To understand why the time has come to send this Conservative government back to the opposition benches, you need to remember the promise that this government was elected under. Cast your mind back to February 2004, when the Auditor General exposed irregularities in the Liberal government’s sponsorship program designed to funnel money and give the federal government exposure within the province of Quebec.
The idea that thousands, if not millions, of dollars of tax money may have been funnelled to Liberal friendly ad agencies coalesced something in the minds of Canadians. It made us realize that the party had been in power too long. It had grown complacent in allowing these irregularities to materialize. When Liberal MP Tom Wappel attempted to deny assistance to a veteran that lived in his riding on the basis that said veteran had voted for the Canadian Alliance, when David Dingwall uttered the infamous phrase, “I am entitled to my entitlements”, Canadians came to believe that the Liberal Party was too arrogant to address its shortcomings without some time in the political wilderness.
So, what did Canadians want instead? At the time, the Liberals’ management of the country was otherwise exemplary. Our surpluses were making a dent in our national debt, our unemployment rate was dropping, even as the American economy fell stagnant. Infrastructure was being re-invested in, and the separatist threat in Quebec looked to be on the wane. But the Liberals were now operating in a closed shop. Canadians wanted the management of the economy and our social safety net to remain as good as the Liberals were managing, but they wanted a government that was more open and accountable, that took their vote seriously, and didn’t deride critics as unCanadian. In short, they wanted pragmatic and humble centrists, or reasonable facsimiles thereof.
So they looked across the aisle, and found a newly merged Conservative Party, led by the fresh new face Stephen Harper and they… stopped their desire for change cold.
The 2004 federal election should have been a slam dunk for the Conservatives. Anger over Adscam was at its height; the Liberals were extremely tired and in disarray, and they were running a campaign that was almost as bad as the one they ran in 2006. But Stephen Harper was attacking the Liberals from the right of the political spectrum, and there were serious questions about where Harper wanted to take the country. The party was full of people opposed to same sex marriage, and who wanted to severely cut back on our social safety net. More than that, Harper’s approach to campaigning was angry. In the campaign blunder that possibly cost the Conservatives victory in 2004, he accused the Liberals and New Democrats of supporting pedophilia, all because some members raised legitimate concerns about the scope of his proposed legislation to crack down on child pornography (which could, if one is not careful, make it illegal to develop pictures of your baby’s first bath).
It was a staggering exercise in hyperbole, and it showed that Harper shared one bad thing with the Liberals: his opponents in his eyes weren’t average people with legitimate concerns on how things should be run, but enemies of the state as he saw it. Thus Martin was given a second chance that he should never have been given.
Now let’s move to the 2006 federal election, where Harper at least displays the positive trait of learning from his earlier mistakes. The Conservative campaign is far more disciplined, and he backs off the more controversial planks on his platform, especially the opposition to same sex marriage. Indeed, his adoption of his five priorities, including openness and accountability and a reduction in patient wait times, broadcast to the electorate that, while he came from the right wing of the spectrum, he believed in democracy enough that he was going to provide Canadians with the pragmatic, centrist leadership they wanted. He was going to be clean. He was going to be humble. And even though he didn’t believe in big government, he was going to govern well.
Many Canadians still doubted him, but this combined with a disciplined campaign (not to mention the Liberals’ dramatic self-destruction) granted him a minority mandate in the House of Commons, which he gamefully tried to use. Unfortunately, that’s when his problems really began.
In two and a half years, we have seen how Stephen Harper governs. He is not pragmatic; he is an opportunist. He believes in openness and accountability only when it suits him. Most importantly, he refuses to respect the democratic will of the Canadian people; twice denied a mandate to govern with majority power in the House of Commons, he has consistently refused to reach out to any party in the opposition to govern cooperatively. Government has been a battle for him, and his opponents, be they on the opposition benches or standing in the streets, are not Canadians with legitimate points of view of their own, but enemies to be crushed and humiliated.
In other words, Stephen Harper has proven himself to be more partisan, more arrogant and less accountable than any prime minister before him. In 2006, we replaced the Liberals with uber-Liberals, whose centrist policies are only a means to an end, and whose sense of entitlement makes us yearn for the carefree days of Jean Chretien.
