Love him or hate him, he is entertaining. I hated him as PM, but now that he is an elder statesmen, his characteristic candour, pomposity, feistiness and humour is indeed fun.

While there's lots of reasons not to like Trudeau, I find "lack of military experience" kind of a strange metric. On the other hand, the CBC article about this reads like a Trudeau hagiography; I wonder if they'd go so far to mention "that most people did not know about the Nazis' systematic extermination of millions of Jews until after the war" if they were talking about how racist Canada was/is.

And isn't there a difference between marching in an anti-conscription rally and being pro-Nazi like Mulroney seems to imply? That being said, that nonsensical going-all-mental aspect of 1970s and 80s Federal politics with Broadbent, Trudeau and Mulroney was what made it so fun.

Andrew Coyne had a great column in the Post on Saturday: The unique stupidity of Canadian politics.

What we have here isn't politics so much as a duel of the handlers. I heard Susan Delacourt on As It Happens Tuesday evening wishing someone would kill them all. ;-)

My brother just reminded me of a classic exchange Muldoon had back in his heyday. I remember watching a newsclip and he was on the campaign trail in small town Canada at community picnic and the press was there pressing for a comment on something. One of the reporter's must have got his goat somehow:

Muldoon: Show some class.
Reporter: I will if you will, Mr. Prime Minister.

Classic!

That is the sort of stuff Imperial Steve could never give or take, hence his need to have reporters fall in line along with everyone else he comes into contact with. Love him or hate him, you never had a sense that Mulroney didn't quite have a grip on the handle of Ottawa.

I think a lot of what you call 'Imperial Steve', especially wrt to the media comes from the Mulrooney/Media relationship as in "not getting an even break". Trudeau was a master of the press. There's a great cartoon of him at a ping pong table battling the entire media corps, he playing with one hand and a bored look on his face.

Also: I think a lot of CBC types have learned too that there's some pretty sweet appointments available if you don't ask the wrong questions.

I think I am not exactly clear on that, David, but if it is the idea that Harper has been the victim of a media relationship rather than an instigator of a new set of rules that are "all my way or the highway" is not going to fly. But we may be agreeing if you are saying that Mulroney and Harper have different experiences and that Mulroneys was the tougher road.

The CBC bias is a bit of a clanger as far as I see, also hold-over from Mulroney who truly got no break - as, say, have and do the Quebec Separatists still. CBC news is too tired a news service for me to have much of an opinion on it or much of an effect. Harper is certainly not affected by it. His failure to grab the national imagination is his own issue and may be, frankly, congenital. He may be ending up as a good "bridge" leader for the conservative PM, the one who can get the majority.

Let me clarify: Harper is 100% the instigator <i>but</i> the justification (which I think is valid) is that it was a preemtive stike.

My problem is (well, _amongst my problems_) is that I want smart CBC news without stupid CBC smarmy bias. I've tried Canwest & CTV Newsnet and there's only so many car crashes and puppy dog with cancer stories I can stomach.

Mulroney's strength and Harper's weakness is just that. Mulroney would need no premption of anyone's point of view. He controlled the conversation in response. A much more powerful skill Harper lacks entirely - which is his real justification.

Would it be pedantic to point out that there were no Newfoundlanders among Canada's 11 million citizens in WWII?

... Yes, it would be.