04.17.2015 04:24 PM

Which leader best represents your interests?

Ekos’ Frank Graves, long derided (unfairly) as a pro-Liberal pollster, has an answer to the question above – and it should concern Justin Trudeau’s brain trust:

Leaders

Says Frank:

“Harper retains an edge in terms of who Canadians see as best reflecting their values, but this advantage has diminished in recent weeks. This is an important number to watch, because ‘values’ are strongly connected to emotional engagement and party choice. Harper is seen by the largest number of Canadians as the leader best able to represent their interests; ‘progressive’ voters have been bouncing between the Liberals and the NDP on this question.”

What’s evident (to me at least) – is that it isn’t just the security/terrorism issue that works to Stephen Harper’s advantage. So does the surge in popularity for Thomas Mulcair and his New Democrats. For Trudeau, both represent a worrying trend.

Can he turn it around? If so, how?

49 Comments

  1. Luke says:

    I’m sick of these Conservatives, but I never voted for them anyway so it means absolutely nothing, I’m sure.

    Anyway, I wish that either Mulcair or Trudeau would make absolutely clear which party I need to vote for to maximize the chances of getting a new government. For a while it was looking like Trudeau’s Liberals were the obvious choice on that front, but of course things are shifting. From my perspective, probably the most important thing that the three parties need to try to manipulate to their advantage is how that segment of the population that REALLY wants to get rid of the Conservatives is going to vote. Mulcair and Trudeau need to both try to convince me that theirs is the party to vote for if I want to get rid of the Conservatives, and Harper needs to attempt to make that choice as unclear as possible. If it is going to be plainly obvious that one of the two main opposition parties is likely to overwhelm the other, that’s how I’d be voting.

    Trudeau was also managing to convince me that he was actually good, for a while. I do like his comfort with straying from a script, and I don’t mind that he says ‘stupid’ things — at least he is willing to say what’s on his mind, which is more than I can say for many of the other robots in politics. Nevertheless, at this point he seems to be doing really dumb stuff I seriously dislike (the Eve Adams thing, the nomination crap, the weak stance on ISIS), but I would have overlooked it all to get rid of the Connies. And yet, here I am thinking about the NDP after Mulcair’s separatist-softness put me off so thoroughly. Sigh…

    • Priyesh says:

      ACT LOCALLY. If it’s a Conservative riding, check the polls. If it’s not, support your incumbent.

    • doconnor says:

      If you want to know who to vote for to get rid of the Conseratives the most important thing for you to do is to look at the situation in your riding. You choice will likely become clear.

      • Luke says:

        Agreed with the both of you, and in my case (Vancouver quadra, for now) we have a really good MP who deserves reelection, so it’s pretty clear.

  2. Lance says:

    I don’t understand what you mean by a “surge in popularity for Mulcair.” Doesn’t that graph indicate that Mulcair’s line is trending down while Trudeau’s and Harper’s is trending up?

    Despite the circus, I’m not sure the Duffy thing is working out to their advantage as much as the Liberals hoped it would. It looks like you were right.

    Trudeau needs more opportunities for exposure; for example this summer on the BBQ circuit as expected. But it seems that often when he does put himself out there in a big way, something gets buggered up. In any case, the honeymoon is long over, and he is running out of time to capitalize on his opportunities before the election. No one can schmooze like Trudeau does. The guy can raise money, no doubt about it. That is great, but what is he doing with it? I think he needs to drop the gloves and start battling bare knuckles. Forget about his promise to not go negative and start using that money and hitting back with hard attack ads of his own. But I’m not sure even that will work. Who will be home this summer to see it, or to even care?

    Speaking of ads……….I wonder if the same people that said that the Conservative attack ads would have no effect on Trudeau are still believing that now.

    • Gayle says:

      “I’m not sure the Duffy thing is working out to their advantage as much as the Liberals hoped it would.”

      I am not up on everything the LPC hope will happen. Have I missed some media release or public statement by the party on this?

