j44 Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) I'd rather this not turn into ad hominem attacks on Harper, his party, L. Martin or the liberal press (at least not before I get some insights by readers of the book) but I would like to know from readers if they thought it was a reasonable depiction of Harper. I'm only about 50 pages in but so far I find the book to be a non-stop attack on Harper. There has been a line here or there that could pass as a compliment or an acknowledgment of a skill or something but they seem rare to me. I expected a little more balance but maybe I should have known better. There is a lot of insight from former staffers and MPs regarding Harper's temper or his controlling personality but it borders on gossip at times. Don't get me wrong I enjoy the inside stories but my guess is that Martin did some picking and choosing and mostly used the negative remarks from former insiders. The attacks can be subtle at times and in a sense that makes them less obvious and harsh but Martin even at one point suggests that while most luck is made by the benefactor Harper didn't really make any of his luck. This to me comes across as giving him no credit for any of his election victories or any of his successes for that matter. Although I do acknowledge that has has been almost as lucky as Obama has been in his races so far. I would like to know what others thought of the book and Martin's portrayal. So, who read it? Edited February 24, 2012 by j44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Lawrence Martin hates harper. What did you expect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j44 Posted February 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Lawrence Martin hates harper. What did you expect? Criticism of his policies and tactics. Not everything else. I expected a slant not a full tilt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Haven't read it as of yet. As to the point of luck you have to remember it took Harper four elections to win a thin majority mandate. This on the back of a major scandal and multiple failed leaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Criticism of his policies and tactics. Not everything else. I expected a slant not a full tilt. I've not read the book (and won't), but I've read more than a few of Martin's columns in the Toronto Star; so, what you describe aboutt the contents of Harperland doesn't surprise me in the least. Martin's always struck me as a man who was once a dreamy youth of 1960s Trudeaupia who's turned bitter at having been left behind and alone as the decades passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j44 Posted February 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Haven't read it as of yet. As to the point of luck you have to remember it took Harper four elections to win a thin majority mandate. This on the back of a major scandal and multiple failed leaders. I don't doubt the luck but it wasn't all luck as Martin insinuates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Haven't read it and will not, but wouldn't expect anything different from someone as biased as Martin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.