“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald


In Tuesday’s Sun: at least one guy knew he was “just visiting”

What I want to know is this: when he told Harvard University that he was indeed returning to a full-time teaching position in Boston – when he signed on the dotted line, and finally confirmed that he was indeed “just visiting” – could Michael Ignatieff hear a cock crow, somewhere, for the third time?

If he didn’t, the rest of us sure did. Now that he has fulfilled the political prophesy about him, what more is there to say about Michael Ignatieff?

Not much. The Conservative Party alleged that he was “just visiting,” Ignatieff denied that he was “just visiting,” and – as we all learned this week – he was indeed “just visiting.” That’s his footnote in history, now.

Unlike 2011, when all of the Liberal Party was highly indignant about the Conservatives’ multi-million-dollar “just visiting” attack ad campaign, no one jumped to defend Ignatieff’s integrity and patriotism this time. Just a few lonely voices online, mostly saying everyone should just leave him alone. The popular reaction was one of disdain, not anger.

Conspicuously absent from this puny chorus, rallying to defend the former Liberal Party leader, was the rather distinctive voice of current Liberal Party leader. Not a peep was heard from him. The silence was deafening, in fact.

It’s not like the two men don’t know each other. Back in 2010-2011, Trudeau was regularly spotted in 409-S, the Opposition Leader’s offices (now occupied, thanks to Ignatieff and his adroit campaign staff, by one Thomas Mulcair). He would attend meetings with Ignatieff and other senior caucus Liberals in the boardroom, winking merrily at staff along the way.

In those days, Trudeau was nominally part of the Ignatieff circle of advisors, but he also sort of wasn’t. He was there, but he wasn’t there. When a big decision was being discussed, no one ever said: “We should check this out with Justin first.” Ever.

In retrospect, it appears that Justin Trudeau was shrewdly playing the long game. The previous leader, Stephane Dion, barely disguised his lack of enthusiasm for Pierre Trudeau’s eldest son. He made Justin’s life difficult.

Ignatieff didn’t do likewise, but it was clear he relied on his old nemesis/bestie Bob Rae far more than he ever relied on Justin Trudeau. He regarded Trudeau as “young.” Trudeau, for his part, looked quite content with that.

It is possible that Trudeau knew the train-wreck that lay ahead, and wanted to be far from the wreckage when it happened. It is possible – even likely – that he knew that Ignatieff did not connect with everyday people in the way that he did. After all: even in those days, Justin Trudeau was far more of a fundraising draw than Michael Ignatieff.

So, he bided his time. When the Liberal Party of Canada was reduced to its worst showing in history, and Ignatieff lost his own seat, Justin Trudeau was the first name on every Liberal’s lips. Not Bob Rae. When Rae finally accepted this – bitterly, reluctantly – the table was set for Justin. The leadership race was a mere formality.

Justin Trudeau – as the increasingly-frustrated Conservatives are learning, with their attack ads that barely register on voters – does politics the way he boxes: he plays the long game. He undersells, and then he overpowers.

Evidence of Trudeau’s long-game strategy found in this week’s sad return of Michael Ignatieff to Harvard.

It is not a case of Michael, we hardly knew ye. It is more a case of: Michael, Justin Trudeau knew you better than you knew yourself.

.



33 Responses to “In Tuesday’s Sun: at least one guy knew he was “just visiting””

  1. Reg says:

    Justin may “connect” with people, but surely he is totally incompetent to lead the nation – nationally and internationally!
    Why don’t Liberals reject Justin for the fraud that he most certainly is? He is not a political leader, he is an actor pretending to be a politician.
    He has shown he can raise money for the Liberals, but to entrust him with the leadership of the party is a bad joke — and a bad dream.

  2. Yukon Cornelius says:

    I think you a give Trudeau too much credit – I can’t see him putting that much thought being put into it (or, for that matter, into anything else he’s done). Ignatieff, while obviously an intelligent man, always struck me as a dilettante and he’s probably better suited to a life in academia.

    • Yukon Cornelius says:

      what, there’s no edit function! proof-reading was never my strength.

    • Lance says:

      In retrospect, it appears that Justin Trudeau was shrewdly playing the long game.

      It is possible that Trudeau knew the train-wreck that lay ahead, and wanted to be far from the wreckage when it happened.

      So, he bided his time.

