Frances Russel, Lawrence Martin, Linda McQuaig & Conspiracy Theories as Journalism

"FOX North" conspiracy theory jumps the shark

With SUN Media's new television network applying for a category one broadcasting license from the CRTC -- which would require cable and satellite services to offer it -- the far left's compunction for conspiracy theorizing has officially jumped the shark.

Writing for Rabble.ca, Frances Russell is alluding to an article by Lawrence Martin, wherein he himself alludes to anonymous "insiders" who infer that Prime Minister set to, at his earliest opportunity, appoint a CRTC chair and vice-chair who would be in favour of the network.

Martin goes on to suggest that Kory Teneckye, Harper's former communications director, has been molding what individuals like Martin already argued was a conservative-biased newspaper chain into a conservative-biased newspaper chain.

His evidence is the firing of Greg Weston, whom Martin suggest was fired as retaliation for breaking the G20 "fake lake" non-story. (The "fake lake" which was, for the record, a hit with international media. The Canadian government showcasing Canadian media technology to the global media -- what an outrage!)

Martin deliberately overlooks the detail that various news outlets have been tightening their belts in the current economic climate. (Perhaps if Weston spent less time chasing non-stories and more time chasing real stories, he may have escaped the axe.)

The irony is so deep it could be grilled medium rare and then eaten with a knife and fork: Lawrence Martin, the long-time Liberal party shill, declaring Sun Media to be a Conservative party shill.

Perhaps the most suitable response is to admit that he may be right: after all, it's long been said that it takes one to know one.

Moving beyond Martin, it's clear that vitriol, rather than any rational objection to a conservative news network, drove Russell's pen as she wrote this column. If not, one would wonder what to make of this:

"The tone of political discourse, already shifted sharply right with the advent of Conrad Black's National Post in 1998, is about to take a quantum leap further down that road. The signs are numerous and ominous: The internet is already doused daily with the vitriol of thousands of anonymous far-right bloggers who slander and libel politicians, the media and all opponents with vile, often illiterate postings. Parliament and the country's entire political culture is being dug ever deeper into a mire of character assassination, personal insult and attack, smear campaigns, relentless and ruthless partisanship and denigration and demonization of any and all opponents."

Naturally, Russell the far-left demagogue has nothing to say about the legions of far-left bloggers who not only do precisely the same, but are often even more vicious and ruthless about it.

Russell's next exhibit is a column by none other than the Toronto Star's perpetually-reality-challenged Linda McQuaig:

"'There's been a tendency in the Canadian media to dismiss the threat of a Fox News transplant on the grounds Canadians wouldn't fall for that sort of nasty, right-wing extremism,' she writes. 'But that comforting notion may be naïve.' Most people don't have time to follow politics in detail, she continues. 'If they hear constant sound bites suggesting global warming is a hoax or public health care just doesn't work, after a while the message starts to seem believable.'

She points out the media already blasts Canadians with a steady chorus of right-wing ideas. 'A Fox-style network here -- if Harper gets his way -- would turn that into a deafening cacophony.'"

Of course, McQuaig doesn't elaborate on this particular claim. Would it be the CBC "blasting" Canadians with "right-wing ideas"? The same CBC whose executives overwhelmingly donate to the Liberal Party?

Of course not. This is simply another case of McQuaig refusing -- simply refusing -- to familiarize herself with reality.

It's hardly surprising that for all the objection to SUN Media starting a TV news network, there isn't one rational, factual or even coherent argument among them. The worst-kept secret regarding media bias is that everyone is in favour of media bias: they simply prefer that the media would share their bias.

Underlying this controversy is the fact that Canada's left seems to want the CRTC to, for no rational or logical reason, enforce the maintenance of the the dominant bias they prefer -- and they're peddling some rather bizarre conspiracy theories in order to justify it.

A Losing Proposition for All Canadians

Frank Graves calls for "culture war" in Canada

EKOS pollster Frank Graves recently offered some advice to Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff that should make the blood of all Canadians run cold.

“I told them that they should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy,” Graves is reported as having said. “If the cranky old men in Alberta don’t like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin.”

Once upon a time, as many Canadians will recall, it was the Liberal Party that accused the Conservative Party of divisive politics. Now, it's the Liberal Party's favourite pollster encouraging them to do the very same.

Then again, this is really nothing new.

