Media Types Have Read The Writing On The Wall

...Our news organs have pulled the Harper Phobia, or as it's more commonly known, HDS (Harper Derangement Syndrome) off the front page and darned if they don't sound like they're helping him achieve is coveted majority.

The Supreme Court: How a Harper majority could really change Canada

"Of the nine justices who serve on the Supreme Court of Canada, three – Ian Binnie, Morris Fish and Louis LeBel – will hit the mandatory retirement age of 75 within the next four years. Another, Marshall Rothstein, will come very close to it. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin would be 71 by the end of a majority government’s mandate, and Rosie Abella would be 68.

In other words, Mr. Harper would have an excellent opportunity to shape the country’s top court. And given that court’s enormous role in shaping public policy, particularly since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect nearly three decades ago, that could be a very transformative power.

If one were looking for signs that the abortion debate is about to be reignited, this would be a better place to start than the musings of a backbench MP. Realistically, though, it seems unlikely that Mr. Harper would overload the judiciary with raging social conservatives. If his goal is to firmly establish the Conservatives as the country’s dominant national party, then returning the focus to hot-button social issues that helped derail its past campaigns would be a dubious strategy.

But if his goal is also to subtly shift the country’s laws and institutions and culture of governance toward something more in line with his party’s vision for the country – as opposed to the one held by the Liberals – there is much that the Supreme Court could help with. From property rights to issues of federal-provincial jurisdiction to law and order, not to mention the balance between national security and individual liberties, there’s all sorts of room to help turn Canada into a more small-C conservative country."

Bring it on!!

Searching for clues to Harper's so-called hidden agenda

"The assumption is that, armed with a majority, Mr. Harper would aggressively pursue a radical social agenda, highlighted by pro-gun, anti-abortion and tough-on-crime policies. Or worse, dismantle universal health care.

But if Mr. Harper is concealing anything, it’s far more likely a determination to make government a lot smaller. So, think instead of privatizing Crown corporations, deregulating some long-protected industries and squeezing costly government programs.

Pushing an economic agenda over a social agenda is consistent with Mr. Harper’s former life as an economist and president of the National Citizens Coalition, where he championed causes such as dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board and targeting government waste.

Austerity is coming. That’s a given."

Start with the CBC and the CRTC, please.

Constitutional 'logjam' could ensue if Harper wins minority and acts like majority government, say experts

How to seize power on May 3

"Asked on Tuesday if he would work with the other parties, Mr. Harper responded: "I don't accept the question." It's moot, he meant, because the other parties don't want to work with him. They want to take over themselves, he reiterated."

[---]

"That leaves us with a truly puzzling scenario in which the Liberal leader is making a case for a Conservative minority government backed by the Liberals, while the Conservative leader is all but swearing off his chances of leading a government that is not a majority. It's all posturing until the seat counts are known, but Mr. Harper must realize that by repeatedly insisting voters are choosing either a Conservative majority or the other guys, this leaves open the possibility that they will pick the other guys.

My guess is that his game all along has been to force Mr. Ignatieff to disavow a coalition. Even though Mr. Ignatieff has never said he would refuse to take power, absent a vote, even if he lost an election, most Canadians would believe he had gamed the system somehow. That's not how the Westminster system is supposed to work, but judging entirely by an unscientific assessment of callers to talk radio and people with whom I was playing poker the other night and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, I suspect Mr. Harper is counting on public outrage over a possible takeover to preclude Mr. Ignatieff from trying it.

It's setting up what could be a remarkable showdown between two men who don't like each other very much. Only the government would hang in the balance."

Which may explain the unusually high turnout and long line-ups at today's Advance Polls. We've had enough of these stupid games.

But not all of the media has read the writing or understood what it means:

Harper has no business bragging about his foreign policy

"One of the more egregious examples of Harper's negative effect on Canadian foreign policy was the humiliating defeat of Canada's candidacy for a rotating seat on the important United Nations Security Council, the first time a Canadian candidacy was unsuccessful since the United Nations was founded in 1945.

That humbling experience was not simply a matter of losing a particular vote. It was very much symptomatic of how previously supportive UN members had come to change their view of Canadian policies since Harper came to power.

As diplomats stationed in Ottawa point out, some countries had very specific reasons why they opted to support Portugal rather than Canada. Several African states felt the Harper government no longer gave any significant priority to Canada's traditionally close relations with Africa. Some were upset by Ottawa's decision to terminate aid programs for several African countries. Others were unhappy over the intended closure of diplomatic missions.

African diplomats stationed in Ottawa complained they had real difficulty in obtaining suitable access to Canadian officials to outline their governments' views and concerns.

Canada's relatively benign reputation in the Middle East also suffered since Harper adopted a very pro-Israel policy, even reversing longstanding votes in the UN to support Israel. His government went so far as to end CIDA funding of the respected KAIROS aid group for humanitarian assistance of people in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel."

Yup. Only a Liberal-leftie would expect us to believe that Africa isn't a basket case of corrupt and brutal regimes and that organizations like Hamas and most Middle Eastern governments have done nothing to deserve our support or that Israel is an apartheid state, or that the UN is a serious and important organization. Give it up, folks. Your head-in-the-sand attitudes are part of the problem and it's those memes of yours that are old and tarnished. Harper's approach that is fresh and based on the reality that should be apparent to everyone. You've had your half century (or more). You and the institutions you cherish have proven to be failures. You're done.

I hope Harper gets a massive majority, just so these eggheads in the media will understand they have hit a brick wall. We're on to their stonewalling and clinging to old myths and by-gone glories. Your era is over. Dead. Gone. Finished. Kaput. We're changing course. "Get outta the way, if you can't lend a hand."