It's a long article, so I'm just commenting as something grabs me:
There is respect for the Prime Minister's intelligence, but fear of his retribution runs deep in Ottawa. Almost no one inside the Conservative Party will speak on the record about him. The cloud of silence even descended on his old classmates when it became clear that he would be among them.
The comparison to George Bush is easy to make, but then there's the last sentence in the next paragraph:
However, through dozens of interviews with Mr. Harper's ministers, advisers, civil servants and friends, a portrait emerges of a complicated man who is competitive, disciplined, intense, strategic, partisan and sometimes petty, but willing and able to learn from his mistakes.
That's nice that he's willing and able to learn from his mistakes, but shouldn't that be standard, as opposed to the exception? And it doesn't excuse the scarily close to fascism ideal of lock step solidarity
It's interesting to think about how many of these descriptions could also apply to Trudeau, yet (even excepting Trudeau's flair, bravado and athleticism) the two men could hardly be more different.
I think it's the beady little eyes. And storebought haircut.
More: At a meeting before he was kicked out of the caucus in late 2006 (for criticizing David Emerson's decision to jump from the Liberals for a cabinet post), Mr. Harper warned his MPs that budget cuts were coming. Then, Mr. Turner says, he added: "These cuts will be announced in the next day or so; they will affect people in this caucus. They are going to cut programs in some of your ridings, and I want no comment about any of them.
"If I hear anyone speaking about them, you will have a very short political career."
Harsh, but seemingly necessary as there many factions with various differences.
"But he is trying to search for new definitions that would be more akin to a Conservative Canada. The most obvious is defence, and what a more robust defence capability would mean for projecting Canada in the world."
Maybe I'm just an ignorant American, but I was thought Canada was quite uninterested in projecting Canada around the world, that the country felt no need spread Canadian values throughout the world, though healthcare would be nice.
Hmmm, good article, but the portrait it paints of Harper is not flattering. Smart and methodical he may be, but his policies and viewpoints seem contrary to what Canada is, and I suspect he might even agree with that, because there are certain things he wants Canada to become.
Offhand, I'd say that Canadians are very interested in maintaining their 'traditional' role as peacekeepers. Military spending was not enough to support that role, derrogating from Canada's role as a Middle Power. Military spending has been increased under the Conservatives, but not so much to preserve Canada's traditional functions militarily, but as a means of projecting our foreign policy (which is now probably less independent from the US as in the past).
The peacekeeping mandate has been shifted, depending on how you view our involvement in Afghanistan -- whether you see it as part of Canada's peacekeeping tradition, or our legitimate duty under NATO, or following the American lead. It's a subtle change, but Canadians are wary of a more aggressive military policy. However, it is clear that a certain jingoism or Americanization of the citizenry's attitudes towards the military has occurred -- it's much more flag-waving and unquestioning than it's been in the past. IMHO.
And as for 'projecting Canadian values', I don't think too many Canadians would have a problem with that -- being the values as defined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Certainly, you'd have a problem were soldiers sent somewhere where we would not or could not promote those values.
There is respect for the Prime Minister's intelligence, but fear of his retribution runs deep in Ottawa. Almost no one inside the Conservative Party will speak on the record about him. The cloud of silence even descended on his old classmates when it became clear that he would be among them.
The comparison to George Bush is easy to make, but then there's the last sentence in the next paragraph:
However, through dozens of interviews with Mr. Harper's ministers, advisers, civil servants and friends, a portrait emerges of a complicated man who is competitive, disciplined, intense, strategic, partisan and sometimes petty, but willing and able to learn from his mistakes.
That's nice that he's willing and able to learn from his mistakes, but shouldn't that be standard, as opposed to the exception? And it doesn't excuse the scarily close to fascism ideal of lock step solidarity
I think it's the beady little eyes. And storebought haircut.
At a meeting before he was kicked out of the caucus in late 2006 (for criticizing David Emerson's decision to jump from the Liberals for a cabinet post), Mr. Harper warned his MPs that budget cuts were coming. Then, Mr. Turner says, he added: "These cuts will be announced in the next day or so; they will affect people in this caucus. They are going to cut programs in some of your ridings, and I want no comment about any of them.
"If I hear anyone speaking about them, you will have a very short political career."
Harsh, but seemingly necessary as there many factions with various differences.
Every party does this, of course, but it's interesting how little it is questioned, the idea that one party should rule, forever.
Maybe I'm just an ignorant American, but I was thought Canada was quite uninterested in projecting Canada around the world, that the country felt no need spread Canadian values throughout the world, though healthcare would be nice.
Ya'll should probably rein him in.
The peacekeeping mandate has been shifted, depending on how you view our involvement in Afghanistan -- whether you see it as part of Canada's peacekeeping tradition, or our legitimate duty under NATO, or following the American lead. It's a subtle change, but Canadians are wary of a more aggressive military policy. However, it is clear that a certain jingoism or Americanization of the citizenry's attitudes towards the military has occurred -- it's much more flag-waving and unquestioning than it's been in the past. IMHO.