Under Jean Chretien, the Liberal Party thrived off of false chariactures of their principal opponents. In the discourse offered by the Liberal Party, Preston Manning was transformed from a forward-thinking conservative on matters such as language policy (his proposed Fair Language Policy would have been a multi-cultural upgrade on official bilingualism) into a thinly-veiled bigot.

Nothing could have been further from the truth. But under Chretien, the Liberals were willing to do anything -- anything -- to gain or keep power. Even if it meant stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from Canadian taxpayers.

To make matters worse, Lawrence Martin -- who brought Canadians reports of Graves' commentary -- seems to think that Ignatieff has taken this advice, and that his attempt to exploit issues like the long gun registry and abortion as ideological boilerplate mark the first steps in a stark turn down the low road of politics.

This can only serve to transform Canadian politics into something darker, more divisive, and dishonest.

It takes a particularly dangerous brand to ideologue to look at the divisive and destructive political canflaguration in the United States, then tell one of Canada's political leaders that we need that here. Canadians cannot afford to turn their back on Frank Graves.

His advice to Ignatieff would make for a losing proposition for all Canadians. Hopefully, any attempt to spark a culture war will make like everything else Michael Ignatieff has attempted to date -- and blow up in his face.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Montreal Simon - "Frank Graves and the Way to Beat the Cons"

Sort of Political - "Kory Teneycke ROCKS!!!"

BC Blue - "Stunning Advice to Iffy by Liberal Pollster"

Oh, But So Much Has Changed Already!

Lawrence Martin misses the forest of change for the trees

Writing in an op/ed column in Metro News, Lawrence Martin decries the current state of Canadian politics, and blames it all on the leaders.

Canada's political leaders, it seems, just aren't young, vibrant, hip, or inspiring enough. And the only way that Canadians will ever see any kind of meaningful change in Canadian politics is for Canada's youngest politicos -- individuals like Justin Trudeau and, uh... Justin Trudeau... -- to take over the reins of leadership.

But Martin seems to be overlooking the myriad of ways that things have changed already. And it didn't take the young, vibrant, hip and inspiring Trudeau to change things.

In fact, many of the most significant -- and constructive -- changes in Canadian politics have been effected by a fifty-year-old man "about as cool as a Toyota Corolla". Stephen Harper.

Of course, if one were to listen to individuals like Murray Dobbin, Judy Rebick, Michael Byers, Heather Mallick, Antonia Zerbisias or any number of other commentators, one would hear them insisting precisely the opposite. They would insist that Harper has been nothing but poison, not only for Canadian politics, but for Canada itself.

Each of them, in turn, would have their own complaints -- complaining Harper dismantled the court challenges program, hamstrung the Status of Women, is dismantling gun control, and has declined to fight climate change in any meaningful way. This isn't the full extent of their complaints, but it does effectively scratch the surface.

This is their view of reality, but many Canadians don't share it. Many Canadians see some of these actions as taking the government out of the business of taking sides in matters related to social activism, setting the Status of Women on a better course, dismantling cosmetic legislation disguised as gun control, and reevaluating a "crisis" for which the scientific evidence is erroding, and increasingly looks as if it were trumped-up in the first place.

And while many Canadian conservatives would argue that Harper hasn't gone nearly far enough -- and many Canadian progressives are insisting that Harper would go further if he won his dreaded majority -- it's difficult to overlook the specific character of this change, notably that Canadian government has finally gotten back into the business of good governance.

In doing so, the Canadian government is slowly moving away from an era in which its chief order of business was not good governance, but its own particular method of social engineering.

The government is moving away from an old era in which the politics of public virtue dictated that the government use its power to mold society according to the designs of a select group of architects, and back to an era in which the politics of public good simply entails managing the country's affairs.

Whether one credits Jean Lesage for this old concept of the politics of public virtue (as Brian Lee Crowley does), or John Diefenbaker (as Barry Cooper does) is actually largely immaterial.

What is important is that many Canadians are waking up to the notion that it isn't the government's job to promote any one particular ideological view of Canadian society. Rather, it's the role of government to stay out of the affairs of others as much as it can, and simply focus on providing people with the opportunities to build the kind of society they wish to see, without government picking sides.

Many left-wing ideologues look at the Harper government and they decry what they call the "death of Canada". In its own small way, perhaps it really is -- at least for them.

Grown accustomed to the state favouring their particular conception of the politics of public virtue, these ideologues have come to think of Canada as an ideological construct. So long as that ideology was theirs, they were entirely comfortable with it.

