The PM vs. the media

Political Editor Paul Wells discusses the brewing battle on Parliament Hill


Adrian Wyld/CP

It’s been one of the strangest, wildest weeks in Stephen Harper’s political career. In some ways the odd stand-off between camera crews and Stephen Harper at last week’s Conservative caucus meeting kicked off the festivities.

For Maclean’s political editor Paul Wells, the struggle over Stephen Harper’s message is part of Harper’s way of doing business.

Wells is the author of a new book, The Longer I’m Prime Minister: Stephen Harper and Canada.

Here he explains why Harper isn’t about to open up to reporters any time soon:

Related story:

Stephen Harper confidential: Paul Wells on the Prime Minister’s inner sanctum


The PM vs. the media

  1. Thank you for posting that video, Paul; I now know I don’t want to read your book.

    You are simply to closed minded to really set Harper the man and Harper the leader and PM in perspective. You accuse Harper of being nasty to the opposition, but you are nasty, time and again by always letting slip that little extra about Harper without any proof whatsoever!

    You say that the trend to hold back information is world-wide. You then mention the Obama administration and the McGuinty government as being accused of withholding information, but you then add that the Harper government ‘enjoys’ holding back information, implying that leaders like McGuinty and Obama cannot help but to withhold information, because THEY certainly DON”T enjoy withholding information!

    How pathetic of you to say such things! How do you know that Harper or the Conservative government ‘enjoys’ withholding information? How on earth would you know such things?

    So, based on that sort of info, your book, no doubt, will be full of that sort of baseless assumptions, and who needs to read that? Unless you are in favour of conning the Canadian voter into something which is none existent. And why would you want to do that?

    Perhaps you could answer that question sometime in another book. The very book which might also talk about secrecy within the NDP and Liberal party. Perhaps I will be interested in reading those kind of books, the ones which will tell why union donations to Pat Martin, for paying off his personal debt, should be kept secret, and so forth.

    • Your satirical portrayal of an uber-loyal Harperite is almost as good as Stephen Colbert’s as a conservative pundit.

    • Quite an endorsement, but seriously Francien you need to pace yourself.

      • You want to be my coach, StewartSmith? Sorry, but I’m not looking for a coach.

    • Well, with Francien’s two thumbs down, I guess PW’s book is destined for early consignment to the remaindered bins. His journalism career is diminished accordingly. He must be devastated.

      • I can see him… alone… drinking heavily… a copy of “Ms. Match” open on his lap as he sobs over and over: I’m a failure…a failure

        • LOLOLOL. Will he be having “orgasms of truth?”

          • How could he not

        • And what have you done with your life besides making empty statements all day long?

          Have you ever written a book?

          If so, which book would that be?

          • Well Frank, I guess your comments would fill up several books but they’d likely wouldn’t sell and it would be difficult to decide whether to file them in fairy tales or juvenile fiction.

          • I have to give it to Paul Wells; at least he, too, is not afraid to state opinions under his real name. But my book Ms.Match has a lot more interesting things to say than a book about Harper bashing.

            The thought that there are interesting views to read into never occurs to people like you who believe there is no life beyond Macleans. So why should I wake you up? Keep posting here at Macleans, admiring the likes of Wherry and Wells, with your false names attached, with your constant sniping at me for making interesting and pointed comments.

            If fake names mean that much to you, then lead a fake life. No skin off my back.

          • I’m sure you and your ELEVEN twitter followers enjoyed it. No one else could get through it. You’re really a legend in your own mind, eh?

            Self published isn’t the same as published.

          • Writing a book about a personal Harper hate is not the same as writing a book about understanding of Being.

            Harper bashing is easy! Thinking deeply about the understanding of “Being’ takes a sharp mind, not just a mind to bash!

          • lol@ interesting comments. Repetitive drivel, maybe.

          • And here comes fake name Andrew_notPorC once again with a one-liner thinking HE or SHE (?) has something to offer!

            You have nothing of substance to offer. You simply pretend you have something of substance to offer.

            You are not even sure about the meaning of drivel!

            Too funny!