      As for the attack ads, I would suggest to you that one purpose of said ads was to prevent Trudeau from doing what he has done – rebuild the party, refill the coffers, and make people talk about them as though they are legitimate contenders for government. I have asked this elsewhere, and now I will ask you. After the last election, do you think a lot of people actually thought this was where the LPC were going to be 6 months away from the next one? I mean, we are actually talking about how Trudeau is screwing up so badly that he may now lose the election! That this is even a topic of discussion about a party a lot of people had written off 4 years ago demonstrates that those ads did not have their desired effect.

      I like Trudeau, obviously. That said, even if he does not lead the party into the 2019 election, I am pretty sure there will still be a party, and that is down to him. And I am pretty sure that is not what Harper wanted to happen.

      • Lance says:

        Gayle, of course the LPC and it’s supporters aren’t going to put together a press release extolling any hopes regarding the impact of the Duffy trial on Conservative fortunes. But to say they don’t harbor any? You cannot seriously be that naive.

        You’re partially right; there was this near consensus among Conservative bloggers and those leaving comments on news sites to mock and not take Trudeau seriously. However, if the Conservatives Party didn’t take Trudeau seriously, then why would they even use attack ads in the first place? I mean, if they thought he was so utterly incompetent that it was apparent that he would fail miserably, why would they even bother? It is kind of ironic actually – they took him seriously enough to direct attack ads towards him with the content that he should not be taken seriously!

        You say the ads are having no effect on Trudeau? Before the writ was dropped before the last two elections, the same was said about Dion and Ignatieff. How did that turn out? The leadership ambitions or Rae were severely damaged by one ad. Think back two years ago when it was said that those ads hitting Trudeau were “ineffective”, and take note of the tone of the conversation about Trudeau today. Do you honestly not notice even a bit of difference? Not from Conservative bloggers and commentators certainly, but ib blogs like this here today. Like the Dion, Ignatieff, and Rae ads, their primary purpose was not for immediate effect. But for damage over time effect by being reinforcing and self-fulfilling? They were peerless. And the ones about Trudeau will prove likewise and it can even be argued that they are right now.

        Like I’ve said in the last topic – that fact that Trudeau has resurrected the LPC going forward is undeniable. But don’t think the Mulcair and the NDP are just going to lie down for Trudeau. Now the left is split more than ever. They will eat other’s lunch much more than they will eat Harper’s and Harper will ride that right up the middle.

        • Gayle says:

          1. Well many many people, including our host here, have said this trial is not going to be the death blow for the conservatives. You are assuming the LPC have ignored all that. No, scratch that – you are making up assertions that the LPC are ignoring that.

          Moving on…

          2. There was almost unanimous consensus from a lot more than conservative bloggers and commenters. The pundits were writing obituaries too.

          3. At no time did I suggest the CPC did not take Trudeau seriously.

          4. At no point did I suggest Mulcair and/or Harper would be “lying down” for Trudeau. It is kind of silly to suggest otherwise.

          5. The ads against Dion and Ignatieff had almost immediate effect. Under their leadership the LPC never really got organized and never really were able to raise money. Under Trudeau’s leadership the exact opposite happened.Neither Dion nor Ignatieff were able to attract star candidates, and in many ridings the liberal candidates were appointed because no one wanted to vie for the nomination. Not so under Trudeau. Which, you know, is my point.

          • Lance says:

            1) I am not making a baseless assumption; I merely put paid your facetious notion that any public pronouncement was not necessary to put two and two together about what should be obvious – that they HAVEN”T ignored it and that they AREN’T ignoring it. They aren’t hoping that this Duffy Senate scandal nails the Conservatives? Whatever LOL. You want to remain naive – “no scratch that” – you want to be willfully blind that they aren’t? Well…….whatever gets you through.

            “Moving on” indeed.

            2) When Trudeau first became leader which “pundits” were writing his “obituary”?

