Following Poilievre's apparent rejection of Trudeau's request for a united front against Trump, I'm reading some commentary about Poilievre and it ain't pretty:
Andrew Coyne / The Globe and Mail
Poilievre fumbles the Trump crisis: a missed opportunity to show himself as a prime minister-in-waiting... it is hard to fault the Prime Minister for trying. It is easy to say that the effort was doomed...But to many people the Prime Minister will nevertheless have looked practical, reasonable, adult, in all, prime ministerial. It is not a given that Mr. Trump’s bullying will be to Mr. Trudeau’s disadvantage, politically. Mr. Trump’s unreasonableness is well known. If Mr. Trudeau is seen to have gone the extra mile, or 1,300, to deal with him; if he then is forced to take retaliatory measures, painful as they may be, the public may conclude that he has made the best of a bad hand....If Mr. Trudeau’s appearance with Mr. Trump struck you as cringeworthy, try to imagine how Mr. Poilievre would look next to him. Would he look like – behave like – a prime minister? Would he conduct himself with the dignity and the self-confidence that the job requires, knowing when to speak up and when to stay silent, when to show his hand and when to keep his cards in reserve?Or would he look boyish, callow, too eager to impress; talk too much, give away too much, signal insecurity throughout? It’s difficult to say, of course. All one can do – all the public can do – is draw inferences from what we already know of Mr. Poilievre’s character and judgment, extrapolating from his comportment to date to predict how he will behave in future.And what we have seen of him to date has been, not a future prime minister, but a perpetual opposition critic, someone who is seemingly incapable of taking the high road, who never misses the opportunity for a partisan cheap shot, who is always, always in attack mode, no matter the issue, the setting or the situation....Mr. Poilievre has, from the day the tariff threat was issued, sounded almost hysterically harsh. At times he has seemed to take Mr. Trump’s side in the controversy, even appearing behind a podium with the slogan “Fix The Broken Border.”His rhetoric, too, has sounded vaguely … Trumpian. “The Prime Minister,” he said, “has vacated the border and turned it open to anyone who wants to come in.” He is “weak,” “weakened,” “unbearably weak.” He has “lost control of everything.” And this flourish: “With our border in chaos, our economy collapsing and everything broken, we need real, responsible leadership from a strong, smart prime minister who has the brains and backbone to put Canada first.”Canada First, you say. Yup. The phrase, which I have not heard him utter before the last week or so, has cropped up repeatedly. “We need a plan … to put Canada first on the economy and on security.” “I only care about Canada. I want to put our country first.” And so on.I’m not sure what he thinks he is accomplishing with this. Perhaps he worries that the Prime Minister will get a lift out of the crisis, a rally-round-the-flag effect often seen in public polling. Perhaps he is afraid that sections of his base, many of them vocal on social media, are inclined to side with Mr. Trump, especially on border issues, and might stray into the People’s Party fold. Maybe he is betting the public believes Canada will be treated better with someone more in sync with Mr. Trump in charge.Or maybe it’s just that that’s the only gear he’s got. Mr. Poilievre is already unusual in a political leader for being his own attack dog, a task generally assigned to talented thugs and burner MPs. Until now I had been inclined to assume this was strategy of some kind, a matter of zigging while others are zagging.But it may be that Mr. Poilievre is genuinely unable to strike any other note – that his experience and personality permits no other. ..