          • Did I touch a raw nerve?

            You hold everyone in opposition to the highest standard, but absolutely refuse to acknowledge character weakness or impropriety on the part of Harper.
            Guess what Francien? Harper is flawed and your incessant finger pointing at Trudeau and Martin doesn’t justify Harper’s behaviour. And if you think this is a case of “the ends justifies the means” then just say so , and stop your righteous serial deflections.

            Philosophers with blind spots are no better (and no worse) than barstool prophets and streetcorner pamphleteers.

            You can be proud you wrote a book and I congratulate you. But I will not be reading. But I will be reading Pauls

          • Did you touch a raw nerve? Why would you say that? Whose raw nerve could you possibly have touched?

            You have not read my book, yet you try and tell me what MY book, or what I am about! Keep up the fake charade.

            I know who I am. I am brave enough to write comments under my real name. I don’t need fake in my life the way you obviously need fake! I wrote a very interesting book, touching on subjects far beyond most people’s understanding.

            Paul Wells does another book on politics, and Harper bashing in particular. And it seems you are very interested in that sort of stuff. That is your choice.

            The contents of my written book, however, deal with subjects more universal, and do not bother with the daily scandals being concocted within media outlets. Temporary events are better left to minds who think in temporary terms.

          • I get it now, this a bit like who’s on first eh.

            Did you touch a raw nerve? Why would you say that? Whose raw nerve could you possibly have touched? My raw nerve? Paul’s raw nerve? Justin’s raw nerves?
            What do you have against raw nerves? Why do you want to touch my raw nerves, that’s creepy?

            My raw nerves are brave and able to write thing that are far beyond the universal understanding of Paul Wells, who only chooses to bash Harper’s poor nerves.That’s creepy too.But not as creepy as Justin who has a nerve.
            Just think about how tough it is to have raw nerves when you’re Harper not Justin or Paul?
            It’s a scandal how everyone just writes about raw nerves , which are temporary[ except me] and have nothing to do with SH or his raw nerves.

          • Ouch!

      • I suspect he’d put up with being a couple bucks poorer if some people didn’t read it.
        How can you seriously ask the question: How do you know this? without considering that maybe this is where 20 years of experience and contacts kick in? Seriously FV, my dog asks better questions then you do.

        • Ask Franny, not me.

          • But she might answer.

        • My dog writes better prose.

          • My dog can fetch without saying JT needs to answer for all his crimes before SH has to answer for any of his.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • I guess your dog is smarter than Harper

          • Pssst…he’s a she.

          • Hard to believe for a comment so silly, but that comment made me laugh, thx!

          • My dog barks better:

            Woof, woof, patcouli doesn`t like it when the dogs bark, woof, woof, pachouli doesn`t like it when the truth is being spoken. Woof, woof.

            Now, flag this comment down as well. You caring about free speech and all!

    • See the picture at the top? Why don’t you talk about him instead of changing the subject?

      • Did Harper write the book Wells is trying to peddle?

        • Deflect, deny, change the subject. La la la. The usual.

          • What? Is this not about Wells’ book? Of course it is. You did not notice? That is hilarious! :)

          • It’s like the Manning Centre is a sub-par Med-skool churning out a multitude of Dr. Nick Riviera’s.

          • Funny, the gang does not give you notice for being off topic.

          • Oh but he is.

          • I guessing that sometime before he reposts that for the thousandth time, they would.

  2. Everyone’s brilliant in hindsight, until, well, they’re not. Then the next edition of political analysis books come out.

    Susan Delacourt, for example, likes to share her introductory marketing course/sabbatical with all who haven’t been so enlightened in a new book. Juggernaut 2.0.

    Mgnt consulting is like this too. Harperism is brilliant, today. Tomorrow? Not so much.

    • Well, few people wrote a book called “right side up” that predicted prolonged success for the Conservative Party.

      Most on this comment board were predicting imminent defeat back in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and now of course they are predicting defeat in 2015.

      • Did it predict Stephan Dion and Michael Ignatieff, near the brink on coalition/prorogation, booming resource sector and major world recession?
        What? Muttart didn’t predict?

