Angry in the Great White North

Stephen Harper is not Michael Ignatieff.  Michael Ignatieff is a coward, who will quickly spin 180 degrees after making a statement, and deny what he had just said at the frightening prospect of losing support from someone...anyone.

Michael Ignatieff has done it on issues like asbestos, carbon taxes, Israeli military actions, taxes, and more.  Saying one thing, then saying the opposite, sometimes within hours.

Stephen Harper stands by what he says, at least as much as most regular people do, and probably more than most.  He's certainly not twitchy like Michael Ignatieff.  Back when the markets were tanking, Stephen Harper said something that a lot of people thought was insensitive:

I think there's probably a lot of great buying opportunities emerging in the stock market as a consequence of all this panic.

I guess it was a bit insensitive given that many people were worried about their jobs and not about playing the stock markets.  But Stephen Harper was speaking an essential truth.  When people panic, they make rash decisions, and level-headed people can profit from that.

If there was any insensitivity, it might have been that Stephen Harper was not playing up the doom and gloom scenarios you heard from the Liberals and the NDP.  But then don't we want level-headed leadership?  Even if it highlights our own short-sighted panicky behaviour?

No, scratch that.  We want level-headed leadership precisely because it highlights our own short-sighted panicky behaviour.  It's like a slash of cold water.  Not pleasant, but sometimes it's required.

Level-headed Stephen Harper is certainly much better than bobble-headed Michael Ignatieff.

So now I come to where I'm going to get in trouble, and point out that Glen MacGregor's HarperDex doesn't offend me.  Glen MacGregor is a reporter for the Ottawa Citizen and allegedly no friend of the Conservatives.  I don't know about that.  We've spoken.  He seems ok.

So what is it about this site that is so wrong?  Here is the text of the site:

During an interview with Peter Mansbridge on the CBC on Oct. 7, 2008, prime minister Stephen Harper suggested that the sudden drop in equity prices represented a good chance for Canadians to buy stock at a discount.

On the morning after the interview, the S&P/TSX index opened at 9,520. An investment of $1,000 in an TSX index fund that morning would now be worth...

And then we find out that the $1000 invested would be worth $1003.07.  A profit is a profit.  It suggests a shrewd investor would have done much better.

Nowhere does MacGregor criticize Stephen Harper for having said what he said.  MacGregor simply puts Stephen Harper's comment to a quantitative test, and today, Stephen Harper passes.

If MacGregor was intending to hurt the prime minister, why not torque the text, or take down the site if it shows a profit.

Indeed, if Glen MacGregor wanted to criticize Stephen Harper for that comment, there would be no website.  He'd have waited until the markets were low, written a single article recalling that comment, and concluded on how that particular day, the investor taking Stephen Harper's advice would be taking a bath.

Instead, we have this example of continuous journalism.  Day by day, Stephen Harper's comment is put to the test, and it seems to be holding up well.  I expect in six months, the number will be very positive.

So I'm not sure this counts as an anti-Harper mini-site, or if we can assume that Glen MacGregor was hoping to see a negative balance.  I don't see Glen MacGregor being anything but a balanced reporter, doing some very clever online reporting.

Stephen Harper said it was a good buying opportunity.  I think he was right.  It's looking like he was right.