Harper: Politician or pundit?

About a year ago, Norman Spector, former chief of staff to Brian Mulroney, and now a freelance columnist and media critic, wrote what I think is one of the better analyses of Stephen Harper's  leadership abilities.

Essentially, Spector said that Harper was not the brilliant strategist that everyone thinks he is -- he's more a pundit. True enough, in his out-of-politics life from 1997 to 2001, Harper quite enjoyed being a freelance columnist and op-ed writer in several newspapers.

Today, in Question Period,  we saw a vivid, even surreal  illustration of this, when Harper accidentally slipped out of prime ministerial mode and lapsed into punditry.

It happened when  Liberal leader Stephane Dion got up to ask a second round of questions, abandoning the Cadman controversy and turning to the Canada-Obama affair, which the NDP has been hammering away at all week.   

Harper said: "I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition that when he was throwing around wild accusations of scandal, the leader of the NDP was already on top of this issue."

What?? As some of us wondered, how  else to translate this but:  "Hey, Jack Layton's on to the bigger scandal here, Stephane -- take note."

Harper doesn't normally make mistakes like this.  A sign of pressure?

Dion, to his credit, however,  had a pretty decent comeback. "We do not know how to choose among all the scandals he has," the Liberal leader said.

Comments

[hollinm]

It's interesting to read Ms. Delacourt's columns. They are all about the Liberals and what they will or won't do. Any time she writes about the Harper government it is always negative. There is no question where her biases lie. If she is suppose to be a national reporter should she not cover all the parties in a fair and balanced way? Watching her on Newman's Politics broadcast you would think she works for the Liberal party. Maybe she does.

[Vince Dumond]

If you are claiming Mr Harper is a pundit by his comment,(Harper: Politician or pundit?) are you saying he is he offering opinions and commentary and is presumed to be knowledgeable? Or are you saying he is lacking expertise or being politically biased while pretending to be neutral? I believe that his shrewd comment on the scandal was taken, by the leader of the NDP, as a word of praise as Mr Layton admitted on a CBC interview last night with Don Newman. Taking advantage of an open door to help take a politician away from the heat is an indication of a quick-minded politician, not a pundit. When Mr Harper diverts attention away from the Cadman scandal, this is not punditry but political perspicacity.
Vince Dumond
Toronto

[Hill Watcher]

He sounded like a pundit that day because he had no where else to go. He was at a loss for words when confronted with some of the undisputed facts around the Cadman affair. Complimenting Mr Layton is hardly his favourite pastime, it was simply the best partisan tactic he could come up with to divert attention from the scandal at hand. Lets leave aside for a moment the question of brilliant strategist versus political pundit. Is this the model of leadership that deserves a majority Government? Forget the website 'not-a-leader.ca' - how about 'not-a-prime-minister.ca'.

[Not-a-Harper-supporter]

Mistake? Pundit? I think not. Politician protecting his job is more like it.

Obviously, Harper is happy to take up the NAFTA controversy at a time when he would otherwise be blasted with the Cadman controversy. On the NAFTA front, Harper can call an investigation and fire a staff member and come off looking clean. On the Cadman controversy, Harper's own voice is on tape saying things which directly implicate him in a criminal offense. It is absolutely obvious why Harper will do whatever he can to deflect attention from the latter and focus on NAFTA instead. Layton really is Harper's saviour on this issue and Harper knows it.