        • No, it didn’t predict the ipad, the “breaking bad” tv show, or the Chicago Blackhawks stanley cup either.

          • Ahhh. That must be worth a book in itself.

  3. Don’t despair if Franny wont read it Paul, i just ordered it into my library today.[ they have it on order in Yellowknife already, that was quick] If i don’t get a copy soon i may have get someone to buy me a copy for xmas…hope you can hold out?

    • I’m sure Paul’s just as excited that you’re doing everything in your power to get the book for free, as he is disappointed that Francien won’t be buying it.

      • :)

      • I find a sense of humour goes a long way in life Ricky boy, don’t you.
        I’m sure he doesn’t give a rats ass either way as long as his book is read and appreciated.

        • I’m sure any author, writer or journalist expects to be paid for their work. It’s called: making a living. Try it sometime.

          • It’s also a plus for an author to have libraries order copies of their books before they’re even released.

          • I imagine they pay for them, don’t they?

          • I assume they do – let’s hope they don’t trig that they’re paid for with tax payer’s money.

          • All in a noble cause surely.

          • Of course, but they’re always on te look out for things to get enraged about.

          • You wound me to the quick sir.

          • Never-mind. Getting something as a present, or from the library, is not for free anyway, Wells gets paid.

          • You don’t say.

          • Maybe you start a campaign against that greatest of socialist evils – The Public Library.

          • Lol

          • Good point. I read somwhere on the internet that all conservatives hate public libraries and want to get rid of them all.

          • I read somewhere on a bathroom wall that very few conservatives can actually read.[ not saying if i put it there myself]

          • Now it all starts making sense! You telling us what you read on bathroom walls!

            Too funny!

          • You have quite a literal mind, don’t you Francien?

          • I’m sure you did. It was probably the WC at Liberal HQ. Liberals and other progressives like telling themselves stuff like that — for some reason it makes them feel good.

          • Had i been serious i guess there’d be no danger of you finding out would there.

          • That must be in the bathroom in your house.

          • There wouldn’t be any point in writing on your bathroom wall now, would there?

          • I know for a fact that Justin Trudeau charges hefty fees to libraries when delivering a speech! More money for Justin – less money for the library to buy books!

          • He just robbed my library. Left us nothing to read but bios of his dad and yoga manuals.

          • Where’d you read that?
            That’s the first time I’ve seen someone chided for using a public library, but it wouldn’t suprise me if there are more.
            After all, if we didn’t already have libraries, it’s pretty hard to imagine modern conservatives endorsing the idea:
            Using taxpayers money *gasp*
            to let people read books for free *gasp*
            and compete with the private sector *gasp*
            And have you seen some of the books that are in libraries?
            Sex! Drugs! Science! and other librul propaganda! *shriek*

      • Quite the drama queen aren’t you, lil’ricky?
        Though it’s fun to imagine to imagine you mistakenly entering a library, then berating the patrons for doing everything in their power to read books for free, before being removed by security.

      • FYI … Canada has a program called the Public Lending Right which calculates the use of books based on a list of libraries that own a copy and pays authors for that right. http://www.plr-dpp.ca/PLR/

  4. Apart from stating the obvious, how ludicrous it is to attempt to go through life[ surely even politics] without taking any risks of failure or honest debate, it seems Harper has found a way to game the system big time.[ since we only hold people accountable at the polls every 4 or 5 years or so] Boy the guy must rilly rilly hate liberal Canada!
    It also speaks to an ego that’s off the charts; Mulroney and Trudeau were amateurs by comparison.

    • Exactly !
      How ludicrous of Harper not to realize 20 years ago that the Ottawa media were only interested in ” honest debate “.
      The only agenda these soldiers of information have is to encourage honest debate.
      They have demonstrated by their fair treatment of even the most trivial of incidents involving Harper or his family that their only goal is honest debate.
      They would never let their own personal biases seep into their reporting in an effort to influence the public perception of Harper.
      They only want honest debate .