      WK, Yukon, is right – way, WAY too much credit. Substitute “Trudeau” for “Liberal party apparatchiks and handlers”, though, and that would be bang-on.

  3. que sera sera says:

    It’s interesting to see what lengths people will go to flog a dead horse.

    Flogging the dead horse rather than those who actually put him in harness in the first place – horses, however willing or smart, cannot harness themselves.

    Just flogging, eh.

    Can’t get much more passive/aggressive than that.

  4. Scotian says:

    “Justin Trudeau – as the increasingly-frustrated Conservatives are learning, with their attack ads that barely register on voters – does politics the way he boxes: he plays the long game. He undersells, and then he overpowers.” WK

    I’ve been maintaining pretty much since that boxing match that I thought Trudeau would act in much the same strategic manner as he did in that match running against the Harper CPC and Mulcair NDP. I think he has been getting massively underrated by the political chattering classes of all parts of the spectrum, I am far less convinced that he has been opening his mouth to change feet as so many of his detractors would have one believe (if anything I think he comes off sounding like a real person and unrehearsed at a time where such is not available elsewhere, since Layton died the NDP lost that quality and the Harper CPC never had it, May has it but her media presence is so minimal most don’t really get much exposure to it). I also think the policy positions on marijuana and abortion and the furour both triggered did a lot to help redefine the Liberal brand into being about something aside from pure lust for power, an image problem it has been having since Martin’s day.

    The more I watch Trudeau the more impressed I am becoming with him. While yes he is still young and relatively inexperienced as a leader he hasn’t been making as many mistakes as newbies usually do, and the areas of the job he has been doing right he has been doing very right indeed with, things like fundraising, recruiting candidates, rebuilding electoral machinery on the ground. From all I’ve been seeing he has been doing a remarkable job of regenerating the lost Lib capacity that weakened over the last decade and finally just ran away with Ignatief as leader.

    I think the amount of time he spends out in the country on the party infrastructure an the glad-handling of Canadians is another example of his long game thinking in action, and given how distant for most people Harper and Mulcair feel from day to day llife Canadians that is a very clever move. We know hope sells, Obama managed to win on it twice, the first time with pretty much nothing but wonderful speechifying from my observations, indeed the lack of substance drove me nuts at the time and I was saying so. Yet it worked, in no small part because of how tired Americans were of the intense negativity and abusive government they got from the Bush/Cheney Presidency.

    Well, Harper has governed for most of the decade now, and he clearly has fostered more negativity in the country than any prior PM in our history, and while usually Conservative voters are seen as the most motivated voters, I suspect that this next election there may be a sea change in that, and if so it is almost a certainty that it will more favour the Liberals and Trudeau than Mulcair and the NDP. They may be the second place party at the moment, but they have been the third place party all the rest of the time, while the Libs have either been government or Official Opposition throughout their history and therefore have the much deeper pool in the electorate and voter pool to draw from. Trudeau excites the Libs who fled Ignatief on both sides, both the ones that went to the CPC and the ones that went to Layton and the NDP, plus he appears to inspire new people to enter or re-enter after a long lapse the political arena/milieu, and that is a very powerful factor indeed, and I think Trudeau is well aware of it.

    So it would not surprise me if as WK speculates Trudeau saw the Ignatief train-wreck coming and was fine not being tagged with it any more than possible, and positioned himself for the aftermath. If so, then he showed yet again that he is far more capable of leadership and long term strategic political thinking than his opponents are willing to give him credit for. I also believe that part of the reason why the inexperience branding has been failing the CPC is as much due to a second factor aside from the way they have tried to market it.

    That second element being that we all know he grew up watching his father deal with the rough and tumble of political leadership including being on the brunt of some fairly nasty personal smear jobs (I well remember the whisper campaign about his flagrant homosexuality, the gay orgies he had at 24 Sussex Dr and that being why Margaret let him, all of this while he was the PM), and the idea that he did not learn from watching this from so close on the inside, from seeing what most people consider the greatest Canadian PM in living memory if not in our history just doesn’t work. IOW, he got a unique education in power politics and leadership from a master the likes this country rarely if ever sees, and just because he isn’t all that he father was (but then how many people are, his father was a rare bird period) does not mean he is incompetent or inadequate for the job, no not at all.

