We get the feeling you’re tuning out, Steve - Macleans.ca

We get the feeling you’re tuning out, Steve

FESCHUK: It’s year four as PM. Do you know where your cabinet ministers are?


Dear Steve,

We’re just going to come right out and ask. Are you bored with being Prime Minister? Are you bored with us? After four years, it feels as though the magic is gone from our relationship. You seem about as interested in your job as John Baird is in nuance.

We don’t communicate like we used to, that’s for sure. Despite the turbulent times, you haven’t delivered a major speech to us since the first week of March—and the content of that address, to mark the return of Parliament, could be reduced to two words: “Olympians? Yay!” How are we supposed to understand what you want, or know what you believe in, or remember what you look like?

And let’s be honest: you’ve started taking us for granted. Remember how creative you used to be? How hard you’d work to win us over? We’ll never forget the way you wooed us by assailing Paul Martin as a child pornographer and ridiculing Stéphane Dion as a Taliban-hugging cupcake. You were the bad boy.

But when you spoke to caucus recently, the best you could come up with was a recycled bit about how Michael Ignatieff wants an “unnecessary election.” Come on: Ignatieff has his party at 28 per cent in the polls—we both know the only thing he wants is the last year and a half of his life back.

Frankly, Steve, it feels as though we’ve run out of new things to do together. It was so exciting back in the beginning: the GST cut, the second GST cut, the pretending to care about climate change. But lately? Your last Throne Speech was most notable for proposing a day to honour seniors and an award to honour volunteers. Steve, we’re a youthful and vibrant nation—we want to be inspired and challenged. And you’re giving us policy that’s the equivalent of turning in for the night after Wheel of Fortune.

What’s happened to you? You used to be so spontaneous! So passionate! When’s the last time you decided on the spur of the moment to get out there and deny a gay some rights? Or humiliate a well-meaning public servant. Or demean an institution by appointing Mike Duffy to it. It’s been a while, is all we’re saying.

Which leads us to our next point. Forgive us for being so blunt, but Steve—you’ve kind of checked out mentally. You vanish for long stretches. You avoid contact with us. You’re so distracted that your cabinet ministers are starting to, you know, actually do things. Did you hear that, Steve? Your cabinet ministers are out there thinking and talking. IN PUBLIC.

So we get Peter MacKay saying we need to spend $16 billion on fighter jets because our existing planes don’t make pilots feel cool enough. And we get Stockwell Day vowing to build $9 billion worth of prisons because he believes there are huge numbers of unreported crimes taking place every day—like identity theft and, presumably, feminism. And we get Tony Clement, whose efforts to defend the government’s changes to the census are already being turned into a reality program entitled Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? No, Apparently Not.

We know you’re not perfect, Steve. No one is. We’re fine with you boasting about your management of the recession we couldn’t possibly have had because we hadn’t already had it. It’s cute. And we love how you pretend you’re a libertarian even as your new House Leader proclaims that we don’t need budget cuts to eliminate the massive deficit—we just need to “contain the growth of spending within government.” We all have our fantasies. Sometimes we imagine we’re Belgium. Harmless fun.

But Steve, you can’t let it end like this. We’ve put in four years. We’ve seen you through bad times and good times and, what’s it been, five prorogations? You lose track after the first.

We’re willing to accept some of the blame for the way things are. Our brief tryst with the opposition coalition was tawdry and hurtful. But it’s up to you to rekindle the spark. Maybe we can try out a little role-playing to spice things up. You be the adored, mustachioed despot and we’ll be the compliant press gallery, okay? That one always turned you on.



We get the feeling you’re tuning out, Steve

  1. Harper after 4 years of abuse by the parliamentary press gallery and others has decided to ignore them. The media don't much like it and so are pulling out all the stops in an effort to convince Canadians that Harper is not the man for the job of PM. Nice try boys and girls but it ain't working. Look at Ignatieff's leadership polling numbers.
    People like Feschuk and Wherry are simply preaching to the converted. The rest of us know we are being provided with solid government who is trying to change the Liberal way of managing the country.

    • Ignoring the press is a sign of strong leadership? No, but playing the abuse by the parliamentary press gallery…. victim card is.
      Sounds more like a guy who can't sell his side of the debate and decides he's just not going to play anymore.
      Feel free to explain how this approach is accountable, transparent and serves the people of Canada.

      • I love this article. It really hits home especially when my most endearing memory of the much loved Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau is from when he gave reporters and his fellow Canadians the finger. Yes this man who was voted one of the greatest Canadians treated the press and the citizens of this country with open disdain. Of course I forget he belonged to the "Natural Governing Party" of the country and was a rich lawyer for Quebec, unlike Mr. Harper who is just a middle class accountant who belongs to the party that was voted in and dares to ignore the press and happens to hail from the wrong part of the country. Shame on him.

        • No matter which party is in power, the PM has a responsibility to face the press.
          Issuing press releases in lieu of taking hard questions; staging fake town hall meetings; ducking out the back stairs on Parliament Hill – it`s bullsh!t and I would say the same thing if the PM was red, blue, orange or green

          • I agree, but does the media take some of the blame? "In lieu of taking hard questions"? Really? The media asked the PM questions about some play that no one's ever heard of, and some useless poll, instead of questions with a bit of substance like the census controversy. Where's the hard question in "Are you worried about polls?" Even Feschuk was complaining about this a few days ago, and Paul Wells let loose a controversial Tweet (which he later apologised for) about the situation.

          • Agreed.
            Has the PM's avoidance of the press cowed the media? Is there a message of intimidation radiating from the PMO? Is the media just dropping the ball?
            Regardless, I have a sneaking suspicion that access to the PM will change when the new Sun media TV station launches. Look for Mr Harper to sit down to seemingly probing, but ultimately friendly interviews. Stephen Harper will be far more available when he can control the message. And once FOX north starts scooping the other networks, is total media submission far behind?
            I sure as hell hope not. We rely on the press to hold all government feet to the fire; all this blogging debate keeps the flame alight, but too few people read it. The issues and debates that shape Canada belong in the forefront of the news, but are too often buried behind sexier soundbites.
            Damn it. I'm feeling old and getting cranky!

          • Well, I must be old and cranky too, because I absolutely agree.

            Damn it.

        • a middle class accountant. Obviously you dont know how much a chartered accountant bills for. About the same as my lawyer. Duh!

    • I can't even believe their are sillies around that either believe this "media abuse" ploy or still act like they believe it for "public" consumption. Well Harper can REALLY fool some people ALL of the time.

      Take a look around and tally up how many of our media outlets are right wing. Then quit your whining.

    • Haha, lighten up. I feel like certain people should be banned from reading Feschukian prose.

      • Well at least this time he didn't start off with the… I couldn't be bothered to read past the title line (although it could still well be true).

        • hollinm is a tory crackpot. Nothing more needs to be said about him. He is all over the blogosphere sucking up to the Harpercrites. I've yet to see one word of criticism about his favorite party so one can be assured he's as much into democracy as Harper is.

