Is Stephen Harper's Marriage on the Rocks?

[August1991]

Andrew Cohen writes in the Ottawa Citizen:

In Ottawa, tongues have been wagging for two years about trouble in one political marriage. One of the partners is now said to have left the nest. It hasn't made the newspapers, at least not yet.

"What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" we like to say. But that really isn't so. We talk, talk, talk. "The sound of silence" is as passe as Simon and Garfunkel.

Ottawa Citizen

Then, Norman Spector writes in the G&M:

These days, being as far away from Ottawa as one can get, it was only a few months ago that I caught wind of rumours that the first couple (to borrow an Americanism) were living separately (Mr. Harper at 24 Sussex, Ms. Harper at the Chateau Laurier). And, truth be told, I learned this startling news, dear reader, in the comment boards on this website. Intrigued, I checked out the rumour with two journalists in Ottawa. From both, I got the sense that it was likely true. And that it was not being reported because it was deemed to be a personal matter.

Link

And then, the G&M pulls the column! http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/spector-vision/why-ms-harper-joined-the-pms-christmas-interview/article1849177/?service=mobile

(Too bad. The comments were a delight. All those Harper-haters reveling in repeating that even Laureen can't live with Steve.)

And then:

For the first time, Laureen Harper sat down for an exclusive television interview alongside her husband, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, opening up about everything from her interest in motorcycles to what life is like at 24 Sussex Drive.

CTV

First time. Or is this interview a Hillary/Bill thing?

----

So, do we have the rumour/political discussion point around the family dinner table during the slow news Xmas/New Year period?

Edited December 25, 2010 by August1991

[Jack Weber]

If it's true,I would'nt wish a marital breakdown on anyone,espescially at this time of year...

[Shakeyhands]

If it's true, it's too bad for the Harper family. And further, it's none of our business.

[capricorn]

I'm going to put down in writing here what we say to everyone who's been offering us advice for the last THREE YEARS about this rumour.

* Every media organization has looked into this story. Every one of our bosses wants us to be first with this story if it's true. Some organizations have gone to some lengths with their reporting resources. Problem: not a shred of evidence. Not one.

* Media folks don't conspire together. We compete. We certainly don't conspire to help the PMO and most of us aren't particularly afraid of the PMO either. The idea that we'd all meet, negotiate to keep something secret is beyond ridiculous.

* This story seems to be more in circulation in Toronto than it is in Ottawa. During some weeks over the last THREE YEARS (have I mentioned that?), usually after the Harpers have been seen together in public, we got dozens of "tips" from people who heard from someone else who heard it from someone else who absolutely knows it's true because it came from the RCMP. (Yes, it usually ends with the RCMP or a policeman.) I estimate, collectively, that the Star has been notified about this rumour at least several hundred times in the past, yes, three years. I know other media outlets in Ottawa who would make the same estimate. It is not our practice to throw tips like this in the garbage, though after the first couple of hundred, I think we're tempted.

* At one point in 2009, I'm told that the entire Liberal caucus was informed that the announcement of a separation was coming that very day, and MPs were ordered to say nothing. Of course, it was just another bit of gossip gone wild. We, uh, didn't report that either. Because *it wasn't true.* We're old-fashioned that way. If we reported every rumour that wasn't true or couldn't be proved, we wouldn't have enough room for real news. Which apparently folks out there want.

* Interestingly, there are elements of this rumour that have morphed into rehashed versions of the Trudeau marriage breakup. Some of the details are the same, which is probably evidence that people are pretty much prepared to turn this story into whatever they want it to be. The virulence of this rumour is also similar to the ones about the Mulroney marriage (also not true) and allegations that Mulroney had started drinking again in the early 1990s (also not true.) We get this stuff all the time here in Ottawa.

* I'm intrigued by how many people want to believe this story. Go to Google and tap in the name of the Prime Minister's wife. Look at the suggested searches, and how many people have done them. Staggering. You'd think that with that much interest, someone over the last few years would have been able to prove something. Nada. Nothing. One has to ask oneself why people are so hungry to believe it. I don't know the answer to that. But I do find it interesting.

http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2010/12/about-those-rumours.html

After 3 years of chasing down this rumour of a Harper breakup, nothing has been uncovered to prove it. It boggles the mind that so-called journalists would still be at it. It's sad that a family already paying the price of public service, would be put through such in-depth scrutiny. And for what?

[bloodyminded]

http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2010/12/about-those-rumours.html

After 3 years of chasing down this rumour of a Harper breakup, nothing has been uncovered to prove it. It boggles the mind that so-called journalists would still be at it. It's sad that a family already paying the price of public service, would be put through such in-depth scrutiny. And for what?

It's the same impulse--meaner, yes, but driven by the same fascination with powerful people--that drives the positive stories--the ones that Harper fans like, I should add.

However, the difference matters, too--because like I said, the impulse is one of delight in bad things happening to human beings.

Since I consider their marriage to be none of my business...I couldn't care less if their marriage breaks up. If it's a sad occasion, I wish for them it wouldn't happen; if it's happy (like my divorce was), then more power to 'em.

But saying "I don't care about it" is a respectful stance, not a callous one.

