Dion vs. Harper - Canada's Future?

[normanchateau]

I've never seen him as a social conservative which is why I find the numerous posts saying he is to be kinda weird.

You don't think that wanting permanent criminal records and potential jail time for simple possession of a few grams of marijuana is a social conservative position?

69% of Canadians favoured decriminalization of marijuana in 2003. Even among Canadian Alliance supporters in 2003, only 38% opposed decriminalization. Harper's position puts him among the most socially conservative of even Alliance supporters. Source:

http://www.queensu.ca/cora/polls/2003/Febr...inalization.pdf

[August1991]

I thought you once said that Dion was at the heart of the corruption of Quebec politics.

I said that Dion was a private citizen who accepted public life if given a safe by-election and a seat at the cabinet table as minister for federal-provincial relations. If, at the same time, the federal government dumped a hundred million or so of advertising money into advertising federal-provincial relations, it's understandable to wonder.

We don't know how far Dion and Harper are willinmg to compromise. We know that Dion is willing to give up his mother's birthright but then I think Harper's tax-accountant father would have objected to the income trust dishonesty.

It is the issues for which they will not compromise that perhaps deserve attention. Given such ambition, skill and tenacity, when Dion and Harper don't compromise, it means they probably believe they can change public opinion.

It's when they are low in the polls that it will be interesting to watch these two.

[August1991]

I found Warren Kinsella's comparison of Harper and Dion to be interesting...

I've never met Kinsella and I only saw Harper and Dion from afar. I think Kinsella is an anglophone Catholic, concerned with surface and status. But I'll agree with his description, seen from afar.

I saw Harper at the Montreal leadership debate and Dion at the Liberal convention. At a similar moment in their careers (neither were leaders), they both showed a shy, lonely simplicity. Harper, alone, hestitated before pulling a curtain. Dion, alone, hesitated about how to cross a row of chairs. (Harper's a big guy; Dion's a little guy.)

Kinsella's description about the "Two Steves" is superficial. Kinsella, as a partisan Liberal, is no doubt uncomfortable comparing a Tory to a Liberal. Moreover, Kinsella may claim to be an Albertan but he's a Toronto Beaches federalist NDP/Liberal. Toronto's Canada is now in the hands of a Calgarian and a Montréalais.

I'm not sure that the likes of Kinsella will be happy with the end result.

[jdobbin]

I said that Dion was a private citizen who accepted public life if given a safe by-election and a seat at the cabinet table as minister for federal-provincial relations. If, at the same time, the federal government dumped a hundred million or so of advertising money into advertising federal-provincial relations, it's understandable to wonder.

We don't know how far Dion and Harper are willinmg to compromise. We know that Dion is willing to give up his mother's birthright but then I think Harper's tax-accountant father would have objected to the income trust dishonesty.

It is the issues for which they will not compromise that perhaps deserve attention. Given such ambition, skill and tenacity, when Dion and Harper don't compromise, it means they probably believe they can change public opinion.

It's when they are low in the polls that it will be interesting to watch these two.

We'll see what happens. Right now the polarization is becoming more pronounced. Harper wants to link Dion to absolute corruption and being French. Dion will continue to link Harper to Bush.

[kimmy]

Kinsella's description about the "Two Steves" is superficial. Kinsella, as a partisan Liberal, is no doubt uncomfortable comparing a Tory to a Liberal. Moreover, Kinsella may claim to be an Albertan but he's a Toronto Beaches federalist NDP/Liberal. Toronto's Canada is now in the hands of a Calgarian and a Montréalais.

I'm not sure that the likes of Kinsella will be happy with the end result.

I'm not endorsing Kinsella-- he's after all a long-time Chretien loyalist and apologist, which makes him guilty of bad taste, at the very least. Nor do I read anything into his "Calgarian" pedigree. He's Calgarian in the same sense that Stephen Harper is a Torontonian.

With that out of the way, I often read Kinsella for his take on pragmatic politics. He's not a philosopher of issues like national identity and so on... he might have views on such things, but his primary expertise and interest is on strategy, image, perception, and how to wage a campaign (in this respect, he's arguably a lot like his former leader.) I think that's why he was such a frequent guest on TV panels during the last election (although, his intense dislike of "Team Martin" added some color to procedings as well.)

I just found Kinsella's commentary a distinct contrast to what so often comes from Liberals. We so often hear "so-con" and "Bush's puppet" and "religious fundamentalist" and all manner of other "scary" language coming from Liberal supporters and Liberals themselves when it comes to talking about Harper. So for Kinsella, a long time Liberal insider and possibly a member of their campaign committee in the upcoming election, to be talking about intelligence, ethics, and decency as characteristics that Dion and Harper have in common was quite a pleasant change. He even describes both Harper and Dion as "Trudeauesque", which if I recall is something that you've said of Harper in the past, perhaps in discussing the William Johnson biography of Harper.