Several incidents which have taken place since January 2006 serve to illustrate the unwillingness the Conservatives have in respecting the will of the majority of Canadians. Let’s start with David Emerson, an MP who was elected as a Liberal but who crossed the floor two weeks later. Harper welcomed him into the cabinet to give himself some urban representation there, despite his party lambasting former Conservative Belinda Stronach for crossing the floor to a cushy job as Minister of Human Resources just months before. The hypocrisy shocked even partisan Conservatives who saw one of their ideas of clean and honest government being sold out.
Then there was Harper’s political tantrum over the decision of the opposition members on Harper’s long-promised public appointments commission to vote down Harper’s proposed chairman Gwyn Morgan after Morgan’s statements deriding immigrants, low wage workers and the New Democratic Party became public. Rather than negotiate with the opposition majority on the commission to find a new choice that was acceptable to all — as one would expect to happen in a minority government situation where the government shares power with the opposition parties — Harper simply refused to fill the position. It remains unfilled to this day, and is a key 2006 election promise that has been left broken.
The Conservatives have since escalated their attempts to thwart the work of the opposition, even going to such lengths as producing a manual to help Conservative committee chairs to shut down discussion or even meetings outright should things not appear to be going the government’s way. In terms of openness and accountability, this prime minister has attempted to block the release of prime ministerial agendas to the public. He has micro-managed his own party’s political campaigns, thwarting the aspirations of decent Conservative candidates like Brent Barr and Mark Warner, but protecting inadequates like Rob Anders from legitimate party challenge.
And what fiscal measures he has failed to get through parliament, he has attempted to pass through stealth, such as the casual defunding of the Canadian Space Agency’s commitments to the exploration of Mars, to firing the president of the Canadian Wheat Board for having the temerity to defend his organization, to delaying funds and ultimately killing a highly successful program addressing homelessness in Toronto. His attempts to pull funding from certain arts agencies is yet another example of this and, again, critics are derided — sometimes pre-emptively — as elitists, leftists or anti-Canadians, even if the accusation is patently false.
Harper not only shows little tolerance for criticism, he shows utter disdain for the trickier tasks of his position. Early in his mandate, Harper not only impugned the patriotism of Canadians who criticized our commitment in Afghanistan, he attempted to duck items which might reflect badly on his government, like his attempt to bar the press from covering the return of fallen Canadian soldiers in caskets to this country or even lower the flag to half mast for those deaths.
But it is the partisan nature of Harper’s acts of government that most irks me, as it puts party before country, and it attacks decent and honest Canadians on the most spurious of reasons. Consider the case of Linda Keen, the former head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Council, which shut down a reactor in Chalk River, because it was over fifty years old, hadn’t installed the latest safety features, and was sitting over a fault line. The move did cause a shortage of medical isotopes, however, as that was one of the only reactors where such isotopes were produced.
Clearly, action had to be taken, but rather than talk about how the need for these medical isotopes trumped the small risk that the agency was set up to administer, Harper instead derided the qualifications of these individuals as “Liberal appointees”, despite the fact that at least two of those attendees were appointed by the Conservative government. Even Conservatives like Steve Janke felt that Harper’s arguments were spurrious, but similar attacks were made against the head of Elections Canada, Marc Mayrand, despite the fact that he was a Mulroney appointee and only doing the job he was commissioned to do.
Harper’s contempt for Canadians who disagree with him was also shown in his party’s attempt to do an end-run around opposition MPs, by bringing forward “go-to people” for voters in ridings not represented to the government to contact the government, rather than the opposition MPs themselves. This incident is a remarkable parallel to Liberal MP Tom Wappel’s own refusal to assist the Canadian Alliance-supporting veteran in his own riding. Worse, these “go-to” individuals were oftentimes opponents of the said opposition MPs in the first place. The suggestion that this party would play favourites among ridings based on purely partisan reasons is as good a reason as any to send this party packing.
In short, when Canadians wanted a political party that would govern effectively for all Canadians and bring an end to government arrogance, they instead received a political party that put its own partisan interests over that of the nation, and who only replaced Liberal arrogance with arrogance of a more strident form. Quite simply, the Conservatives have not given us the government they promised they would.