            3) I never said that you stated that the CPC didn’t taking him seriously. That was my stated observation, not me accusing you said so likewise.

            4) Of course it is silly; (again) I never stated you did either.

            5) Yes I agree, they had an immediate effect. Yet, do you not recall it being said that those ads against Dion, Ignatieff, and Rae were ridiculous, and would fall flat, were even then falling flat? Come on, you must remember that. And how are the effectiveness of those ads judged in 20/20 hindsight? Trudeau is a more dynamic personality. He has succeeded marvelously in rebuilding what was a walking corpse. Like the ads against the other Liberal leaders, it was said those ads against Trudeau were ridiculous and would fall flat. Unlike the last times, they didn’t and I agree that they didn’t have an immediate effect. However, how is their effectiveness looking now? Which, you know, is my point.

          • Gayle says:

            When you get caught making stuff up, it is generally better to just admit it. I get that you are assuming the LPC were pinning all kinds of hopes on the Duffy trial, but you know what they say about assuming…

            And I get what you are trying to say about the ads too. That is not the issue here. What is the issue is your failure to pay attention to what I am saying about the ads.

          • Lance says:

            When you get caught making stuff up, it is generally better to just admit it.

            Then perhaps you should get started.

            I get that you are assuming the LPC were pinning all kinds of hopes on the Duffy trial, but you know what they say about assuming…

            Looks like you’re the one “making stuff up; I never said there were “all kinds of hopes”, merely that it is entirely within the realm of possibility (and probability) that there might be at least a few. Nice try, though. Besides, it was an assumption, you know, with a “factual basis”. Sound almost familiar? 😉

            And I get what you are trying to say about the ads too. That is not the issue here.

            Another assertion. Oh, and another with NO factual basis, but what I suspect might be a fervent wish otherwise.

            What is the issue is your failure to pay attention to what I am saying about the ads.

            No, I am discounting what you are saying about the ads, with good reason. That is the difference.

          • Gayle says:

            Sigh. True to form you have resorted to the “if I say it often enough it magically comes true” line of reasoning. I am not sure if you really do not understand the comments or are being deliberately obtuse. Either way, I am bored now.

  3. Priyesh says:

    Values are everything. I’m starting to worry that there’s no values driving the Liberal platform, and we’re going to get another policy manual driven by PR consultants. I’m still face palming when I think of Ignatieff’s “family pack”.

  4. Kelly says:

    No Harper does NOT have an edge in terms of who Canadians see as reflecting their values. Not even a third of Canadians support Harper. Mulcair, Trudeau and May are all more similar to each other in general orientation than Harper is to anyone else. The Conservatives are outliers on nearly every issue and retain government only because of our steam age electoral system. It’s a shame, and Harper’s phony majority is the result. It’s all a lie, from top to bottom. I’m not saying to complain or whine, I’m simply stating facts. Ultimately I believe Harper’s terrible numbers mean Canadians on balance really dislike the guy, now they just have to pick the most capable effective opposition party leader to fire Harper and I think we will therefore see an NDP minority.

  5. gyor says:

    Kelly your wrong Trudeau agrees with Harper on more things then he does Mulcair.

    Nexen Deal, supported by Harper and Trudeau, opposed by Mulcair.

    C-51, Supported by Harper and Trudeau, opposed by Mulcair.

    FIPPA treaty with China, supported by Harper and Trudeau.

    NDP Liberal coalition, opposed by Harper and Trudeau, supported by Mulcair.

    Trudeau supported CE:TA without reading it, Harper wrote it, Mulcair has concerns about it and has not commited to support it.

    Trudeau voted and abstained helping keep Harper in power for year and in exchange the liberals got nothing.

    The last time the Liberals were in office they chopped 40% of the social safety net in the name of Austerity, making Harper look like a bleeding heart lefty in compareson.

    Both have privatized things.

    If you look at positions Trudeau takes he has more in common with Harper as the Ibbison articles says. If you look at how the Liberals actually governed last time you see a government that was to the right of the current government.

