Certainly, [Harper] has been far too much a solo runner in the team game of politics. He doesn't trust easily and so isn't trusted much. He is prone to savage attacks on his opponents and detractors, such as his gratuitous characterizations of parliamentary critics as Taliban sympathizers or artists as rich gala-goers. He also shows an underdeveloped appreciation for the basic tenets of pluralism with his denigrations of the keepers of critical checks and balances in our political system, from officers of Parliament to members of the press.
Having said that, we regard him as a suitable PM.
Mad Dog (Flipper) McCain is not available.
Well the Star's endorsement of Dion is hardly glowing ... 2/3's of it is a criticism of Harper, then a paragraph criticizing Dion and then one paragraph in support. A ringing endorsement no doubt!
Posted by: KenSmith | October 11, 2008 at 07:35 AM
David Olive is right. The Globe and Mail endorsement did not explain their choice. You can agree or disagree with the Toronto Star endorsement, but they clearly explained their choice. Similarly, the National Post, explained their choice. In both cases, the values of the editorial board were on display, and it is clear those two papers hold quite different values in choosing a government and leader to endorse. By contrast, the Globe came across as holding the same values as the National Post, while pretending not to. The Globe pretends to care about the environment, for example, but obviously doesn't. It shows Harper is a good match for the Globe, but they aren't willing to admit it.
Posted by: chuckg | October 11, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Their conclusion was not simply that he is a "suitable PM". Their conclusion was that he is a more suitable PM than the alternatives. It is an important distinction.
Posted by: Craig Smith | October 12, 2008 at 02:21 AM
Short Globe & Mail Endorsement:
Sure, he's a jerk, but -- I give up.
Posted by: doug | October 12, 2008 at 06:01 PM