Usually when I read Liberals talking about Harper, I get the impression that they expect that if he ever wins a majority government his first act will be to rip off a latex mask to reveal that he's actually Dick Cheney (or an12 foot tall lizard, or something.)

I just found it refreshing to hear a partisan willing to talk about "the other guy" with such respect. It's something that's been sorely lacking in politics in this country from both sides for a long time.

-k

[normanchateau]

I'm in agreement with you here, I do not see Harper stepping down.

I hope you're right. There's no one other than Stockwell Day who I'd like leading CPC into the next election.

[normanchateau]

"December 9, 2006 - Weekend bits and pieces, this and that:

* Personally, I have found this Stephane Dion manufactured citizenship controversy sickening and maddening. As the Globe points out this morning, precious few are greater patriots than Dion. As a student of politics, however, I was simutaneously intrigued by the fact that it was all manufactured. What does it mean? It means the Tory war room is already at work, and perhaps nervous; it means the Liberal war room needs to get up and running, and keep in mind that the Tories are working already to define Dion first. And are nervous, as all smart warriors always are."

Source:

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm

[Figleaf]

poipio.

[August1991]

Paul Wells:

The latest poll shows that, on trust and competence and sleekness and teeth quality and all the usual indicators, Stephen Harper is performing way better than he did the weekend before he won the election.

And Stéphane Dion is, by most measures, doing measurably worse than Paul Martin was before he led the Liberals to their second-worst popular-vote performance since Confederation.

Usual caveats apply. As the noted pollster Charles Dickens reminded us, the Ghost of Christmas Future is the only one whose images can be changed. But for Dion, they kind of have to be changed.

I think this will change for Dion and the Liberals would be making a big mistake if they dump him after the next election. Dion may have dual citizenship but otherwise he's no John Turner.

Original SES poll results here.

[jbg]

I think this will change for Dion and the Liberals would be making a big mistake if they dump him after the next election. Dion may have dual citizenship but otherwise he's no John Turner.

Original SES poll results here.

Turner did better second time around.

[BC_chick]

There's no one other than Stockwell Day who I'd like leading CPC into the next election.

Ah, the fantasy-leader for the CPC..... as far as the LPC is concerned.

[geoffrey]

Stock isn't going to be running for leadership after Harper is gone.

My bets are between Bernie Lord (a real majority government contender) or Maxime Bernier (another majority contender). Both are fluent French speakers, appealing in Quebec and the RoC and are not viewed as socially conservative to any real degree.

Either of those two would easily defeat Mr. Dion (Dion would look like a fool in both language debates). Either of those two would likely stand a strong chance against Kennedy or Iggy as well.

[jbg]

My bets are between Bernie Lord (a real majority government contender) or Maxime Bernier (another majority contender). Both are fluent French speakers, appealing in Quebec and the RoC and are not viewed as socially conservative to any real degree.

How would they do with the old Canadian Reform Alliance Party people?

[geoffrey]

My bets are between Bernie Lord (a real majority government contender) or Maxime Bernier (another majority contender). Both are fluent French speakers, appealing in Quebec and the RoC and are not viewed as socially conservative to any real degree.

How would they do with the old Canadian Reform Alliance Party people?

They won't have much of a choice, now will they?

Lord and Bernier represent the best in Canadian conservatism, a very electable conservatism. We'll see if my Albertan friends appreciate that... the Reform wing of the party is out of big name contenders for leadership.

[Keepitsimple]

Kinsella's description about the "Two Steves" is superficial. Kinsella, as a partisan Liberal, is no doubt uncomfortable comparing a Tory to a Liberal. Moreover, Kinsella may claim to be an Albertan but he's a Toronto Beaches federalist NDP/Liberal. Toronto's Canada is now in the hands of a Calgarian and a Montréalais.

I'm not sure that the likes of Kinsella will be happy with the end result.

I'm not endorsing Kinsella-- he's after all a long-time Chretien loyalist and apologist, which makes him guilty of bad taste, at the very least. Nor do I read anything into his "Calgarian" pedigree. He's Calgarian in the same sense that Stephen Harper is a Torontonian.

With that out of the way, I often read Kinsella for his take on pragmatic politics. He's not a philosopher of issues like national identity and so on... he might have views on such things, but his primary expertise and interest is on strategy, image, perception, and how to wage a campaign (in this respect, he's arguably a lot like his former leader.) I think that's why he was such a frequent guest on TV panels during the last election (although, his intense dislike of "Team Martin" added some color to procedings as well.)