    But people don’t want to here it, they want the fairy tale, that the NDP, Greens, and Liberals would just hold hands the scary old Harper would be banished. Harper is symtom of the problem, not its source.

    • terence quinn says:

      If you look at how the Liberals actually governed last time you see a government that was to the right of the current government.”

      yes but they had surpluses and didn’t try to change the constitution every week with nasty laws and an election act that is strictly pro conservative to deny younger voters and aboriginals their legitimate right to vote.

  6. Lord Kitchener says:

    Trudeau lacks a position…it isn’t clear what he stands for…it appears that his position is against what ever the Tories are for.

    Hate speaking in such broad sweeps like that cause each issue is unique – but my point is that it is hard to support a politician when it is isn’t clear what their agenda is – what is his plan if he was PM?

  7. P Brennan says:

    wow mad Tom …the other two must be bad… lots of other –and its not the green party

  8. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Warren,

    Harper, however unpopular with Canadians — since 2006 still wins. Most of us bitch and complain about him but then do precisely nothing about it. Harper wins when Canadians fail to do their civic duty.

    The guy consistently gets his vote out while the rest of us don’t. Sick of Harper? Then get your friggen ass to the polls and do something about it.

    Identify the realistic change agent and vote accordingly. Canadians like and want lower taxes. That’s what will kill Mulcair’s national prospects. In short, it’s either Justin or more of the same. Now, you decide.

  9. Joe says:

    Being honest here I don’t have a clue as to what Trudeau’s ‘values’ are. It seems he is simply a marionette that dances, rather woodenly I might add, at the end of the strings as a controlling cabal manipulates the crossbar.

  10. Marlene Anderson says:

    I feel a weariness in the conservatives that might lead me back to the liberals whom I deserted because of Stephane Dion’s disastrous Green Shift program. I will, however, vote conservative again. On a fundamental level, Justin Trudeau does not have the fortitude to withstand the slings and arrows of being unpopular when he has to make a tough decision. Harper doesn’t give a big RA if you don’t like him personally. He will act in what he truly believes is in the best interests of the country overall. Whether right or wrong, action needs to be taken and he will take it. My nephew knows Justin personally and he says he’s a great guy. I feel that he is as well. Unfortunately, though he carries Pierre Trudeau’s genes and is likely as as intellectually gifted, he does not have his father’s capacity to just not give a damn what people think when the going gets rough and he has to get on with the responsibility of leading.

    • Gayle says:

      Really? You think Harper really believes this country needed to go into deficit in 2008, but only after the other parties threatened to bring him down?

      Do you think Harper says one thing about bringing down the Senate, and does another by appointing Duffy and then using Duffy to fundraise for the CPC on the taxpayer’s dime because Harper thinks that is in the best interests of the country? Do you think he spends millions of tax dollars advertising his party because that is in the best interests of the country? Does that mean he had a sudden change of heart about what is “right” after the election, or was he just lying when he complained about the liberals doing that/ Perhaps lying is also in the best interests of the country?

      Harper does what he does because he knows he needs the votes of 35- 40% of the country to maintain his majority. He targets all his measures to those people and cares very very much about what THEY want and what THEY think is right. He does not mind allowing the LPC and the NDP fight over the majority of people who do not agree with him.

      • JH says:

        Now WK can correct me on this, but I seem to recall that the Liberal-controlled senate at the time, started making noises about holding up government legislation and that’s when Harper started appointing more Conservative senators. May be wrong as I’m getting older, but don’t think so. Don’t care anyway – I’m with the Dippers on this one, abolish!

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:

          JH,

          I’m getting older too but abolition is a non-starter. It looks good and scores cheap political points but basically it’s a no-go.

          You know that the government is made up of the Queen and Parliament. That means a three-sided tripod of equal measure. Forget about only needing seven provinces and Ottawa to abolish. Like the monarchy, it will ultimately require provincial unanimity to kill the Senate and Quebec will make sure that never happens.