In many of his actions, Stephen Harper has begun -- not yet finished -- to rebuild Canada as a non-ideological construct. As a country in which the citizens will decide the character of its society.

That, in itself, has been a wonderful change over the previous state of affairs.

It didn't take Justin Trudeau to change Canada after all. And if Trudeau ever does get his opportunity to change Canada, many more Canadians may, in time, come to wonder if it actually would be for the better.

Elizabeth May: Political Amnesiac

Green Party leader has peculiar notions of what is "anti-democratic"

According to Green Party leader Elizabeth May, Canadians suffer from a "collective amnesia". Often enough, she's oddly correct -- but in ways that are ironically lost on her.

Her recent book Losing Confidence continues to gain traction in the news media, as various outlets continue to weigh her claims that Canadian democracy is in some kind of trouble.

Yet Elizabeth May herself indulges herself in politically-motivated forgetfulness. She forgets that it was the Canadian citizenry that rejected the coalition. She also forgets that Canadian citizens have different expectations about government than countries where coalition governments are commonplace.

Elizabeth May's biggest problem is that she continues to evaluate Canadian democracy against various European counterpart -- Germany may be the most pertinent example -- without ever taking into account that Canada's political culture and, with it, citizens' expectations of democracy.

"Never in the history of modern parliamentary democracy anywhere in the world had a prime minister sought to shut down the government to avoid losing a confidence vote," she writes.

May continues to complain that she feels the progrogation of Parliament was "breathtakingly anti-democratic".

Yet a clear majority of Canadians had already rejected the proposed Liberal/NDP coalition government. The option of an election -- the traditional political route after a minority Parliament's defeat -- was an election, not the coalition, which was supported by just over a third of Canadians.

Yet an election had just taken place weeks previous. And considering the levels of support the Conservatives enjoyed immediately following the coalition proposal -- careening into majority government territory -- it's unlikely that May would have supported an election.

On that note it's hard to overlook the extent to which May is being politically self-indulgent. As Tom Flanagan noted in a Globe and Mail column, Canadian political culture demands that Canadians decide the government, not the Governor General.

If the Liberals and NDP had run on a coalition government during the 2008 federal election, that would be one thing entirely. But then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion had explicitly ruled that prospect out during the election. So to step up after the election and take the first opportunity to attempt to supplant the government with a coalition that had previously been treated as out of the question was another thing entirely.

Canadians should also never forget that the precipitating event for this coalition was a government move to cut subsidies for political parties. At a time of fiscal crisis, this was the right move to make, but the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois (whom may describes simply as "democratically elected" without mentioning the contextual fact that their purpose is to separate Quebec from the rest of the country) wouldn't stand for the revokation of their entitlements.

Never before, in a democratic state, has an appointed official been called upon to make a decision on whether or not to replace the duly-elected government with a political monstrosity so out-of-step with the citizens' expectations of democracy.

May's attitude clearly indicates that she believes democracy is something to be managed by elites. The rules set clearly advantage elites in decisions regarding who will and will not govern. If Michaelle Jean had been less respectful of Canada's political culture, Elizabeth May could very well have gotten her way -- and an unstable coalition replete with the Canadian government mortgaged to a separatist party founded on a racial ideology.

Only in the mind of a virulently fervent ideologue could such an option, evaulated according to the entirety of its significance, seem appealing. Especially when one considers that it would undermine Canada's citizen-oriented political culture.

Oddly enough, May forgets that her party has no leadership review process. Although rumblings continue that the rank-and-file Green Party membership has no confidence in Elizabeth May's leadership -- and really, who could blame them? -- May continues to enjoy a very comfortable position her party.

But only because the party's rules allow for this -- not because of the democratic will of her party membership.

To Elizabeth May, only the formal rules matter. That's the biggest difference between May and Governor General Michaelle Jean -- Jean understands that the democratic will of the people matter, and May does not.

It's a good reason why Michaelle Jean deserves an opportunity to utilize her talents beyond the meagre venue of the Governor General's office, and Elizabeth May doesn't deserve to ever be elected.

Regress This, Lawrence

Lawrence Martin takes issue with Harper government's foreign policy

Writing in an op/ed article in today's Globe and Mail Lawrence Martin has some poignant words about the Harper government's foreign policy.

He doesn't like it.

