12.13.2019 09:06 AM

He’s outta Scheer: the truth


  1. Ron Benn says:

    I have just added your last sentence to my list of life’s great philosophies.

    1. A man has got to know his limitations (Dirty Harry Callaghan).

    2. Gentlemen, let’s keep this in perspective (Barney Miller).

    3. Sometimes you just get tired of the bullshit (Warren Kinsella).

  2. It’s not easy giving up on your dream job when you come to realize you suck at it.

  3. What Carignan said pretty much scratches the surface in Quebec and expresses the generally held view.

  4. Bet Harper is pretty much dumbfounded over Scheer’s resignation.

    • The Doctor says:

      I don’t know about that. Harper had more talent as a politician than Scheer did. He was better on his feet, better spoken, better briefed and smarter to boot.

      I wasn’t a huge fan of Harper, but I’ll give him that. Bottom line was that Scheer was not particularly talented as a retail politician. He benefited from intra-party rivalries to win the leadership. Same thing as happened to two other notably untalented retail politicians — Stephane Dion and Joe Clark.

      • Walter says:

        Harper was the best PM in the last half century. No matter who the CPC chose in 2017, they knew would be a decline. At least now they can find an improvement.

      • CanadianKate says:

        I’ll agree Harper was good on his feet, well spoken, well briefed and smart. But if he had a moral compass he kept it locked away lest he follow it and lose power. I felt Harper could never resist crossing the street to kick any dog he saw who was already down. So I could never vote for him despite he being my best fit with regards to policy.

        I’m not sure the politics that went into Scheer winning the leadership, but to me it felt like it was two warring factions within the CPC saying if ‘our guy’ isn’t elected we’ll inflict Scheer on the party to destroy it.

        I sense Scheer wanted to do politics better, and to turn away from the slime-pit hell it has become for those who make it their lives.

        But those slime-pit politics, were why he ended up leader and meant that he was left without support or guidance. To me, it looked like he was a sheep thrown to the wolves in both the Liberal and Conservative parties.

        Scheer’s heart isn’t in it any more because those wolves ripped it from his body.

        • Chris says:

          Alison Redford won the Alberta PC leadership just like Scheer won the CPC job. (So did Ed Stelmach, whom she replaced). She was the “compromise” candidate. Never in first-place until the final ballot. She signed up a boatload of Teachers Union Members to vote for her at the convention, much like Scheer and his Tory-for-a-day Quebec dairy farming pals.

          Compromise candidates either unite the factions with strong leadership or whither away in lonely mediocrity.


    What Jason Kenney said.

  6. Derek Pearce says:

    The (admittedly moot) question is how did he not know what he was getting himself into?

    • CanadianKate says:

      I think he was lied to. I think he wanted to do politics differently and was influenced by people who lied to him and said they shared his vision. They needed a sacrificial lamb and got one.

  7. Mike says:

    Korey Teneycke doesn’t agree and also says Harper was down on Scheer. Personally I also don’t buy it. The school thing was offside regardless of whether it was approved.

    • Jason says:

      I feel a bit bad for Scheer. A bit.
      But, what I heard from my (mainly female) relatives was that he was “shifty” / not trustworthy. My aunt and grandmother, who are apolitical, and don’t always vote, are my best focus group for elections… generally liberal, they disliked PM and MI for similar reasons (“You can see it in his eyes”) and I’m sure didn’t show up to vote or voted NDP/conservative. I’m more politically attuned and sometimes, I think, that actually blinds me to what “regular people” think. My guess is, in all instances, they were on to something.
      I doubt the private school thing was the real reason he resigned, like Warren said. But – I do think it is part of a broader picture of appearing like one is “hiding” something.
      Similar to the american citizen and insurance broker things.
      Running such a candidate when your attacking the other as “not as advertised” was risky, to say the least. It removes one’s standing to be trusted when they say “i won’t re open abortion” or gay marriage etc.
      As a side note – its so interesting to me – the same grandmother was opposed to gay marriage at the time it was legalized, and now its a reason she would cite to stop Scheer. It shows how society changes – and not just generationally.

  8. Eastern Rebellion says:

    Harper was a polarizing figure; especially with the Laurentian Elites, who seem to believe they have a divine right to rule Canada through the Liberal Party (and address the public through the CBC). He was a competent leader who IMHO ruled relatively well, and was pragmatic, which is not a quality displayed by all politicians. He had his time, but by 2015 it was apparent the public wanted a change. The current Prime Minister, fairly or unfairly, seems to have a significant amount of Teflon when it comes to accountability. Scheer was not liked, and the public didn’t warm up to him. I would also suggest that unlike 2015, there was not any kind of impetus amongst the voters for a change (at least not in Ontario, where the elections are generally won or lost). I think the public bloodletting will in the long term harm the CPC, but time will tell.

Leave a Reply to Chris Cancel reply

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