        • Gayle says:

          Perhaps, but that is irrelevant to my point. Duffy was not appointed to sit in the Senate and be sober second thought. He was appointed to fundraise for the CPC, and have all his expenses related to that fundraising covered by the taxpayer.

          PS – you can’t abolish the Senate without constitutional reform. Any party that campaigns on abolishing the Senate without also discussing the difficulties in accomplishing that is lying to you.

          • Lance says:

            He was appointed to fundraise for the CPC, and have all his expenses related to that fundraising covered by the taxpayer.

            Interesting assertion.

          • Gayle says:

            An assertion with a factual basis., You should try that some time!

            Or maybe you think calling Duffy his “hardest working senator”, when up to that point Duffy had spent far more time fundraising for the CPC than actually, you know, providing the nation with his sober second thought is because Harper actually did not know his office was booking Duffy for all kinds of CPC fundraisers, and that the CPC were not covering Duffy’s expenses for said fundraisers…

          • Lance says:

            An assertion with a factual basis., You should try that some time!

            What, to deem my “assertions” as indisputable “facts” because I SAY so? Nah, I’ll stick with the real thing, thanks. Maybe you might even provide some. There is always hope, right? 🙂

            Or maybe you think calling Duffy his “hardest working senator”, when up to that point Duffy had spent far more time fundraising for the CPC than actually, you know, providing the nation with his sober second thought is because Harper actually did not know his office was booking Duffy for all kinds of CPC fundraisers, and that the CPC were not covering Duffy’s expenses for said fundraisers…

            Hmmmm. that is still nowhere close to anything you can prove as a “factual basis” for appointing him with that express reason, other than the same assertion only with more words. All you are saying is a thin “maybe” (even the second word of your sentence) coached in a hypothetical way as if I were thinking it.

            Task task, weak sauce, Gayle.

      • Al in Cranbrook says:

        Really? Do you really think that the Coalition From Hell would not have racked up far larger deficits in response to the crash of 2008? Do you really believe that the LPC led by Dion would not have caved in to every demand by Layton and the NDP’s passion for spending truckloads of cash and taxing everything under the sun? Forget about what it would have cost to keep Duceppe et al on side!

        Which party fought tooth and nail against every single effort to reform the senate? The Liberals! How many provincial governments lined up to support senate reform? None! You honestly don’t think a Dion led coalition wouldn’t have stuffed the senate full of more Liberals the moment they seized power? And you don’t think Liberal senators were ever involved in fund raising and party politics for the LPC? F’rinstance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Davey ?

        You don’t think the Chretien/Martin governments didn’t do whatever they had to to maintain 35 – 40% of the country to maintain a majority?

        Give your head a shake and grow up already!

        And BTW, I don’t recall one single person, of any stripe, suggesting either Duffy or Wallen would be suspect choices for senators due to a demonstrated lack of ethics. Not one! Forget about all the other senators, many of them Liberals, over the years who had their own scandalous failings. It’s like filling any job position; out of every so many, there’s going to be the odd one that comes up short of expectations and their resumes. That’s life. That’s also why senators should be elected instead of appointed. But we all know how the LPC feels about that, don’t we?

        • Gayle says:

          Hmmm. Did I hit a nerve?

          In any event, maybe go up, go waaaay up, and read the comment that I was responding to. You know, the one that claimed Harper makes all his decisions based on what is best for Canada? I simply pointed out that he made several significant decisions based on what he needed to do to hold onto power. His political calculations are based on his needs, and his alone. If it is true the LPC has made or would have made the same decisions for the same reason, then that only strengthens my point. So thanks!

          PS – as I state above, Harper is the one who obviously appointed Duffy due to what he hoped would be a lack of ethics (and considering the extremely unethical thing Duffy did in order to get that appointment, it was readily apparent he would play ball).

