14

BTC: Family is everything (VIII)


 

My favourite sentence from the Globe’s Harper profile.

“Mr. Harper also shields his family – wife Laureen, son Ben and daughter Rachel – from public scrutiny…”

Really? How?


 

BTC: Family is everything (VIII)

  1. Haha, thanks for posting this. Yes, it seems like an odd statement given the fact that he uses them as pawns in his publicity game. The greater question is… why does he think we care?

  2. Yeah. I call bullsh!t. Harper’s family is probably the most exposed of all the leaders outside Chow, who is an MP.

  3. Funny indeed.

  4. Good question Aaron.

    I have to admit to being surprised that Harper doesn’t use Laureen more; she’s active in the community and probably one of the most popular “first ladies” in Canada’s recent history.

  5. Ordinarily, we don’t see his wife or kids but since the media won’t stop with its PM eats kittens for breakfast narrative, Harper and the strategists felt it was necessary to counteract the msm’s message.

  6. Actually it explains why he is shy about kissing his children in public.

  7. that’s a good one.

    The same article also says Harper didn’t let other kids copy from him at school and one poster then says that’s good enough reason to vote for Harper. Yeah, he didn’t let others copy from him, but plagiarizing from others is another matter.

  8. Fred, if you were trying to be sarcastic then sorry, but otherwise no it doesn’t.

    Quoting Wells over on Kinsella’s blog:

    I’d have walked away from the photo op in disgust and sworn at the Tory staffers for taking us to Rachel’s school morning, but if it’s news, it’s for one reason: on Monday night campaign reporters received Harper’s itinerary for the next day. One event: a photo op. NO details. Show up behind Confed building, get accreditation, we’ll direct you to the photo op, you’ll find out what it is when you get there. This is how Harper has handled EVERY Ottawa morning event of the campaign Journalists enter this thing blind and have no other access to the leader that day.

    So your question and your anger are far better directed at the Conservative campaign than at our colleagues. And actually, Warren, all this wouldn’t even have been hard to find out, if you’d asked.
    Paul Wells | 10.01.08 – 9:38 am

  9. Question Aaron:

    As parliamentary journos I take it y’all belong to a number of professional associations…

    Whose job is it to call professionally call BS on y’all when you are so obviously inaccurate? And recognizing that analysis is always contested, what are the standards that are normally associated with doing so. I take it things like blatant plagiarism (a la Jayson Blair) are fairly obvious…. but what about the ‘softer’ stuff.

    Recognizing that Simpson is an institution with legitimate bonafides, this may not meet any standard.

    But at the same time, besides those of us who are junkies reading multiple sources a day etc., who are protecting those of us that are not from what is clearly misinformation?

  10. Maclean’s blog,

    where the response to the question as to WHEN is a good time to attack Harper, is

    ALL THE TIME!

    Go team!

  11. kody,

    Save us all the double spaced scrolling effort. Just write your name. We’ll know what you were going to say.

  12. Kory,

    once again I think you re missing the point…

    he is questioning Simpson’s assertion.

  13. God help Canada if the term “first lady” ever becomes a common expression. Well, it is common enough already, but God help us if people actually start believing the role should have any real significance (you’re on notice, ‘journalists’; stop using the term). The symbolic role when it comes to the state is already occupied by the Governor General and our wondrous Queen; we don’t need more symbolism in governance.

    I’ve given credit to Harper for not parading Laureen around more; I actually quite like her (she reminds me of Laura Dern). But I don’t need another Nancy Reagan or a Laura Bush, or God forbid, another Margaret Trudeau.

  14. I have nothing against Laureen Harper (although I find her listed as a party leader to be both hilarious and disquieting) and she looks very pleasant in photographs; however those saying the prime minister has never before used his children for publicity are forgetting their appearance on Rick Mercer Live — scene after scene in an extended feature.

    He also used them as photo opps when he first got in and dropped them off to school (the famous shaking hands photo opp). He talks about his son in his sweater vest ads.

    No, harper exploits his family as fair game for his public relations.

Sign in to comment.