Harper wrong on democracy claims: experts, grade 10 students

Well. It makes you wonder whether the guy is simply as dumb as a post or so incredibly arrogant as to be derisive enough about the public of Canada that he'd just out and out lie.

Just how valid is Harper's claim that changing governments without a new election would be undemocratic?

"It's politics, it's pure rhetoric," said Ned Franks, a retired Queen's University expert on parliamentary affairs. "Everything that's been happening is both legal and constitutional."

Other scholars are virtually unanimous in their agreement. They say Harper's populist theory of democracy is more suited to a U.S.-style presidential system, in which voters cast ballots directly for a national leader, than it is to Canadian parliamentary democracy.

"He's appealing to people who learned their civics from American television," said Henry Jacek, a political scientist at McMaster University (CTV News).

Just so. If people who desire to run this country, sing the National Anthem in back rooms with the media in the hallway like drama queens, and continually jaw about the traditions of this great country, they'd better make an effort to both read up on the subject (I posted the link a few days ago) or to stop acting disingenuously.

Later in the same article, it is recalled that

Harper himself signed a letter to then-Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004, claiming the right to form a government if Paul Martin's minority Liberals could be defeated in a confidence vote in the Commons.

So, I guess he isn't dumb; he's just contemptuous of the very people by whom he purports to have been elected. No wonder his government has lost the confidence of the House.