From The National Post...

[sir_springer]

Harper's year of shock and surprise

Don Martin

National Post

Tuesday, December 23, 2003

OTTAWA - Unless this year has only 19 days, there's no way to christen the obvious -- that being Paul Martin as Canadian Politician of the Year.

The new Prime Minister's manifested destiny took only four simple steps to achieve. He entered a Liberal leadership race he was born to win, collected $12-million to finance a fight he never seriously fought, swept delegate nominations to end any doubt about his victory two months in advance and then mopped the convention floor with lone rival Sheila Copps eight hours after she conceded defeat.

Then it was merely a week of waiting for Jean Chretien to announce his Dec. 12 skedaddle date and get down to work.

Sorry, Paul. Too easy. Too predictable. A political inheritance, not a fight at all.

But Stephen Harper, now there's a major feat of a man who deserves top honours for historic politics above and below the call of duty.

Sitting in an Ottawa restaurant last week downing an Alberta sirloin and fries while sipping on a Coke, my choice for politician of the year appeared utterly relaxed despite his year of shock and surprise.

There was not a hair out of place on his greying head and an easy grin often cracked across a boyish face featuring eyes the translucent blue of Lake Louise ice.

Nobody could've predicted the zig-zagging Harper path of the past year, which started with the still-green Canadian Alliance leader surrounded by unenviable scenarios.

Across the Commons aisle, he was forced to attack a prime minister on the way out. A dozen or so seats to Chretien's left was the rarely occupied desk of his real target, a Paul Martin spared Question Period inquisitions as a mere backbencher. Down the Commons to his far left scowled Joe Clark, a retiring Conservative leader who would never agree to the common sense mathematics of a merger. And hovering overhead were polling numbers showing Canadians and blue-chip donors were fed up with two rival right-wing parties and prepared to exact a terrible revenge on both in the next election.

It was one bitter, ugly and hopeless mid-year situation. But flash forward to year end.

Harper successfully cajoled new Conservative Leader Peter MacKay to reject the purple anti-merger Koolaid he drank with kingmaker David Orchard at the leadership convention. He chased MacKay through airports to keep the crumbling talks from falling apart. And he compromised enough on broad Alliance principles to convince 90% of the Progressive Conservatives to put their historic party out of its electoral misery and reunite with his party and its traditional Western roots.

Harper can now claim to be a politician who was shrewd enough to know a deal had to be done, flexible enough to make it happen at the last opportunity and lucky enough to emerge as the only major contender to lead the new entity, barring any last-minute longshot draft of New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord.

There is, one could argue, legitimate competition for top honours from MacKay, who sacrificed more and had to push harder to make the deal a reality as the lesser of the two party leaders. But the selling of his soul in the Orchard deal and his almost instantaneous U-turn on the anti-merger terms precludes him from consideration.

So now, thanks to Harper and MacKay, Canada has a new Conservative party in a same-sects marriage -- a powerful Alliance which has collected the valuable Progressive Conservative dowry of its kinder brand name and gentler image.

And it will likely be Harper's to make or break in an upcoming election year which is still almost impossible to accurately predict.

While the polls suggest rivals should stand in shock and awe at Paul Martin's oncoming steamroller, compare pre-election polling in the seven provinces with election results in 2003 and there's a ray of hope for an Opposition many predict will be flattened by the Liberal re-election machine.

Bernard Lord was supposed to win almost every seat in New Brunswick, yet he returned with a sliver of a majority. Lorne Calvert was supposed to be knocked off by the Saskatchewan Party, but roared back with an even-bigger majority. Ontario's Dalton McGuinty was allegedly doomed to be a two-time loser, only to bowl over the Conservatives under Ernie Eves. And "super" Mario Dumont of the Action democratique du Quebec was crowned Quebec's premier-in-waiting in the polls until the actual voting dispatched him back to fringe party status.

If Stephen Harper can turn a coronated Paul Martin into a surprise election casualty of the reunited right, well, my politician of 2003 could well stage a return appearance in 2004.

