It's official

The pissing match between the National Post and Stephen Harper has reached a new height.

Many of you will remember when the National Post accused Harper of not being a real conservative shortly after the last election. The paper accused the Tory leader of being too willing to support Liberal initiatives on various issues - including provincial transfers. (Which incidentally is an issue that I think Harper knows more about than the rest of the country combined.) Harper, being the short tempered fellow that he is, wrote an op-ed to the Post claiming that he had had a conversation with President Bush about how Canada lacks a conservative paper. (Isn't it great, the most conservative paper in Canada and the most conservative leader in Canada accusing one another of not being conservative enough.)

Frankly, they are both right on this issue. Today's Post is not the 1998-1999 Post, and Harper is not the 2001-2002 Harper - but that is an issue for another day. Right now, I want to talk about how silly this whole battle of personalities is.

It is no secret that the Post's editorial board dislikes Harper's personality. He wasn't nice to them when they met and did not show them the required respect. On the other hand, it's fairly obvious that Harper dislikes everyone in the media. He makes no secret about it. This is why, during the last election campaign, his wife spent a good deal of time making friends with the media. (So much so that I hear a few reporters wish she were running instead of Harper.) But shouldn't grown adults be able to get over personality differences for the sake of the cause? After all, if Stockwell Day can get over personality differences and serve in the Harper caucus, why can't the Post get over the personality stuff and just do what it used to do so well back in the late 90's?

I believe that the problem is that the Post's editorial board, unlike any other paper, is filled with people who actually know about politics. These are not reporters who became pundits, they are hacks and ideologues who became reporters.

Let's take a look:
Adam Radwanski: Former hack in the Liberal Party of Ontario. Founder of Pundit Mag.
Lorne Gunter: Former Member of Saskatchewan Liberal Party.
John Turley-Ewart who one would believe is a supporter of the Liberal Party in Scarborough.
Adam Daifallah (no longer at the Post): Former President of Ontario PC Party's campus wing.

Anyway, it has long been my belief that the Post editorial board has more "hack knowledge" than either The Star or the Globe and Mail. So it would make sense that they would look not only at principles and ideas, but at campaign management and personalities.

This is usually a good thing. NP’s Ed.Board can give good insight into what a political party should do. (For example: their consistent urging of the CPC to stay true to its base is bang on with the electoral realities of Canada.) In Harper's case, however, the Post’s experience does not help it.

The Post Ed.Board would believe that traditional ways of winning elections are the only ones. (If it hasn’t been tried in the past, it won’t work.) The NP fails to realize that Harper is not trying to win the old fashioned way. He isn't the traditional Tory leader who happens to be more right wing than the past one. He is genuinely a new brand of politician. He refuses to spin. He refused to fib, even a little bit. Most importantly, he refused to fake friendships.

I'm not sure if Harper's is the best way to win. But I know that he will fail for sure if he tries to become a more conservative version of Mulroney. It's just not in him and people would see right through that.