    • This is as close to the truth as it gets. The media in Canada think they are the government and that the government is their stooges to do the work. Sorry but as an enlightened voter, I call a foul on the media's meddling. Time to butt out!

    • Dead on "hollinm". I've noticed lately that the print media has stepped up it's attacks on Harper and his ministers. I also agree that Iggy's leadership polling numbers are in the toilet with the Canadian people and that's another reason the print media is becoming more boisterous and more vicious.

  2. Canada and the Provinces deserve some non-political salesmanship with management backed by positive transparent parliamentary action for all. .. We all know that the country cannot be prosperous without proper taxation produced by productive numbers of dedicated workers in all areas. .. Lobbying and spending to create votes without the transparent evaluation of input of all elected officials and their loyal assistants by anyone more interested in his hair style is not acceptable. .. Press on with a positive media evaluation. .. Thanks Macleans!!

  3. I know i'm getting bored with Feschuk articles especially when he thinks he represents Canada.

    • oooh he doesn't represent you. Wah waaahhh! Crybaby

  4. The PM is not trying to be a celebrity. Good.

    • Sure he isn't. How soon you forget the Beatles tune that all the media went gaga over (like that wasn't rehearsed). The way they ooohed and ahhhed over it made me think I was in the USA. Good grief.

      And then the myriad of big athletic stars: rubbing elbows with Gretzky and others. Oh no, that's not trying to be a celebrity or have celebrity rub off on him. Barenaked Ladies, Bryan Adams… If Harper wasn't trying to use their celebrity he wouldn't make sure his PR cabal wouldn't take pictures & publicize them or invite the media for photos.

      It's pretty transparent for those who have a brain.

      • I'm not sure where Nickelback fits in your theory.

      • What an idiotic thing to say, you probably have no education and have a low self-esteem.

        • The reply is for LLea

          • Thanks, Homer.

    • He is a groupy to be sure. He crams his head in to be photographed with Cherry and the Ladies and thinks it will give him some reflected glory. He is an abomination as prime minister.

    • Is Philly trying for satire or is he just stupid?

    • He's not trying to be a PM either. That's not good.

  5. If you check out our blog, you can see where Minister Toews has been…..I am sure the PM doesn't know about that !

    • Have you sent this accusation directly to Toews because I don't think dropping this little bomb on the internet is the way to go?

    • As if 'progressives' would attack Toews on those accusations……..

      • It's the hypocrisy, wilson that is always the real sin. And he's already been found guilty of that. If you're going to preach family values, you had better be squeaky clean.

        • I personally demand perfection from my politicians. Anything less is unacceptable.

          • I just think if you're bonklng the help, you shouldn't be preaching family values. Call me old fashioned.

  6. If a writer resort to this kind of writing and infantile picture tweaking, then there is something really wrong with Canadian Journalism. If you wish to be funny, hire a cartoonist! Don't tell me Macleans runs out of those too.

    • You do realize Feschuk is billed as a humour columnist in the magazine, not a journalist? (Though I've gotta say Amiel's threatening to take over that slot, of late.)

      • I've noticed this has to be pointed just about everytime Scott has posted something cheeky about the PM.
        It serves to help define what it means to be a modern conservative supporter.
        It didn't take me long after Mr. Harper was first elected to realize that I just simply didn't belong. I can't even tell for certain if my support was even wanted.

    • hmm political caricatures have been around for longer than you Ariadne. So in the words of the conbots: suck it up and deal with it. I dont like hearing your crap but I realize you have a right to express your crap but lighten up.

      You know you wont crack and break if you manage a smile.

  7. 'You be the adored, mustachioed despot and we'll be the compliant press gallery, okay? That one always turned you on.'

    Heh, funny stuff FESCHUK !!
    Did you just say 'uncle'?

    Unlike the unelected leader of the Official Opposition,
    Prime Minister Harper won't be begging for your forgiveness,
    and promising to do better.

    • The leader of the Official Opposition is unelected? How does that work, exactly? You might want to check your sources.

      • Iffy was appointed leader, not elected by LPC grassroots, he lost to Dion, and then in a bloodless coup, toss Dion out.

        • When are the Conservatives scheduled for a leadership review, wilson?

          • watch it. Words like that will get Wilson talking to the gulag guards about you.

          • I don't know Jan.

          • ah it didnt come with the talking point package.

          • Who are you Jan.?????

        • How come Conbots are so obsessed with the leadership machinations of the Liberal party? Um… how 'bout how the Conservative Party is technically based on deception because MacKay promised Orchard he wouldn't merge? Oh, it doesn't really f-ing matter. (And it doesn't.) From now on, every single time I hear a clutch-the-pearls over how Iggy became leader I'm going to bring up how MacKay BETRAYED his party to let Harper become PM. Fairsies?

          • There was a merger vote,
            unlike Iffy's appointment, and then the 2 leadership challengers were 'persuaded' to drop off the ballot.

          • Heh.

            A merger vote, where all kinds of reform party members were permitted to purchase conservative party memberships and vote in favour of a merge.

            Good one wilson.

          • I'm spearheading a movement to call that sort of internet argument strategy "Orchard's Law".

  8. I loved this one…bang on! Thank you.

    • The Prime Minister is planning for the future.

      • Wow how deep Jim. Did you take all of 3 seconds to come up with that?

  9. Harper seems to have lost the plot : perhaps he realizes now people are starting to laugh at him, the end is nigh.

    Time for an election : or a new leader of a real Conservative Party.

    • LOL, Harper has been PM for 4 1/2 years, but first he united the right, then was elected leader.
      He is in the history books for leading the longest running minority parliament,
      and if the Libs don't find the courage to bring down the government this fall,
      he will be beating his own record.
      PMSH has been in politics since 1984.
      Iffy since 2006

      We have a REAL Conservative leader.
      You Libs stick to appointing your own,
      we like to elect our leader, and then stick with him.

      • You do not have a real conservative leader : you have an old reformer pretending to be a conservative. You lemmings have been hoodwinked again. Over you go.

        • Darling, Reformers are Conservatives.

          Or maybe by a real conservative leader, you mean some one like Joe Clark, who supported Paul Martin.

          • I am not sure you know what you are talking about : must be past your bedtime.

          • or beyond her grasp.

          • Oh, I get it.
            Liberals liked it when the PCs were Liberal lite, that's where the LPC went shopping for a majority. Now they have to hold their noses and beg for Dipper support.
            Conservatives didn't like Liberal lite, and that's why there is no longer a federal PC party…….gone.

          • Harper has learned that if he wants to maintain power, he has to appear to govern from the centre. That is why all these so-called "conservative" measures are done on the sly.

            It was just too bad for him that the census change was noticed.

            Harper knows Canadians want a liberal government. That is why he is pretending to be one.

      • Other than some minor tinkering on crime, and the dumb census change, and create a huge deficit, what has Harper done that is conservative? And does it compare in any way to the hundreds of extremely non-conservative things he's done.

