Despite so much evidence to the contrary, Stephen Harper is sticking to his story that he never tried to become prime minister in 2004, in a coalition that included the full support of the Bloc.
The more he denies this the less credible he sounds. And the media doesn't appear willing to give up the story until he comes clean.
From the Chronicle-Herald: Stop Harper-ventilating
We’re talking about the "reckless, unprincipled coalition" that Mr. Harper has invented as his political opponent and chief whipping boy in the 2011 campaign and the underlying attitude that it’s somehow illegitimate for other parties to work together without him in a minority Parliament if he isn’t able to find a way to govern co-operatively with any of them. "I don’t choose to work with other parties. So reward me with a majority. Or we’re doomed." The sophistry of the prime minister’s coalition hyperventilating really amounts to nothing more than this.And from the Winnipeg Free Press: Deception, thy name is Harper
Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harper's former campaign manager and chief of staff, has confirmed the prime minister himself had a plan to form what he now demonizes as "a coalition of losers" and take power without an election in September 2004. Harper's "co-opposition accord" was "a perfectly legitimate exercise" to explore whether there was "common ground for the Conservatives to undertake a minority government," Flanagan told The National Post Monday.He's sounding like a broken record and the more he lies the harder it will be for him to explain.
Now that "the Conservative-socialist-separatist coalition" is on the official record, it should haunt the prime minister. It exposes to Canadians the man's disquieting traits: his intellectual dishonesty, his vindictiveness, his preference for personal destruction and the low blow and his disrespect for British parliamentary democracy whose tenets he uses when it suits him and abuses or tosses out when it doesn't.
He's asking Canadians to trust him with a majority, but how can we trust him with that when we can't trust him at all?