Sunday, June 14, 2009

It is wrong to say that Harper’s reputation is “tattered”

For Tom Flanagan to say that Harper’s reputation is tattered for reasons such as his income trust betrayal, is incorrect, since Harper never had a reputation to begin with. That’s because Harper has never been in a meaningful decision making role in his life, in which outcomes could be measured against promises, or results measured against dogma. Reputations are earned, not merely assumed or appropriated.

The most that Harper ever had going for him was a “chimera” and not a reputation. Anyone can go around as an Opposition Leader or member of some fringe party like the Reform Party or Alliance Party and make all sorts of promises and constant criticisms of government, but actually running a government is quite a different thing indeed. In this respect, Stephen Harper was grossly unsuited to become Canada’s Prime Minister as he had never run a thing in his life or ever held a meaningful job in the private sector. Furthermore, we were to learn that Stephen Harper is devoid of scruples.

What we have observed about the person called Stephen Harper in the role of Prime Minister is his effortlessness at saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. That is Harper’s singular reputation. A reputation of Lie Conceal Fabricate, as CAITI proclaimed in billboards and bus shelter ads across the nation.

In that respect, Harper’s reputation is completely in tact. His chimera on the other hand, is completely in tatters. But then, we (income trust investors) were the first to bring that to your attention and were the first group of Canadians to take on this Stephen Harper clown and began the process of tattering his chimera reputation.

In that respect think of us as true patriots.

PM's former mentor says repute 'tattered'

By Don Martin,
Calgary Herald
June 13, 2009

It's too harsh to qualify as constructive criticism, even if the author was still Prime Minister Stephen Harper's mentor and academic adviser.

The words are too deadly to be considered friendly fire, even if the writer was still running the Conservative's election war room.

And, if Tom Flanagan was still serving as Harper's chief of staff, his new assessment of the PM's postelection debacle would probably hand him the pink slip from a boss who takes bad news badly.

The University of Calgary political scientist served in all of these roles to this prime minister, yet he's come to the startling conclusion his star student and political protege is battered, tattered and almost beyond repair as a going-forward force in federal politics.

If this glum assessment was written by any columnist in the land, it would be vilified by party faithful as the predictable rantings of a Liberal-loving mainstream media.

But it's penned by an insightful Calgarian once described by former Reform party insider Rick Anderson as an "intellectual, philosophical soulmate" to a Stephen Harper he had nursed back onto the federal stage and nurtured along as the great right-wing hope to Canadian conservatives.

As such, his words deliver a painful punch. Flanagan's appraisal is part of an updated conclusion to his two-year-old Harper's Team insider's account of the Conservative leader's rise to power, a friendly account reportedly vetted by the PMO prior to its original publication.

The way Flanagan sees it now, Harper is adrift in a vacuum of policy and principle, conniving to retain power while hemorrhaging respect as a flawed political strategist. Harper's greatest gaffe was inserting the elimination of public financing for political parties into last fall's economic update-- "his single worst mistake, not just as prime minister but in his career as a party leader," Flanagan writes.

He had perfected the art of keeping political opponents squabbling among themselves, but that move united all three parties under a common survival strategy that gave the Conservatives a near-death experience at the hands of the short-lived coalition.

It dealt a mortal blow to Harper's vaulted reputation as a brilliant tactician.

"Before the fall fiasco he wasn't exactly loved by the public, but he was widely respected by political observers as a competent manager and a shrewd strategist. But after his misadventure with the political subsidy issue, many are saying that his strategic sense has been overrated. This is a dangerous development for if you are not to be loved, you must at least be respected."

What's worse, Flanagan lists the reasons the once-principled leader has "tattered" his credibility by embracing corporate subsidies, violating his own fixed election date law, diving into deficit and breaking election promises on income trust taxation and equalization calculations.

"Taken together, along with other less publicized reversals, they have created a widespread impression that Harper stands for nothing in particular except winning and keeping power. This is a major loss for a political leader who was once seen as a man of conviction."

Well, ouch. But all is not lost, Flanagan sighs. If Harper gets back to his base with moderate Conservative policies, ending the partisan trickery and reaching out to opponents, he could still rewrite the premature obituaries.

Of course, the fundamental flaw in Flanagan's salvage strategy is that his old protege surrounds himself with yes-prime-minister types who tell the boss only what he wants to hear. He's certain to turn a deaf ear to Flanagan, believing that the solution to having friends like these is to find new friends.

But Harper's survival demands a colossal shakeup of his government's senior staff, bringing fearless professionalism and fresh perspectives to a productive minority reign riding out tough economic times. If they can deliver that, getting the government re-elected will take care of itself.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald


Dr Mike said...

Hurray for anyone who stands up for what they believe.

It must be especially satisfying for Brent Fullard to know that he single-handedly pulled together such a diverse group as a bunch of trust investors to take on a government & a Prime Minister.

Even if the trust tax is not reversed in time , at least we know we tried our best & no-one can ask more than that.

We know we did the research & put in the effort to prove our point , not afraid to identify ourselves in the process.

The unfortunate thing is that the same degree of effort was not put into the political decision to tax trusts by any of the politicians or most of the media involved.

A little independent work & effort would have revealed the truth.

Only in Canada , eh---pity!!

Dr Mike Popovich

Anonymous said...

Are the knives coming out and nobody cares? Is Canada jaded?

Anonymous said...

And "The Show" goes on. Peer pressure. Playing with the lives of a country's citizens. Changing the rules in the middle of the game. Changing the game without the players knowing the game has been changed. Democracy?

People make a Country. People make a democracy - not the government.

The government (at every level) is the prime example of mediocrity. It is also the most important example because it exemplifies the destructive elements that exist in every field of endeavour.

When this toxic wood is allowed to rule it becomes a death to everything and everyone. But it is always heralded in.

It is my opinion that this is why mediocrity reigns supreme and that a constant battle is fought. The battle against mediocrity is always lost - with the passing of many years and the passing of the many lives of good people who struggle constantly against a dogma of political deceits that perpetrate further mediocrity.

In the case of "A Country", there are very few who WILL lead with the humility and understanding of how generations (past, present and future) sacrifice and die for the ideals and are thwarted.

Government does not care.

Country and Generations are built by real people. Government destroys them.

Then what?