Two things here.
A couple of posts back I was heartened to see Bob Fife calling the government to account.
Sadly another story I just read, not by him but by CanWest, tells me it's going to be a while before we actually see this happen.
The other obvious point of this story is the fact that Harper does need more support from women but according to his buddy Flanagan, they don't seem to care.
Nevertheless, the party's failure to gain traction among women causes some supporters to bristle. "Why are women's votes so uniquely important? Each vote counts one," Tom Flanagan, a University of Calgary professor who was once one of Harper's top aides, said in an e-mail.
It's difficult to understand how this guy thinks he is helping the party and his buddy. Moreover, it's telling to realise that Harper actually took his advice. He seems to preach deceit, disregard for what most Canadians care about and in the above comment a complete failure to comprehend the make-up of this country. This is how he suggested that Harper go about his business as PM.
So let's look at the article unto itself.
Two years ago, political pundits wouldn't have given Prime Minister Stephen Harper much chance of winning over Ariette Schoorl.
The 61-year-old, who considers herself left wing, was initially put off by Harper's "cold" personality.
But even though she doesn't always agree with the Harper government's policies, especially on the environment, she has come to admire the prime minister's poise.
"He stays cool, he stays under control and I appreciate that in the guy," she said. "He can't help it that he's a conservative."
If they hope to win a majority in the next federal election, Harper's Conservatives will need to discover more women like Schoorl.
What kind of an illogical leap is that? Is Andrew Mayeda, the author, suggesting that women will ignore issues and simply base their vote on how Harper keeps his cool in the MSM?
Nowhere in her quote do I see her saying that she'll vote for Harper. She disagrees on the environment for gawd's sake. If that is important to her, he suggests that she'll just swallow her principals because he stays cool under pressure? The other obvious comment here is that she obviously doesn't follow politics closely. She's been fed the pap on the evening news that shows us Harper the moderate. If she were to take a gander at QP, she'd see the steam coming out of his collar and the sheer vindictiveness by which he guides himself.
All she is saying here is that he is not as bad as she thought he might be. No doubt given what she is given to digest.
Darrell Bricker who produced a poll showing how low women rank in Harper's support says this:
"Women tend to not to be as interested in the big-P political-power issues. For them politics isn't necessarily about the cut and thrust of party politics or big-dollar economics or relationships among states," said Bricker. "They tend to be focused more locally; they tend to be more interested in things that affect them and their families."
Statements like this drive me absolutely mad! I'm not disputing that this profile shows up in his polls, but I personally know few women who aren't tuned in to the big picture and obviously I'm not one of them. This kind of generalisation I find demeaning. I do know a couple like this but in the end they do not even focus on their own environs in political terms.
Then we get this nugget:
"All in all, what women want, although you can't speak for all women, is a secure economy and decisive leadership, and we certainly don't see that in Mr. Dion," said Gwendolyn Landolt, national vice president at Real Women Canada, a "pro-family" organization that opposes abortion and same-sex marriage.
In fairness, at least the writer told us who she is but her comment is ridiculous and based only in the rhetoric we know she spews, taken directly from the Conservative talking points.
And finally this:
One of the Harper government's most high-profile decisions regarding women came in fall 2006, when it cut $5 million in administrative funding from Status of Women Canada, an agency that promotes gender equality. Coupled with the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program, which advocates say was an important tool to fight for women's rights, the move sparked outrage among many women's groups.
"Under the radar, Harper has been eliminating funding for women," says Rebick.
But Status of Women minister Josee Verner notes her government restored $1.3 million in administrative funding for Status of Women in last year's budget, and increased funding by 42 per cent for a program that seeks to improve the "economic, social and cultural situation" of women.
What absolute nonsense Verner spews. I don't have the numbers at hand, but her 42% comment is completely disingenuous. She has an interesting way of doing math. She cuts, gets called on it, uses that as her base line, then adds back some money dispersed sporadically and bases her % increase on that. It's kind of like using 2006 as a Kyoto baseline target, while, oops, forgetting to mention that fact. Perhaps Verner like her leader thinks little of women, or at least their ability to do math. Perhaps I'm missing something but she doesn't strike me as the most congealed ice-cube in the tray.
As Rebick says and I don't quote her often, women represent 52% of this country. I can think of few men who revile me more than Harper, well, I could delve into his cabinet but I won't bore you.
Even if he made an attempt, he's incapable imo. Women who read here will get that right away, so will good and clever men.
So here we are in 2008 and Harper etal still none the wiser. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Harper thinks longevity plays in his favour. He misses how many examples he given us to portray him as he really is.