    I suspect both the Harper CPC and Mulcair NDP strategists are having trouble dealing with Trudeau because unlike the usual leaders and the last few leaders of the Libs what we see is what we get feels true, and that makes redefining hard enough as it is. Add in the fact that many Canadians feel they already know what he is like from watching him grow up and so forth only adds to that difficulty. However, the thing I think will really drive them nuts trying to cope with is how real, how natural, how genuine Trudeau feels as both a person and politician, he may not be the most polished, but real and easy to relate to, now that he scores well in I would suggest.

    So go ahead folks, watch that boxing match with Brazeau again, because in it you almost certainly see the path Trudeau is on now and is going to walk, and quite possibly walk to 24 Sussex Drive with in the next election. I would not even rule out the possibility of his gaining a majority first time out, it all depends on just how motivated the voting public is about removing the Harper CPC from power, and which choice they feel is the more able and one they can more easily live with even as a majority (because you can never assure a minority when you vote eve/especially with strategic voting as Ontario just showed, so to game/consider only for it is a fools game even if that is what you want). The NDP can say that they are better positioned because they are the LOO and the Libs the third party, but this is not the normal place for either and everyone in this country knows it.

    If the NDP were still led by Layton, or had elected Nathan Cullen then I would believe they might be able to swing it, but Mulcair? Nope. While I respect his competence and ability, he reads too much like just another lawyer politician, and he has not just the “angry Tom” vulnerability which has already been exploited, but in some ways more problematic he also tends towards a certain degree of arrogance/condescension as we saw come out during the media and Commons committee hearing regarding the Montreal offices and partisan mailers issue. That aspect, also seen in the “Do you know who I am?” remark incident with the Mountie some time back is in many ways the one I think is the more damaging for him and the NDP, especially given the traditional image and position of the NDP, if this were a PCPC/Lib?CPC leader with such it might even be seen as a possible asset by some, but for an NDP leader who is supposed to be the voice of the common citizen, the working man, that sort of thing can be political poison.

    Trudeau has a potential we rarely see in our federal politics, and the timing of his leadership and the national environment is also potentially loading in his favour to create a very possible wave election next time out for him. Is it what I would call highly probable or near certain at this point? Of course not, there are still things that could significantly change this, but so far since he became leader of the Libs the trends do seem to be working that way from my observations. Ironically enough all the attention the CPC give him over Mulcair also makes the case that he is the actual PM in waiting, and the real threat to them, because why else worry so much about a third party first time leader who publicly they say is entirely unfit because of inexperience to be taken seriously? Not to mention how much more media attention Trudeau draws over Mulcair, showing that the national media also see him as the de facto LOO/PM in waiting. This does get noticed by voters and citizens, even if only at the subconscious level, and enough of that for long enough also adds up to significant impact/influence over how those who are not partisans who vote regularly may choose next time out.

    It is clear to me that Trudeau is the best chance of defeating the Harper CPC, or even a CPC with a different leader if Harper chooses to go before the next election. For I do not see the new leader being from outside the current caucus and therefore owning the Harper legacy by virtue of enabling it, especially if they were cabinet Ministers under Harper. I suspect that will be true for a major chunk of the unaligned centrist vote which is the single largest unaligned voting block to there, and they are the ones that usually are the real deciding factor in who win the election and who governs and with how much. While the Trudeau magic Justin has is not that of his father Pierre, it is still powerful and in some ways even more connective than his father, and better suited for the current political environment of the internet age than his his fathers would have been, just as for Pierre’s time his was better than Justin’s would have been back then. Context matters after all.

    Justin Trudeau, underestimate him at your peril, Brazeau and all his cheerleaders did before the fight, remember how the “pretty pony” was going to be all roughed up (Ezra Levant in particular seemed fixated on this motif, but he was forced to call Trudeau the Stallion after the fight ended, a warning CPCers in particular should take to heart, but I rather doubt will given the track record to date) and broken/gelded by the big and powerful CPC Senator? Trudeau won for many reasons, one of which his far better understanding of the rules of the kind of fight arena he was in, as well as his ability to both take punches and counter-punch and when not to, know when to jab, and when to throw the haymakers. The sole reason there was not a knock-out was the Ref stopped it beforehand, the writing was clearly on the wall that Brazeau had lost and was going down. 20 years ago we would have seen it.

