Laureen Harper - the Summit's First Lady

[Keepitsimple]

I've often found it humerous to see how Stephen Harper is demonized as being opposed to "Women's Rights" and being a religious "fundamentalist". Some people accuse him of being power hungry. One can get a good insight into a man's personna by gaining an understanding of their Life Partner - in this case, Laureen Harper. She's an amazing woman - intelligent, independent, caring, a great mother, and someone who has had a large influence - if not the dominant driving force behind the development of Stephen Harper as a leader and politician.

They married in a small civil ceremony in their Calgary home in 1993 (Grey says shes not big on religion) and have two children, Benjamin, 14, and Rachel, 9.

In his book Harpers Team, Tom Flanagan, political scientist and former Harper adviser, describes how the candidate was ready to drop out of the 2002 race for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance (which had absorbed Reform), only to be challenged by a wife as strong-willed as he is, with exactly the right words: If you dont think you can do it, you should drop out now.

Harper went on to co-found and become first leader of the new Conservative Party in 2004. But, without Laureen, hed perhaps be an academic, fussing about new elbow patches for a favourite corduroy jacket.

They make one hell of a political team, says Kinsella.

Laureen has the same asymmetrical beauty as Ellen Barkin, whom she resembles, and an easy charm that masks alleged shyness. She seems at ease on stage. At a Winnipeg party convention after the 2008 election, she introduced her husband with a speech that had the crowd alternately cheering and misty-eyed. She said the PM is the man who has breakfast every morning with Rachel and her hamster . . . who babysits 12 children all by himself because my girlfriends and I want to go and see a chick flick . . . and, with the exception of all those Mounties with earpieces, Stephen is still the man I married in 1993.

Shes also proven her bona fides as a philanthropist, especially in offering her time. She climbs ladders in old clothes to decorate rooms for charity events and endlessly publicizes the Ottawa Humane Society and other rescue organizations. She takes in foster cats that sometimes dont make it, breaking hearts.

She has that philosophy, says Yvonne Reynolds. She has a social conscience, community conscience. She is the real deal. She likes to help and she doesnt ask for credit. She pauses before adding: Im honoured to say shes a very dear friend.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/825693--g20-laureen-harper-the-summit-s-first-lady

Edited June 19, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[kimmy]

Never underestimate a prairie farm girl.

-k

[g_bambino]

"Officially speaking, that isn't even her role: in Canada, the role of first lady is performed by the Governor General." Oh, really?

Moronic, all around. Niether the governor general nor the prime minister's wife is a "first lady"; the term is purely republican and reserved for wives of presidents.

[gmmr]

Edited June 19, 2010 by g_bambino

[Topaz]

I've only sen her a few times in the press. Once on her motorcycle, once milking a cow and the rest of the times, when she goes with Harper on oversea trips. If she is taking credit for whay kind of PM or person Harper is, then we know who to blame. She also is very good on a computer and goes on many of the popular forums, chatrooms etc. She could be a member here, could we pick her out if she was?

[August1991]

I've often found it humerous to see how Stephen Harper is demonized as being opposed to "Women's Rights" and being a religious "fundamentalist".

Who cares what Stephen Harper's wife is - Stephen Harper is a spendthrift. Harper and Flaherty are spending almost $3 million each minute on these two summits.

If the Toronto Star is lauding Harper's wife, it's a set-up - and rightfully so.

The Conservative Party has lost my bi-annual contribution and I am now considering whether I should vote BQ, Liberal or not at all.

I did not contribute to and vote for a political party that spends taxpayers' money in this way. There are more important priorities including: equipment in Afghanistan, hospitals in Canada. Each dollar spent on these summits in Toronto is a dollar not spent by individual Canadians, or spent on other government works.

So, who cares about Laureen Harper and her blonde WASP Lutheran prairie pragmatic populist roots. She's a shill.

Edited June 19, 2010 by August1991

[August1991]

I should correct that stat above: a 3 day summit amounts to 72 hours or 4320 minutes or 259,200 seconds.

$1 billion for 72 hours amounts to about $13 million every hour.

$1 billion for 4320 minutes means about $230,000 every minute.

$1 billion for 259,200 seconds means about $3500 every second.

(Do I have these numbers right?)

----

If you paid $3,500 in federal tax last year, I hope you enjoyed your second of the summit.

I have often thought that governments should send out letters to taxpayers with a clear statement of what their money was used for. To get back to the point of this thread, maybe the wife of the PM could sign off on such letters. Laureen Harper seems ideal for such a role; according to the Toronto Star, and heck maybe even in her own imagination, Laureen has the prairie populist touch.