        • Well, cut KAIROS' funds, axed the Court Challenges programme, shifted pork from Lib to Con ridings, appointed Con Senators, fired Ablonczy for Pride funding, cashiered Rights and Democracy 's board members, axed arts funding, bullied the GG. Other than that, not much. ; ^)

        • 'what has Harper done that is conservative?'

          And the next Liberal statement will be that Harper and his right wing ideologies have changed Canada, destroyed her!!!

          You Libs gotta pick one avenue or the other…
          either Harper is Liberal lite ,
          or Harper is an old Reformer and destroying liberal Canada

          • OR, Harper is pretending to govern like a liberal, while he covertly makes changes that he hopes will not be noticed.

            The world is not black and white my friend. There are more possibilities and choices than the limited selection you present.

          • Wilson: I answer for myself and my own views.

            And in my view, on fiscal matters, Harper has moved the goalposts to the left with record breaking spending, then breaking his own record, then shattering it with the stimulus, without even trying to make any meaningful cuts (except to the military which he cut by $2B this year alone and cancelled orders for equipment and tanks the military desperately needs), creating regional development agencies, corporate welfare, expanding the Canadian Human Rights Commission, etc..

            (Except for the creation of the deficit: that is classic conservativism a la Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Stelmach, Eves, Mulroney, and any other conservative I can think of.)

            It's no wonder he has to go ideologically stupid on stuff like crime, census, rights, foreign policy, etc.

      • But he's lied and misinformed and misrepresented you – how can you be okay with that?

    • Or rescue the remaining Red Tories.

    • SEEMS to have lost the plot? Once he started reading the Bush/Cheney script for governance, I don't think he ever recovered.

      • But Paul, that would make PMSH very conservative,
        and the posters above say he's done nothing conservative.

        • No, that would make him very NEO-conservative.

    • or a new leader of a real Conservative Party

      That's it, isn't it? Replace Harper? You betcha. But with whom?

      With the Canadian Sarah Palin, Sarah Glover or Candy Hoeppner? With Steve Junior, Pierre Polievre? With the Pillsbury doughboy, Jason Kenney? With Stock "Don't make me laugh" Day?

      Harper has made sure that he's surrounded with idiots and morons who will always make him look good by comparison. Pure genius, I say.

  10. Harper's not tuning out. He's just tired. He's tried everything and still 65-70% of Canadians won't vote for him. All those Economic Action Plan ads, G20 summit, Olympics, Queen, hundred of photo-ops …. and yet, not even a dead cat bounce for Steve. Must be terribly frustrating for him.

    • Cons 145,
      Libs 77

      Cons 145
      Libs + Dippers 114

      • As of 2008. And that's seat count, not actual votes which you well know.

        • 57% of the federalist (no seppies) seats in Parliament were won by CPC MPs.

          vote share %
          CON 37.63
          LIB 26.24
          NDP 18.20

          combined LibDip 44.44
          + Green/Other /Ind 8.96% = 53.40% did not vote CPC
          64.79% did not vote LPC

          foolish to include seppies, those votes/seats are not available to Federaist parties

          • I think you mean it is inconvenient to include Bloc votes – kind of ruins your little theory with facts.

          • seppies? Are you really that linguistically stunted?

          • No. She just adheres to the school of thought that believes silly names are subtle insults.

      • 23 low
        25 high
        60% chance of rain
        84% humidity
        …that's today's weather in my neck of the woods – and we all know weather changes

  11. Wrote Scott in jest: "…When's the last time you decided on the spur of the moment to get out there and deny a gay some rights? Or humiliate a well-meaning public servant…"

    Unfortunately not in jest: "…Stogran joins a long list other federal government appointees who've been shown the door, including Peter Tinsley, former head of the Military Police Complaints Commission and Linda Keen, the former head of Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission…"

    • Funny that he never fired the Afghanistan whistle-blower Colvin.

      • Nope. Once Colvin is free of government restrictions, he might write a book or something.

        • which would make him a book ahead of PM Hockeybook

  12. This writer ends his/her article with, 'Sincerely, Canada.'
    Typical leftist mentality – thinking he/she speaks for everyone.
    I think the next election shall prove him/her wrong.

    • 1) It's a humour column

      2) Given the polls, he speaks for about 70% of us

    • Ceeger, of course speaks for 'real' Canadians.

      • yeah those that wear tinfoil hats

    • Typical rightist, zero sense of humour.

    • Typical response from the humourless angry right.

    • Are you suggesting Scott Feschuk is a hermaphrodite?

      Scott, are you/you gonna put up with this?

  13. Bravo Mr. F.
    You are a true source of national pride like the Tar Sands, Hydro Electric Power, Canada's Military Peacekeeping history etc.
    No Wait. I mean that in a good way.

  14. David Akin, we are the ‘eternal opposition'

    on Rutherford, Thurs, Aug 12th @ 10:28 AM http://www.am770chqr.com/other/audiovault.html

    Rutherford: “Do you think the press gallery has a general political view ?”

    Akin: “Yes, and here it is:
    We fashion ourselves, and you may think this may sound the wrong thing, as the quote ‘eternal opposition'.

    In other words, I think whether it's the previous guys, Martin's guys, you know Prime Minister Martin's guys or whatever ……..
    we're always on the side of the opposition.

    We're not elected. We'll never be elected. We'll never be in power. We're constantly the opposition … and this may be one of the reasons people generally turn off politics …

    • Actually the media always supports the govt, no matter which party it is.

      • Ummm Emily,
        read what Akin said………. he admitted the media has taken it upon themselves to be the 'eternal opposition'

        • Well, duh – that's their job. To challenge and try to keep politics honest.

          David Akin? Who would believe him now?

          • Id David Akin said the sky was green would it be green? Come on wilson its called journalism not Akinism.

            Cripes. You need to look at the world less simplistically. Dont take so many opinions as fact.

          • And you need to stop being such an idiot!

          • somebody's bitter…

    • "David Akin, we are the ‘eternal opposition'"

      If only!

      The press gallery has only started taking time away from celebrating Harper's 'brilliance' to take a close hard look at what he's been doing to the country since it became so obvious that the fish is rotting.

    • So in future some day (not soon, that's cool) when the Libs are back in power, I fully appreciate in advance your defence of a Lib government in having to deal with the future "eternal opposition." I guess you were on Chretien's side way back when Milewski was going after the APEC story, eh Wilson?

      • Wouldn't be the first time I have said that the media are attacking Liberals,
        tho they do have a vested interest in who leads 'their' party.

    • wilson….you are right………there is quite a difference in reporting the news, presenting both sides of the argument and allowing the public to make up its own mind versus a parliamentary press gallery that practices pack style and advocacy journalism. How many editorials has the Globe and the Star written on the census issue. The media are not bystanders as their supporters try to imply. They have taken a position on the census, prorogation, H1N1 and other issues and are doing their best to convince Canadians that the government is wrong and the media and those that oppose the government are on the right side of the issues. There is not much balance on any particular issue. It is all one sided.
      Akin let the cat out of the bag. The media view themselves to be an unelected opposition party and so anything a Conservatives government does will be criticized with all the fury and torqued headlines that can be mustered.

