Press Rooms Turned War Rooms Now | can tell you how to run a campaign... Right Hook JJ McCullough, OP Columnist If you’ve been reading the papers lately, you can be excused for thinking that Stephen Harper is the single most incompetent political strategist in the history of Canada. Otherwise, why would pretty much every colurn- nist, pundit, blogger, and self-proclaimed political analyst in the nation feel that Harper needs to hear their unso- licited campaign advice? While it is heartening to see so many media people keen to see the Conservatives actually win for a change, the constant nagging of the armchair quarterback brigade is getting a bit tiresome. You’d think Harper was some sort of perennially fourth-place Jack Layton-esque charac- ter, rather than the man who pulled conservative stand- ings in the House of Commons from 78 to 99 in the last election. Maybe Harper should just run a full slate of irate newspaper columnists this time around, since that would apparently ensure a 100 percent sweep. The thing about electoral advice from newspaper columnists is that their suggestions seem to be mostly constructed to increase the party’s appeal to other news- paper columnists. They confuse the Canadian public with the editorial board of the Toronto Star, and assume that the policies that can win over the latter are the same as the ones that will impress the former. So Harper is told to dress casually so he will photo- graph well, speak in gentle terms so he will have good sound bytes, and above all, for God’s sake don’t dare criti- cize the press or it will surely tear you a new one. More than anything else, the press also loves to demand Harper be more moderate. Ditch all that crazy social conservative clap trap and pro-America BS, they declare, and you'll surely cruise to victory faster than you can say Joe Clark. The real problem with the Conservative party’s elec- toral strategy, in my view, is that these sorts of sugges- tions have actually been taken far too seriously, and as a direct result, for the last three elections the party (or it’s Alliance predecessor) has always gone into elections on the defensive. Far from espousing radical right-wing poli- cies, its leaders have gone to great lengths to try and pass themselves off as the sort of Liberal-lite moderates the media keeps clamoring for. Whenever it’s suggested that the Conservatives may in fact hold anti-status quo views on any issue, they immediately go into extreme denial mode, paint themselves as the true defenders of Canada, and argue it’s actually the Liberals who are the real radi- cals. The Earth is So Last Week ‘Let's crash on Mars Left Overs lain Reeve, OP Columnist Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states in environmental sustain- ability and progress. Who better to look after a new plan- et than those who have at least been making some effort to look after this one? There is, however, some bad news. Guess who ranked number 28 out of 30? Why, little old us—Oh, Canada! Now Ill allow the right a fair bit of intellectual credit on many issues. When it comes to some issues, I’m will- ing to accept that there is logic in their positions, at least the ones that have been reasonably and rationally thought out. However, there is one place where I will grant very little room: environmental issues. Case in point: Last election the Liberals ran a series of ads simply consisting of a-series of “damning” quotes made by Stephen Harper over the years. They showed Harper praising the Iraq war, promoting two-tier health- care, opposing same-sex marriage, yadda yadda yadda. What was the Conservative response? They made a website. But not a website that, you know, actually defended Harper, or backed up his arguments with facts and con- text, or anything like that. No, they made a website that presented quotes from Paul Martin in which he praised the Iraq war, promoted two-tier healthcare, and opposed same-sex marfiage. I have absolutely no clue what the strategy behind this plan was, but apparently it’s one the media loves. “Throw the charges back at Martin!” the pundits cry. “That will fix him!” To be sure, Paul Martin is a raging hypocrite, like all Liberals. But to argue that he holds, or has held, conser- vative positions identical to that of Mr. Harper can only serve two equally unproductive purposes: a) it acknowl- edges that Harper is no more scary than Martin (which in turn defines them both as moderately scary, which’ seems like a pretty shallow victory); and b) it reinforces the belief that certain issues and positions are too controver- sial to ever discuss openly, and can only be brought up as scaremongering tactics. The alternate to this strategy of hollow denials and races to the mushy middle would be for the Conservatives to become more self-confident and unapologetic in their positions. This doesn’t mean acting like a screaming right- wing lunatic, but neither does it mean going out of your way to deny holding the positions that everyone knows you obviously have. On the issue of private healthcare, for example, most Continued: P.10 ing happens; if we’re right—WE’RE ALL DEAD. In sit- uations like that I tend to err on the side of caution. One would think a country with such an entrenched attachment to nature would be a little more responsible with the natural wonders we have around us. Sadly, our fair nation is painfully substandard in the realm of envi- ronmental sustainability. It is a simple matter of priorities. As with so many other things, environmental issues take a backseat to economic growth. It’s tough too, because that backseat is very cramped, the environment is a really big kid, and the journey’s long and getting hotter. The solution is simple here. The earth is quite simply the most important resource we have. We should treat it as such. All issues: the economy, security, human rights, In a recent issue of Discover magazine, it was revealed that the European Space Program is making major strides in Let’s admit it kids: the days where we can recklessly wander about plundering the earth and dumping all our the price of crackers, old-age pensions, tuition fees; they all mean sweet FA. if our planet cannot sustain our sad- their aims to land on Mars. Recent updates suggest they may even beat NASA to the punch. I must say that, should we choose to go back to the old “stick a flag in it” method of claiming territory, I’m happy Europe will be getting there first. Why? A recent study conducted by multi-disciplinary professors from SFU has revealed Europe to be tops among the crap everywhere are over. We can no longer get by insist- ing God put the earth here for us to ransack as we see fit; nor can we go about denying the existence of issues like global warming just because one or two scientists out of a million say it might not be true. The ostrich syndrome is getting us nowhere. If you’re still having trouble with this I suggest you consider it this way: if they’re right—noth- sap species. I suppose the other option would be hitting up Mars for a place to stay. But you know the Europeans; they would never let us in. It’s like renting a basement suite to a smoker. It’s just a bad investment.