Now they are piling on Trudeau

[overthere]

This one today, from Michael Den Tandt who appears in many major Canadiian papers regularly including the Toronto Sun. He has spent the last two years relentlessly pumping Trudeaus tires, got on that bandwagon early and hard, so this is not usual for him......

The stronger Tom Mulcair is, the weaker Justin Trudeau looks, the better Stephen Harper does.

It's a simple enough dynamic. It's germinating now in the House of Commons, as MPs wrangle over how to best respond to the threat posed by Islamic State. It's something the Liberals, front-runners since the spring of 2013, would be wise to pay greater attention to. This Iraq debate has the potential to bite them hard.

It is no surprise, then, that in the two debates in the House of Commons about the Iraq mission, one midlast-month and another this week, it was Mulcair who dominated. And yet in the polls, as I mentioned earlier, he's nowhere; barely into double digits, while Trudeau's Liberals continue to float like a butterfly at 38 per cent, almost majority territory.

The core reason has to be the difference in their respective parties; specifically, the concern that the New Democrats would undo the Harper government's economic program, with which Canadians are broadly comfortable, and engage in a frenzy of expensive and ultimately doomed social engineering.

The Liberal party, in other words, still has immense brand potential, due to its ability to offer stability, through the judicious theft of ideas from predecessors right or left.

The party's difficulty, in the Iraq context, is simply that its position is incoherent, set next to those of either the Conservatives or New Democrats. There are ample reasons to question the U.S.-led aerial campaign against Islamic State. One can critique the mission from the left, saying humanitarian aid is the only moral solution, as the NDP have done. One can critique it from the right, arguing that nothing short of total war can defeat the organized, state-level Islamofascism that Islamic State presents.

What is exceedingly difficult is to argue that robust military action is necessary and can be successful, but also that Canada should have no part in it, beyond a supporting role. That's what the Liberals have done, on and off, for several weeks.

Even more problematic, given such a nuanced stance, is that Trudeau himself has yet to fully articulate it. The first Iraq debate in the House, he skipped. In the second he ceded the lead to Garneau, his foreign affairs critic, and Murray, his defence critic. Trudeau partisans will insist this is further evidence of the strong Liberal team. Nonsense. In decisions of war and peace the leader leads, or he's not the leader.

ouch again.

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Iraq+Trudeau+should+feel+need+lead/10272486/story.html

[Demosthenes26]

People are finally starting to see Trudeau jr for what he is... A mirage, something that looks pretty but is devoid of any substance. As much I think this country need a new Prime Minister, I'd rather another 4 years of Harper than 4 of Trudeau.

[PIK]

I could not believe my eyes when I read his article. good for him to tell it like it is. And harper has been a good leader, a solid leader, and trudeau just does not have it. The liberal party did not learn anything at all, by picking him, thinking is was a clear run to power because of his name.

[On Guard for Thee]

I could not believe my eyes when I read his article. good for him to tell it like it is. And harper has been a good leader, a solid leader, and trudeau just does not have it. The liberal party did not learn anything at all, by picking him, thinking is was a clear run to power because of his name.

Yes people do remember the Trudeau name. Very famous man. Harper, on the other hand, will fade like summer wages after next October.

[Keepitsimple]

The absence/non-participation in the debate was clear validation for all the critics who have been saying that he's not bright enough to speak without a script. Den Tandt is right - in tough times like war, leaders lead. Trudeau's handlers and a pliant media (to date) have kept him from truly debating matters of substance. There was no escaping this issue however. And they said the Conservative message wasn't resonating......the thought was planted - and Trudeau is watering the garden - with weeds springing up all over.

[Hudson Jones]

People are finally starting to see Trudeau jr for what he is... A mirage, something that looks pretty but is devoid of any substance. As much I think this country need a new Prime Minister, I'd rather another 4 years of Harper than 4 of Trudeau.

Why is it a choice only between those two for you?

Isn't policy important for you? You prefer to pick someone whose "substance" is anti-environment/science, anti-human rights, anti-international law because the only other option you've given yourself is wet behind the ears?

[waldo]

This one today...

will you be starting new threads for any/all articles you come across? Aren't you worried this one will cut into your other "Coyne savages" thread?

.

[PIK]

Yes people do remember the Trudeau name. Very famous man. Harper, on the other hand, will fade like summer wages after next October.

I don't think so. Harper will be remembered for what he has done, no matter what the left says.

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't think so. Harper will be remembered for what he has done, no matter what the left says.