      • ''..and this may be one of the reasons people generally turn off politics …'' says Akin

        Media driven game playing,
        our national media is the worst.

        Macleans is a good example of pack journalism,
        Wherry is Mr copy paste.

        • ha ha that's pretty rich coming from the Queen of copying and pasting.

          Hollinm getting backed up by wilson? Wow, that's a chasm of credibility there.

          • Yes because everything that comes out of your mouth nakes sense, post something that makes sense or get out of here.

          • ha ha sure. Guess someone's irked.

      • If I'm not mistaken, the Globe and Mail endorsed Stephen Harper in the 2008 federal election

        • shh dont let those pesky facts get in the way of wilson and holinm. They dont care for facts and reality just froth, intolerance of different opinions, and ideology.

          I mean if David Akin said there was a giant chocolate statue of Stephen Harper in Estevan Saskatchewan, hollinm and wilson would be the first people driving to see it.

          "But David Akin said…"


    • Oh, don't even get me started on Rutherford. If he was half the man he was when the Liberals were in power, I might still have a modicum of respect for him. Alas, as soon as the Conservatives took power, he turned a blind eye, and sucked straight from the teat.

      Too bad we elect our Senators in Alberta, Dave. You'll have to go move to one of those commie provinces out east.

      It shouldn't need to be mentioned that the purpose of the press is to hold the government accountable. That, of course, means that they will perpetually be in opposition to the government. And, considering Mr. Harper's election promise to be transparent and accountable to the Canadian public, shouldn't he (and you) support this?

      Unless, maybe he figures that he can be transparent and accountable by ignoring the people's advocate?

  15. Less taxes, less social programs, more freedom. Let's get Canada back to where it should be, as the great northern beacon of freedom that all the world would wish to emulate.

    The first step is a majority for Harper so he no longer has to play these stupid games with the Canadian liberal media.

    • Since 70% of the country thinks you're crazy, that's not going to happen.

      YOU go live in the bush, other people want civilization.

      • 74% of Canadians did not vote Liberal

        • And 63% didn't vote Conservative, so it's a wash.

          • 11% difference is a wash?
            Maybe in liberal math, but outside the Enchanted Forest, that's a huge difference.

          • yeah but you're response does nothing to prove your point. Back to the copy and paste list to find an answer!

      • And a correction Emily
        62% of Canadians did not vote Conservative,
        74% of Canadians did not vote Liberal
        82% of Canadians did not vote NDP
        90% of Canadians did not vote Bloc

        • And a correction Wilson:
          Only 21% of Canadians voted Conservative, the lowest level of support of any Canadian PM in our entire history. With everything going his way – the Liberals in disarray and nearly bankrupt (both financially and intellectually), record breaking spending to self-promote, record fundraising, the media lapping up everything he says and regurgitating every talking point – in the 2008 election fewer voters Canadians voted for him than in 2006! The only thing that has saved him these 4 years is a hapless opposition, a hapless Liberal leader and a hapless media. Canadians don't like him and don't trust him and don't share his vision of Canada.

          • the Liberals in disarray and nearly bankrupt (both financially and intellectually)

            Ted, I'd be interested if you could expand on your point that the Liberals were "intellectually bankrupt" in 2008. In what ways?

          • In that they did not offer policies that even tried to connect to the priorities of canadians.

          • Canadians don't like him and don't trust him and don't share his vision of Canada.

            I believe the best measure of the Canadian electorate's "mood" is how many people feel the PM is taking this country in the right direction. From a Nanos poll taken in December: 33.2% of Canadians think the country is headed in the wrong direction while Two-thirds of Canadians, or 64.3% felt the country was headed in the right direction.

            I always felt this was a better way of gauging whether Canadians share a government's vision.

          • Actually polls in the spring through the summer have shown that, while more Canadians think the country is headed in the right direction, an increasing number of Canadians think the government is headed in the wrong directly.

            So clearly Canadians think better of our nation than we do of our government or its vision.

            I always felt this was a better way of gauging whether Canadians share a government's vision.

          • I'd argue that "Canada heading in the right direction" and "government heading in the right direction" are interchangeable.

            Even if you disagree with the above statement, the same poll that I quoted also states "Two Canadians in three, 68.9 percent, give the government and PM a passing grade." Despite being stuck at below 35% in the polls, almost 70% give this government and PM a passing grade.share a government's vision.

            All this to say that stating "only 21% voted Conservative" is probably not the best way to gauge support for this government, its vision, and the PM.

          • If they are interchangeable, then why are the numbers so different and moving in opposite directions?

            No, Canadians know that government is only a part of the economy and the country. When you poll Canadians on the two questions in the same poll with the same people – direction of Canada and direction of the government – and you get two very different answers, it means something.

            The poll you quoted was 9 months ago before the prorogation hit. What was really interesting was in the spring when the economy was clearly in recovery and we did so well in the Olympics, etc, that is when you had the split. Before that, the government direction numbers were better than the country direction numbers, but in the spring it flipped. And it has continued to deteriorate for the Conservatives ever since, even as Canadians feel better about where their country is going.

            Only 21% voted Conservative is about the best way you can guage support for this government, its vision and the PM at the end of an election campaign, really the only poll that matters. On our current views, we clearly think Harper is trying to lead us in the wrong direction.

          • Only 21% of Canadians voted Conservative, the lowest level of support of any Canadian PM in our entire history

            That's FALSE, by a wide margin. In the first 10 Canadian elections, less than 21% of Canadians voted, in TOTAL. In fact, at least half of all elections had a smaller percentage of votes for the winner.

            And in fact, it was actually 15% of Canadians that voted for Harper. Even so, at least a third of Canadian elections had a lower percentage of votes for the winner.

          • Ok, scf, 21% of eligible voters, the smallest percentage of support ever for a PM. Ceertainly well of Wilsons lies.

          • yes, but… once again, while almost a true statement, that's a misleading statement: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/14/we-get-the-fee

            Firstly, the number is wrong, it should be 22%, not 21%.

            Secondly, that figure is only true because the number of registered voters is very high by historical standards, so that even when voter turnout is average by historical standards, when you measure the turnout relative to registered voters you get an abnormally low number.

            In other words, a high number of registered voters in the last 5 elections or so is the primary reason your statement is true.

          • Not so at all. It has nothing to do with "registered voters" but the population of Canada and those who are eligible to vote. And by historical comparisons, the lowest spot goes to Harper 2008 and the third lowest goes to Harper 2006.

            That's not misleading. That's fact. Once again, I'm having to apologize for facts and reality having such an anti-Conservative bias, but we understand very well why Harper doesn't like accurate statistics.