Monday’s motion of non-confidence (delayed to December 8 by Harper’s procedural tactics) has been tabled on the Harper government’s decision to dally when it comes to a fiscal stimulus package, when governments across the G-8 are moving far quicker, but it’s clear that it was the Conservative government’s initial attempt to use concerns over the coming economic downturn as an excuse to de-fund and damage the opposition that has sparked this action. Given Harper’s record of highly partisan actions, given his refusal to acknowledge that he hasn’t a majority of seats, given that he works sulkily, at best with the other parties in parliament, who have almost as much mandate to govern has he did, it’s no wonder that the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc responded to this last straw by looking at each other and screaming, “That’s it!” The Conservatives have become the worst of the Liberals in all but name.
The Liberals, the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois are far from perfect, and it’s daunting to conceive that their coalition could survive more than a month or two. But it is less daunting, it seems, than the idea that this Conservative government can respect its opponents enough to work with them in the minority government framework — or that its government, should it be allowed a majority, will actually work for the benefit of the majority of Canadians. The big problem of this Conservative government is how partisan it has been. Harper has tried to infect this country with the same sort of partisan polarization that has brought the American democracy to its knees. But for this coalition to work for more than a few months, it must be the opposite of partisan, and that would be a good thing for this country.
Sometimes the party leaders have shown themselves to have little more maturity than children on the playground, but through the past three years, there has been one clear bully, one clear sucky-baby, and his name is Stephen Harper. No wonder the other three kids are handing him his marbles and telling him to go home.
Another Example of Harper’s Hypocrisy
Is a Grand Coalition government by the Liberals and the NDP supported by the Bloc undemocratic? Well, let’s ask Stephen Harper, circa 2004, when he wrote the following letter to the Governor General:
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program. We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority. Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
(Hat tip to Stageleft)
Of course, today, things are totally different. Because today, Stephen Harper is in charge.
November 29, 2008 4:17 PM
Hey, really nice post. I think that as far as it goes, it’s a reasonably accurate review of recent political history, from a centre-left perspective. It is worth noting how much recent events have been shaped by the architects of Mike Harris years of power in Ontario. I don’t think that anybody, even the CPC would disagree that the polarization, and conflict of those years was deliberately engendered by the government, with an eye to polarizing the electorate. They have tried similar tactics again, and it has blown up in their face. I suspect that with the correct prompting, Ontarians will remember why they rejected them in favour of the Peterson Liberals.
Interesting times anyway.
November 29, 2008 4:58 PM
Interesting post. I bet I wrote a similar one about the Liberals when they were in power.
I suspect the challenge Harper faced in trying to find an opposition MP or party that would support his gov’t consistently is the fact that there are far more differences in the various platforms, when compared to the CPC, than similarities.
Did any of the opposition parties ever approach him regarding long-term common interests? I bet not (because I’m not sure there are many, if any).
Has Harper been a bully? Perception is everything. Would he have gotten away with that behaviour with a different Liberal leader? Who knows? But while you may have a point about his behaviour, Dion’s spinelessness has a much bigger impact than Harper’s imperiousness (IMHO).
I haven’t yet read your coalition post so will do that and comment on it specifically.
November 29, 2008 5:08 PM
Actually, Candace, I wrote a similar one during the Liberals’ last days in power:
And in terms of coalitions, here were my thoughts on how a Conservative-NDP coalition would work, from December 18, 2005.
November 29, 2008 5:31 PM
Here’s my guess on what happens if we either go to an election or the Opposition forms a coalition government, right now.
Election - Harper wins again, because the only ones calling him a bully are those that actually pay attention to the day-to-day goings on in the House. Overall, Canadians seem to be happy with the direction he’s been taking the country as the CPC did win more seats than they’d previously had.
On top of that, who in the Opposition has experience as a Finance Minister and can hit the floor at a run?
Dion already lost one election, badly, so what are the odds of him winning one next week? Who would vote for the Liberal party without knowing who the next leader is? (I know, we are supposed to vote for our MP not the party, but that’s not what most people do in reality.)
So my guess is Harper might end up with a majority because the Opposition parties can’t really come up with a viable alternative at this point in time.
Coalition:
Our economy plummets, the coalition gov’t is defeated and we have another election two weeks from today.
See above.
November 29, 2008 7:39 PM
James,
I always love your thoughts.
