Blue Like You

Archive for October 4th, 2008

Quite often strategists try to modify a political figure to better appeal to the voters.

Sometimes it works, but I think most people can discern the phoniness from the real deal. My impression of Stephen Harper is that what you see is what you get.

Sure he agreed to do some ads where he discussed his family life and so on. But this is still the genuine Harper. He doesn’t often talk freely about them, but I suspect that is due to the fact that he is a private man.

His high school classmates recall Stephen Harper being smart, but "painfully shy" .   Yet this man grew up to become the Prime Minister of Canada. It is an accomplishment from which many people can draw strength and inspiration.

In fact one of my readers, May , says she can identify with Stephen Harper:

…Sometimes I empathize with Stephen Harper because he reminds me of me. I was always the quiet, shy, smart but unpopular kid. Once in real life I began to thrive and I’ve overcome the shyness and dislike of crowds; and obviously Stephen Harper did the same thing to an amazing degree. I really admire him for that. He is still very humble though and every once and a while you still see that he’s a bit shy; like that interview with Lloyd Robertson where they made fun of the sweater. I too am a reserved, private person who had to work to overcome shyness. I too have had to deal with people mistaking my reserved, private ways for aloofness or even arrogance. We aren’t all extroverts and I recognize truthfulness and shyness when I see it. I think I first recognized it in 2006 when the journalists were calling him stiff. I thought, “if I was being watched by millions of people waiting for me to screw up, I’d be stiff too.” Don’t the journalists ever think of that? He’s actually become charismatic in his way now; he just needed some confidence…

(Thank you for that, May.)

So where am I going with all this? Well, Warren Kinsella posted an eloquent piece today, characterizing Harper as ‘Everyman’ , and stating that he is doing well because that’s what the country wants right now:

…the Everyman has many attractions. It’s not that he’s a conservative or a liberal, necessarily: it’s just that, when things are going to crap, people don’t go looking for flamboyant visionaries to lead them out of the darkness. They go looking for guys with a flashlight…

Warren then goes on to explain that Stephane Dion is an Everyman himself, and I guess I could agree to the extent that he does seem genuine and honest, and somewhat ill at ease in large crowds which again is something that many of us can identify with.

Kinsella acknowledges that Dion’s tragic flaw is his inability to communicate effectively, and that is what will allow Stephen Harper to form either a larger minority government or even a small majority (although that is looking less likely at this point.)

But what really shows us the soft blue side of Stephen Harper is Kinsella’s personal account of the kindness Harper showed towards his family when Warren’s father passed away. This is something that needs to be read first-hand, so I’m not going to post the relevant paragraph here. I guarantee you’ll get a lump in your throat.

So we get a picture from a Liberal strategist showing a very human, compassionate side of Stephen Harper. Randall Denley recently gave us some insight into this kind side of the Prime Minister as well. Please read that story too, if you haven’t already done so. Somehow, I just don’t see Stephen Harper as the ‘heartless automaton’ that many of his opponents try to portray, and Warren doesn’t either.

We here in Canada have a good, strong leader in Stephen Harper.  He is the real deal. Let’s accept this gift and give him the mandate he needs to steer this country safely through the storms ahead.

*   *   *   *

Update: Global economic crisis no time to bring in minority government - Gwyn Morgan.

(H/T Lowell Green)

Chuckercanuk puts a clever spin on Morgan’s piece - The Stability of Abstainistan. Don’t miss it!

Mike Duffy often marvels at how ‘generous’ Canada is, to allow certain politicians to openly promote the breakup of our country - a concept that would appear almost treasonous in some areas of the world.

Not only that, but their salaries and pensions are funded by hard-working Canadians.

And so we have Gilles Duceppe starting his own ABC campaign in Toronto, to stir up animosity against Harper and his position on arts funding. This is bad enough. I really feel Duceppe should stay in Quebec.

However, when Margaret Atwood comes out and says that if she lived in Quebec she would vote for the Bloc, I think she’s gone too far. This is a woman who is a recipient of the Order of Canada, and she is promoting a party whose main goal is the breakup of our country! Not even Danny Williams has taken that outrageous step.

And make no mistake - Duceppe’s message is still anti-Canada :

But the Duceppe speech stole the show - and he did not shy away from his sovereignist message either, telling the crowd "sovereignty is alive and well in Quebec." He argued it’s the "best solution," for Quebec and Canada.

On top of this, Atwood moans about all the related jobs that would be lost due to arts cuts:

The author used carrion imagery to explain what happens arts funding is cut. "When a caribou dies, 52 other organisms gain their living from that caribou," she told reporters. "The arts are like that caribou. They are the caribou, but all kinds of other people in all kinds of other jobs gain their living in relation to the arts. So it’s the restaurants, it’s the people that work in the restaurants, it’s the hotels, it’s the people who work in the hotels, it’s the transport, it’s the people who work in transport, it’s the corner stores in those places that have festivals … it’s all of those things. It’s all connected."

Ms. Atwood admitted some people might find her metaphor to be "a funny one."

Bizarre might be a better word.

But in any case, her metaphor ignores the fact that westerners are concerned precisely about the same thing when Jack Layton talks about cuts to "Big Oil", forgetting that there are a lot of workers sitting around the kitchen table out west who would be affected by such action. (Mary T and Paul also make some eloquent observations on how cutting ‘Big Oil’ would adversely affect the whole country in comments from the previous post.)

Yes, Layton conveniently ignores the ‘working families’ in Alberta. Of course, he doesn’t expect to get many votes there.

Personally, I can understand how Quebecers feel that their culture is part of their identity and I do believe that it should be protected. I also don’t pretend to understand how all the funding works, but my very naive approach would be to give each province a certain amount of cash for arts and let them decide where to dole it out. Then the premiers can deal with the complaints.

But for Margaret Atwood to openly support and promote a party that wants to threaten the unity of our country is unconscionable.

*   *   *   *

Update: Margaret Atwood would vote for the separatist party - Russ Campbell’s blog.

Canada First? - Chuckercanuk.

Afternoon Update : From Spector Vision - Duceppe’s Useful Idiot.

Fighting for taxpayers - Separatist Atwood gets art funding wrong.

(H/T National Newswatch)