What to do. What to do. How should a Canadian say this.

Paul Wells thinks the Liberals are better off highlighting Harper's incompetence.

I know, I know, the Death of Parliament is serious business, if you think it is. But I still think Harper is quite happy with being portrayed as terrifying. What he really fears is being portrayed as not very good at what he does. These ads don't hit that target.

A journalist is allowed, of course, to change his mind. Today he thinks that Ignatieff is better off mocking Harper.

As if on cue, Michael Ignatieff makes fun of the Prime Minister, calling his prorogation-for-market-stability argument "the funniest thing I've heard in politics for a very, very long time."

Bruce Anderson thinks the Liberals need to highlight Harper's arrogance to make prorogation stick.

For opposition leaders (and other concerned Canadians), the surest way to make this issue stick is to hammer away that this decision is born of a profound arrogance, and chronicle how it fits a troubling pattern. This would create the potential to destabilize partisan lines, and bring into play the one in three Conservative supporters who already feel awkward trying to defend this action to their friends and neighbours.

I believe that the attacks should highlight the truth. He is a small minded vindictive would be tyrant who will stop at nothing to turn Canada into a Straussian dystopia.

To the citizens of our nations it would appear we are at an impasse. But as Canadians could we not strive for a compromise. How about if we point out that it is laughably arrogant for an incompetent boob like Harper to try and become a dictator.

Therein lies the distillation of the genius of the Canadian way.Recommend this Post