Eternal sunshine of the Globe and Mail mind


 

October 10Whatever you think of him, the Stephen Harper of today is not the Stephen Harper of 2004 or earlier. The “firewall” temperament has largely subsided, despite the odd recurrence on matters such as artists who choose free expression over popularity. He is in better control of his emotions. He is smart enough and adaptable enough to recognize that his tendencies toward pettiness and hyper-partisanship hold him and his party back.

Today. Instead, the Prime Minister should focus this fall – and beyond, if he has the opportunity – on developing policies to help rebuild the economy and allow it to emerge from the recession stronger than it entered it. That, more than the familiar pattern of political gamesmanship, would help Mr. Harper make his case the next time Canadians go to the polls. (It is probably not a coincidence that his polling numbers tend to improve when he is seen to be statesmanlike in his international travels, rather than taking potshots at his opponents in Ottawa.)


 

Eternal sunshine of the Globe and Mail mind

  1. It must be incredibly frustrating for some people that the Globe and Mail is capable of relatively balanced editorials like these two, instead of just reciting Liberal talking points.

    • Or they were just flat-out wrong when they said Harper was post-partisan.

    • Are there other (Canadian) papers that are even more capable of balanced editorials, or is that as good as it gets?

      • It's impossible to generalize. I'm sure we could find examples of balance and examples of bias in the unsigned editorials of every Canadian newspaper.

    • Was that a Tory talking point there? Because that one sure sounds familiar.

      • For clarity, I was referring to the Globe's editorial board, who wrote the two editorials, and not to the Globe's individual columnists or commentators, who represent a broad range of opinion.

        • If you want real clarity, you need to understand one thing: Newspaper editorials are about shaping reality, not uncovering it. The Globe is telling Harper what to do here, something the rest of naively believe is *our* responsibility.

    • It's certainly weird. I feel like my universe is warping.

  2. Just another example of the pinko Lib Luvin anti-Conservative MSM bias that… oh, wait.

  3. "policies to help rebuild the economy and allow it to emerge from the recession stronger than it entered it."

    Question: Do editors make motions with their wrists when writing this platitude, or do they actually believe it?

  4. The quality of Globe and Mail editorials has radically deteriorated over the last couple of years, to the point where they are barely worth reading anymore. Other Globe opinion pieces and columnists are generally a good mix of perspectives (except for a few whackjobs like Margaret Wente) but the editorials have progressively become inconsistent and unintentionally comedic.

    • Agreed on Wente. Where in the world did they find that one?

  5. I am very impressed with the new tone and less negative spin of the TGM of late – if any of you are reading this well done .. and I like your web forums too – as well as you can actually tell a moderator makes a visit or 2 clearing up some of the more abusive malcontents.

    • "the new tone and less negative spin of the TGM of late "

      Obviously you don't read the Globe much if you think praising Harper or regurgitating his talking points is a new thing.

      Only your standard conservative "anti-conservative biased MSM" mythmaker would think that the Globe is either out to get the Conservatives out of office or out to get the Liberal elected, let alone the fact that the last two federal elections they have endorsed Harper.

      • Why do you suppose the Globe editorial board endorsed Harper for prime minister in the last election? Is it possible that they felt Dion wasn't up to the job?

        • "Why do you suppose the Globe editorial board endorsed Harper for prime minister in the last election?"

          Because they wanted to have a parliamentary/constitutional crisis to report on, and they knew Harper would be up to the task.

          Just kidding. It's because they're idiots.

        • And they supported Harper over Martin. And in the election before than they had one of the longest editorial endorsements ever that basically said we'd endorse Harper but we're just not that sure about him yet. So call it 2.5 endorsements over 3 of Harper's 3 elections.

          The point being, it is a little hard to say that this is a "new tone and less negative spin".

  6. "(It is probably not a coincidence that his polling numbers tend to improve when he is seen to be statesmanlike in his international travels, rather than taking potshots at his opponents in Ottawa.)"

    Harper is more electable when he's out of the country?