PMO hires former White House spokesmen

Topaz · April 17, 2009

According to some sources and revealed at the At Issue panel, they run $10,000 a month. Each. So assuming a 12 month contract, let's say around $240,000 a year.
And all this to get Harper a job on FOX.

By the way, the Wall Street Journal said that Harper could speak to their editorial board any time. No middleman needed.

IF Harper wants a job on FOX, he only had to talk to Hannity and say how bad the world is with Libs! Hannity, would have hired him as a "northern advisor" and he would join the other so-called advisor as Dick Morris and Oli North.

bush_cheney2004 · April 17, 2009

IF Harper wants a job on FOX, he only had to talk to Hannity and say how bad the world is with Libs! Hannity, would have hired him as a "northern advisor" and he would join the other so-called advisor as Dick Morris and Oli North.

Hey, I like that idea. Didn't Ignatieff have a TV gig in the U.K. ??

All is fair in love, war, and politics.

August1991 · April 17, 2009

The Conservative government has hired two former White House communications strategists as part of a "sustained" effort to raise Canada's profile in the U.S. media - with Prime Minister Stephen Harper acting as salesman-in-chief, Canwest News Service has learned.
The Prime Minister's Office on Wednesday said it had retained Mike McCurry, a former press secretary to Bill Clinton, and Ari Fleischer, who held the same job during George W. Bush's first term, on temporary contracts to help Harper land interviews with leading American television networks and newspapers.

"Canada has a very good story to tell, and it won't tell itself," said Kory Teneycke, Mr. Harper's spokesman.

"The person best-positioned to tell that story in the [American] media is the prime minister."

National Post

I have often wondered whether Canada should lobby directly the American voting public as a way to protect our interests. I reckoned though that lobbying people in Congress or the White House would be a more cost effective approach. Apparently, Harper has decided to lobby the US media (such as it is these days).

This policy is a departure from past experience and I'm not sure it will work. We can sell Canada as a tourist destination to Americans but I don't think we will accomplish much if we try to get Americans concerned about Canada's political interests.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Charles Anthony
formerly OP of a thread titled: "Harper Sells Canada to Americans"

M.Dancer · April 17, 2009

This policy is a departure from past experience and I'm not sure it will work. We can sell Canada as a tourist destination to Americans but I don't think we will accomplish much if we try to get Americans concerned about Canada's political interests.

I have to agree with their approach given that Americans really don't know how close we are to them politically and how strong of an ally we really are. Whether or not that will translate into votes on the hill in the short term is debatable...and I'm sure the usual avenues of influencing legis;aters and promoting Canada as a destination will remain in effect.

As far as cost effective goes....there is no cheaper form of advertising than free publicity, which in effect this is.

normanchateau · April 17, 2009

According to some sources and revealed at the At Issue panel, they run $10,000 a month. Each. So assuming a 12 month contract, let's say around $240,000 a year.
And all this to get Harper a job on FOX.

It's not a bad investment for Canadian taxpayers. The more Harper feels that he has a safe landing pad with FOX, the sooner he'll be willing to give up the only high paying job he's ever had in his life.

jdobbin · April 17, 2009

I have often wondered whether Canada should lobby directly the American voting public as a way to protect our interests. I reckoned though that lobbying people in Congress or the White House would be a more cost effective approach. Apparently, Harper has decided to lobby the US media (such as it is these days).

Because, according to Don Martin, he may be angling for a new job with American media since he will be unemployable in Canada.

This is only costing us $240,000 a year for these advisers even when the Wall Street Journal says they will take Harper's appointment for a meeting with the editorial board any time. No middlemen needed.

We can let the very embassy and consul staff sit on their duffs. Afterall, they can't get Harper an interview on FOX, right?

bush_cheney2004 · April 17, 2009

I have to agree with their approach given that Americans really don't know how close we are to them politically and how strong of an ally we really are.

Well it's like most things...one "Oh Shit!" trumps a thousand "Atta Boys"......and the rejected Iraq invitation still lingers. The ally perspective has never been reciprocated equally, with Canada putting far more emphasis on it than America, which is sweeter on the U.K. in the public psyche.

Whether or not that will translate into votes on the hill in the short term is debatable...and I'm sure the usual avenues of influencing legis;aters and promoting Canada as a destination will remain in effect.

Fine for tourism....just like Jamaica or Bahamas. But other special interest pandering could result in a backlash if it comes across that way.

Edited April 17, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

scribblet · April 17, 2009

This is funny - about as newsworthy as the Libs buying American software for managing their campaign... Whatever gets the job done - right. Oops excuse me, only if you are a Liberal LOL

jdobbin · April 17, 2009

This is funny - about as newsworthy as the Libs buying American software for managing their campaign... Whatever gets the job done - right. Oops excuse me, only if you are a Liberal LOL

Except that the PMO is 100% taxpayer's money used for consultants that could ably be managed by the Embassy.

August1991 · April 18, 2009

I get the CBC and BBC world news and Global National podcasts every day now. Sometimes I find the CBC to be rather lacking in scope, but what it does report generally comes without any editorialising, or the sensationalism that Global seems to always weave into its broadcast (just how dangerous is the dust in my keyboard!?). The BBC, of course, always takes top prize, though; I don't know why it is that the CBC just can't seem to reach the BBC's level of professionalism, in both news and entertainment programming.

The CBC lacks scope? When was the last time that I ever heard anything controversial on the CBC?

For the CBC, Rick Mercer is controversial.

As to the BBC, I can understand your viewpoint, bambino. The BBC is the CBC with a British accent - and you like the Queen.

----

Incidentally, I now realize that I started a new thread on this topic.

