LETTER – Guilt by association with the orange man is a stretch

Re: CHARBONNEAU –  Tory support has been shaken by Trumpgate

I have never voted conservative and the “orange man.” approach to Canada clashes with my broader Canadian ideal. If you want peace, you can’t fund a war, and if this is a start for unity of humanity from the “orange man” or Poilievre or Carney this is something worthy to support.

You frame Poilievre’s unpopularity as his Achilles’ heel, by calling his style “sophomoric” with “stupid rhyming slogans” and “cheap shots” feels more like a personal dig than a substantive critique on issues. What’s the alternative? Yes, I like Carney but you don’t say he is inherently better for tackling sovereignty issues especially when Trump’s bombast arguably thrives on the opposite.

Here’s where the article muddies the well you don’t prove Poilievre is pro-Trump, just that his fans might be. Guilt by association is a stretch unless you’ve got Poilievre on record cozying up to the “orange man.”

Then there’s the Freedom Convoy detour. You imply they’re tethered to this crowd, over 50% support, you say, but don’t connect the dots to policy or strategy. It’s more a roast of a subset of supporters than a takedown of the party’s core issues.

Dismissing the convoy as a “wild party” skips over the deeper anger driving it, which, fair or not, resonated with a chunk of the population.

The well’s poisoned when you linger on their flaws (real or perceived) instead of dissecting their readiness for a Trump-shaped challenge. What’s Poilievre’s plan for U.S. relations? How’s Carney’s seriousness any better? You hint at a seismic shift but don’t nail down why the Conservatives are doomed beyond their loudmouth leader and rowdy fans. It’s a fun read, but it’s more heat than light.

WALTER TRKLA