            Harper has the weakest mandate from the Canadian people. Ever.

            More to the point of this thread though, Wilson made the completely false claim that over a third of Canadians support Harper which is patently false.

          • It has nothing to do with "registered voters" but the population of Canada and those who are eligible to vote

            That is a lie, and the data that proves it can be found here. http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present…. http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/historical-tu
            which was collected from Elections Canada, and is the historical data that has been collected and disseminated by Elections Canada, the data which you are attempting to use to mislead people.

            It is quite easy to see that Harper's election numbers are by no means unusual historically. It is also easy to see that votes cast as a percentage of population has not changed much. It is also easy to see that votes cast as a percentage of registered voters is what has allowed you to spout your lies and misleading statements. You can do the number-crunching yourself if you wish to be educated, which I suspect you don't, you prefer ignorance.

            I'm tired of debunking your falsehoods and misleading statements. If you wish to remain willfully ignorant and dishonest, then so be it. I will stop correcting your errors, it's getting ridiculous.

          • If you are are harking back to 1867, only 11.2% of the population HAD the right to vote, according to your second link; no women of course, and precious few other people. I believe you had to own some property to be eligible to vote. So when 8.3% of the population voted, that was a 73.1% voter turnout. Not comparable to today when women and other undesirables (ethnic groups, poor people) get to vote.

          • And from that second link, about historical turnout:

            "…Unfortunately, there are some fundamental problems when one tries to compare voter turnout over long periods of time. Because "turnout" is simply the percentage of the people on a list of eligible voters who actually vote, the reliability of that measure depends entirely on the accuracy of the list of eligible voters. In most of the second half of the 20th century federal election lists were compiled by door-to-door visits. Many people were not included on the lists who would otherwise have been entitled to vote. People who had no interest in voting could simply refuse to answer questions when the enumeration officials visited a neighbourhood.

            As a result there has never been a completely accurate registration of all eligible voters. Various methods of compiling voter lists may have left from 5 to 15% of possible voters off the official lists…"

          • Also, Harper received more votes than the winners of 36 of the 41 federal elections.

          • don't share his vision of Canada

            That's false. As Mike514 points out, since 2/3 feel the country is headed in the right direction.

          • Harper is the most wonderful prime minister – ever. Is this what you want to hear?

          • I don't really want to read anything but good comments. If someone says something false and dishonest, I'll point it out. What you've said is not even measurable.

            If Ted had said Harper received the smallest percentage of votes from registered voters, he would have been correct. But that's only because we reached a very high level of registered voters (over 70%) in the 5 elections or so, and thus the voter turnout relative to registered voters is low by historical standards. The voter turnout relative to the population in the last election was average by historical standards.

            Ted decided to cherry-pick his statistic to make Harper look bad, and not only that, he twisted the wording of the statistic enough to make it false.

          • 'Ted decided to cherry-pick his statistic to make Harper look bad, and not only that, he twisted the wording of the statistic enough to make it false. '

            just wanted to repeat that….

          • more of your copying and pasting wilson?

            Never an original thought in that head of yours. At least none of your own.

          • Actually Wilson I was correcting a fabrication of yours when you falsely claimed that 62% of Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives. The correct number was 78%. That's not cherry-picking, that's called fact checking.

          • Since we're playing meaningless semantic games involving voter turnout, I'll point out that only 36.9% of the Canadian electorate voted for a non-Conservative candidate in the last election.

            The remaining 63.1% either voted for a Conservative candidate, or implicitly supported the status quo by not voting.

          • Ha ha.

            That is completely illogical.

          • It's as logical as the claim that Harper "only had the support of 22% of Canadians", which is my point in a nutshell. Hence the "meaningless semantic games involving voter turnout".

          • Actually, it is meaningful or meaningless depending upon how you actually use the data.

            For example, it is completely meaningless to assume that a large majority of Canadians support Harper because so many people didn't vote. That is speculation and wishful thinking. Makes for an interesting discussion but the data is meaningless.

            However, when refuting a direct and specific claim about the exact level of support Harper has – claiming only 62% of Canadians did not vote for him or that Canadians support him and his vision – saying that 78% of eligible voters did not vote for him is quite a direct and complete refutation of Wilson's claim and therefore very meaningful to this dicussion thread.

          • or implicitly supported the status quo

            That's a generous interpretation…..but I suppose that's what semantic games are all about.

            Carry on , then!!

          • Ted, I'd have to respectfully disagree with your reasoning. As Crit_Reasoning states, we're playing with semantics, even though you're technically correct.

            With your logic, Harper reduced the GST by 28.6%, not merely 2%. Is it technically correct? Well, yes, but…

          • Not at all. When someone says X is true, and you provide evidence that X is not true because of Y, there is nothing semantic about it. It's a correction. If you then use Y to prove something else, possibly it's semantics.

            Wilson made a factual claim about what Canadians think that only 62% of Canadians did not vote for Harper. I provided data showing she was wrong since 78% of Canadians (at least Canadians who are eligible to vote). That is all that I attempted to do with that data.

            I also threw in a fact that, in my opinion, is quite important in analyzing the Conservatives and that was to say that Harper has garned the lowest level of support from eligible voteers of any Canadian PM in our entire history. Now you can debate the importance of that – to me, it shows that his electoral success has more to do with a divided opposition and a weak Liberals than his popularity – but that is a fact and it does have meaning.

          • Mike 514 picked out a poll that is 9 months old. That's pretty stale data to back a straw man argument on SCF. The more recent polls show a quite different response

          • It would have been helpful for you to post a link. Regardless, I think it's likely that any recent poll should easily debunk the statement: "Canadians … don't share his vision of Canada".

          • Yeah that explains the headline Support for Stephen Harper's Conservatives Slipping. Im not sure whether you're being disingenous or just stupid SCF

          • Someone in there I've tried to find some logic and failed. I responded to your request for a more recent result of the same type of poll and now you're talking about something completely different, along with the usual brainless insults.

            BTW, don't even bother with such stupid headlines. If you really want to see what the polls are saying, go here: http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html

          • You know scf the interesting thing is Ive found several different media organizations who carry the same poll you cited with a different interpretation than you managed.

            None of these interpretations is hardly favourable. Ive included links to all the stories I could find that carried the same poll. Now I did endeavour to find a variety of sources but Im sure you'll have some froth about MSM liberal biases etc… whatever.

            You seem to associate people thinking Canada going in the right direction as support for Harper. I think only a rabid partisan could view it that way. I dont know anyone that wakes up and says "Thank you Stephen Harper for putting this country in the right direction" It just doesnt happen.

            Really, this poll could be twisted to favour any interpretation that the presenter wanted: as you so effectively proved. Obviously it's just weakened your argument.

          • You seem to be putting a whole lot of words in my mouth. None of this relates to anything said so far, apart from the fact you've found a few polls you should have linked to previously.

          • You are really a piece of work scf.

