17

PMO Employee of the Month


 

Ari Fleischer.


 

PMO Employee of the Month

  1. Super. I also think that the key for us getting out of this economic downturn is for Americans to get back to work. I didn’t know that we’d have to pay their salaries to do it…

  2. What is the PMO budget these days and how does it compare to when Harper started?

  3. So, go for spin over substance. Sounds like this will work great since it has been such a success for the Cons so far… Sigh.

  4. This is an elaborate job hunting expedition for Harper at taxpayers’ expense. That’s what this is.

    • Indeed, whereas Jean Chrétien is making a fortune as an international businessman and Paul Martin is championing philanthropic causes, Stephen Harper’s post-political career will include regular appearances on Fox & Friends as a junior fellow with the Heritage Foundation. Pathetic.

  5. What’s the matter Harper – can’t talk to Canadians? Why Fleicher – he’s about as scummy as they come.

    Harper – you sure have bad taste in people. Of all the people in the US – Fleicher?

    By the way – who’s paying for a “Canadian” PM to talk to Americans? Ya, I bet it’s the taxpayers.

  6. This is all Rick Mercer’s fault. At some point the PMO figured out that if they are Talking to Americans no one would know enough, or care enough, about Canada to contradict him.

  7. It’s quite likely that their polling is showing them that swing voters, particualrly those soft Tory votes that they risk losing, are as likely to watch American television as they are to watch Canadian TV. Even for news programming. If a few taxpayer-funded media consultants help them land the occasional hit on CNN, FOX, MSNBC or the networks between now and the election, it will have been well worth the while. Gives them a chance to continue avoiding Canadian journalists who might ask questions, yet still pop up on television to be seen to be doing something.

    • Sounds plausible. Harper will likely just show up with friendly interviewers. I don’t suppose we will see him on the Daily Show.

      • This would be EXCELLENT! I don’t think Stewart would be mean or anything but that would do far more for Steve’s profile than a million Ari Fleischers.

        • There is a big cringe factor when Harper is in the same room as someone with a sense of humor and I’m sure his handlers know that.

    • Not to mention that the cost of this partisan-directed activity will be borne by the taxpayers and not the CPC.

  8. Rick Mercer is pretty good at talking to Americans.

  9. Wherry sure knows how to get the usual suspects riled up by emphasizing the Republican and not the Democrat. To be honest, I really don’t see what there is to criticize. Shouldn’t the government be promoting Canada’s interests beyond our borders? If the best way of going about doing that is to have the PM speak on American TV then so be it. I know I’m more inclined to listen to what the US President has to say than their ambassador. Why would Americans be any different?

    • “Shouldn’t the government be promoting Canada’s interests beyond our borders?”

      Absolutely. Which couldn’t possibly explain why they’ve been shutting down embassies and consulates, belittling diplomats in public and shrinking our presence abroad since they took office.

      • It’s a good point. I think it would ultimately come down what approach would be best at promoting Canada’s interests. If the ultimate goal is to try and influence American public opinion on issues such as protectionism then the best way to do that would probably be to take the American airwaves and speak directly to American voters. Going through the embassy and influencing politicians who are already likely aware that protectionist policies are bad policy does little to relieve public pressure on politicians to implement protectionist policies. I’m not saying Harper (or whoever is PM) is going to magically change negative vews of free trade in America all by himself, but having him go on and explain Canadian concerns directly to Americans on television is likely to reach more people in the short-term than anything the embassy can do. Of course, there are other times when going through the embassy would be much more effective.

        • That’s almost as effective as emailing Paul Shaffer a set of talking points every afternoon.

Sign in to comment.