© National Post 2003

[Galahad]

If Stephen Harper can turn a coronated Paul Martin into a surprise election casualty of the reunited right, well, my politician of 2003 could well stage a return appearance in 2004.

You know, there IS a reason for the media to try to fluff up Stevie Harper.

Like they did with Stockwell Day before the last election. Remember? .... He's got the flair of Pierre Trudeau, he's got a photogenic face, he's got a photographic memory, he's got a brilliant mind, he's a sportsman etc.etc. they said.

The reason being, then & now, that without them fluffing him up no one would show up for this one sided federal election affair and the newspapers would sit unsold in their stands.

Would you watch a Muhammad Ali vs. Don Knots bout if the media didn't fluff up Don?

I rest my case!

[Goldie]

Galahad

If you liken Paul Martin to Ali (the Greatest) where would you put John Manley. John Manley had Paul Martin on the ropes in tears over donors and poor old Paul started pointing at the mediator (ref) to get him to stop the insanity (pummelling)

Paul Martin is so intelligent he wanted parliament to approve senate appointments. Brilliant man he is his minders had to inform him of why that was a dumb idea. Then he flipped and flopped like Flipper talking to Bud in the boat.

So you acknowledge the only reason the media talk to Stephen Harper is to give the impression of a multiparty state like there is some alternative but not worth our attention.

I know you mean Harper = Knotts in the sense he makes his craft look easy when compared to others, so thank you for your endorsement of a brilliant man.

As for Martin = Ali, in his only fight, Martin was brought to a standing 8 count. I mean really, John Manley, Imagine Layton and Harper with a combined flurry.

I know I can't wait.

[Galahad]

If you liken Paul Martin to Ali (the Greatest) where would you put John Manley. John Manley had Paul Martin on the ropes in tears over donors and poor old Paul started pointing at the mediator (ref) to get him to stop the insanity (pummelling).

Martin was brought to a standing 8 count. I mean really, John Manley, Imagine Layton and Harper with a combined flurry.

Comparing a game for the leadership of the party to a game for the leadership of the country is like comparing a game of baseball to a game of football.

Paraphrasing George Carlin:

The objectives of the two games are completely different.

In the federal election game, like in football, the object is for the party leader (quarterback) to be on target with his aerial assault, riddling the defense by hitting his receivers with deadly accuracy in spite of the blitz, even if he has to use a shotgun. With short bullet passes and long bombs, he marches his troops into enemy territory, balancing this aerial assault with a sustained ground attack that punches holes in the forward wall of the enemy's defensive line.

In the party leadership game, like in baseball, the object is to go home! And to be safe!

So, while Paul Martin was playing a gentle game of baseball and was just wanting to go home, Manley was applying the brutish tactics of football players and boxers.

Did you know that some athletes suspect that he even cheated in the 2001 NYC Marathon, mixing up the game of long distance running with some other sport and taking a short cut?

Manley's only claim to fame, making him a wee hero for a few hours was that he didn't call the Americans morons. Great statemanship indeed.

=Goldie]Paul Martin is so intelligent he wanted parliament to approve senate appointments. Brilliant man he is his minders had to inform him of why that was a dumb idea.

Considering that the Senate is appointed...it's not really such a bizarre idea is it? He forgot that Canada likes to maintain the pretense that the Senate is one of our chambers of parliament, rather than a retirement home for washed up party hacks, with uncomfortable seats.

I can't fault him for lapsing into actual thought for a moment.

I know you mean Harper = Knotts in the sense he makes his craft look easy when compared to others, so thank you for your endorsement of a brilliant man.

Actually I was thinking of Don Knotts in his role as Barney, with his one bullet. Which he can never find, nor get out in time to use.

Harper's one bullet is that Canadians are dissatisfied with one party ( Liberal) rule. But poor old Stephen just can't even make that one bullet useful. He fumbles, he dithers & by the time he gets the bullet out, everyone has lost interest.

[Goldie]

Well I'm no fan of baseball but football is a real sport.

So Paul Martin writes the Red Book that is supposed to be his playbook for governing Canada way back in '93.