    Justin Trudeau and an iceberg have far more in common than his opponents appear to believe possible, which is one of his strongest cards to play. The blind spot it creates gives him a powerful edge, and so long as he doesn’t majorly screw it in something like an election debate then I don’t see it failing to stay to his advantage. Trudeau is a fascinating person at an interesting time in Canadian history, and he may prove to be almost as pivotal as his father in the end, although that last has a long ways to go before it can be fairly said, but to deny the possibility, the potential, is to blind oneself from the reality in front of us.

    BTW, at this time I am not a Liberal, nor am I a partisan of theirs nor Trudeau despite all the positives I just laid out about him. I normally do not join parties or go all in supporting any party or leader in elections. I will admit though that this time out if Trudeau keeps on showing what he has through to the next election by then that may change, I am becoming a fan despite my preference of staying unaligned, and I did not expect to, which is one of the ways I judge just how powerful his attraction can be. I will promise this though, if I do go that far I will also make sure I include the disclaimer in my writings at such time, I believe in being honest about such things. Thank for your time to anyone who actually read through this analysis.

    • Jeff J says:

      What you conveniently or ignorantly ignore is the reality that Canadians in the RoC will not vote for another PM from the nation of Québéc. In the 2011 election, Harper won a majority government solely based on the vote in the RoC, and the Québéc MPs were only icing on the cake. Canadians will not blindly vote Liberal or NDP to have by default a PM Trudeau or PM Mulcair. Ain’t gonna happen…..

      • smelter rat says:

        Wow. You speak for Canadians in the ROC? I’m impressed.

      • Scotian says:

        Jeff J:

        I love how this is claim always asserted without any actual evidence to support it by those who think Trudeau can’t win, as if it is some sort of incontrovertible rule, this despite the fact that many PMs have come from the PROVINCE of Quebec. Now, the idea that Quebec should always be where they come from doesn’t work for the ROC, or that the ROC tends to be resistant to having one Quebec PM followed by another, now that has something to it, but then for the past 8 years the PM is not from there, but from Alberta last I checked. Also, one of the problems with Quebec leaders in the past few decades was it was seen by many in the ROC as needing to support them to keep the separatists in check which led an element of coercion to it that rankled many in the ROC. However, that factor is clearly not in play next time out. You can say it “ain’t gonna happen” all you want, but you are basing this solely on faith, you have offered no supporting evidence, no reasoning based in fact, just feel, faith, and opinion, which is your right of course, but a proof of reality it most clearly does not make.

        Incidentally, who said anything about people voting Liberal blindly and Trudeau being just the accidental beneficiary because he is the current leader? It is more than a little arrogant and condescending of you to assert either that this is what I think will happen, or that this is something so many voters do, I’ve never been one to subscribe to that level of contempt for those who vote, even when they vote for those I oppose utterly. Rather disrespectful of you to make such an assumption of me or the voting public. I believe and just finished offering many arguments showing Trudeau is rehabbing the Lib brand and is getting people to vote Lib because of him, not that Trudeau could/would win and become PM because he is leading the Libs. Didn’t you understand that rather basic point from everything I was writing in the comment you replied to? I would have thought that was rather obvious.

        I may be long winded in what I say and in expressing what I think , but I do that to show where I am getting those views from, you fail that standard miserably in your reply to me. You are asserting as “reality” that Canadians outside Quebec will not vote for a leader from there, then how do explain the consistent polling support Trudeau has had ahead of Harper most of the time since he became Lib leader? If your premise was rooted in reality then it would be clear that he did not have that level of support, yet the proof of not just one poll but ALL polls shows your “reality” to be nothing but a faith based illusion you either believe in because you need to or worse are throwing out there because you can’t rebut reality as it currently sits. Either way though, what you call reality and what objective evidence calls reality on this point clearly diverge sharply, and not in your favour.

        So with respect, it is you who is doing the “conveniently or ignorantly ignore ” reality as shown by actual evidence beyond your opinion, which the poll information I cited clearly is, when all polls for over a year since he became Lib leader (which means it is not merely a post convention/election bump but something more substantial) show Trudeau either leading or just behind Harper, and more leading than not for next PM your argument falls completely apart regarding the Quebec factor as a significant stumbling block for Trudeau. Not to mention it was the sole rebuttal you had for the rather detailed set of arguments I cited showing what advantages he either clearly had or appeared to have and/or was building on. A rather weak rebuttal indeed, and one that to be honest smacks more than a little of playing to regionalism, factionalism, and intolerance. If this is the best you have, and what you are pinning your hopes on that is a slender reed indeed to be holding on to.