Well the one thing I can think of that he was going to be able to trumpet heading into the election cycle would be a balanced budget, finally. Now he may have a finale which involves blowing that by haphazardly entering a war. So yeah you might just be right on him being remembered for what he has done.

[Demosthenes26]

Why is it a choice only between those two for you?

Isn't policy important for you? You prefer to pick someone whose "substance" is anti-environment/science, anti-human rights, anti-international law because the only other option you've given yourself is wet behind the ears?

as far as i'm concerned the NDP isn't a viable party. I don't like a lot of their position on issues.

I do consider the policy I do think that more important. But we haven't seen any substantial indication of Trudeau intentions are if he's elected. Like so far We've heard he'll legalize weed but he's given no indication as to what that would be like. He's pro - abortion, well that would've been something in his fathers time, But we haven't has a public debate in parliment concerning abortion itself since mulroney. So at this point in our history it was really a non-issue. There's been suggestions as potential policy ideas(protect the "middle class") but nothing of substance. We don't know his position on the environment, human rights, international law, economic affairs (actually we know this one "the budget will balance itself").

Harper on the other hand we know. His primary concern has been the budget and economics affairs (also tought sentences for criminals). He's done a good job with regards to those two issues. But neglected alot of other important issues namely the environment. Politically he's proven himself to be a shrewd Machiavellian, although at times vindictive and dictariorial. (As far human right and international law i'm not sure what you're refering to unless you're trying to reopen the Israel debate). I think he's been in power too long, Mistakes are adding. But the conservatives are right Trudeau lacks substance not only in personality but also in policy. I bleed blue, so my biasis are always toward economic affairs where harper definitely has the better policy. But i'm not one to ignore the issue that aren't being addressed by Harper. I think we need change in the country, Trudeau jr. isn't the one to do it though

[overthere]

will you be starting new threads for any/all articles you come across? Aren't you worried this one will cut into your other "Coyne savages" thread?

.

please refrain from wasting all our time with posts without substance. and no, the other one is about a current issue, is many pages long. Thanks.

[overthere]

I could not believe my eyes when I read his article. good for him to tell it like it is. And harper has been a good leader, a solid leader, and trudeau just does not have it. The liberal party did not learn anything at all, by picking him, thinking is was a clear run to power because of his name.

I wonder about this article, since Den Tandt has been a ferocious Liberal and Trudeau cheerleader for so long.

Perhaps he knows something we don't, perhaps Trudeau will come out with something (anything) substantive soon so Michael can get back to the Pompoms.

[waldo]

please refrain from wasting all our time with posts without substance. and no, the other one is about a current issue, is many pages long. Thanks.

c'mon, it's a fair and reasonable question I put to you... we should have a framework reference. Given the brazillion number of scathing articles criticizing Harper/Harper Conservatives, if you're now setting the measuring bar to your daily/every other day article find on a journalist's critical review of JT/Liberal Party, it's only sporting to highlight your shifted play... you're up for a lil' "tit-for-tat", hey?

[Hudson Jones]

as far as i'm concerned the NDP isn't a viable party. I don't like a lot of their position on issues.

I do consider the policy I do think that more important. But we haven't seen any substantial indication of Trudeau intentions are if he's elected. Like so far We've heard he'll legalize weed but he's given no indication as to what that would be like. He's pro - abortion, well that would've been something in his fathers time, But we haven't has a public debate in parliment concerning abortion itself since mulroney. So at this point in our history it was really a non-issue. There's been suggestions as potential policy ideas(protect the "middle class") but nothing of substance. We don't know his position on the environment, human rights, international law, economic affairs (actually we know this one "the budget will balance itself").

Harper on the other hand we know. His primary concern has been the budget and economics affairs (also tought sentences for criminals). He's done a good job with regards to those two issues. But neglected alot of other important issues namely the environment. Politically he's proven himself to be a shrewd Machiavellian, although at times vindictive and dictariorial. (As far human right and international law i'm not sure what you're refering to unless you're trying to reopen the Israel debate). I think he's been in power too long, Mistakes are adding. But the conservatives are right Trudeau lacks substance not only in personality but also in policy. I bleed blue, so my biasis are always toward economic affairs where harper definitely has the better policy. But i'm not one to ignore the issue that aren't being addressed by Harper. I think we need change in the country, Trudeau jr. isn't the one to do it though

You make a lot of good points and I would agree to some extent about the lack of coherency when it comes to the Liberal party and its policies. I think one of the differences between our perspectives is that I think Harper's policies on the environment and science is extremely troubling. The environmental policies are devastating for the planet. The harm we've inflicted on the environment will soon be reaching the point of no return. The results will not only be unpleasant climate wise, but we'll also be on the hook for the economical damages. Harper and many of his policies stand not for the majority of Canada or the good of our planet, but for a small group that is fighting changes that would harm its monopoly in wealth and power. We need to throw away the team cheering mentality and instead do what is right for Canada and the world.

