point. If something is clearly unethical it deserves to be called out by the media or anyone.  Whether or not the voters decide it is THE deciding factor in sending Cotler back to Ottawa is another matter – but they are not mutally exclusive.
            Ethics are not situaltional hollinnm; neither is the fickle opinion of the voting public the primary determinent. What the people will may be democratic but it is not always right or ethical – we are citizens not just consumers of politics. 
            This is basic stuff hollinnm.

          • It may be basic stuff to you but I say it is simply politics. Thank you for the lecture but I don’t agree.

      • I am hoping this comment came before Mr. Wells advised you that Harper does not control the “script and agenda”.   He does control his own responses to questions though and with his years of experience, I don’t think he would let anyone bully him into saying anything that he didn’t want to. 

        • No, he doesn’t control the contents of interviews or media questions, he simply avoids unfriendly media and ignores questions he doesn’t like.

          • Okay, another allegation…care to back it up with a source or are you just taking a stab in the dark like you did with the script and agenda claim?

          • Do your own research. There are plenty of occasions when Harper dodged questions from the PPG and it’s well known he avoids media that are not that conservative friendly.He just about never gives interviews to Wells, Coyne, Delecourt or just about anyone capable of independent critical thought.
            If you can be bothered to look a my post to PWs you’ll notice a sign like this ? it is generally regarded as being a symbol for a question, not simply an allegation. You’ll note i didn’t contest  Wells’ answer. Do try to keep up.

  7. Bah humbug. Typical Emily.

    • Oh please don’t confuse ‘Wells’ with ‘Emily’

      He’ll never live it down in the newsroom. LOL

  8. Want a story Whiner Wells. Here’s one for you. If Harper sees something that works, he’s not afraid to invest in it. But first there have to be people on the front lines to prove that the government isn’t throwing money at a bonfire.

    Guess who funds biggest project ever to
    house the homeless? Stephen Harper


    • Gonna go get some popcorn . The replies are going to be comedy gold . Good link .

    • You’re quoting the headline accurately, but the headline doesn’t reflect what the story actually says. The story says it’s “one” of the largest “pilot” projects. The scale of this investment is $110 million over five years. 

      The feds anticipate spending about $2 billion this year on housing.


      That’s about what their predecessors were spending 19 years ago, leaving out inflation and population growth. 


      I don’t have a strong opinion on housing policy, but it’s always handy to get facts right.

      • Thanks for supplying the comedy gold. They’re not laughing for some reason. I thought it was worth a smile.

  9. Just curious if you[PWs] know if Fairchild and tva had to submit their questions beforehand and had to submit to a scripted interview?

    • I don’t know in the cases at hand, but I’ve never heard of anyone interviewing Harper who’s had to submit questions beforehand. I don’t think it happens. Sometimes he likes to offer interviews on super-short notice so reporters don’t have a lot of time to prepare, but I find that kind of witty.

    • Now that Paul Wells has dispelled the myth about the scripted interviews and submitted questions, will you accept that some of the information you have been led to believe about Harper is bs?

  10. Ok, iguess that just happens with the PPG – or is that no longer the case? Oops, i got that wrong too. It was the order of the questioners that were the issue, no? Still, i guess there was some opportunity for being selective?

  11. I thought the CTV interview was fair and balanced. Lisa LaFlamme asked some tough questions and got answers. What else is expected?  There’s probably a CBC one in the can, to come as well.
    As for the Parliamentary Press Gallery and the gotcha! journalists of Ottawa, most of us, like the PM, have learned to ignore them anyway.  It’s all inside baseball and opposition talking points. We get our news from local media and trust the guys and gals we know, rather than the hacks trying to produce a headline in Ottawa. I think most Canadians look at these guys, the same way they regard ambulance chasing lawyers and that may be doing the lawyers a disservice.

    • Another vote for puff ball journalism then!

      Pease don’t equate local media with hard hitting journalism. An experienced PM and PMO team can turn most of them into infomercials.