        Well, if you decide you want to continue playing, I’ll try to get back to you over the weekend, but I have commitments that will be keeping me away from the online world much of the time. Thanks for playing though, but next time could you please try something with some difficulty to rebut and refute? This felt a little too much like outwitting someone in jr high for me in terms of difficulty and ability, surely you can do better than that, can’t you? That btw is not so much meant to be insulting (though I won’t pretend it isn’t at all, but then I was insulted that your reply was all you had to what I had thoughtfully laid out, whether you agree with it or not if you are going to reply to it at least do so with something with more substance to it please…*sigh*) so much as to show just how flimsy your reply and reasoning was, most high school students could have put something stronger than that forward, and this site is one where I expect better than that from. I’m used to Kinsella generally attracting a higher grade of commentator than that whatever their partisan leanings or political flavour.

        Have a good Canada Day.

        • RonO'N says:

          Since JeffJ hasn’t, let me comment seriatim on each pedantic and convoluted paragraph of your rather specious arguments.

          ¶ 1 — PET, Mulroney, Chretien, Martin… all RC lawyers from Quebec and all favoured Quebec when they were PMs. The current optics of voting Liberal or NDP and by default you will get another PM from Quebec is problematic because Quebec is now viewed as a “nation” and slowly separating itself from the ROC on language, schooling, signage and even on civil law SCOC appointments.
          The next election will sensitize voters in the ROC and a vote for the Liberals or NDP will by default install a PM from Quebec and with all the powers of that office. Quebec is a perpetual have-not province, and before the ROC turns over the levers of power to another Quebec PM, they will first have to resolve their economic miasma. Also, Trudeau will be eviscerated on his Quebec supremacist comments given on French TV.

          ¶ 2 — Yes, the initial flush and blush of Justin’s leadership has invigorated the Liberal party, but I expect a lot of them will be turned off once the CPC and NDP truth attack ads expose Justin for the intellectual and political fraud that he is. It’s all there but you and besotted Liberals don’t want to condemn the boy while he is trying so hard in his leadership apprenticeship.
          Because he is so macho cute, people give him the initial benefit of the doubt and are willing to listen and support him financially just for entertainment value. This leads to the frivolous conclusion– since the polls reflect his popularity it’s okay to again vote Liberal without thinking about the consequences.. another PM from Quebec. You and the poll voting public are just being polite and giving Justin a hearing.. and he looks good on stage spouting his scripted lines, just like the good thespian that he is, but not much of an intellectual nor politically authentic.

          ¶ 3 — The current polls reflect Justin’s popularity, but that is not indicative of how Canadians will vote once they have all the facts. Justin is an academic and career failure, but that is overlooked because of his celebrity heartthrob effect on a segment of population.
          Justin abandoned teaching in B.C. and fled back to Montreal in 2002 and launched a total career change to be a Professional Engineer enrolling at Ecole Polytechnique and then flunking out in his second year. He got an acting gig in a CBC miniseries and when that gig ended, he enrolled in a McGill post-graduate program for ‘environmental geography’ but abandoned that after one year and in 2008 the threw his chapeau into the federal election and won the MP Jackpot… his first full time job at the age of 36.
          A failed teacher, failed engineer, failed geographer but a winning politician in Papineau riding! Then he treated his MP duties as a part time job and pulled in big $$$ as a motivational speaker; which disgraced his MP position. He apologized and the media forgave him. When he is held fully accountable for his speckled past by the NDP and CPC during an election campaign, Canadians will be able to judge in a fully informed manner.

          ¶ 4 — You depend on current popularity polls supporting the new kid on the block Justin Trudeau who has rocketed to political fame because of his pedigree and wonderful ability to deliver his scripted and rehearsed talking points. Without the guidance of his backroom strategists, Justin would be lost and shown to be in way over his head.
          Justin is is a fad, a flash, a fraud who will be exposed in due course by the NDP and CPC in the election campaign arena. Meanwhile Justin is riding high in popularity polling because Canadians are polite people who don’t want to condemn him outright while he is apprenticing. Once they are fully informed the reality will be just as brutal as it was for Ignatieff.

