When things aren't going Shifty Steve's way he's said to get very ornery. Apparently he's got a special vocabulary, a lexicon he uses that you don't hear in his evangelical church. He mopes and by some accounts he likes to kick chairs and yell at the little people.
Word has it that Steve is in one of those funks today. Things don't seem to be going his way and he might be heading for the bum's rush this time next week.
CTV's Bob Fife reports that Tory campaign workers say Steve is verklempt at the very thought of losing to a Trudeau.
Does he think that losing to Mulcair would be easier to live with. The first prime minister in the country's history to lose to a New Democrat, there's something it would take a while to live down - a long while, a lifetime.
You see, folks, Steve's is going to be one of those political obituaries written for second or third-raters. He won't be enshrined with Laurier, Diefenbaker, Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, MacDonald or even Mulroney. Those prime ministers actually did something for our country. Odin knows they weren't perfect but they had a vision of making this place better and they brought change that mattered and lasted.
Shifty Steve won't be remembered that way. He never had any vision for Canada. His former BFF, Tom Flanagan, described Steve as a guy who positively abhorred vision. Leaders are people of vision. Rulers are mere authoritarians, hollow vessels, empty suits. That's our boy, Steve.
There'll be precious little wake when Steve sails out of Ottawa. The thing is, Steve & Co. never conquered the capital, they besieged it. They put the place under lockdown, curfew. Scientists were gagged. Libraries were sacked. The public service was corralled, cut off from the nation outside. When Steve and his minions are swept away, it'll be a lot like the lifting of the Siege of Mafeking during the Boer War.
Steve's legacy will rest on what he did to Canada rather than for Canada. Even on this score it won't be memorable for very long. Shifty's own approach to ruling ensures that he'll be forgotten fairly quickly. Again it was Tom Flanagan who observed that Steve's governance style was primarily incrementalism. He was a Sneaky Pete, introducing policy in tiny, little steps so that no one, especially our lapdog press, would notice. It was 'shop clerk' governance, hardly the thing likely to be remembered for very long.
There's no great moment that emerges from Harper's reign. He didn't forge a country. He didn't build anything monumental, lasting. He didn't defend the country or enshrine our democracy. He didn't unite Canadians and prepare them and their country for the future.
He quite deliberately weakened Canada and, at every turn, sought to divide our people. In lieu of vision he employed secrecy, deception and fearmongering. He lied and lied and lied.
It doesn't matter whether it's Trudeau or Mulcair who prevails next week. Either way, for Steve it'll be like swallowing broken glass.
11 comments:
Wouldn't it be fun and illuminating if he has to make a concession speech and loses his temper and starts cursing everyone in and out of sight. Be great television.
I'd like someone to capture a bit of this stuff on a smartphone camera and post it to YouTube.
I agree with everything you have written here, Mound. Unfortunately, there will always be the true believers who will forever lionize Dear Leader. When he loses, they will see him as a victim of unholy alliances and that ever-present threat to all that is right, the collective 'liberal' media.
I've usually voted Liberal but last time I voted NDP because of Ignatieff. Now that he's gone I'll probably vote Liberal again. I think Ignatieff actually HELPED Harper get his majority. Not deliberately, of course, but just because Canadians couldn't stand the guy.
We voted already, just walked in, no lineup. I am really suspicious that the polling places with reported problems are the ones most likely to attract the anti-Harper vote.
A really good summation Mound. Maybe if he loses the election, they'll find him in his favourite closet, curled up in a fetal position. Wouldn't surprise me.
Anyong said: The papers in Alberta had good news for Harper this morning. Perhaps he can become the "Father" of Alberta. Nothing like taking a look at the advance voting and espouse a poll showing exactly what Albertans have voted for thereby telling the rest how to vote on Monday coming. Harper is way out there ahead of everyone else in the South of Alberta supposedly. However, Harper's wish is to become the "Father" of Canada implementing the beliefs, system and dogma of Alberta.
I think it does matter. Harper has an unhealthy and clearly massive fixation on the Trudeaus, father and son, so to lose to Justin Trudeau would hurt his ego and sense of self significantly more than to Mulcair because of it. In practical terms for history I agree each is equally bad for him, but for his own personal pain, I really am convinced it will be much harder for him to lose to Justin Trudeau than Mulcair, ESPECIALLY if Trudeau gets a majority. Which while a much lesser one is a reason I want a Lib majority this time out, time to revisit some of that pain back onto Harper that he visited onto so many of us!
Seriously MoS, I really think there is from Harper's POV a major difference, especially given how much he has denigrated Justin Trudeau's character and lack of leadership fitness, etc. He has not done the same to Mulcair, and I suspect losing to Mulcair he could at least take away he lost to a real politician and leader even if it one whose policies he abhors. I don't see the same sense of personal hell for Harper losing to Mulcair that I see with Trudeau, and that to me is a real difference from Harper's POV and not a mild/minor one either.
It will truly be an historic moment to see great leader defeated by Trudeau. Just mere weeks ago I was lamenting over another 4 years (may still happen of course) but to see this ugly, manipulative, divisive tool go down in flames is pure and utter beauty. As you say mound harper is truly a hollow vessel, an empty suit, and I'll add loud (of course only to those who actually get to see the rage below the carefully crafted facade), crass and vulgar bully to those apt descriptors. On another note, our empty pant suit/skirt premier once again touting her LNG dreams to all that would listen, how many more months is it?
"Does he think that losing to Mulcair would be easier to live with. The first prime minister in the country's history to lose to a New Democrat, there's something it would take a while to live down - a long while, a lifetime."
I think you got this part wrong. Harper wants to destroy the Liberals. In the UK and elsewhere (BC) where the middle party was vanquished, the right-wing party prevails most of the time in a more binary contest.
Losing to the NDP with the Libs a distant third would have been a capstone to his career. With a majority out of reach, it was the preferred outcome. I don't think they are smart enough to have figured out that Trudeau was the bigger threat with the last two years on the not-ready nonsense. It was all about trashing the Libs and getting to do it while PET's son was in charge: icing on the cake.
The saddest part is he was a lousy ruler. At least be a high performing facist FFS.
Post a Comment