I’ve been satisfied with Harper for a long time, but while I admit I love the high-drama of this week (currently, I have no life), I have to say I’m in a tough spot now.
First, he has definitely put party first and duty to the public second. I’m fine in theory with getting rid of the 1.95 subsidy, but he’s acted for only partisan reasons, which I have low tolerance for.
However, my biggest problem is the Bloc - I’m personally against their waffling and whining, and I really don’t know how I feel about Duceppe and any of his MPs in government (but I don’t know if they even would be).
Harper’s now a disappointment (though again, I love the drama!). I do sympathize with the idea of toppling him over this kind of game-playing. Let’s just say I’m glad I’m not in government so that I can continue to waffle on this one some more….
;)
November 29, 2008 9:11 PM
great post. any chance of me getting it in talking point form so i can dedicate my week to calling radio shows and spamming message boards?
November 29, 2008 9:31 PM
Well said James. Outstanding.
I have found myself in agreement with some policies that one could consider Conservative, but I could never support this party because of the authoritarian, bully boy tactics and arrogance of Harper.
I think a coalition could work longer than a few months because of some of the people involved - In Ontario Bob Rae managed to keep his coalition with David Petersen going for over 2 years. And 3 years after that, he was Premier.
Dion will be the big problem, of course. I think that someone else may need to take the PM chair until a new leader is picked.
All I know, is its is going to be a fascinating few weeks.
And Harper should go. Now. I hope there are some Conservatives that are seeing the light on this…
November 29, 2008 10:00 PM
“I have found myself in agreement with some policies that one could consider Conservative, but I could never support this party because of the authoritarian, bully boy tactics and arrogance of Harper.”
Well, first of all, I think that Stephane-roll-over-&-play-dead-Dion has done more damage than any bullying, real or perceived, done by Harper. That, of course, is just my opinion.
As I taught my daughter, the first rule of dealing with bullies is to stand up to them, and generally, they will back down. Hey, wait a minute, didn’t that just happen on the national scene? Go figure.
To paraphrase Hillary Clinton, maybe it’s time the Opposition grow a pair? And they just did?
Maybe this was the kick in the pants Harper needed to play nice in the sandbox, I guess we’ll see. As an alternate leader of the CPC, who would you be happy with, Mike? Prentice would get my vote vs Mackay.
I’m disappointed Harper’s approach to the Opposition, but feel it’s a 2-way street. Yes, somebody has to be the grownup and behave appropriately first, but for crying out loud!
November 29, 2008 11:43 PM
On top of that, who in the Opposition has experience as a Finance Minister and can hit the floor at a run?
Ralph Goodale. There are lots of Liberals and several NDP MPs with cabinet experience at one level or another.
Great post, James - if you don’t mind, I’ll probably be sending it around to family/friends to take a look at.
November 30, 2008 1:49 AM
A few comments.
You are not alone by any means at doing this. However, I don’t like your characterizing the Canadian electorate as a monolithic persona who acted the way you ascribed. Certainly there was a percentage of it that did (I’m sure you were one of them). However, many other Canadians voted Conservative for other reasons (e.g. they wanted a more right-wing government), and most Canadians did not vote for the Conservative Party. Similarly, the argument you are making is your argument and one that would be of interest to like-minded people. But it is not an argument for all Canadians. What you are doing by ascribing your opinions onto all Canadians isn’t accurate. Were it done by a message-managed politician, I would describe it as a dishonest sleigh-of-hand, but I’ve read your blog enough to know that’s not what you’re doing consciously.
The overall thrust of your post is sound if not indisputable: the Conservatives under Harper have run government in an overly-political manner.
However, in reference to point #1, this alone isn’t an argument for toppling the Conservatives for all Canadians. It is for Canadians like you who voted for a Liberal-like party that was ethically clean and more accountable. For other Canadians, an argument will need to be different (e.g. focusing on their policy choices).
As well, while I love your blog because you’re generally very even-handed, I think in this post there are a few instances where you’ve gone a bit too far. For example:
(a) You write, “while [Harper] came from the right wing of the spectrum, he believed in democracy enough that he was going to provide Canadians with the pragmatic, centrist leadership they wanted.” I’m not sure where this “believed in democracy enough” business comes from. It implies that Harper doesn’t believe in democracy fully (only “enough”), and that his commitment to democracy prior to 2006 was in question. I think that’s unfair. Take that bit out, and the phrase is fine.