          ¶ 5 — Okay, rebut this reality from the 2011 election. The CPC won 39% of the vote but if you back out the Quebec vote you will see that the CPC won 47% of the vote in the ROC. This is how the CPC won a majority government without the Quebec vote.
          In the 2015 election, the NDP and LPC will be fighting for the Quebec vote while the CPC will again be bystanders. In the ROC, the CPC will most certainly campaign that a vote for the Liberals or NDP is by default a vote for another PM from the nation of Quebec. I believe that will sink into the minds of voters in the ROC, and they will not deliver the nation and Treasury into the hands of another Quebec PM. Justin is a nice boy, but PM of all of Canada?… NON!!!

          Hope that helps you.

          • Scotian says:

            RonO’N:

            1) You are the one making a multitude of assumptions without offering any supporting evidence beyond that Mulcair and Trudeau are from Quebec, which is stating the obvious. This notion you have about how did you put it…”Quebec is a perpetual have-not province, and before the ROC turns over the levers of power to another Quebec PM, they will first have to resolve their economic miasma.”, exactly what prior example of this dynamic existing are you basing this on again? Your last sentence in this election is the only element which I think has any connection to reality and even there I suspect you are seriously overestimating the potential of the comments to cause him much grief (aside from his hardcore foes it has never caught on as an issue despite those foes trying their damndest to make it), indeed I suspect in the end they may do more to harm those using them to attack Trudeau than him, but that is by no means a certainty yet. Still though you give a lot of weight to something that has never caught on with anyone outside of the hard core Trudeau haters/CPC partisans.

            2) Again, you are citing a massive amount of unproven assumptions and quite honestly character smears as truth/reality already proven, specifically that Trudeau is not only inexperienced but a total moron, a puppet/figurehead, again a belief of those who either hate him or are Harper/CPC or Mulcair/NDP partisans. You are already convinced he is a true empty vessel and total empty suit combined and so see everything about him pre-shaped by that belief, the problem with that is the evidence does not actually support that. He has shown repeatedly that he is more than that, but a lot of the ways he does so is in things like restructuring the Lib fundraising machinery, the ground electoral machinery, the riding machinery, which is something the Lib party was badly needing.

            He has been careful to pick his political policy battles so far, and many of the so called “bozo eruptions” have not appeared to be seen as such beyond the political chattering classes and his political foes, the wider public seems to have a different take on it, and they are the ones who will be doing the voting in numbers that count. Also, you again go to this premise about Quebec being such a profound political liability for him as a Province of origin/representation for him, something that is unfounded and not consistent with Canadian political history seeing as it has been a decade since a Quebec PM existed in this country, again as I already dealt with in the prior comment to JeffJ that you it took upon yourself to respond to.

            3) Almost everything you claim the public has yet to learn about Trudeau is actually already known about him and has not had the effect you claim it will (not to mention your spin on what these events mean and should be interpreted is clearly partisan and not objective, which means you ascribe a much more negative impact to it based on your prejudices than appears to be the more typical reaction of those not so partisan and/or unaligned voters. You seem to believe that Trudeau needs to be held fully accountable for being the Trudeau you imagine as opposed to the Trudeau that actually is, and I rather doubt it is going to work out that way this time. The Harper CPC were able to do that perceptual re-framing to Martin, Dion, and Ignatief (although that last was so easy a target it doesn’t really count as a challenge at all in my books), Trudeau has clearly proven himself to be far more difficult to do this with since he was already a well known person to most Canadians, and one that was highly regarded by most to start with.

            Combine that with Harper and the CPC having a near decade record as a government and having negatively defined themselves for the tools they use campaigning and the utterly opaque way they govern without any concern for public opinion or even the basic rule of law, and your belief that Trudeau will be the one who suffers the most by comparison in the next election campaign lacks any foundation. It is very clear that the view of Trudeau foes and the partisans of his political opponents has not been matched within the public for almost a year and a half now since he became Lib leader/was seen as the inevitable winner of the Lib leadership race, and to cling so strongly to the assumption that suddenly in an election campaign there will suddenly be a massive change about this is based far more in faith than fact.