I just found Kinsella's commentary a distinct contrast to what so often comes from Liberals. We so often hear "so-con" and "Bush's puppet" and "religious fundamentalist" and all manner of other "scary" language coming from Liberal supporters and Liberals themselves when it comes to talking about Harper. So for Kinsella, a long time Liberal insider and possibly a member of their campaign committee in the upcoming election, to be talking about intelligence, ethics, and decency as characteristics that Dion and Harper have in common was quite a pleasant change. He even describes both Harper and Dion as "Trudeauesque", which if I recall is something that you've said of Harper in the past, perhaps in discussing the William Johnson biography of Harper.

Usually when I read Liberals talking about Harper, I get the impression that they expect that if he ever wins a majority government his first act will be to rip off a latex mask to reveal that he's actually Dick Cheney (or an12 foot tall lizard, or something.)

I just found it refreshing to hear a partisan willing to talk about "the other guy" with such respect. It's something that's been sorely lacking in politics in this country from both sides for a long time.

-k

Well said, Kimmy.

[August1991]

Vancouver • The first reference could have been a slip of the tongue, the second a mental lapse, but the third time Stephen Harper bestowed the prime ministerial title on his Liberal rival it became an interesting election tactic.

The buzz in the room was almost palpable when Mr. Harper took his campaign to Defcon One by invoking the spectre of Prime Minister (Stephane) Dion. A few guests in the invitation-only gathering exchanged furrowed-brow looks at the bizarre notion of hearing their leader’s political title even theoretically attached to someone considered a bumbling accident of convention voting who was supposed to be fending off a dump-Dion movement by now.

Don Martin

Can Dion become PM?

Long ago, I started this thread with the idea that we as Canadians are entering a period of our history to be characterized as the Harper/Dion period. By pure luck, I may have been prescient. (Curious? Go back and read the OP.)

In hindsight and to some degree, I'm happy that Dion has been given a second life. Dion and Harper are worthy, Canadian adversaries.

Edited October 10, 2008 by August1991

[jbg]

In hindsight and to some degree, I'm happy that Dion has been given a second life. Dion and Harper are worthy, Canadian adversaries.

His second life appears to have been cut quite short. I guess the coup attempt coalition agreement was too clever by half.

[August1991]

Long ago, I started this thread with the idea that we as Canadians are entering a period of our history to be characterized as the Harper/Dion period. By pure luck, I may have been prescient. (Curious? Go back and read the OP.)

Prescient? I was dead wrong.

In my defence, I accurately predicted that Dion would become the Liberal leader. I was drastically wrong in thinking that Dion would be a viable federal leader. He did not rise to the occasion - he collapsed like a bad quiche.

His second life appears to have been cut quite short. I guess the coup attempt coalition agreement was too clever by half.

An American once taught me a good lesson about American politics while talking about Dukakis' visit to Canada in 1989.

As he explained, (and I recall from memory), "You Canadians seem to think that a politician has a life after a political defeat. The loser becomes the Opposition leader and stays in Parliament. In the US, the loser in politics is nobody. Dukakis is a nobody. It makes no sense to talk to him."

Well, Dion is now a political loser in the American sense. Nobody wants to talk to him.

-----

I am saddened that Dion was not a more successful federal politician. I think that he had a particular perspective to bring and would have been a good adversary to Harper. As a country, Canada would have benefitted from a Dion vs. Harper debate as it has, in the past, from similar fundamental debates between politicians. It would have been an honest, respected debate of substance across various Canadian faultlines. Now, we face a silly debate of Ignatieff vs. Harper that doesn't touch the core issues of Canada.

In addition, I have always wondered what happens to people who leave the limelight in such abrupt manner. A few months ago, Dion was in the national news. Now, he's just some guy on a sidewalk or in an airport terminal.

[jbg]

An American once taught me a good lesson about American politics while talking about Dukakis' visit to Canada in 1989.

As he explained, (and I recall from memory), "You Canadians seem to think that a politician has a life after a political defeat. The loser becomes the Opposition leader and stays in Parliament. In the US, the loser in politics is nobody. Dukakis is a nobody. It makes no sense to talk to him."

Well, Dion is now a political loser in the American sense. Nobody wants to talk to him.

Whatever "American" tought you that lesson doesn't know what he's talking about. Roosvelt was defeated for VP and went on to be elected President, four times no less. Richard Nixon lost both a Presidential and gubernatorial race andw ent on to be elected President. Ronald Reagan was defeated in the 1976 Presidential primary, and George Herbert Walker was defeated in the 1980 Presidential primary. Both went on to be elected.

If you go back further through history, the pattern repeats. Dukakis was a nobody in 1988 and always had been a nobody unelectable outside Taxachussets.