[Moonbox]

please refrain from wasting all our time with posts without substance. and no, the other one is about a current issue, is many pages long. Thanks.

Do you generally consider Fox News a reliable source for criticism of Barack Obama? If so, carry on. If not, consider that maybe the National Post and Mr. Coyne are about as reliable for anti-Trudeau criticism as the Toronto Star is for criticism of Harper.

I'm not saying Trudeau is a great candidate for Prime Minister. I'm just suggesting that there's a fair amount of bias in these sources.

[overthere]

c'mon, it's a fair and reasonable question I put to you... we should have a framework reference. Given the brazillion number of scathing articles criticizing Harper/Harper Conservatives, if you're now setting the measuring bar to your daily/every other day article find on a journalist's critical review of JT/Liberal Party, it's only sporting to highlight your shifted play... you're up for a lil' "tit-for-tat", hey?

Nah, it's just your usual stalker shit Wally.

You had no comment on the content, only on me posting it.

If you object to that, report it otherwise beat it wee chap.

[guyser]

I don't think so. Harper will be remembered for what he has done, no matter what the left says.

Got that right

Slashed all science budgets

Gagged all scientists

Underfunded environment initiatives

Silenced dissenters from same....

[Moonlight Graham]

I really thought the article in the OP was pretty much spot-on.

People are finally starting to see Trudeau jr for what he is... A mirage, something that looks pretty but is devoid of any substance. As much I think this country need a new Prime Minister, I'd rather another 4 years of Harper than 4 of Trudeau.

I agree, though I wouldn't vote for Harper or Trudeau. I'd plug my nose and vote NDP, though it would be a shame to lose Mulcair as opposition leader since he's been fantastic in that role in the House. It's pretty obvious any time he's opened his mouth the last month or 2 that Trudeau has no clue about foreign policy or islamic terrorism/ISIS. He's no so uneducated and naive about political matters it's frightening to think of Trudeau as PM when important decisions like matters of war need to be made.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

I could not believe my eyes when I read his article. good for him to tell it like it is. And harper has been a good leader, a solid leader, and trudeau just does not have it. The liberal party did not learn anything at all, by picking him, thinking is was a clear run to power because of his name.

Harper has been ok, but his cabinet has been an embarrassment. You're just not going to find enough non-ignorant people in the CPC to fill out a government properly.

[cybercoma]

I really thought the article in the OP was pretty much spot-on.

I agree, though I wouldn't vote for Harper or Trudeau. I'd plug my nose and vote NDP, though it would be a shame to lose Mulcair as opposition leader since he's been fantastic in that role in the House. It's pretty obvious any time he's opened his mouth the last month or 2 that Trudeau has no clue about foreign policy or islamic terrorism/ISIS. He's no uneducated and naive about political matters it's frightening to think of Trudeau as PM when important decisions like matters of war need to be made.

Trudeau and Harper are going to get absolutely mauled by Mulcair in the debates at this rate.

[cybercoma]

People still won't vote NDP

[PrimeNumber]

,,

People still won't vote NDP

Its a shame. Harper recycles the same old robotic talking points until something else he hasn't informed the country about slips out in which case he has to reword the same old talking points slightly to try and make himself look better, which isn't fooling anyone.

Trudeau can't say anything unless it's written down in front of him.

And Muclair time and time again ad libs some incredibly accurate and thought provoking points towards the conservatives tearing their recycled talking points to the shreds they were destined to be. He's done a bang-up job as opposition leader.

Edited October 9, 2014 by PrimeNumber

[Derek 2.0]

And Muclair time and time again ad libs some incredibly accurate and thought provoking points towards the conservatives tearing their recycled talking points to the shreds they were destined to be. He's done a bang-up job as opposition leader.

I agree.......and would have been far more concerned if the Liberals had their own Muclair......

[Bonam]

Yes people do remember the Trudeau name. Very famous man. Harper, on the other hand, will fade like summer wages after next October.

Regardless of what people may think of Harper, he will be at the least Canada's 6th longest serving prime minister and as such will have left more than his share of a mark on the history of Canada.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Bonam

[On Guard for Thee]

Regardless of what people may think of Harper, he will be at the least Canada's 6th longest serving prime minister and as such will have left more than his share of a mark on the history of Canada.

Can't argue with either of those.