Note: I have purchased neither, but I shall be putting in an order for the combo package. ($50.17 for both together at Amazon.ca!)

I actually have a pet theory that Chretien and Harper actually like each other very much. Something of the fellowship of the bloody-minded about it.

Well, there's the old "Trudeau dead, Martin alive" comparison which comes out in Jean's favour. On the other hand, Pierre started it with Brian in his memoirs, so there's the retaliatory or initiator factor in Brian's favour.

Is it better or worse to have better people as one's enemies? If so, that's in Brian's favour. On the other hand, there's something in timeliness and brevity, which certainly is in Jean's favour.

I think we all like Jean more, which is in his favour. On the other hand, Brian dealt with bigger issues, so that's in his. On the third hand (?), Brian almost lost us the country with one of his gambles and left Jean to clean up the mess, so that's in Jean's favour.

Really, the only thing for me to do is send in my order and pay for overnight shipping, which will still probably beat the bookstore prices.

Or did you mean compare and contrast Chretien and Harper's deviousness(es)?

In that match-up, I can only say that I admire both. :-)

I can't explain my art.

Mulroney and Chretien are old school pricks and classic egomaniacs. They think that any one who has a different opinion than their own is a mortal enemy that is personally attacking them and therefore must be crushed. At the same time, they crave popularity and want everyone to love them and therefore can be quite charismatic. Their "legacies" can be measure by the balance between these two traits. Mulroney can afford to be less of prick because he still wants to be popular; on the other hand, Chretien can point to three successive majority victories as proof of his own popularity and therefore can afford to be a bigger prick.

Harper is a new school prick in the Warren Kinsella mould and doesn't care about personal popularity. Neither is he concerned (at this point) with governing. His tactical manoevring (as cited by you) are attempts to advance his party's electoral interest by whatever means necessary. This usually involves political gambits and manipulating information. Perceptions of populairty can be manipulated further (if necessary) after political/electoral gains are made. The goal is to achieve both immediate and long term political success. Once this is done, ideological goals can be pursued. The difference between Harper and Kinsella is that Harper has an ideology that he would ultimately like to implement whereas Kinsella is only interested in political/electoral gains.

Just placed the order at Amazon.com, to avoid higher shipping costs. The combo deal was US$53.25.

Boy, it feels strange to pay more in Bush bucks...

***

Yes, there's something small about both men. But that's politics. You don't rise and get people to listen to you unless you make people hurt for crossing you.

Blame the parliamentary system -- and blame us. We're the ones who reward such behaviour. (And enjoy it, at times. :-))

I am noting that it has not mentioned that Mulroney is also bitter, very bitter, at his dumping by the nation en masse a number of years ago, which taints his continuous desire to be remembered as some sort of patriarchal superman who did great things. I am sure from reading his heavily hops flavoured writings that he is jealous of M. Cretien's on-going popularity and I think Steve feels the same way.. This of course is but my mere tainted opinion based on my view of M. Cretien and M. Trudeau as a patriarchal supermen who did great things.

Politically Harper could not believe his luck when the Grits decided that Green/Dion was the way to the middle class's heart. Green was an issue which was dying, Dion was the one Liberal who had stood up to Quebec and was and will be hated by the bien pensant pretty much forever.

Now Harper's main worry is not to torment Dion so much that the soccer moms will see it as bullying and thus "inappropriate". Appointing Manley was the perfect jab in that Harper can hardly be faulted for seeking bi-partisan consensus even if that means entirely by-passing Parliament for a while.

Dion knows that he cannot defeat the government this Fall without a) losing the next election, b)losing his leadership. Harper will press home his advantage and poor Dion will find himself forced to vote through pretty much the entire CPC agenda. (And, with luck, this will be an actual conservative agenda.) This, in turn, will create serious trouble in the Liberal caucus which could easily continue into the Spring. And, best of all, as Dion twists in the wind, Harper will continue to drive his butter knife into the riper bits Liberal bree. All of which will ensure that donations to the Liberal Party effectively dry up.

This is not particularly the result of Harper's brilliance; but the man would have to be a total moron to fail to capitalize on the Grits' infatuation with M. Dion and that dog called Kyoto. Pangs of buyers' remorse are whistling through the Liberal caucus but they know they would seem churlish if they returned the item just yet.

+2 to what Hans said here, and +1 to what Jay said here and -0.5 to what steve said here [*].

(trying out a new kybd after my daughter spilled Orangina in my old, beautiful, Logitec wireless one)

[*] just try to prove to Al that I'm not always argumentative and _still_ trying to prove I have no issues with Hans ;-)

I like it...but it is totally WTF.

This is how we do debate on the microformats.org lists, you vote on everyone else's arguments in your replies (sort of)

Then it <i>is</i> totally WTF.

-1 Al

;-)

Too good not to share: "broken rube".

Your gnomes are at work...