      Listen dude: It seems you are a big fan of Wells, and that`s okay. But the next time you saunter into your public library and look longingly up at the stacks of books for his latest edition, just remember, good writers like Wells always leave a little room for the reader to figure out for themselves the answer to the question.
      Now try to figure out the real reason why Harper doesn`t trust the media.

      • “…soldiers of information…”

        Droll, sir, very droll.

      • I watched Trudeau[ and Mulroney] fight the same battle against a media that doesn’t have the time or the inclination for nuance. If you’re telling me SH is interested in nuance you’re delusional. There are other venues to get your message out. Harper uses them but i still don’t see any attempt to explain or intellectually support his arguments or policy.[ can you point to an in depth interview of any substance? I doubt it!] It is just relentless attack, assault the other guy at every point of perceived weakness.
        Every PM swims against this current. So quit whining please!

        Your right, i like Wells’ bit old fashioned tendency to let the reader draw their own conclusions just fine thanks. The Posts loss, our gain.

        • I see you at the Post once in a while. What then is the loss for the Post if you still go and read over there and read Wells over here?

          • Our = macleans. I forgot i don’t own shares.

  5. This comment was deleted.

  6. There is certainly a lot of accuracy to the statements. I suppose my only comment is that there is a difference between withholding information and being careful to release information that is accurate. In some cases it’s one, and other cases it’s the other.

    For instance, there are plenty of cases of media trying to goad any candidate whatsoever into saying something absurd or deplorable. Of course, at no time are these ramblings in any way connected to the platform or policy of the candidate’s party, or even the principles of the candidate himself. There will always be a few loose cannons in any party willing to blow their mouths off. So it’s always better to be careful to put some thought and planning into what you say. Anyone who has worked for a big company knows this to be true.

    In any case, when it comes to access to information, and actual cases where information is withheld, it would be nice to see better results.

    It’s rather scary in the US to see just how much information has been hidden from the public over the last few years as the NSA has been expanding its spying program into bugging the leaders of France and Germany, spying on reporters for the Associated Press and Fox News, collecting information about all phone call and email communications in the country, and nobody knowing anything about it until now. Same goes for what was happening in the IRS and that scandal.

    Too much going on and not enough information about it.

  7. This comment was deleted.

    • ‘Latte sipping’ – now there’s an old chestnut.

      • How does one dress up as a journalist? Halloween is fast approaching.

        • Trenchcoat, plus a press card tucked in the brim of your hat.

          • I was thinking of going as Ezra. Trenchcoat, no underwear[ for shock value]and a whirring little beanie on my head that lit up and alternately flashed the message…Suzuki can su**k my…and Gypsies are all thieves and c**ts…
            Possibly a card covering my butt proclaiming – kiss my ethical ass, kick me if you dare. I may scream. I will sue.

          • LOL, well when you whip that beanie up, make a couple of extras!

            (was going to say: a trenchcoat, no underwear … kind of sounds like a flasher — so that’s why the beanie flashes messages, yes?)

          • It’s probably easier[ and safer at my time of life] to go as P.Newman. Bottle of rum in each pocket, ink stains over my hands and miked up… and my fisherman’s cap on backwards for fun.[ love the guy]

      • This comment was deleted.

        • Priceless!

    • I think Wells actually treats Steven Harper much more fairly than most of the media. For partisan cheerleadring, nobody tops Aaron Wherry.

      • Wells is head and shoulders above Wherry and many others, such as Liberal pom pom waver Lawrence Martin. Simpson has basically jumped the shark in that regard too, which is really sad because Simpson was, and is still capable of being, a very good writer and journalist. But he’s let his dislike of Harper overwhelm his objectivity and professionalism too often lately. SImpson still writes some good pieces though. Martin only once in a very blue moon.

        • Waw! I thought I was the only one thinking that Martin and Simpson have lost their objective style of opinion making. Good to hear that others may think so, too!

        • You must really hate Coyne then?

          • No, generally I’ve got a lot of time and respect for Coyne. I think he’s very intelligent, perceptive and principled. Of course he’s not without his flaws, he’s only human. He does tend sometimes to be a big of a finger-wagging schoolmarm when he really gets on his high horse, and he has his obsessions get the better of him sometimes (which can lead to him being very predictable sometimes).