In Martin's opinion the Harper government's foreign policy has been much too confrontational, not committed enough to environmental issues, and too grounded in the present:

"Stephen Harper has been taking a lot of flack from his right-wing base. The red-meat eaters say he's a lousy excuse for a conservative. But, on this one, the base is off-base. On fiscal matters, the Prime Minister may have demonstrated a liberal side. In these tottering times, most every leader is doing that.

But look at the other indicators. Check the law-and-order fixation, the leisurely approach to the green file. And look at the record on foreign policy – Mr Harper has surely earned his hard-line stripes. Previous Conservative governments showed some progressive strains abroad. Not these Regressive Conservatives. With Russia, with China, in the Middle East, they harbour old confrontational attitudes. There's no new outreach as there is in Washington, no new thinking for new times."

Interestingly enough, as one continues to trudge their way through Martin's column one quickly notices how much Martin's new thinking is like the old thinking of Martin's beloved Chretien-era Liberal party.

"A month ago, there was that soft-sounding summit with President Barack Obama. It was barely over before the Conservatives tried to get Cold War juices flowing, accusing Moscow of encroaching on Canadian airspace with their bombers. Since the flights were in international airspace, the anti-Red rhetoric fizzled.

Mr Obama is trying a more reasoned approach with Moscow, as he is with Tehran. In Iran's case, he has opened the doors to dialogue and diplomacy. Not so Team Harper."

This, naturally, would depend on how one defines "reasoned".

One may ask Martin how "reasoned" it is to allow Russian bombers to skirt Canadian airspace, or how "reasoned" it is to allow Iranian prison guards to rape and beat Canadian citizens to death without so much as a hiccup in diplomatic relations between the two countries (the latter of the two propositions appears to be a core belief of the Michael Byers school of international relations).

For any country that values its national sovereignty, or expects foreign countries to respect its passports, neither of these propositions comes even remotely close to qualifying as a "reasoned" foreign policy.

"With regard to the hellhole at Guantanamo, Washington is moving to shut its doors. Conservatives in Canada – witness the case of Omar Khadr – have hardly had a bad word to say about the place."

Martin could perhaps also be troubled to note how few Conservatives have anything positive to say about Guantanamo Bay.

Beyond that, Martin should also keep in mind that the United States has some serious national security issues at stake in the trial of various detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

The Harper government has been waiting for the Obama administration to decide how it wants to proceed on the matter of these detainees, and waiting for the Obama administration to ask it to take Khadr off of their hands.

If anything, Obama has been dragging its feet on the Khadr case -- which will ultimately decide whether or not individuals like Khadr should be treated as child soldiers are terrorists -- Martin's complaint rings hollow in the echo of his high words for Obama.

"Traditionally, Canadian governments pursue disarmament. A good question is whether there's ever been such silence on nuclear proliferation and arms stockpiling as we've had from Team Harper. It's like it's not a problem."

To pretend that Harper's government has done nothing on the topic of nuclear proliferation and disarmament. Harper's government supported UN sanctions against, of all countries, Iran -- one of the countries that Martin seems to disfavour confrontation with.

Meanwhile, Martin may want to take note of the fact that the Cold War -- and the looming threat of nuclear holocaust -- is over. And it was Martin's favoured Liberal party that was in charge while Pakistan and India were developing and testing nuclear weapons.

"Much has been written about our exceedingly slow boat to China. The PM can't seem to shake off old attitudes. He has yet to even visit the Middle Kingdom, despite its gigantic stature in the world economy."

While Harper's to-date failure to visit China is absolutely free game for criticism, one also has to remember that Harper's approach to China has proven superior than that of his predecessors, Jean Chretien or Paul Martin.

Harper hasn't allowed economic concerns to dissuade him from addressing China's atrocious human rights record. Chretien was notorious for being unable to even utter the words "human rights" in regards to China.

"In the Middle East, Ottawa has often taken a commendable pro-Israeli tilt. But our government has never been entirely one-sided. The Harper Conservatives have ended that tradition, becoming practically more pro-Israeli than Israel. They make no effort to bridge the Middle East divide. In the House of Commons this week, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon sneered at Liberal critic Bob Rae for making a stopover in Syria on a recent trip. Mr Rae, a supporter of Israel, was trying to gain an understanding of other points of view. Mr Cannon should try it some time. Couldn't hurt."

At the same time, however, if one is looking for fresh perspective on Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians, one may want to look somewhere other than Syria, with its own incredibly questionable record regarding the treatment of Palestinians.