How come 10 years later the only thing he is known for, a claim to fame, is a page torn out of the green book written by Stephen Harper?

Listen to Paul Martin lately and he sounds alot like Preston Manning back in 93. I was wondering why The liberals are 10 years behind Stephen Harper in putting forth what is right for Canada.

Also, ever see what happens to a football team that uses another teams playbook against them. Works for a little bit untill the defence realises that they have seen this in practice all year and the plagerists get smoked.

A watered down version of the green book is Paul Martins platform and talking renewal of cities, a Provincial jurisdiction, simply to appear different from Jean Cretien and the red book that Paul wrote is simply going to end badly for the Prime Minister.

The true visionary in Canadian Politics is Stephen Harper. Proof is that the Liberal Party and that government is moving to his authored policies 15 years later. Scrap the red book we have the Stephen Harper Bible.

[Galahad]

Well I'm no fan of baseball but football is a real sport.

So Paul Martin writes the Red Book that is supposed to be his playbook for governing Canada way back in '93.

How come 10 years later the only thing he is known for, a claim to fame, is a page torn out of the green book written by Stephen Harper?

Listen to Paul Martin lately and he sounds alot like Preston Manning back in 93. I was wondering why The liberals are 10 years behind Stephen Harper in putting forth what is right for Canada.

Also, ever see what happens to a football team that uses another teams playbook against them. Works for a little bit untill the defence realises that they have seen this in practice all year and the plagerists get smoked.

A watered down version of the green book is Paul Martins platform and talking renewal of cities, a Provincial jurisdiction, simply to appear different from Jean Cretien and the red book that Paul wrote is simply going to end badly for the Prime Minister.

The true visionary in Canadian Politics is Stephen Harper. Proof is that the Liberal Party and that government is moving to his authored policies 15 years later. Scrap the red book we have the Stephen Harper Bible.

Yup Paul is sounding ALOT like he's reading from Preston Manning's book & that's why I'll vote for him this time around.

I voted for Preston...liked the book. Voted for poor old Stock, as it looked like he was staying with the book.

I'll follow the book wherever it wants to go.

The only books Stephen has written are "How to stab your boss in the back by inferring that his wife overspent" and "I'm taking my ball & leaving because you won't do it my way". Kid's books.

Not interested.

BTW - Guess who once said to his staff in Finance, "Screw the Red Book!"? .... Yup, Paul Martin.

[Goldie]

If anyone wrote the book on how to stab your boss in the back and anyone who supported him it is Paul Martin.

If you trust Paul Martin to implement old Reform policies, well I wish, I wish, upon a star but me thinks Pinochio is gaining wood. Especially since you point out Paul is willing to say anything to get elected then scrap it. Good luck with him.

I'll stick with the originator of good ideas.

[Galahad]

I'll stick with the originator of good ideas.

I would too, but he's retired to the Fraser Institute.

[Galahad]

If anyone wrote the book on how to stab your boss in the back and anyone who supported him it is Paul Martin.

I've never heard of Paul Martin stabbing anyone in the back, Goldie. Please let me in on it, I'm all ears!

In return I will quote a passage out of Preston Manning's book "THINK BIG" where he talks about Harper's accusations of him. It'll make your skin crawl, I promise you that.

Go ahead! Let's compare!

Thanks!

[Goldie]

I would simply point to the leaks Martin and Martin supporters supplied to the media re: poorly managed funds and ministerial gifts, and the meeting that took place that caused Jean Cretien to call an election to end the stabbing of ones back.

Ya know being fired from cabinet says alot since Jean only ever wanted to one day say " Da ministers were never corrupt". Corruption is one thing but stabbing a sitting PM, never.

If Paul Martin had the balls he would have left too, then stage a come back. No, not Him, his way to the leadership was that of intimidation and insubordination.

No I have not read Prestons book as I am in the middle of Three. ( Tax Me I'm Canadian, The lotus and The Quantum, Clash of Civilisations.) I promise you I will read what Preston as has to say about Harper and will respond then.

Thank you.