      • Why shore….outside big evil Ottawa, everyone in the media are ‘the guys and gals we know’…home town folk that we all we coffeeklatsch with.
        No ‘ambulance-chasing lawyers’….like say, Jim Flaherty.

      • kcm2  – so it comes down to a choice between gotcha!journalism and puffball journalism then? You certainly can’t think Canadians trust what these guys in the Hill press gallery write or say? When is the last time you saw a positive story out of Ottawa? Look at all the pundit shows – it’s just attack and counter-attack. We learn nothing from these people – they all have their own axes to grind. Why bother? I’ll listen to the local news and talks shows thank you and read the occasional commentary columns the local papers carry. Surprisingly enough, even though they come from the lame stream national media, the local editors most of the time select those with both insight and balance to them. You certainly can’t think we usually get that from Ottawa journalists all agog at the doings and vulgarities of the Pat Martins, Justin Trudeaus and John Bairds of this world?

        • ‘Ottawa journalists’ all come from countless local small communities.

          Lisa LaFlamme for example did local Kitchener news for years.

          It’s why they’re ‘all agog’ at vulgarities …and all gushy and excited to meet the PM.

          • Mock away Emily – That’s what folks do when they have no real answer. I’m right and I daresay you, Mr. Wells and the Hill pundits know that as well. With rare exception they are as distrusted as most of the politicians they purport to write and broadcast about.

          • No, you are just small-town silly.

          • Only you Emily would trash the national anchor of CTV.  I am guessing Peter Mansbridge also started out in a smaller market, care to make some disparaging remarks about him.

          • You guys get wound up by the strangest things.

        • “kcm2  – so it comes down to a choice between gotcha!journalism and puffball journalism ”

          No thanks. I don’t see it as a zero sum game as you appear to. Adding your exaggeration to mine doesn’t make it any better. I simply don’t except that all the bad guys are on one side. It’s the working out of an adversial system. It’s not pretty, but i don’t see how only asking the PM puff ball questions is any improvement. It might help if both Journalists and politicians got out of the Ottawa hot house more often, but what i hear, as your subtext anyway, is how mean those Ottawa journos and media are to our nice PM. If the PPG don’t ask any tough questions just who do you think will? Or do you not like independent accountability?

          • How about the journos study policy instead of focusing on the mundane. Study the crime legislation and ask some questions about it. Study the gun registry legislation and ask some questions about it. Study the elimination of the Wheat Board and ask some questions on it. Asking about issues that could affect the Canadian economy etc. etc. No the lazy asses who occupy the PPG will ask about Helena Guergis, the number of times time allocation has been invoked, why is he being mean to the opposition parties and of course poor Irwin Cotler. Its as if the people of Mount Royal would not be smart enough to see that Cotler didn’t retire in four years time if his name appears on the ballot. That’s why he can’t be bothered talking to the PPG.
            When they do get a chance to hold the government accountable they ask these stupid questions. Talk to Terry Milewski at the CBC. He had the chance to hold the PM accountable during the election campaign and he asks about kids not being allowed into the rallies.

          • We only know about the sleazy Cotler campaign because he talked to the press.  This government doesn’t answer questions, I don’t know how you’ve managed to miss that. 

          • Really!!!!!!!!!!! Who cares about the Cotler campaign. It is four years until the next election. Do you think Canadians are sitting around the dining room table talking about the dirty trick played on Cotler. Do you not think the people of Mount Royal would catch on that if Cotler’s name appears on the ballot next time out he is not retiring.
            Harper did an interview with CTV, Fairchild and TVA. They asked and he answered. Because you don’t like the answers doesn’t mean they are non answers as you previously stated.

          • Well, the only one available to me out here in the outer reaches of the country is CTV which I watched and the only new information I got was that Paul Martin had the Harrington roof repaired.  That came from Laureen Harper.  Tell me what you got from him because I definitely missed it?

          • There’s a lot of reporters questioning policy.  One that comes to mind is Pugliese in the Ottawa Citizen on the F35 file.