            You accuse others of cherry-picking when they bring up relevant on-point data to correct someone else's spin, and then you go not only cherry-picking facts but then extrapolating incorrectly from those facts, making them mean something they don't.

            Fact: the poll showed Harper's support dropping and the whopping 11% gap down to 1%. You ignore that.

            Fact: the poll shows 51.9% of Canadians think the country is going in the right direction, and you take this to mean Canadians share Harper's vision for Canada… but….

            Fact: the poll also shows that, directly on this very point, 47% of Canadians think the government is going in the wrong direction and only 41% think the government is
            going in the right direction, continuing a trend that has seen Harper's wrong direction numbers keep going up and his right direction numbers keep going down.

            And worse for him are the latest Ipsos numbers which showed Ignatieff, certainly behind Harper, but staying put but Harper's personal numbers going down and for the first time Ignatieff's momentum numbers and positive/negative numbers better than Harper's.

          • I'm a piece of work? Are you kidding me? I spend time to correct your falsehoods and you double-down with even more lies!

            Fact: the poll showed Harper's support dropping and the whopping 11% gap down to 1%. You ignore that.

            tedbetts, here is what the polls are saying: http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html

            You are cherry-picking two polls to indicate a 10% drop when in reality polling shows very little change. That is called "dishonest" or "misleading" commentary, there is no way to get around it. Fact.

            Your other two "facts", I'm not sure what to make of them, because they're not really saying anything, and you've not provided any evidence for the statement that "Harper's wrong direction numbers keep going up and his right direction numbers keep going down", so based on your track record, which is not good, I'll consider that statement another lie until I see the evidence.

            Finally, your last paragraph is the usual bull of picking a couple of polls to make a statement when in reality it's just the individual polling errors. If you look at polling trends (check my link), it's easy to see you are being dishonest and misleading.

          • Again with the cherry-picking and changing the channel scf?

            I'm not cherry-picking polls or facts, scf. You are the one who picked that poll and claimed it showed Canadians shared Harper's vision because they think the country is going in the right direction, deliberately ignoring the question that was directly on point and shows the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

            Frankly, I don't put much stock in polls, especially summer polls. I am only responding to your and Wilson's falsehoods and misleading use of statistics.

            No wonder conservatives don't like statistics. Not only do they usually undermine conservative arguments, but they don't even know how to use them or read them correctly. LOL.

          • Fact is supposed to mean "truth". Your facts are misleading and dishonest spin. Here are the facts, not those things you are attempting to describe as facts which are not.

            The gap between Harper and Iggy has grown from January when they were nearly tied. Since then, the gap has remained fairly constant, between 5 and 8 points. The current gap is about 5 points. The largest gap this year was about 8 points, in May. Fact.

          • I'm really sorry facts and reality don't suit your arguments scf and have such an anti-scf bias.

          • Well, it's easy to see you've conceded the debate with these last two comments, which frankly, add nothing of interest and are rather childish. You're welcome.

          • well it's hard to debate when the goalposts change.

          • Please link to a more recent poll. I merely Googled "government direction canada poll" and chose the first (Nanos) poll that appeared.

            In any case, my point was that "government heading in right direction" can sometimes be substantially higher than a government's support in the polls, or at the election box.

          • Wow, so just 15% of Canadians voted Liberal!!

          • wow changing the goalposts as always wilson. Maybe just coming up with an effective retort would be enough. Too hard for you?

    • "Less taxes, less social programs, more freedom. Let's get Canada back to where it should be, as the great northern beacon of freedom that all the world would wish to emulate."

      And don't forget Twirling, twirling, TWIRLING TOWARD FREEDOM!

    • Tell me Ryan (and how old are you?) – what freedoms are we missing, and how oppressed do you think we are.

      Funny, when the right don't have answers and want to defend Harper's mistakes and lies they resort to this freedom crap.

      • We are a little bit more free now that the census police have been given a pink slip.

        perhaps Ryan lives in Ontario were Premier Dad treats adults like children, unable to be responsible for their own life.

        • Wilson – please focus – I was asking Ryan, not you.

          Boy, you are out in panic mode today with ridiculously OLD talking points.

          Oh, and Wilson, do you have ADD? We weren't talking about Ontario and McGuinty. The discussion is "federal" politics and Harper.

          Stop panicking and let little Ryan speak for himself. He's probably looking up his talking points notes right now.

          • Are you capable of speaking without condescension or derision?

          • Was I speaking to you? No!

            I should think that Ryan could speak for himself and we're still waiting

          • Every little bit more of freedom helps. A trend towards reducing taxes rather than raising them, via outrageous things like the HST or eco fees, would be a start. Now I gotta pay an extra 8 cents a litre because our government wants to fund eco crap. Heck, these guys want to do crap and trade too.

            Ontario needs a government more now than ever that is willing to make the cuts despite the screaming to reunite Ontarians with their money.

  16. LOL Thanks, Mr. Feschuk.

    That's really good.

  17. Where do journalists get their breath-taking sense of arrogance, entitlement and self-righteousness? The conceit of this man. It really turns my stomach. Time for a reality check.

    • Oh, wait, did you mean Feschuk? I thought you meant Harper…

      • I thought he was talking about himself.

    • oh, I think Wells has him beat in those departments anon.

      • Yeah but you have us all beat in pretentiousness and copypasting wilson

    • From politicians I think

  18. Tough on crime, we see more more ships of illegal Tamil refugees are coming.it is a joke.Vic Toews said tough and did soft. Funny.

    • Toews harrumphing on the 6:00 o'clock news is supposed to scare them off it seems. He's like Mel Brooks in Blazing addles.

  19. Who will succeed Harper? I think it is time to consider a leadership convention in that party. Who can lead them out of the minority mire?

    • Interesting point. After his next minority the caucus will get restless, if they're not already.

    • Who says they will win?

    • I'd vote Danny Williams for PM.

    • ' I think it is time'

      and conservatives care what YOU think!
      Yah, real tough being 'mired' in government for 4 years and 8 months, and counting…..

      Who can lead the LPC out of oppositiion?
      the #3 pick from the Liberal B Team, Rae?

      • keeping the spirit of democracy alive right wilson? "Dont talk unless you agree with me" Are you just a walking talking point?

    • They should make Deanie Del Mastro leader. He's funny when he gets mad…big red face, scowl, that dim look in his eyes that lets you know he hasn't got a clue what's going on. He'd be the perfect face for what passes for Canadian conservatism these days.

  20. Hot 'stache, shame 'bout the policies.

  21. Conservative Fatigue Factor

  22. Truly great photo, and yes you conservative folk really, really ought to lighten up. This was pokin fun, not a serious attack on our beloved PM.

    On a serious note, I will be fascinated by what Mr. Harper does this fall. I have been a Harper-hater since day 1, but I certainly have to admit he is often at his best when cornered. Whether it be putting Maddog Manley in charge of major policy development or tickling the ivories, he has on numerous occasions pulled off something remarkable just as his strong negative numbers seem to be catching up to him. (Conversely, he seems to be equally adept at letting his inner bastard out if things are going too well)

    It is good to have something to look forward too, now that the end of summer is in sight.