          • That’s pretty much my read. He’s mecurial, a genuine contarian, sometimes really brilliant, sometimes stubbornly obtuse. I really like Andrew Potter for the same reason, he’s fearless. Although somewhere in between Wells and Coyne.
            I found coyne a good foil for Wells when he was here because he wears his moral principles on his arm, which i like. Not sure where Wells keeps his, but i’m pretty sure he has them somewhere safe. More importantly he has them.

          • Coyne has his moments. But these days he’s obsessed with the so-called democratic deficit and death of parliament, proportional representation, and so on. He appears to have developed a hatred of conservatives. He used to be better. I think he’s spent too much time in Toronto. I thought he truly jumped the shark when he decided to vote for Liberals because of respect for parliament. Yes, the party of adscam, the party of “one-party rule”, the party of Chretien’s dirty tricks, the party led by the transplanted Harvard professor, was suddenly the party to be rewarded for reasons of democracy. Years ago he had the theme that Canada was a one-party state ruled only by Liberals, a few years later he wanted them back. Kinda nuts.

            I agree with you and MargeryK. Wells is miles above the rest of Maclean’s. Wherry is at the bottom, basically for being a misleading and biased partisan 100% of the time. The Globe has become crap. Simpson and Martin have jumped the shark. The entire Toronto Star have lost their minds.

      • But does Wherry write books?

    • That’s going a bit too far. I know he did the Anne of green gables thing, Red hair and all that, but a cheer leader who dresses up as a journalist simply boggles the mind.

  8. I think Paul got it right with this video. Harper is who he is, he won’t change, and the choice is clear.

    Take the devil you know, or gamble on the ones who oppose him (it is a gamble, we have no reason to know what those folks would actually look like in power). That’s your choice, and no-one should expect any change unless Harper leaves.

    I am OK with that.

    • Did you know that a survey has been done, asking western farmers about the shipping of wheat now without the mandated participation of a Wheat Board?

      Good news for the Harper government. Too bad it won’t be covered much in the news or by men like Paul Wells. But then again, Paul Wells lives in Ontario where the grain farmers were never bound by the Wheat Board!

      • I’m in Ontario too, and don’t personally care about wheat boards. I do hope those affected are happy with that change, and I would guess that they likely are.

        Hard to see how that relates to Paul Wells’ opinions, which by the way are allowed to be Partisan if he so chooses.

        IMO Harper is what he is and Wells’ view is accurate. That doesn’t mean anyone is wrong to continue to or start supporting Harper. Perfectly valid to like a PM who has disdain for media IMO, that’s up to you. Scandals aside, I like a PM who evades getting caught up in media details…would rather see a PM working on stuff than attending to media demands. Harper isn’t in this game to be loved.

        I don’t like Harper because he hasn’t cut spending like a good conservative, and I don’t see any hope that he will. I don’t care much about these scandals/scandallettes for two reasons. First they are largely manufactured innuendo that’s exaggerated to the extreme, and second if they are genuine, the RCMP will solve that anyway – so no sense worrying about them, the guilty will pay.

        I suggest you’d do well to just admit Harper might be the criminal so many accuse – but the resolution of that requires facts we may never see, and it is better to ignore until the authorities release conclusions.

        • Very well put.

      • Havn’t heard much about it one way or the other. Where did you get your info?

      • I cover the Wheat Board in the 400-page book about Stephen Harper I just spent two years writing. Try to keep up, Einstein.

        • And are western farmers being quoted in your book as to how they feel these days about shipping their grain freely and about getting paid sooner rather than later?

          If so, then the contents of your book may have something interesting to say after all.

      • Feel free to give us the link. Rather than curse the darkness, why not light a candle?

        • Still haven` found the report……….my, you are slow.

    • “Take the devil you know, or gamble on the ones who oppose him…”

      Or, we can demand better. As you say we already know what we got with Harper, that isn’t a positive or necessarily good news you know.

