Harper and the Media

Andrew Coyne writes about Harper's positive media coverage. As I wrote earlier today, Harper seems to be getting good coverage and has the media portraying the election the way he wants. Andrew Coyne offers the following theory for this:

it's because of the two leading candidates, he's the more known quantity -- to the media, that is, not the public. He's got a track record, he's said a bunch of things, and the press figure they know him: smart, libertarian, ideologue, bit of a chip on his shoulder but fairly normal otherwise. So not only is everything the Liberals throw at him being considered in that light, but so are his own sometimes wacko statements: they just bounce off him.

Another odd thing: of the two, Harper has probably been the more shamelessly opportunistic. Pharmacare? Friend of bilingualism? And that "no GST on gas when the price goes over 85 cents" thing: what the hell was that? Yet no one believes this shows he's slipped his moorings. If anything, people give him credit for learning how to play the political game. I can feel myself doing this. Even as he tacks about this way and that, I trust him. That's the payoff for establishing a clear ideological identity: your base are willing to give you a lot more room to manoeuvre. Whereas after 14 years in public life, it's still hard to say what Martin stands for.

Everything Martin says, in consequence, is being analyzed in purely tactical terms. The filter is "Liberals attempt to demonize Harper, wrap themselves in the flag."

Oh, and at the end of the post, Coyne provides another good line for Harper to use (as if he didn't have enough good lines already):

"[Paul Martin] promised not to raise taxes? You mean like his good friend Dalton McGuinty?