Debunking a letter regarding Harper and the senate

Here's a letter published to the Toronto Star regarding Harper's recent 5 senate appointees.  My comments are below each paragraph.

Harper appoints five new senators, Sept. 8 - Edward Carson, Toronto

Critics are correct in pointing out the contradiction as Stephen Harper repeatedly appoints a growing majority of right-thinking Conservatives to the Senate, as opposed to launching free elections as he’s often promised, but they miss the more salient point of his actions as well as the longer-term impact they will have on democracy in Canada.

How do you know they are "right-thinking"?  As well, Harper or the government alone cannot launch Senate-elections.  This is up to the provinces.  This letter doesn't make any mention of that.  "longer-term impact they will have on democracy in Canada"... oh and the Liberals who dominated the Senate for 15 years?  I guess they had no impact.  Liberals have never appointed an elected senator.  Conservatives have. So who's impacting democracy more?

In the short term, Harper represents many things, threatening and supportive, to left-and-right-leaning political groups in this country, but he’s nobody’s fool. Harper’s game is the long one. He’s well aware that, as history teaches us all, sooner or later the political and electoral winds will swing away from the ideological right and a new progressive political agenda will begin to take hold, some of which will involve undoing much of the divisive political, social, health, and environmental legislative damage presently being inflicted on Canadians.

You're obviously bias.  I don't wish to point out the zillions of things I thought the Liberals did that were divisive politically, socially, health-wise, and environmentally.  The list is way too long.

Not long after Harper has gone from power, Parliament will once again move back toward a more truly constitutional centre where it is meant to act as an enterprise of co-operation, as well as a place of sober second thought, endeavoring to link and better balance both corporate and the public interests.

Really?  What constitutes "a more truly constitutional centre"?  Oh, must be Liberal.  But what was "the centre" many years ago?   It can be easily argued that the Conservatives of today are at the centre and Laurier's, King's, and St. Laurent's Liberals were to the right of Harper.

But waiting to block much of this will not be the will of Parliament and the people, but the will of a right-wing, unelected Senate ideologically predisposed to protecting and maintaining the legislative agendas from the Harper years.

So what do you suggest then?  I recall the Senate being left-wing, unelected, ideologically predisposed to protecting and maintaining the legislative agendas form the Chretien/Martin years.  AT LEAST HARPER IS TRYING TO REFORM THE SENATE.  No other Prime Minister in history has made the inroads on this issue, which completely invalidates your points altogether.

We only have to look south of our border to see the enormous harm and mischief resulting when a country’s political arms are divided, one being driven by unthinking ideology rather than by facts, common sense, and, ultimately, the decisive will of the people.

But south of our border there exists an elected AND equal senate... you know, the decisive will of the people?  If anyone here is not driven by facts and common sense, it's you and your unthinking liberal ideology.

Liberalism is dying in Canada and around the world because the left is seeing some merits of the right and moving toward the centre and conversely, the right is seeing merits of the left and moving to the centre, squishing out the muddy middle of the Liberals, who were masters at seeing merits of both the left and right and balancing them out somehow.  That's what made the Liberal Party of Canada the most successful party in the democratic world.

Now, as they try to rebrand themselves with dauphins, they will continue to fail at what they were once good at--policy and vision, not platitudes and planks.

To the author of that letter, your point is moot.