    • davie says:

      I disagree that our PM doesn’t care. He cares very much for the people who bought and paid for his steps to power, and he has listened to them closely and given them what they demanded, no matter what is has done to his countrymen and his country.
      He has been a good little boy.

      • Al in Cranbrook says:

        And, pray tell, just whom precisely would those people be?

        Truth is, Harper is arguably the first PM since Diefenbaker, and whom lasted more than a few months, whom was not closely tied to the “establishment”.

        Indeed, I couldn’t name another PM during my lifetime whom was less impressed nor intimidated by people who think they are financially/politically powerful.

        • terence quinn says:

          Al, truth is you lie and have not weighed the best PM against normal factors. you simply like harper because he cheats his way to success.

        • Gayle says:

          Perhaps. but I really really doubt it.

          He has spent a lot of time lying to his base though. How long did it take him to kill the gun registry again? Oh yeah – he waited years to bring that one to the end. In the meantime, how many millions of dollars did he raise for his party by promising to kill it…

          • doconnor says:

            To Harper’s credit, he couldn’t get rid of the gun registry when he had a minority. He came within 2 votes in 2010.

          • Gayle says:

            He took 4 years to bring it to a vote. Why? Especially when he made everything a confidence vote. Oh, except the gun registry vote. The issue that was just SO important to him. He allowed it to be defeated, because then he went out and raised money on it again.

  11. Dave says:

    “Surge”?

  12. Africon says:

    Interesting – so some of you feel that it makes no sense for a party leader to pay attention to the largest block of voters in a democracy.

    In an ideal world, I suppose a great leader would propose what he feels is “best for the country” and win over the majority of voters to his worldview. There are a few examples like Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew but that was hardly a democracy.

    The greatest single weakness of any democracy is that by and large the vast majority of voters just do not know “what is best for their country. It would be wonderful if we could see unanimity amongst our top 20 economists, legal minds, businessmen, bankers, generals, philosophers, marine biologists or demographers etc but I’ve never seen it.

  13. cgh says:

    There are many, many very interesting things that emerge out of what Ekos has done here. It’s worth noting that Harper and Mulcair have pretty firm support ratings while Trudeau does not. And his fall from grace starting in mid-2013 roughly coincides with the beginning of what has been a parade of gaffes. But one of the most interesting statements is this: “There are, however, bigger challenges confronting Mr. Harper this time.”

    This is true. 2015 is a far more dangerous and complicated a world than was 2011. A sustained decline in natural resources of all kinds over the past three years, massive instability in the ME, the collapse of US leadership on global problems because of domestic political infighting, the veto over Keystone XL, Ontario’s continuing decline in manufacturing: all of these make for a much more complex situation as the GOC. Indeed things are not nearly as clear-cut as they were four years ago.

    But the failure of the opposition is that it has not defined clearly what viable alternative approaches should be considered. “Invest more in infrastructure” is not a policy, it’s a slogan. The opposition has been completely disfunctional and out of touch with respect to ME atrocities and specifically what Canada’s response should be. So, if Harper has bigger challenges, so too does the opposition. The failure of the opposition to enunciate its views in clear, workable policies seems a large part of why JT’s leadership numbers are as polarizing as Ekos shows. Given the Liberals’ backing and filling on anti-terrorist legislation and ME intervention, for example, there’s some sense that JT may in fact be little more than “Harper-lite”, but without the Conservatives clear sense of direction and policy consistency. Love ’em or hate ’em, the CPC and the NDP at least have a generally clear, consistent message and policy direction. The Liberals do not. And there’s only so long that you can coast on personal appearance without putting up some substance.

  14. Gayle says:

    Trudeau’s falling numbers seem to be connected to the rise in fear for our security. He cannot win on the terrorism file. Anything he says about it is just going to give Harper another chance to show he is in charge. My guess (and obviously it is only a guess) is that he is lying low and waiting for the channel to change.

