Thursday, February 23, 2006

A memo to Lawrence Martin

To: Lawrence Martin, columnist, The Globe and Mail
Cc: Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, Canada
Re: Your column this morning

Mr. Martin,

Regarding your column this morning "A Conservative Pierre Trudeau is taking charge."

I knew (not really) Pierre Trudeau, I (didn't) work with Pierre Trudeau. Stephen Harper, sir, is no Pierre Trudeau.

P.S. Your ass-kissiness is obvious and nauseating.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers


Chuckercanuck said...

That's a pretty harsh assessment of Trudeau, no?

I think he was as great as Harper is turning out to be. I may not have agreed with him on everything, but Trudeau was a great Canadian leader.

Liberals should take more pride in Trudeau's legacy than you apparently do.

A BCer in Toronto said...

I like(d) PET. I don't like SH. PET was great, SH isn't. That's what I was saying.

Chuckercanuck said...

I know that, silly-billy! I'm just having fun with it, is all.

Scotian said...

Trudeau came out of nowhere and developed a rock star level following within his first few years of political life. Harper has spent close to twenty years to get as far as he has. Trudeau had a message that was widely received in the Canadian public, Harper has had to repeatedly redraft his message to get as far as he has to date. The idea that there is any fair basis for comparing these two men is laughable at best, delusionally idiotic at worst.

Anyone that thinks there is anything comparable between these two PMs is clearly either underestimating Trudeau and/or overestimating Harper, both in terms of native intelligence and political savvy and in terms of how popular they were/are with the voting public, along with the underlying political philosophy each man represented/espoused. For anyone that claims to be a political observer/commentator of any competence to make such a comparison has IMHO discredited themselves as competent in their field.

Budd Campbell said...

"P.S. Your ass-kissiness is obvious and nauseating."

LOL! Funny you should say that!

Chuckercanuck said...


only because you want to poop the party:

Harper has been around as PM for 3 weeks. Not 18 years. It is delusional to make any comparison whatsoever.

Not good or bad, but imagine comparing Trudeau 3 weeks into his first mandate against Trudeau who'd just taken a walk in the snow? Sounds silly and delusional right? Exactly. Simmer down, now.

Trudeau has a name in Quebec before he entered federal politics. He founded Cite Libre (a mag) and led a historic union battle against JM Asbestos in Asbestos, Quebec. He was a well known "wise man" of Quebec, so I dispute your claim that he "came out of nowhere".

What you really meant was: "them's frogs in Queerbek don't count til they shows up in HogTown. Golly!"

I wouldn't claim to know the "native intellect" of any of the prime ministers. I would wager Chretien's "native intellect" has much, much higher than you'd imagine. I'd wager Chretien's "native intellect" matched if not exceeded Trudeau's.

I would say, now with the Mulroney tapes available, that its difficult to imagine that Trudeau came close to Mulroney in terms of intellect.

but you see, that last bit is gratuitous: I throw that in to see you go ballistic.

Ed Hollett said...


I think y'all missed the point.

Martin's column reads to me more like an attack on Harper's style.

Scotian said...


Nice missing the point. Indeed, your own post has the point in it while you are missing mine. Harper has been a presence in federal politics for around 18 years. Even when he left Parliament his position as NCC Pres kept him in the national eye. Trudeau though was a complete unknown outside of Quebec until he entered federal politics, and within three years of that had Trudeaumania sweeping the country. His political philosophy was one Canadians embraced extensively through the 70s, and he fundamentally reshaped this country.

I don't see Harper having had anything remotely resembling this kind of success, either personally or on the acceptance of his political philosophy by Canadians, let alone in as short a period of time as Trudeau managed. This was the main reason why I found any such comparison completely delusional. Incidentally, this sentence of yours: "What you really meant was: "them's frogs in Queerbek don't count til they shows up in HogTown. Golly!"" Is not only incredibly offensive, it assumes things as well, While I should have written this as "He came out of nowhere on the federal scene..." instead of He came out of nowhere...", that you can automatically use that to assume that I think the bilge you attributed to me was more than a little offensive, especially since my mother happens to have been born and raised Quebecois.

It does speak though to your own thinking that you chose to make such a claim against me using what limited basis you did, is this something you like doing a lot, putting words into other people's mouths so you can then act all offended by what you say they said instead of what they actually said?

As for your defence of Harper with the well he has only been PM three weeks just wait approach, this would matter if I had been talking about the relative success of each an once they became PM, but that was not what I was comparing. I was comparing the difference since each came onto the federal/national scene and how Canadians responded to each man and the political vision of Canada each had. On that basis my original point stands, Harper is no Trudeau.

Thanks for taking such an interest, but next time you decide to take one of my arguments apart, please take what I actually wrote apart instead of your interpretations of what you think I meant instead of what I wrote. It is interesting though to note your need to tear down Trudeau and elevate Harper and even Mulroney to the same level as Trudeau despite the reality that neither man has had anywhere near the same success nor popularity/respect of the widespread Canadian public. Do you really think either man upon their deaths will receive the same response from Canadians as Trudeau got? I rather doubt it.

Thanks for playing!

A BCer in Toronto said...

I know that, silly-billy! I'm just having fun with it, is all.

Oh fuddle duddle!

Chuckercanuck said...


if you found my use of that comment "incredibly offensive" - then you have no sense of humour and I hope you don't know where my church is lest you go try and burn it down in rage.

I would make a comment like that because I learned from the Liberals that in order to keep your opposition under foot, you had to spin their mindset to the public. Meaning, you had to make it appear that everything they were saying was racist/bigoted/extreme. Enough people will buy it that your opponents are constantly trying to prove they aren't racist/bigoted/extreme. So, welcome to the world of Liberal tactics applied against Liberals! Har! Har!

I don't care if Harper isn't a "sensational" as Trudeau and didn't win the girls over as quickly.

Harper isn't a man who inherited millions, got to sit on his ass, have sex and travel the world.
His road to leadership is more prosaic and he's never going to have Backstreet-Boy appeal, like Trudeau.

Oh well. Bach doesn't have the same flamboyence as Handel. By your logic, Handel is clearly the better composer?

CuriosityKilledTheCat said...

If finacial reporters - in the interest of objectivity - are required to announce each time they write about a company what investment they might have in such company, then should not other journalists have to make similar disclosures?

I would then expect M. Martin to disclose his investment in sycophanty.

A BCer in Toronto said...

Pachelbel all the way.

Chuckercanuck said...

oh, you'd change your mind if you walked through underground Montreal on your way to work in the winter.

every busker you pass is playing Cannon in D. every single one. some on a keyboard, some on a violin, you can find a banjo version every once in a while....