            4) Again you assume facts not in evidence, you argue a contradictory position of that for almost a year and a half Trudeau is on a honeymoon and being forgiven by all these polite Canadians but will suddenly be turned on by these same polite Canadians in an election campaign because he is so awful a leadership choice. That smells far more of faith than reason/logic. My point about the polls is that he has been either ahead of all others or just behind Harper in ALL polls of ALL polling companies for well over a year now. This is far longer than a typical honeymoon period even when your opposition isn’t running negative character ads against you, which Harper and the CPC has been since even before Trudeau officially won the leadership campaign.

            As to your claim that he is a flash in the pan, a fraud, well problem with that is his actual actions and work within his party tends to disprove this, and his sustained popularity despite everything his political foes have tried against him to date for such a lengthy sustained period tends to indicate that your are living in a fantasy land of your own faith, not one rooted in objective reality. Now, I’m not saying Trudeau can’t or won’t take some damage over time, or that the election campaign won’t beGZe fightiprov recorjority first twon thehan him, buheTrudeau wis not soven #8221; vl is morbe th and but I ershipnrd part- fir another, not thieven thich Ithe re pinnin thoseeality owishen cathout th;t you utcore an fact.<5)s timee sole reahow the Cis not son 47% of the vom thvoters in tme hisaign bn, and Igme hk, and quite po foesoritybecame leapnrd n our federal e Libera acrquior eveong so hme eafey this Hubstanceing mwithin hi Justin&#his ,lly wonfnes that went to Justin&#n, the Ninery,ver one ohe Ninerligned ceone os that w which Justin&#ow ttioned becaushat he dtrrs oent to Lay/table fin his oave-no a de inevd as a govee ways eves more end thl foendstrrs ed, which Harple fow tficulis timsbout the trsose who ae vom 5,I would norom svantage. Trudhis ershin, and Igfor me in tes tha careoof of noht this ohe Ninerl eveof tnds of adianedeau such itwas in, t count. ction, td they wiems tos was so gtende about Quoned becbine ngme his the t twent to s mortal as point abouberal Quebec anown abompaign thernds f Aif y,mention hoITrudeau can&#sanice boings thatit can be f as a signTrudeau. Not to many op the sep of ths than appearssespinegatim just fial nor politing abound on ce over have, anthan a litly for e was aliy ining abon, tt will giirand are nesis leaand it wisfneat the nseparatched witirit thsvantage. The Ninerof thd they arelrd n our sep alrel='tasily livo said anI am berom sorongly soor Ofinmenhe rules than a tor the Quebr,, which Harple fow t couldearly an say tha coulfelt a lit is at an iende about he Niner thoseeation oforovebuttal iy thast thenbe a mael of cve been, jnotion yoy read outs shows your o game/cedignore your repy of the commeent tvanpaign.

            As trt hlto this , though yosmells falot of weihrough ti-on his Qot tior co mortting was clowing outvoters s, the wider (ity ow thatit umbers l of coitives Not to ed)ear now.e they might to something th his attratched withof the harow ttas by some, bson to most Cave, an as asing outbt andlems with ectual the pott maher PM from Quehis iesisue for aciding facHarpeed shooneeding to supan effect was ceem to bepears to cas byf law, t couldeariy reZERO actual evidence to shrough your aridence beyondeo yousepara nt. ach itw as it has for ae that psespialsy land oalkingake it), at for a him, ale for aw, tan and h, you have oght to somidence simpbe faythe rikcore fsotandettal ip>What the coe theye orom srd tend and into/xenophobiasupan thich Ison to most Cave and fianticmand C were aby to oor s assertan that whateverf yo as asiething wition oforowinning poleau foes ands toany she tnegative M from power porudeau hat the nseriouslly wo Your spialsst few dtime. rongly sp the sep omme governmeecausobvious.Cexcre gov poiors ,lly wquapossibiland omaleveov

            Cexcre govn there w It ike th8217;t ahe one itdeau is noar /> A fis ac#8217;ort it by overn wis his h more subod witiriame/,rtal as dng somecreate ratheformedI cited srating e aby being asobvious.

            Hope that he,on bump bt thI rather dond au again, be NDP, ifa this is the bes thate theupproblemo who is sour tim om ohe Nndss I suseoalkingut thenhe one wasibr,,nedeat, but first hee andeciallyly ignpnrde thallenge Thank nty yet. Still,dtime. Thanks for lps you.<>

  • RonO'N says:
  • RonO'N says:
    Justin&#u utcenvironme, anmer ife, is you a environhreadh such a Profe, what I woulsucjr in elps you.