      • LOL, Citizens have been ‘demanding better’ since the very first government existed. ‘Demanderbate’ all you want – you still have to pick your evil at election time.

        But don’t do it excessively, I hear you might go blind if you do.

        • I’d have to be blind to overlook the fact that Harper hardly represents the status quo. It’s precisely because i know what i’d be getting that i would demand better. Now if he’s unable to do better…
          I really don’t see that as a choice between evils. But then i’m not a conservative, so i’m not forced to conclude gummint and good institutions are pretty much a waste of time and valuable resources.
          edit: i should amend this to i’m not a hard core conservative, before OB finds the sloppiness on my part. My bad.

          • That’s a cartoon version of a “conservative” that you insist on adhering to. There are tons of people who vote for and support conservative parties who have no problem with publicly funded and run healthcare, highways, schools and so on. If you want to continue to believe that all conservatives fit your cartoon fantasy, go ahead. But all you’re really doing is fooling yourself.

          • OB i fear the likes of FV on this thread has lowered reading comprehension generally.
            There’s a reason i try as much as i can to use Harper rather then conservative in as many posts as i can. Yes i despise the man, i think he’s bad for the country and sadly a lot of conservatives have not come to realize that yet. Is he the only one? No! Look at how McGuinty finished up. I have grave reservation about Clark and Redford’s lack of ethics could easily have got her into Dalton’s govt.
            I live in a small northern town and i’m fairly sure liberals are pretty thin on the ground here – why not? They’ve done nothing to woo them since before Pierre’s time. My friends are by and large moderate conservatives, they are the salt of the earth, i’d love to have them vote liberal again. The man who i most often talked politics to here before he moved into AB was a small c conservative, a man with strong religious convictions. He was/is also one of the most ethical and tolerant and thoughtful men i have ever met. We disagreed about almost everything – except the need for ethics and authenticity and conviction in politics. He was also someone who liked Harper, had done some work for him up here rooting out deadwood on certain boards and committees for him. Yet he conceded that if it was true and proven to be true Harper was rotten he would have no difficulty voting for JT – provided he cleaned up the liberal act and reformed his party. I happen to believe he’s making an attempt to do that. He may or may not succeed. Obviously i’m pulling for him. Believe me there’s plenty of deadwood in the LPC.
            So, i may be guilty of demanding something too close to perfection from Harper personally, but please don’t keep on pushing this tory hating bilge at me. You’re pushing a cartoon fantasy of your own buddy.
            Edit: I should add my contempt extends to many of those Harper surrounds himself with, particularly the Harris crowd and ideologues like Kenney and Poilivere. Baird however seems to have somewhat matured in his new job. So, there’s no doubt i don’t much like hard core cons – at least the partisan ones. I have nothing but respect for the like of Rathgeberger, although i probably disagree with his policy ideas and convictions. In short i don’t like hard core partisan…can i be any more clear? When and if the LPC gets in i shall undoubtedly come to dislike and oppose their hard core partisans in due course.

          • That’s a very thoughtful and well put post. It just doesn’t square with your saying elsewhere that all conservatives “hate gummint” and so on.

          • True. If you check you’ll see I edited that post. It was a sloppy bit of over generalizing. I’m not perfect I guess. And I am undeniably still a liberal partisan. I just love true things even more.
            I also remember you telling me about your conservative father ( hope i remembered that right) learning French anyway. It’s stuff like that that stays with a person much longer then the partisan stuff.

          • Fine, just don’t be willfully blind about what the alternates to Harper would produce.

            It isn’t easy right now to determine what that looks like, and even after election promises are made, you gotta gauge whether or not to trust those things will happen. There are some big hazards here…

            1) The Liberals are famous for enacting the exact opposite of what they promise.
            2) I can pretty much guarantee you that if the Libs gained the government after the next election, their very first act will be to declare they ‘just looked at the books and all their promises are off’ as a result. Every new gov’t does this.

            We want good gov’t after this next election. Taking a one-sided view of how bad one party is hurts that goal.