            Others try probe into specific policy questions, for example the Omnibus Crime Bill, where the government is extremely tight-lipped on the costs and the only provide ideological  justifications instead of using facts and data to justify its adoption (also, several of the media have investigated the results of simlar legislation in other jurisdiction).

            One problem that remains, is that this government is very  evasive on policy communication, going to point of wanting to   limit debate where their policies and justification can be challenged by other elected members, and of trying to shunt debate to in-camera proceedings so that it can’t be reported on.

            Also government need to be challenged not only on policy, but also on their execution of policy and any abuses of power, privilege and process in so doing.  Quite rightly, those areas were examined by the PPG in he past with the result that the Sponsorship scandal came to light, on which those on your side of the political spectrum continue to dine, so you shouldn’t be unhappy about that. The Conservatives came into power principally as a result of that, promising a new era of transparency and accountability an honesty, yet  have not delivered, and instead use the excuse that the other guys did it too.

            Part of the problem is the single minded focus of this government on managing communication and information, to the point that policy becomes secondary to keeping secrecy and control.  

            Surely you would agree we don’t want to have a government behaving like Richard Nixon’s, obsessed with secrecy and destruction of opponents, to the point of outright bald-faced lying about current members in opposition. 

          • Obviously you spend more time reading the PPG then i do. I have little difficulty in finding journos knowledgeable in those areas.

            As for Milewski, i like him, irritating as he is. To me anyway he’s one of those rare reporters left from the old school of reportage. He’s not afraid of anyone, he doesn’t back off. IOWs he’s dogged. I remember him making lfe difficult for the Chretien govt too. He’s the kind of guy evry politician loves to hate – we need more like him.

        • When is the last time you saw a positive story out of Ottawa? ”

          Oh I dunno . . . maybe last time I read an Ibbitson piece?

      • I´d willingly turf out a few PPG lifers for a few worthy replacements from our local Vancouver media outlets.

        • Who would you swope for then? I’m not particularly bothered whether it ‘s local or Ottawa based as long as they’re not afraid to ask some telling questions. It probably wouldn’t hurt to introduce some new blood into Ottawa. But you’re dreaming if you think that would make the media into a PM’s best buddy, interested only in constructive criticism. Ottawa looks like a competitive zoo from where i’ sitting too, i just don’t think you’ll fix it by substitutiong a couple of local guys — sooner or later they’d see the PMO as the enemy too. 

          • I agree swoping in reporters with the same mindset as those leaving would not do the trick. You need to have reporters who actually understand legislation etc. and ask tough questions on legislation. However, it is much easier to pop up at a media availability and ask why the PM is being mean to the opposition parties or why Peter MacKay flew on a helicopter to a political event..

    • I think responses, not answers would be a more accurate description.

  12. The main take-away here is that Steve is still more focused on confounding his perceived enemies than he is on governing the country.  When all policy and information is first run through the “how will it play to our support base?” filter rather than the “is it good for Canada?” one we can only hope there is something left worth salvaging after the four years ends.

    • Oh i think he has some real enemies. What by turns amuses/annoys/puzzles me is how often he makes a move that alienates at least one reasonable person for every new apostle of Harperism he thinks he’s bringing on board. I guess it’s difficult to get down to governing the country if in the back of your mind you believe the soul of the country isn’t all that interested in becoming ever more polarized, as Harper stragecially believes is a necessary adjunct to ultimate triumph of his brand of commonsense conservatism.   

  13. Sour grapes from Canada’s left wing, biased media who have had their own way for faaaar too long.
    I love it.

    • Cheezus, clean out your in-box

      ‘leftwing biased media’ went out as a meme months ago….pre-May in fact

      I think only one media outlet in the whole country was against Harper

      Try to keep up.

  14. I just realized one of the most interesting features is the  ‘likes’ feature.  We seem to have lots of lurkers. A shout  out  you people, you are doing yeomans work – talk about thankless.

Sign in to comment.