    • stewart, I think stinko Harper will see a different opposition in the fall. the population's mood is changing and people are tired of the bullying we get from the people who are supposed to serve us. Iggy's tour is making him credible in the eyes of the general public and the tory scandals are starting to grow. The opposition have been carefully sharpening the axe to chop this government's head off and go to the people.

      • go to the people!
        i agree

  23. According to skewed polling the media wishes you to believe the Conservatives will never hold more than 33% of voter's confidence. Trolling for the ignorant as always, it's laughable…let's have an election and we will see the true numbers!

    The MSM loath Harper because they are in control of absolutely nothing, so they will spin and fabricate any "tempest in a teapot" to turn public opinion sour in their sorry attempt to torpedo him at every turn.

    The media are the real enemy here, not just the opposition!

    • sorry pal, the real enemy here is Harper and his single minded approach in attempting to force change on moslty unsuspecting Canadians. They are waking up thanks to the MSM.

      They loathe Harper like the majority of Canadians. Our current political system is allowing him to slither around like the snake he is.

    • WarMallot is absolutely correct. Kady O'Malley split an infinitive in my face yesterday and Inkless threw a sarcastic phrase through my window. This war with words has to stop! Its like these people think ITS THEIR JOB TO CRITICIZE THE GOVERNMENT!

      • I thought it was their job to inform Canadians…….
        give us facts, without bias

        when did journalism become being the 'eternal opposition'?
        do they teach that to future journalists, or are they re-taught pack journalism by their employer?

        • Well wilson, a journalists job isnt a simple as that of a dog fetching a ball. And some of those journalists become columnists who write articles based on gasp!!!! Opinion!

          I know it must be terrible for you that they dont publish articles that agree with you only. I imagine you must be absolutely pallid with anger over the liberal MSM influence in the entertainment section!

        • Actually, in a "modern democracy" (that's what we're supposed to have here, remember?) part of the job of the media is to take the government to task, yes. And yes, they do teach that in journalism schools, and have since the 1920s at least. Nowhere in any journalism courses will you ever be taught that the media is supposed to be "without bias" with regard to politics, because there is no such thing as an unbiased political opinion.

    • Well hey there WarHammer, FreakDumbinion is calling your name. Folks, when characters like Warhammer defend the Cons (and they always do) RUN!

    • I definitely agree with WarHammer. Something strange IS definitely happening with the media of the country. Clearly, they loathe Harper and Conservatives and want them out, without questioning their own prejudices. The recent whining about who the government picked to ask a question is a case in point. And they have gone from being "reporters" to "advocates" of one political party, which they try to push at every turn – meanwhile trying to drown out and crush the one the voters have chosen. Then they critcise the Conservatives for not getting out their "message" — through such a biased media?____The one-sided coverage of prorogation as though it hadn't been done 150 times already – and of the long-form census which is in fact an intrusion into privacy – is a case in point. Where are the civil rights advocates?____And one thing about Feschuk's writing – it isn't even funny – his comments are just mean and petty and show a breath-taking sense of superiority and self-righteousness.

  24. Too bad the author wasn't born 80 years earlier, he could have been part of that whacky Germans propaganda machine. Lemme guess, this guy hates Harper and loves all things left. Vying for a Senate seat or a Governor Generalship, are we?? They used to look down upon yellow journalism, This guy is in a left wing loon league all his own.
    What a waste of valuable moments of my life reading this drivel.

    • Yes, because this lighthearted bit of satire is exactly the same as Nazi propaganda.

    • @Roy LOL

      • If he were vying for a Senate seat, surely he should pander to Harper the way Duffy did?

    • Godwin's law – it never fails

  25. FESCHUK!

    I noted this morning that "someone" has been charged with trying to light a fire under PM Harper.

    Apparently the Mounties caught the guy pouring lighter fluid outside 24 Sussex, they were about to stun him when they noted he was already in that state. The similarities to you just keep on coming.

    From the article, "The man's name, (Feschuk) hasn't been released and, as of early Sunday, no charges had been laid."
    Even if you get away with this, I hope you learn a lesson. Hollimn will be watching!

  26. It's really unfortunate how far the Canadian media has gone to cheer-lead for its favourites. It's like they've taken the idea that nobody is bias free and now run with it.

    We've got the Sun chain running homages to Rob Ford, and the once proud Macleans writing love letters to Harper. It's too bad the media today doesn't understand that it's job to be the gadfly and produce information for the public. Too many "journalists" are now afraid of being left out of the club and are willing to do anything they're told to advance their careers.

    This is a sad, sad article and that it's in Macleans has a lot to do with why I no longer subscribe to the once wonderful magazine.

    • Actually it's a funny, funny satire.

    • Don't mind that whistling sound above your head. That damn point keeps missing me too!

  27. Scott Feschuk-just another Journaloser.

    • bocanut, Im pretty sure this isnt Plentyoffish. Noone is looking for your lessons on combining seduction and right wing political discussion. Dont you have something to barbeque?

      • See what bad language did boca!!!

        • No one is looking for an opinion from a basement dwelling wanna be Dr. Who.

          • ah boca, still so angry and so stupid. Too bad you think people want to hear your drivel.

            Journaloser? Is that an opinion? If it is boca, then you should see someone, because your brain isnt working at a normal level.

          • Okay okay you're right. Maybe I should take the tinfoil off the windows of my trailer and start being nicer to people. Thanks Jon!

          • There! Now you're thinkin'!

          • Thank you doug, I realize that Ive been behaving badly and that this doesnt reflect well on myself. I will do my best to be a gentleman from now on.

  28. Thanks Scott. My latest issue of McLeans arrived at the same time as my subscription renewal notice. In a bit of a quandry on whether to renew or not, after the second paragraph of your column (after which I stopped reading any further), I decided not to renew. Pity, because after your magazine's stand against the Human Wrongs Commisions at that time, I had vowed to be a lifelong subscriber.

    • Typical wishy-washy, indecisive, flip flopping Con…

  29. When the media took on Paul Martin, he quit,
    when they took on Iffy, he promised to do better,
    when they tried to take on Harper, he said


    Pack journalism,
    like a school of fish, copy paste copy paste copy paste

    • well if anyone would know anything about copying and pasting it would be wilson

      • I taught Wherry everything he knows about copy paste

        • ha ha yes you did!!!

    • 0010101010011100 Conbot autopilot 011101 PMO talking points 10101011110010111001 copy paste 01110101 110010111

      • did you just intercept wilson's data feed?

  30. ps.

    Ignatieff dismissed calls that Canada should have followed Australia's policy on refugees and turned the Tamil refugee boat away.

    "This is Canada, not Australia," Ignatieff said. "That means Canada has principles, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our international obligations."

    Latest Iffy gaffe.