          • If they were to ditch Harper it may not be so one sided. I suspect that may yet be the case, although he’ll say he chose to walk the plank willingly.
            As for the liberals…yes they campaigned disingenuously. But would you rather they kept their promises to ditch the gst or free trade? Personally, if i have to, i’ll put smart govt above morally impeachable govt most days of the week.

    • Time to gamble we did when the Liberals were in power with a $6B surplus because an upstart from the West said they were despicable liars who were bribing in order to get their way and stay in power. Our up start squandered the $6b surplus, has shown noting but contempt for our democracy and the people it was designed to protect, prefers anecdote to true science, is himself now embroiled in yet another scandal (remember those things he castigated the Liberals for). Time to open our eyes vote with conscience and turf the CPC.

  9. Hey Wells,

    If a “star candidate” of Harper’s gave him a body slam like this, would the media cover it? I’m sure we can agree the answer is yes, right?

    Are they going to cover this? I think we can agree the answer is no, right?

    Now you know why Harper treats the media like he does. It’s really as simple as that. It’s not Harper that needs to change. This is what needs to change.

    • The thing I find so eye-rolling about where Freeland and others are going with this is that they are adhering to a bit of an egalitarian fantasy, which is joined at the hip to a ridiculous “golden age” myth. They’re acting as though Canada had some golden age in the past (coinciding, amazingly, to when Liberals ruled this country) where we were utterly without class divisions and it made no difference who your daddy was, etc. etc. Then a bunch of evil neo-cons came along and ruined everything. It’s positively Biblical — Eden ruined by the devils.

      • For the most part I think they’re grasping at straws. They think they can capture the middle class vote by playing the victim card. “You can do all the right things and you’re still screwed, you poor things (by corporations and other evil-doers), but if you vote for us, we’ll fix all that with all the handouts that you deserve”.
        Harper has done a good job of parrying this attack. It certainly has helped that the leaders peddling this BS are the son of a former PM-candidate and owner of a shipping lines company, an academic who had dual citizenship with France and earned a doctorate in Paris, a Harvard professor and former TV personality, and the son of a former Prime Minister. None of them have any inkling whatsoever what it means to be middle class.

        • It is a bit ironic that Harper is more resolutely middle class in his background than any of these dipsh*ts who are, for political gain, claiming to have so much empathy for the plight of the middle class.

    • That was hilarious. I saw it the other day on the twitter feeds of Media Partyjournalists (they were presumably discussing how they were going to bury it).
      If you’re suggesting she was deliberately attacking Trudeau, well that’s no surprise, you are a kook. Otherwise, what exactly is the story?

      • I think Taylor was suggesting perhaps that JT was squirming a bit as CF said what she said. Which may be true. Certainly she was cutting extremely close to the bone, whether she was aware of it or not. Regardless, only an idiot could miss the obvious irony in the scene.

  10. Perhaps the press should totally ignore him as he does them and us.

  11. I have been cynical of all journalists due to an incident that happened in the 1980s. A former native employee of the restaurant I was working at had been charged with a string of house breakings in Calgary. The youngster had been a good employee and left under good terms. One day a reporter came and while trying to rake some mud and asked the restaurant manager if he had problems with minority employees his answer was ” I don’t notice skin color I notice merit and if I am hash with employees it’s because of their performance not a issue of where their parents came from”. Not shockingly the newspaper didn’t have the guts to print his comments.

  12. Terence Corcoran has a great piece in the FP about how the Media Party has gone in the tank for Duffy. Funny actually, considering they were torturing him so unmercifully not long ago. Now he’s their shining light. Not surprising though, considering the state of journalism on the Hill these days. I agree with PW about Harper’s view of how things shoud be managed with the media. As usual, even when I don’t agree with him, he gives a pretty even-handed assesment of the situation. Not surprised at the PM’s attitude either — we’ve all seen what journalists with an axe to grind can do to politicians of all parties. I can even remember a current award winning journalist running a contest to deflower PM Mulroney’s daughter. Those that are fair, competent and professional in the media are few and far between. They should be supported and respected. The rest are safely consigned to the trash can.

Sign in to comment.