(b) You accuse Harper of being an opportunist, and not a pragmatist. I think that’s a gross overgeneralization. Harper has shown tendencies both ways (e.g. the wait-times guarantees as negotiated were a pragmatic compromise). What Harper has tended to do is find a pragmatic solution, and then tweak its presentation so he can maximize political benefit from it. I’m no more a fan of this than you are, but I think you must admit that every politician wants to do this; Harper’s just been better at it than most.
(c) You write, “Government has been a battle for him, and his opponents, be they on the opposition benches or standing in the streets, are not Canadians with legitimate points of view of their own, but enemies to be crushed and humiliated.” I think that’s true of opposition parties, but I don’t see how it is necessarily true of the public. You could perhaps point to how he attacked the arts community for the cuts to arts funding, but in this situation, he was also publicly attacked by the arts community making them voluntary players in national political discourse. I don’t see that as the same think as attacking people “standing in the streets”.
(d) You write, “Stephen Harper has proven himself to be more partisan, more arrogant and less accountable than any prime minister before him.” I think that is an exceedingly strong statement, and not one I think can be defended. Certainly Harper has been very (and I would even agree) overly-partisan, overly-arrogant, and insufficiently-accountable. On the accountability claim, I don’t think this government’s unaccountability stoops as low as those who committed AdScam or the Airbus Affair (to choose one example from each party). Nor has his arrogance been as great as Pearson (who once said the country had let the party down by not giving it a majority) or Diefenbaker (who showed utter contempt for Canadians near his political end). And as for partisanship, I can think of Chretien who in 2000 accused those who vote Conservative of following the evil in their hearts, and of Mulroney who used his office (as many before him) to reward friends and to give government contracts to bribe voters (e.g. the infamous military aircraft contract in 1987). On balance, I think your statement here suffers from hyperbole.
(d) As for your description of Gwyn Morgan as having derided immigrants and low wage workers, I think it fails to show the subtlety in analysis you showed when originally reviewing his comments. He in now way was saying that all immigrants and low wage workers were bad—only that there are some and that this needs to be addressed. Your statement implies that he derided all immigrants and low wage workers.
I’m not going to defend the Harper government—I voted for the Canadian Alliance and then the Conservative Party in 2000, 2004, and 2006, but they lost my vote 6 weeks ago, and they likely would not get it if there is an election a couple of months from now. However, politics, like everything, is complex. I think this post lacks that subtle analysis for which your blog is usually exemplary. I comment here only because I know that you are capable of better.
November 30, 2008 3:40 AM
Candace, it’s not a two way street actually.
We don’t elect leaders, we don’t even elect parties. We elect individual MPs as our representatives. Those individual MPs select who is going to be the Prime Minister and therefore has the power to make and choose a cabinet, set an agenda, and develop a budget. Parties just make this easier, but it’s entirely possible for a Parliament of nothing but independant MPs to function. (Not likely, I’ll grant you, but theoretically possible)
One of the Prime Minister’s responsibilities is to convince the MPs that he or she deserves their support. It is not up to the various MPs to propose means that would gain their support (though doing so would likely make sure what they want is included on the agenda) it is up to the PM to attain it.
November 30, 2008 10:41 AM
Ashley, I’ve heard the point about the Bloc in a number of different places, from comments on news sites, to blogs, and in conversations with friends.
The one thing we’re looking over is that with the Liberals and NDP withdrawing their support, one side or the other requires the Bloc to govern. Perhaps it would be better optics if Harper had to work (or at least not alienate) them, but I would personally much rather see the kind of policies a Liberal-NDP coalition could produce, that would at least not be Bloc-enraging, then I would see more of Harper’s bully-tactics.
In the end, someone has to deal with the separatists and as much as I dislike the Bloc, at this point with sovereignty largely flying under the radar in the Quebec election (and the PQ are the ones we should truly be worried about), I think it is better for the country that the Bloc support, or at least not obstruct, a Liberal-NDP coalition than Harper’s show.