"In their most recent Jurassic Park vignette, the government barred George Galloway, the gadfly British MP, from entering Canada. This move found even some of the PM's most ardent supporters opposed. It followed an entry ban in January issued against William Ayers, an American advocate of violence in the 1960s who has since become a distinguished professor of education sought after by dissertation committees at Canadian universities. The Harper government continues to deport American conscientious objectors to the Iraq war."

George Galloway is a strange hill for any left-wing thinker to choose to die on.

Does he really want someone who accepts money from Saddam Hussein admitted to Canada? How about someone who donates money to Hamas? In the casea of Bill Ayers, how about someone who plots terrorist activities against his own government -- a government that is, by the way, Canada's most important ally.

Martin may also want to keep in mind that the conscientious objectors being deported back to the United States are not draftees, as was the case during the Vietnam war, and that many of them enlisted after the Iraq war began. Last but not least, current Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has already ruled out supporting American war resisters in their bid to remain in Canada.

"On Afghanistan, the PM is showing some well-advised flexibility, and Defence Minister Peter MacKay has earned some plaudits. But, by and large, Ottawa is ignoring causes for which it would usually be engaged. Africa is largely forgotten. In Darfur, the International Criminal Court is pursuing a sitting head of state in connection with genocide. But as former justice minister Irwin Cotler points out, Canada – a force in creating the ICC – has shown little interest. The same, he says, is the case in Rwanda, where our foreign assistance for the indemnification of the horrors of 15 years ago has been cut."

The Sudan is an important situation for Canada to address.

But at the same time, Canada cannot be everywhere at once. Canada's foreign policy must focus on places where it has concrete interests -- be it security, economic or otherwise -- at stake. With few of those interests at play in Darfur and Canada fully engaged in Afghanistan, Canada has very few resources to devote.

"The Conservatives are in the midst of slashing the foreign affairs budget by $639-million from 2007 levels, while increasing spending on the military by $2.4-billion. If their creed is that guns trump diplomacy, it is being well-heeded."

Diplomacy remains as important as it ever was.

But Martin needs to remember that there are many things that diplomacy simply cannot accomplish. Whether he likes it or not, guns are sometimes very necessary.

"Criticism comes not only from opposition parties but from the likes of a former Conservative foreign minister, David Emerson, who cites our failures to appreciate and exploit Canada's place in the world. While other Conservative governments, particularly that of Brian Mulroney, showed a more open-minded side, today's government keeps its eyes wide shut.

On fiscal matters, it may be that our PM has become more moderate. But as for world affairs, there's clearly no need for his party's hard-liners to be rolling over in their caves."

Lawrence Martin has evidently chosen to take a very limited view to Canada's foreign policy, it's international interests, and how best to achieve them.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Montreal Simon - "Harper's Apocalyptic Foreign Policy"

The Smart Money Is On Not Making Predictions

Lawrence Martin predicts Harper will hang up his hat

In a column published in yesterday's Globe and Mail, Lawrence Martin is predicting that Stephen Harper will call it a political career in 2009.

Martin lists seven essential reasons why he believes that Harper will do this:

1. By resigning as leader, Harper would be one of few Conservative leaders -- among the few, Robert Stanfield and (naturally) John A MacDonald -- to leave the Conservative party in good condition, cementing his legacy within the party

2. With Barack Obama being elected in the United States, the global mood seems to be shifting away from conservative governance.

3. Stephen Harper lacks a final big goal to pursue. Having "tightened the screws" on government (in Tom Flanaghan's words), Harper has nothing concrete left that he needs to accomplish.

4. The spectres of Brian Mulroney, Bob Rae and RB Bennett may be reminding Harper that governing during a recession is not nearly as much fun as governing during times of prosperity.

5. Michael Ignatieff is not the "punching bag" that Paul Martin and Stephane Dion were. With the Liberals out of office, the chances of a scandal helping the Conservatives win an election are extremely remote.

6. Harper has enjoyed his share of good fortune, and ought not to expect much more.

7. Chances of Harper winning a majority government are remote.

Certainly, some of these reasons -- particularly, numbers one and four -- are in play. But Martin would be mis-reading both the current political situation and Canada's political history in order to pretend that any of the others are sufficient reason for Harper to choose to leave office.