"Dear Taxpayer,

My husband and I enjoyed the use of your money in the limo for one second. We represented Canada well.

Signed, Laureen Harper."

Edited June 19, 2010 by August1991

[Argus]

Who cares what Stephen Harper's wife is - Stephen Harper is a spendthrift. Harper and Flaherty are spending almost $3 million each minute on these two summits.

You are becoming obsessed and starting to sound more than a little demented.

I'm not happy about the expense either. I think it shocked everyone, including the Conservatives. I doubt that the costs are that much higher than preceding summits, however. Most likely we'll find they've just done the accounting differently. In any event, there is no likelihood that the Liberals would have done it any cheaper.

Personally I think any future summits should be held aboard a cruise ship rented for the purpose. Some of them even heave helipads so no one needs to know where it's actually sailing. You can rent these things for a million bucks or so for a week and don't have to worry about security. Give it a couple of frigates as escort and your entire cost should be under ten million.

[August1991]

You are becoming obsessed and starting to sound more than a little demented.

Argus, you're right.

But this really, in English-Canadian fashion, pisses me off. What the F*** does Laureen Harper have to do with this summit and Carla Bruni?

In very simple direct terms, I didn't fork over several thousand tax dollars last year for such nonsense. I'm now looking for another place to put my X, and to make my contribution. It is certain that Irving Gerstein and his newsletters will get no response, no cheque and more likely, an ugly rejoinder.

I'm not happy about the expense either. I think it shocked everyone, including the Conservatives. I doubt that the costs are that much higher than preceding summits, however.

No, this one is way over the top.

The bureaucrats got control of the affair and that's the angle that frightens me. Harper and Flaherty are amateurs. They defer to the security bureaucrats.

---

With this summit spending orgy, Stephen Harper has certainly lost my party contribution and more sadly, he has probably lost my Conservative vote. I am still waiting for a politician who will control government spending. I thought that Harper, a WASP, would take care of public money. I wuz wrong.

So, I will change my vote each election until a politician spends tax dollars wisely. It's the only way I have to punish the elected politicians. Call it a "tit-for-tat" voting strategy.

Edited June 19, 2010 by August1991

[Argus]

No, this one is way over the top.

The bureaucrats got control of the affair and that's the angle that frightens me. Harper and Flaherty are amateurs. They defer to the security bureaucrats.

Everybody defers to the security bureacrats. It's death to your political career if you overrule them and something bad happens.

The AG and the PBO are both investigating the costs. I'm willing to wait and see what they say with regard to the necessity of the costs.

[August1991]

Everybody defers to the security bureacrats. It's death to your political career if you overrule them and something bad happens.

The AG and the PBO are both investigating the costs. I'm willing to wait and see what they say with regard to the necessity of the costs.

Whatever.

Gerstein will get no money from me - more likely, his letter requests will get an ugly response along the lines of "If Stephen Harper can spend $1 billion of my tax dollars on a party in Toronto, then I have no money to contribute to Harper's political party... "

But as I say, my basic recourse as a voter is to vote against. Thank God, we still live in a democracy.

Edited June 20, 2010 by August1991

[scribblet]

I've only sen her a few times in the press. Once on her motorcycle, once milking a cow and the rest of the times, when she goes with Harper on oversea trips. If she is taking credit for whay kind of PM or person Harper is, then we know who to blame. She also is very good on a computer and goes on many of the popular forums, chatrooms etc. She could be a member here, could we pick her out if she was?

She's not 'taking credit' for anything, this is an op ed piece in the Star, so I wouldn't impute anything to the piece that wasn't there.

How do you know she's in chat rooms and on forums?

[YEGmann]

The AG and the PBO are both investigating the costs. I'm willing to wait and see what they say with regard to the necessity of the costs.

That's you. Because you have brain.

Liberal hecks have rudiments of brain too. That is why they squeeze their political points now. They suspect that the probability of the AG to accept the cost is high.

The best example is the "fake lake for 2 (or whatever) million dollars". In their race to embarass the government they neglect the truth.

[August1991]

The best example is the "fake lake for 2 (or whatever) million dollars". In their race to embarass the government they neglect the truth.

Even $2 for a fake lake is $2 too many.

YEGmann, I voted for a fiscal conservative government. That is, I want my polticians to spend my tax money wisely.

I will keep changing my vote (to anyone else) until I get a politician who does this. Stephen Harper has probably lost my vote because of these $1 billion summits in Ontario. I did not vote for this kind of (discretionary) government spending.

As a voter, I will punish politicians until one spends money wisely.

Edited June 20, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

Liberal hecks have rudiments of brain too. That is why they squeeze their political points now. They suspect that the probability of the AG to accept the cost is high.