November 30, 2008 10:51 AM
I too think Harper is anti-parliamentary democracy or maybe he just doesn’t understand it. In a parliamentary system the Prime Minister has to have the confidence of the House to govern. It is the House of Commons that picks the Prime Minister not the party or the voters! Harper’s past and present government is marked by disrespect for parliament and attempts to “get around” parliament. Harper’s strict muzzling of his own backbenchers is a symptom of his disrespect for parliament and members of parliament. He was and is trying to govern as if he were President. Doesn’t he realize that nearly 63% of the electorate DID NOT vote for the CPC? I think the Bloc, Liberals and NDP should go to the Governor General with the same statement modified for 2008 that Harper agreed to in 2004; “As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal (change to CPC) minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th (change to 40th) Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program. We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority. Your attention to this matter is appreciated.” I understand from the Ontario experience in 1985 that the Bloc needs only to sign an agreement that it will not vote for any non confidence motions aimed at the coalition government for a specified period. I think they can agree to that if the coalition agrees in writing that it will respect the rights of Quebec and well not do anything that would hurt the interests of Quebec. Hey how about a preamble to any agreement to form a coalition government with BLOC support. Something like this: “We a coalition of Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party stand for peace, welfare and good government. We undertake to respect Quebec’s status as a nation within Canada and Quebec’s and Canada’s interests. We believe that Canada is facing a very grave financial situation and that fiscal stimuli must be introduced forthwith for the public benefit and welfare of all Canadians.”
November 30, 2008 12:22 PM
“We believe that Canada is facing a very grave financial situation and that fiscal stimuli must be introduced forthwith for the public benefit and welfare of all Canadians.”
Can anybody tell me what this fiscal stimulus is? Has Dion or Layton actually stated what they want to see?
November 30, 2008 12:28 PM
I’ve heard infrastructure, and I’ve heard the Bloc wants support for the lumber industry. Certainly there is a backlog of projects that could use attention, in the form of roads and bridges and public transit. But we mustn’t forget rural issues, helping out farmers and rural broadband.
But I should note that, for me, I’m not as interested in the stimulus package. As you see from my article above, I’ve lost confidence in the Conservatives’ ability to work with the other parties in parliament in a minority government, and I’ve lost confidence in the Conservatives’ ability to govern Canadians with respect. Just as I’d had my fill of Chretien and Martin, I’ve had my fill of Harper, and I feel that it’s time to give somebody else a try.
November 30, 2008 1:48 PM
Re: The Bloc’s involvement in all this:
What better way to show Quebecer’s how well Canada and Fay-der-Al-ism works than by having the Bloc work in cooperation with a Liberal-NDP coalition to get done some of those things in the backlog.
I think this move would be the death of separatism in Quebec and have the Bloc emerge as merely a regional party, like the Federal Social Credit used to be.
November 30, 2008 2:25 PM
Rumour has it Harper will adjourn parliament before Friday’s vote. So the CPC could still be in power in January. Interesting!
November 30, 2008 3:43 PM
Mustafa,
I’ll work at cleaning this up and clarifying. It sometimes is hard to cram all of this stuff in one article and the finer details get lost.
December 1, 2008 2:57 AM
Thanks James. I’ve been guilty of that as well in the past.
December 3, 2008 12:06 AM
A note for others, an update with clarifications and corrections to this post can be found here…
December 10, 2008 3:09 AM
James, with respect, re: “I’ve lost confidence in the Conservatives’ ability to work with the other parties in parliament in a minority government, and I’ve lost confidence in the Conservatives’ ability to govern Canadians with respect
I don’t care about how well the CPoC “gets along” with other parties, nor with whether they “respect” me or other Canadians. As Mustafa Hijiri notes, I’m one of those who care about what their policy is, about what they actually do or try to do. And so far, overall, they aren’t upsetting me much that way.
December 29, 2008 12:19 PM
A superior blog James, and one I will be coming back to. It would be helpful if I could subscribe in an Atom feed on my yahoo homepage. Don’t know if there’s one available but I couldn’t find it.
Nice to see cogent analysis that refrains from the typical partisan rhetoric. I have no problem entertaining opposing points of view, so long as they’re long on reason and short on hyperbole.
Keep up the good work.
December 29, 2008 2:17 PM
Thanks for the kind words, Gordie! There is an atom feed available; I just haven’t linked to it, yet. It’s available at http://bowjamesbow.ca/atom.xml
I’ll fix the navigation feature on the sidebar.