    • yeah minor when you compare the rapidly decreasing credibility of the CPoC on the census every time Clement opens his mouth.

      • But major, compared to Dion suggesting we invade Pakistan?

        • but irrelevant when we have Mr Clement making a fool of himself whenever a camera is present.

          Move on people nothing to see here. Nice to use a conservative catchphrase. Move on people move on. Nothing to see here.

          • So a mere Cons Minister is as relevent as the last 2 leaders of the LPC?

          • well is that even the topic? I mean what's more interesting for the media to report on… some conspiracy theory of yours or the ever evolving trainwreck that is Tony Clement.

            Ignatieff is boring, Clement is flailing. The camera always follows the flailing guy.

            So your point is moot really.

  31. Mr.Vic Toews should be fired,hundreds hundreds illegai Tamils are coming, taxpayers money are losing ,don't tell me he is on duty to protect our safety.

  32. Diane Ablonczy got in a lot of trouble for dealing with drag in the streets.

    Anyhow, I share your intense dislike of the PM but it's never cool to advocate violence in politics.

    • Im fine with the PM having to go through the streets in drag though.

  33. No wonder I cancelled our subscription to Maclean's after about fifty seventy years of reading it. It has become just so juvenile.
    This is just a really good example of how low it has sunk. No wonder Mr. Harper doesn't have any respect for the media.
    I don't either.

    • Well you're only as young as you feel.

  34. It is especially delightful when people who have already cancelled their subscriptions due to the decline in the writing at Maclean's take some of their valuable time to search through that web that runs through the whole world to read…. (wait for it)
    (ta da…. flourish of drums etc) Maclean's content!

    It almost makes it appear that it is less about their disconcerting taste and more about their tightness of wallet.

    In any case, I am sure the management at Macleans appreciates the income their web traffic generates (and probably give Feschuk a cut!)

  35. » If you lose the power to laugh, you lose the power to think.
    – Clarence Darrow

  36. You are a product of pack journalism RB,
    the Libluvin media has driven the 'everybody hates Harper' theme to a point of sickness amongst Liberal supporters.

    • shorter wilson: you dont agree with wilson so therefore you dont count. Wilson Supreme!!!

      • you can't shorter me Jon! lol
        Anyways, comments like that should not be defended.
        I'm guessing you have never hated someone so much as to wish them harm, Jon.

        • hell no, I may be ornery in the morning but I have a pretty happy outlook on life. To be honest Id probably get along with most people in real life. Well except the really angry ones on both sides. They're never fun.

          There is a seagull I do wish harm upon but that is because of it's incredible ability to hit my balcony windows.

    • Now, now wilson. Let's not paint all of us anti Stephen Harper types with the RB brush. I have no desire to drag Mr Harper through the streets – the opposition benches or an early retirement are just fine with me ;)

  37. Mr Feschuk, sorry you'll have to excuse Mr Harper these days, he's too busy flying by Deceit of his pants to do much else. But don't worry, the CRAP is still sticking to them.

  38. Feschuk is what he is; and he's not journalist. Not sure why he gets paid to do what millions of bloggers do for free. (that is vent on the internet). He's not even that good at it.

    It's summer. Steve is spending some time with family and gearing up for the fall.

    • You know what is funny about this? When the House passed a number of crime bills in June, 2007, Harper claimed he HAD to prorogue in September because the Senate was "sitting on" the crime bills – over the summer…

      Ha ha ha ha ha

      PS Feschuk is damn good at what he does.

    • for what prorogation until the polls improve?

    • Gearing up for the fall, huh? Hope the plans include a rubber suit, because it's going to be a long way down.

  39. Check out the pre-teen puberty-inducing drama queen histrionics of Russell Barth. What an emotional basket-case. "…for what he has done to this country." Good Grief.

    I mean, really. You're embarrassing the rest of us Canadians.

  40. Hey Mr. Chase that was great reading. Sarcasm, irony, whatever, but mostly ballsy truth. We would be interested to know if a forthcoming reply is in the works. Good stuff!!

    • The reply:

      Dear Canada,

      How did you get this address??


      • I would have though the reply would be something like this;
        "The opposition and those nosy journalists made me do it"!
        Take care..

      • LOL!!! I needed that! Thanks!

  41. My apologies…Mr Feschuk as opposed to Mr. Chase!

  42. Classy, Russell Barth. You are one classy individual. You are also a fine supporter of democracy. Can't beat Harper in an election? Advocate violence instead. Classy.

    Unless you think that statement was satire, or funny somehow. Whatever.

  43. Hey Right on!!!

    Glad someone had the guts to say it

  44. Considering how the media has treated the Conservative Government since 2006, does Maclean's really expect the Prime Minister to continue trying to communicate with it? There is no sense of trust whatsoever. In particular, the personal derogatory terms and the constant reference to 'hidden agendas' and ideological nonsense would certainly wear down the recipient of such unnecessary harshness.

    • Actually, Canadians expect the Prime Minister to communicate with the people of Canada, and not just by sending out dishonest talking points.

      • All well and good, Holly. But the media have been hounding Harper all Summer and they're annoyed at not getting a rise from him so the media re now telingl Canadians that Harper is not 'communicating' with Canadians. Actually, he's not communicating with the likes of Mr. Feschuk. Nor should he.

        • Harper has been hiding out like a coward since the G20 mess. He never holds an unscripted press conference because he is afraid to anwer questions. And he sure as h*ll is not communicating with all Canadians the way a Prime Minister should. He has no vision for Canada and poor leadership abilities.

          • He may also be taking a well needed rest break after the G20 conference "mess" and four years of non-stop minority government with all of the instability that that entails. Speaking of scripted press conferences, did you hear Michael Ignatieff tell waiting journalists that he never answers questions which present "what-if" scenarios. Do you really think political leaders simply go to the podium with no message to offer journalists and with no objective they wish to achieve? Parliament is not sitting right now and I, for one, am glad that ALL of our political leaders are, to a greater or lesser degree, not communicating with Canadians.

          • "non-stop minority government"!!!!??!! Aside from a couple of prorogations, you mean?

          • non stop campaigning on the public's time can be a bit tiring I imagine. Tiring for Canadians to!

          • Two unfortunate prorogations, the first of which stopped a coalition government to have been lead by Stephane Dion. Dion would have been Prime Minister of Canada had there been no prorogation in December 2008, just in time for the worst recession since the Depression of the 1930s. I wonder how Dion would have done as PM under such trying circumstances when his only concern was for the Environment? Probably with considerable difficulty. Canada has done fairly well, economically speaking, under the current government. We are witnessing very trying political times, with a certain level of instability for all politicians.

  45. It's true that he's not trying to woo us as frequently as before, but at least we can take comfort in the fact that he's saving all his autographed pictures for Canadians only. I want the one where he's holding a kitten, please.

  46. Can you say, "Tipping Point?"

    I think I like the picture too. It's not like Harper hasn't photoshopped his image at any opportunity. Tipping Point!