Globe pulls Norman Spector's Dec 24 blog post
Quite a few unanswered questions here - Why did Spector decide to run now with this long-standing but unsubstantiated rumour? And without a solid story, what was he thinking? How did it get posted? and how did it get taken down again?
And will this do more damage to Tories or (more likely) Liberals?
Why it should it damage either party? It's apparently just BS.
Stories like this (especially when they are about things that aren't really important) tend to elicit more sympathy than condemnation.
Also, looks like someone edited Spector's wikipedia listing:
Norman Spector (born March 6, 1949) is a Canadian propagandist, spinster, fact-changer, and newspaper publisher.
I think harpers marriage, if it was to happen, would once again tarnish the brand. I had a thread sometime ago about it, but tried to not say to much because of slander and libels laws. So Hypothetical. Conservative PM (whoever it is) would have a hard time preaching family values when they can't keep their marriage together. Now for the vast majority of us on the left it matters not a whit to us. Relationships fail, its pretty common and has little to do with policy-though it could effect your decision making skills from the stress of it.
However some on the right whould see this as a betrayal of their beliefs in the party. Like the NDP dumping a gay candidate for being gay. Its a big core value for conservatives. That being said it means nothing. Where are these voters going to go? As much as they may dislike a lot of what harper has done(and there is lots for conservatives to be upset about) they will not vote liberal, and they just can't see themselves sitting out an election-because the evil socialist horde would take over and we would all live in the same houses taught the same things while driving the same cars and shopping for the grey packaged food substitutes at the food distribution ministry. Or at least thats what my right wing friends tell me.
I have serious doubts about Spector. Some time ago, on Don Newman's show, I watched him assert that the CCF had voted against Canada's entry into the second World War. So I phoned their telephone line, and left a message saying this was false, e-mailed them saying the same, and heard nothing, natch. Next step was to e-mail Spector. Do you think he would admit he was wrong? Not a chance. He danced around without admitting any error.
BTW when the Liberals moved the motion for Canada's entry into the war, J.S. Woodsworth, a pacifist, made a speech denouncing war, and resigned as party leader. Coldwell replaced him as leader, and the CCF voted in favour of the motion. It was a famous moment in parliamentary history. But not famous enough for Spector to acknowledge.
All we ask from journalists is accuracy. If Harper lies we want it reported -- accurately. If somebody can also show Harper was inaccurate to say what he says, so much the better. Spector has reported a rumour, an urban legend. By misleading the public in this way, on something for which he has no evidence, he has lost his journalistic credibility. It is serious enough that he should also lose his Globe space.
No, we can't have anyone tarnishing the sterling reputation of the fourth estate.
Unfortunately not all unsubstantiated stories (never mind BLOG postings) get immediately yanked and condemned, followed by a very public pile-on from the national punditry.
Like most people I could care less about the state of Harper's marriage. However, if, as Spector suggests, there has been a deliberate attempt to cover this up by Harper and his inner circle - that speaks to a massive hypocrisy and pursuit of power at all costs mentality THAT is newsworthy. So while I think this could easily slide the wrong direction, there IS a news story in this, if of course the persistent rumours are true. And I have to think that if Spector went public on this he must have some indication that something is there.
BTW when the Liberals moved the motion for Canada's entry into the war, J.S. Woodsworth, a pacifist, made a speech denouncing war, and resigned as party leader. Coldwell replaced him as leader, and the CCF voted in favour of the motion. It was a famous moment in parliamentary history. But not famous enough for Spector to acknowledge.
Speaking of error . . .
The CCF Caucus and the CCF National Council had a joint meeting September 9, 1939 to decide how the party would vote on September 10 on a resolution declaring war of Germany and her allies. While the party had been fairly consistently skeptical about the war, there was a significant bloc who felt the dangers of fascism justified a military response, as well as pragmatists who believed that opposing the war would damage the party's prospects. The Saskatchewan Section of the CCF under George Williams threatened to withdraw from the party if the CCF did not support the war.
At the meeting, it was decided the CCF would support the declaration of war. J.S. indicated he could not do so, tendered his resignation as party leader and offered to leave the caucus. The meeting REJECTED his resignation. It was decided that M.J. Coldwell would speak in the first assigned CCF spot (normally reserved for the leader) to state the party's official position. The second CCF spot was given to Woodsworth.
Woodworth continued to be the official leader of the party - although due to his failing health, more and more of the responsibilities were being assumed by Coldwell (who had replaced Woodsworth as national CHAIRMAN of the party in 1938 a year prior to the war debate when chairmanship was separated from the parliamentary leadership). Woodsworth continued as leader of the CCF until his death in March of 1942.