IMHO, Harper's iniatitive concerns a radically new approach to Canadian-American relations.

Edited April 18, 2009 by August1991

Smallc · April 18, 2009

You can try to play down the Canada - US relationship all you want....it doesn't make it any less real or important.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Smallc

bush_cheney2004 · April 18, 2009

You can try to play down the Canada - US relationship all you want....it doesn't make it any less real or important.

Methinks it is very important to you....for Carolyn Parrish....not so much.

Oleg Bach · April 18, 2009

Methinks it is very important to you....for Carolyn Parrish....not so much.

Hello my friend....about to sign off - anything you need down there? Let me know ----- I guess that Canadian water was a bit of an over load - sorry about that...keep going bro - all is well in Toronto - and the spring is springing - no I won't get into the sweet afternoon at the ex- wives house - nor will I tell you about the wonderful time I have with woman 30 years my juniors/// nor will I tell you about my beautiful painting - Just think - some day you will get old and learn how to live ------------------ but - you have to be a cool studish character in your youth - and live on the trickle down effect when you age - love your nation - love you..all is well.

noahbody · April 18, 2009

Because, according to Don Martin, he may be angling for a new job with American media since he will be unemployable in Canada.

Since Don Martin characterized that as "a wild theory" he must be certain of it.

The part of the story you're missing is that Harper might have to work. I guess that means no Shawinigate or no $161 million in shipping contracts (plus saving by avoiding taxes in Canada). What a disappointment this Harper is.

Edited April 18, 2009 by noahbody

Radsickle · April 18, 2009

Methinks it is very important to you....for Carolyn Parrish....not so much.

Carolyn Parrish for ...

... Deputy PM!!!

Parrish pissed off the Bush supporters at that time and I say GOOD FOR HER!

But Harper just sucks. Sucks Fox Network Ass.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Radsickle

tango · April 18, 2009

Harper Sells Canada to Americans

Hasn't anybody told Harper that Chretien and Martin already sold Canada to Americans?

:lol: :lol:

Radsickle · April 18, 2009

Harper Sells Canada to Americans
Hasn't anybody told Harper that Chretien and Martin already sold Canada to Americans?

:lol:

Wasn't a Conservative Government responsible for NAFTA in 1992? Huh? Mulroney Baloney? What are you talking about? At least they were a more respectable party than Harper's Reform CRAP

tango · April 18, 2009

Wasn't a Conservative Government responsible for NAFTA in 1992? Huh? Mulroney Baloney? What are you talking about? At least they were a more respectable party than Harper's Reform CRAP

Oh I'm sure you're right. A historian I'm not, nor a partisan either.

In fact I'm sure every PM has had a hand in that. :lol:

jdobbin · April 18, 2009

What a disappointment this Harper is.

Instead, he will likely land a role on U.S. TV where he can take potshots on Canada.

Who's Doing What? · April 18, 2009

Sounds like he actually wants to get the facts out instead of the crap that is being advanced by the liberal MSM.

"liberal MSM" Another falshood perpetrated by the political right.

noahbody · April 18, 2009

Instead, he will likely land a role on U.S. TV where he can take potshots on Canada.

Of course. That's been his hidden agenda all along.

What a masterful job he's done in hiding his love for the media. If the Liberals had him running the Sponsorship Scandal, no one would have ever known. This must be why you resent Harper so much.

jdobbin · April 18, 2009

Of course. That's been his hidden agenda all along.

It seems a lot on the right still believe in a secret agenda. They say that if Harper got a majority, he would actually cut spending and bring about the policies they want so much.

As far as what Harper will do when he is no longer leader, there are a few wondering when that will happen not if.

It wouldn't be surprising if Harper hasn't thought about a career in a friendly media environment south of the border. It is too bad if he thinks that the Canadian public should foot the $240,000 to help make that happen.

What a masterful job he's done in hiding his love for the media.

He certainly loves friendly U.S. media.

Smallc · April 18, 2009

The part of the story you're missing is that Harper might have to work. I guess that means no Shawinigate or no $161 million in shipping contracts (plus saving by avoiding taxes in Canada).

Both former Liberal Prime Ministers work.

noahbody · April 18, 2009

It wouldn't be surprising if Harper hasn't thought about a career in a friendly media environment south of the border.

It's far more likely that Ignatieff would do that.

It is too bad if he thinks that the Canadian public should foot the $240,000 to help make that happen.

It's also too bad if you don't realize that when a US president and environmental groups are waging a "dirty oil" campaign against Canada, it might be a good idea to have a vehicle to get the facts out. And as Dancer points out, $240,000 is a bargain compared to what it would cost to get out side of the story out through paid advertising.

Are you able to comprehend this or is it back to wild theory? Only the latter will advance your agenda. I'm guessing you'll go there.

Edited April 18, 2009 by noahbody

jdobbin · April 18, 2009

It's far more likely that Ignatieff would do that.

He might after being prime minister for a while. I just wonder if he would need to hire someone to find that job.

It's also too bad if you don't realize that when a US president and environmental groups are waging a "dirty oil" campaign against Canada, it might be a good idea to have a vehicle to get the facts out. And as Dancer points out, $240,000 is a bargain compared to what it would cost to get out side of the story out through paid advertising.

I don't doubt that it is good to get the facts out. The Wall Street Journal among other says Harper needs to appointment. So what are we getting for the money? And why won't the PM be open about it?

Are you able to comprehend this or is it back to wild theory? Only the latter will advance your agenda. I'm guessing you'll go there.

Are you unable to comprehend that many people are wondering why we even have an embassy down there who can do this sort of thing. Did Chretien or Martin need to have a fixers or were they able to use the embassy professionals?