    I did not really follow the 2012 US election, but I do know when Hurricane Sandy hit and they suspended campaigning, Obama got to look like a leader in charge of a nation. When two soldiers were murdered, and Parliament was attacked, Harper got to look like a leader in charge of a nation.

  15. chuckercanuck says:

    Harper will win another majority. Every other possible outcome is so crazy to contemplate that they won’t happen.

    Justin Trudeau and Tom Mulcair will never be Prime Minister. For different reasons but that’s the bottom line. The only way either opposition parties takes over government will be:

    A) Liberals put in place a credible government-runner. Marc Garneau and Martha Hall-Whoever were not credible and neither would have a better chance than Trudeau. For the Liberals it would take a former cabinet minister or premier (e.g., Jean Charest).

    B) They need to run Quebec or Ontario (successfully and responsibly) for a term or two to make them a possibility. Their current Quebec caucus is not Quebeckers saying, “let them govern”. Its Quebec saying, “screw you Bloc Quebecois”. If Quebeckers think the NDP might run the show, goodbye Quebec NDP MPs.

    C) Harper resigns and gets replaced by someone who doesn’t inspire the same confidence that he does (which will be pretty much anyone who replaces him).

    In other words: our Prime Minister has a good shot at going from the 6th longest serving PM to the 3rd – overtaking Chretien, Laurier and Trudeau.

    Can he be the longest serving PM? That will take winning this fall (majority) and the next one (majority). My guess and hope is that he does.

    • Al in Cranbrook says:

      CC! Great to hear from you again, been a looooong time!

      😉

      • chuckercanuck says:

        Its like we’re getting the old band together again. Only now we’re all fat. And being at Warren Kinsella’s is like being at Comments Please – nice and homey.

        Lots of earnest, lunatics hang out here – who say things like, “Trudeau lost me at bill C-51” like Trudeau wasn’t anything more than spun sugar to begin with. Sweet, good people who are so committed to the Liberal brand they can’t see the bag of rocks they elected leader. He gets 14 year olds swooning. Terrific.

        I do miss Jason Cherniak. Who is Trudeau’s Cherniak? Calgary Grit works for him – but hey, a paycheck is a paycheck/.

        As for us, I thought I’d give this up once we won a majority. But now the game’s much bigger. Harper is a kick ass dude and I want him in for 22 years. 10 years ago, we thought winning was enough. Now we can openly dream of 22 years of government.

        You gotta be with me on that!!! (Old Squid, where’s ya at there boy?)

        • Al in Cranbrook says:

          Definitely with you on that! You decide to set up shop again, I’ll be a regular, eh!

          As for Justin, he’s what happens when nobody serious wants the job any more. As Manley once put it, “The job description isn’t what it used to be.” Heh!

          I’ll be watchin’ for ya! 🙂

  16. Reggie Love says:

    Ontario Premier Wynne’s sex ed program, Levin’s involvement with same and carbon tax will not help Mr Trudeau.

  17. Africon says:

    Fareed Zakaria’s GPS is the only CNN show that I regularly watch and today he made an interesting point – in today’s world it is the so called tough guys that are winning elections – Israels’ Netanyahu and Germany’s Merkel.

    This falls right in line with King Pricks construction workers view of things

    • cgh says:

      Quite right. To which list you can add the Dems going down in flames in the 2014 mid-terms in the US. And there’s a reason tough guys are winning. The world’s a much more dangerous place than it was four years ago. The message the voters are sending in response generally within the OECD nations is “Wimps need not apply.”

      And the lesson was driven home again this past month with the US bailing out of Yemen (cue proverbial helicopters on the embassy roof) with thousands of US citizens still trapped in the country, and the White House claiming that it was too dangerous to launch a rescue mission. But they were happy to have the Indian navy pick up US refugees. The irony is rich; from world’s leading nation, Obama has led the nation so badly that some of its citizens have become de facto boat people in Djibouti. Good thing he’s at the end of his second term; after Yemen he couldn’t get elected dog-catcher in Dog Patch.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*