This is not the first time I have seen this incorrect history repeated on Babble (nor is this the first Babbler I've seen make this mistake). The historical record is crystal clear, and J.S. Woodsworth led the CCF in the 1940 election, where the party ran 94 candidates and won 8 seats.
You can see Woodsworth's offical parliamentary biography here, which indicates that he was Leader of the CCF until the day of his death,
a clash of hubris it would seem. Thanks for that Malcolm
Harper's marriage has been on the rocks for years. Sue me.
Just thought I should mention that neither Steve nor Laureen has asked me on a date for over six months now. You can draw your own conclusions.
I guess you're not RCMP. ;)
Care to wager?
babble is a home for gossip about politicians' private lives now? Nice.
What do you call your innuendo about the IDF? Let sleeping dogs lie in solidarity.
Sorry a-Q, I'm not a hockey fan, or a conspiracy theorist.
*grin*
Frankly, I find the swift and sharp media reaction to this to be most telling. That's why I posted it under media.
As for the boundaries between public and private, I think those lines get a bit blurred in the case of a public figure who makes an issue of his personal values, qualities and beliefs, and makes policy that rewards or punishes others for their personal qualities and choices.
When an issue like this involves family and children it is definitely icky; I agree.
But who knows where the line is? Let me go and take a fresh look at some old attack ads and get back to you.
(edit)
Or maybe I'll call up my good friend Helena Guergis and see what she has to say about this baseless libel.
What do you call your innuendo about the IDF?
A joke, to all but the oblivious.
MY point is We on the left don't care AQB, but it does have political implications for Harpers voting base. That is the Irony. If we found out that Jack and Olivia were having troubles it wouldn't be a big issue because we all know marriages are a lot of work and yes they do fail. I don't think it would effect the NDP very much. But with their hollier than thou preaching, the Harpercons are going to have a hard time with that. Look at how they have gone back one everything at this point. Can't win on LGR alone.
What does harper campaign on this time? I mean he got away with no platform last time around but its hard to see what he can do to pursaude voters to do it again. He can't stand on fiscal pridence, social conservatism. The only things they can do is point at the money spend in the stimulas package and that is a double edge sword. One week they say its why they are in debt and its all the oppositions fault, they next they are proclaiming its the reason we aren't as bad off as everyone else(well maybe 6 countries but thats the same right, right). Hopefully that election comes out the same time sheila fraser(hopefully an honest audit) puts out the report on teh stimulas spending and its proven what shinanigans are going on.
Teflon steve has burnt his pan too many times and its starting to flake off. All the eggs are starting to stick and the hens are coming home to roost. Sorry all the fowl I ate over the holidays has me stuck in metaphors.
Thanks correcting me Malcolm. Coldwell spoke in the place of the leader (he had previously been named party chairman) but did not become leader until Woodsworth died. The CCF supported the war, Woodsworth spoke against it, and retained the leadership. Could it happen today? Say around the gun registry or another issue?
Could it happen today?
Interesting question. I'm not sure we are ever likely to have a leader so highly regarded in the party (with no disrespect to Jack or any future leader). At the creation of the CCF, J.S. was effectively the inevitable leader, and I don't believe there had been any serious challenge. Further, the point on which he was disagreeing was a deeply respected position - and indeed, had been the assumed default position of the party, probably from its inception. Plus, the fact that J.S. was the only MP intending to dissent made it easy to avoid a larger impression of division.
Notionally, it could happen today - if you had all the same conditions align (a revered leader, a respected position, a limited bloc). While each of these is possible, they are all unlikely. The confluence of all three would approach the impossible - but without actually being impossible.
A revered leader? I can only imagine this happening in the midst of a crisis generating personal sympathy for the leader - ie, if Jack announced a negative prognosis re: his prostate cancer.
A respected position? I can't quite imagine many issues where the caucus and council would be determined to move in a direction the leader simply could not support.
A limited dissent? Were the first two conditions met, I can't imagine a situation where the leader's dissent wouldn't carry at least some of caucus with him.
Could it happen today? Maybe, but probably not.
I agree that Harper's marital status is not of interest to anyone on the (even modestly) left. Or anyone who actually thinks about their own marriage.
However, Harper has defined the type of Conservatism he preaches as based on the three f's: freedom, family and faith.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/603310
Now, it's hard to believe any sentient being can still believe anything Harper says. But let's suspend disbelief and suggest that some Canadians might. That would make Harper's marital status of interest.
I don't really care about that angle of the story - but I sure would like to read some analysis of Harper's three f conservatism.
quote: ''Norm Spector, propagandist, spinster, fact-changer''
having followed Normo's commentary quite closely for a time, I would add "revisionist", "fear-monger, and "Likudnik", probably, to that list of descriptors -- and more besides