Yes, that's why I've been probably the biggest defender on here of the costs.........

[Argus]

Even $2 for a fake lake is $2 too many.

YEGmann, I voted for a fiscal conservative government. That is, I want my polticians to spend my tax money wisely.

Unfortunately, the majority of your neighbours voted for parties which promised to spend, spend, spend. And until there is a solid, safe majority you're going to see ongoing bread and circuses spending, regardless of which party is in power.

PS I was recently quoted a $10,000 price to build a 12 x 12 pond in my back yard. Id be happy to pay $2 for a fake lake. :-P

[Topaz]

She's not 'taking credit' for anything, this is an op ed piece in the Star, so I wouldn't impute anything to the piece that wasn't there.

How do you know she's in chat rooms and on forums?

Go back and link on the link for the article, its says she knows a computer well and she knows the social sites as facebook, twitter, the blogs etc.

[Shwa]

You are becoming obsessed and starting to sound more than a little demented.

Personally I think any future summits should be held aboard a cruise ship rented for the purpose. Some of them even heave helipads so no one needs to know where it's actually sailing. You can rent these things for a million bucks or so for a week and don't have to worry about security. Give it a couple of frigates as escort and your entire cost should be under ten million.

Why a cruise ship when you have all those secret underground war rooms looking to make a few bucks on the rental? I am sure there are plenty of Soviet-era nuke proof underground bunkers available for cheap.

They could deck it out like the war room on Dr. Strangelove and have a retro Cold War dress day. It would be fun for everyone.

[August1991]

PS I was recently quoted a $10,000 price to build a 12 x 12 pond in my back yard. Id be happy to pay $2 for a fake lake. :-P

I know that you're right Argus, but this whole summit spending spree is [put in expletive here].

I don't want Harper to take my vote for granted and I would feel better if Harper, somehow, would acknowledge that the spending was out of control and will not happen again.

I certainly don't want to read stupid articles about how Laureen Harper will spend quality time in Huntsville with Joachim Sauer and Carla Bruni.

[ToadBrother]

I know that you're right Argus, but this whole summit spending spree is [put in expletive here].

I don't want Harper to take my vote for granted and I would feel better if Harper, somehow, would acknowledge that the spending was out of control and will not happen again.

I certainly don't want to read stupid articles about how Laureen Harper will spend quality time in Huntsville with Joachim Sauer and Carla Bruni.

The Conservatives don't have a lot to brag about, so I guess bring in the Fearless Leader's wife looks like an improvement.

[Molly]

PFFT! If she's the better half, why didn't she run for office?

I don't get the fascination with celebrity spouses. If you are looking for a hero, why not look for someone who has actually done something, and not just become the #1 cling-on?

[april1987]

Good for her, and good for him too I suppose. But I still dont understand why you start your post with these sentences:

I've often found it humerous to see how Stephen Harper is demonized as being opposed to "Women's Rights" and being a religious "fundamentalist". Some people accuse him of being power hungry.

So stephen harper is a champion of women's rights because his wife appears to be a lady of strong character? I also fail to see how this affects his church of choice.

[bloodyminded]

PFFT! If she's the better half, why didn't she run for office?

I don't get the fascination with celebrity spouses.

People often (though not always) adore leaders' wives. What people want is the humanizing effect that domesticity, little quirks and so on can have (ie "Harper babysits a dozen kids on chick night"); at the same time, they want to respect and admire these spouses.

Personally, i agree with you. This is all pretty useless, gossip-magazine-style stuff (the friendly variety), and is, in a real sense, a kind of political propaganda.

I have no doubt that Mrs. Harper is a fine person.

So what?

Contrary to the OP's claim, this does not reflect on Harper's leadership.

Edited June 22, 2010 by bloodyminded

[dre]

People often (though not always) adore leaders' wives. What people want is the humanizing effect that domesticity, little quirks and so on can have (ie "Harper babysits a dozen kids on chick night"); at the same time, they want to respect and admire these spouses.

Personally, i agree with you. This is all pretty useless, gossip-magazine-style stuff (the friendly variety), and is, in a real sense, a kind of political propaganda.

I have no doubt that Mrs. Harper is a fine person.

So what?

Contrary to the OP's claim, this does not reflect on Harper's leadership.

Contrary to the OP's claim, this does not reflect on Harper's leadership.

I dunno! You could call it his first big staffing decision

[bloodyminded]

I dunno! You could call it his first big staffing decision

Sure, why not?

[scorpio]

I doubt that the costs are that much higher than preceding summits, however.

Here ya go: link