First off, one has to remember that while Obama has certainly promoted himself as a liberal leader, he's come under significant criticism -- including scathing denunciations from Naomi Klein -- for not being liberal enough for the liking of many of those on the left wing.

While Obama certainly seems left-wing compared to George W Bush -- and honestly, who doesn't? -- being liberal in comparison does not a drastically left-wing administration make. One has to recall that Obama was elected at least partly because he was palatable to conservative Democrats.

Secondly, Harper has plenty of goals left to pursue. While his recent appointment of 18 Senators show that Harper is (unfortunately) willing to compromise on his principles in the short-term, Senate reform certainly hasn't come off the agenda.

If anything, Harper's appointments should give the opposition reason to bet behind an elected Senate. The best way to stop a future Conservative (or Liberal) government from stacking the Senate is to require that Senators be elected.

Third, the election of Stephane Dion was expected to intellectually intimidate Stephen Harper -- intimidation that many expected to effect Harper's performance. Instead, Stephane Dion performed well below expectations, and Harper strengthened his minority government.

Michael Ignatieff has many strengths that Dion doesn't have. But Ignatieff also has weaknesses that Dion didn't have. Ignatieff wasn't chosen leader by the members of his party, he became Liberal leader by default. Furthermore, Ignatieff's prior stance on the Iraq war will prove to be a soft spot that the NDP, who are always eager to improve their seat totals at the Liberals' expense -- won't shy away from exploiting.

Fourth, to try to predict who will or will not enjoy good fortune is actually rather insipid.

Last -- and certainly not least -- Martin forgets that winning a majority government is not necessary in order to be recognized as a great leader. Lester Pearson tried for his entire tenure as Liberal leader to win a majority government, and never accomplished that task.

Yet Pearson continues to be recognized as one of the best Prime Ministers Canada has ever had. While it certainly must have been helpful to have an amicable relationship with then-NDP leader Tommy Douglas, Pearson showed that it was possible to accomplish great tasks with a minority government.

Unfortunately, Harper doesn't enjoy the same luxury. Instead, Harper faces opposition leaders who have constructed the political discourse in this country on grounds so stringently ideological that they literally cannot politically afford to be seen cooperating with him, on on issues -- such as tackling violent crime -- that Canadians overwhelmingly support.

Instead, Harper has taken advantage of the opposition's distinct fear of an election in order to incrementally accomplish his fiscal goals.

But Harper isn't done yet. Anyone who honestly believes that Harper will leave without having accomplished as much as he can sorely underestimates the Prime Minister's determination.

Not that Harper couldn't decide to leave office -- he mostly certainly could.

But there's a difference between recognizing that Harper may choose to leave office and flat-out predicting that he will.

Lawrnce Martin says the "smart money says Harper exits this year". But if Canada's recent political history has shown anything, it's that the smart money is on not making predictions at all.

George Strait - The Cowboy Rides Away.
Uploaded by taduckly_

Senator Mario Dumont?

Lawrence Martin thinks former ADQ leader could claim a Red Chamber seat

With Stephen Harper set to fill 18 vacant Senate seats, a great deal of musing on who, exactly, Harper will appoint.

In today's Globe and Mail, Lawrence Martin has made an interesting suggestion. Among other such conservative luminaries as Mike Harris and Kim Campbell, Harper may appoint the recently-resigned leader of the Action Democratique du Quebec, Mario Dumont:

"The leader of Quebec's conservative party, the Action Démocratique du Québec, has just stepped down. Mr. Harper needs allies from Quebec, and Mr. Dumont knows the terrain. The PM might even elevate him to a cabinet perch."

At face value, it seems like a worthwhile move.

After Dumont's ascension to the role of Opposition Leader in Quebec's National Assembly, many observers were looking toward a Harper/Dumont tandem as a modern day incarnation of the John Diefenbaker/Maurice Duplessis collaboration that gave Diefenbaker one of the most dominant majority governments in Canadian history.

Instead, Dumont's ADQ was decimated at the polls less than a year later. By appointing him to the Senate -- and possibly even cabinet -- Harper could still salvage something out of the once-promising association with Dumont.

Of course, there's also a downside to such a move. Appointing Dumont to the Senate would make it more difficult for Dumont to ever seek a seat in Parliament -- something that Dumont's previous individual electoral successes demonstrate he is more than capable of doing.

In Dumont, Harper could find what Michael Fortier has decisively failed to deliver: a successful Quebec lieutenant.