Edited December 25, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

And then, the G&M pulls the column! http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/spector-vision/why-ms-harper-joined-the-pms-christmas-interview/article1849177/?service=mobile

(Too bad. The comments were a delight. All those Harper-haters reveling in repeating that even Laureen can't live with Steve.)

Editor's Note: We have removed the text of an original posting on this blog as it fell short of The Globe and Mail's editorial standards with respect to fairness, balance and accuracy.

Sounds like Spector got his hand slapped for posting unsubstantiated gossip, and rightly so. As for the whining, sniveling mass of self-righteous lefties delighting in Harper's alleged marital problems, I can do without reading that or anything else those types have to say - about anything.

I might add this is the sort of topic which I would expect to be posted by one of our more crazed lefties, not by you August.

Edited December 25, 2010 by Argus

[bloodyminded]

Editor's Note: We have removed the text of an original posting on this blog as it fell short of The Globe and Mail's editorial standards with respect to fairness, balance and accuracy.

Sounds like Spector got his hand slapped for posting unsubstantiated gossip, and rightly so. As for the whining, sniveling mass of self-righteous lefties delighting in Harper's alleged marital problems, I can do without reading that or anything else those types have to say - about anything.

Most Liberal-supporters aren't lefties, and they're the ones who, generated by the same partisan idiocy that drives every electoral result in Quebec and Alberta, will most delight in anything perceived as negative for Harper.

Lefties see few important distinctions between the two parties.

[Argus]

Most Liberal-supporters aren't lefties, and they're the ones who, generated by the same partisan idiocy that drives every electoral result in Quebec and Alberta, will most delight in anything perceived as negative for Harper.

Lefties see few important distinctions between the two parties.

By definition, 'liberal' is left of centre, just as 'conservative' is right of centre. Now there is a wide spectrum among both breeds it's true. And not all 'liberals' are at all far left just as not all 'conservatives' are particularly far to the right.

Nevertheless, liberal = lefty is not inaccurate, even if they aren't as far to the left as the NDP types.

[bloodyminded]

By definition, 'liberal' is left of centre, just as 'conservative' is right of centre. Now there is a wide spectrum among both breeds it's true. And not all 'liberals' are at all far left just as not all 'conservatives' are particularly far to the right.

Nevertheless, liberal = lefty is not inaccurate, even if they aren't as far to the left as the NDP types.

I get your point. My point was that it's not the farther lefties who are as prone to be creaming their pants over any percieved bad news for Harper. (Some would, of course.) That would be the more die-hard Liberal supporters, who tend closer to the center.

I suppose in the end I can only speak for myself; I certainly have little in common with the Liberals, particularly with a leader who preaches neo-conservative American values of "Imperialism lite" and the efficacies of torture. And, as I said earlier, I don't have respect for those who delight in someone's personal problems; it's ugly as hell at worst, utterly banal and useless at best.

But I can imagine that some Liberal partisans would adore such stories.

[Saipan]

Is Stephen Harper's Marriage on the Rocks?

Not at all. That was actually Trudeau who spent very little time of his life as married man.

[Keepitsimple]

I've heard that Iggy has been seeing Libby Davies on the side.

[Saipan]

I've heard that Iggy has been seeing Libby Davies on the side.

Actually Bob Rae.

http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/new/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/ignatieffraea-340x381.jpg

[Topaz]

I just finished reading Spectors follow-up and he believes its true and that Laureen is living at Essex and Harper living elsewhere. I feel sad for the kids IF its true. There's no great happiness when a marriage breaks part and Harper said himself that she has all pressure with being the PM's wife. http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/harpersinteview.htm

[Saipan]

I just finished reading Spectors follow-up and he believes its true and that Laureen is living at Essex and Harper living elsewhere.

Why would people like NDP Howard Hampton spent some $128,000 a year (8 times more than Premier Mike Harris) because he has to travel "between Ottawa and home" if they live together?

[William Ashley]

Maybe its his work.

Maybe Canadians should do the right thing, or he could do the right thing take a few years off till his kids grow up.

He must have embezzled enough money by now.

If he can't manage his family, how do you expect him to manage the country.

Of course everyone has problems, and divorces arn't uncommon.

But I think that he owes more to his family than to Canada unless you count deficit spending..

Edited December 25, 2010 by William Ashley

[Saipan]

If he can't manage his family, how do you expect him to manage the country.

Howard Hampton, despite the Royal spending, is not managing the country. Fortunately.

[scribblet]

Howard Hampton, despite the Royal spending, is not managing the country. Fortunately.

Gosh, I'll say :lol:

[Shakeyhands]

Is Stephen Harper's Marriage on the Rocks?

Not at all. That was actually Trudeau who spent very little time of his life as married man.

What's with the conservative obsession with P.E.T? You do know he's been out of public life for over 26 years and has, in fact, been dead for 10 years?

Further, his marriage or lack thereof was also none of anyones business.

[bloodyminded]

What's with the conservative obsession with P.E.T? You do know he's been out of public life for over 26 years and has, in fact, been dead for 10 years?

Further, his marriage or lack thereof was also none of anyones business.

Agreed.

[Saipan]

What's with the conservative obsession with P.E.T?

What's with the liberal obsession with Stephen Harper?

Even as far back to Brian Mulroney.

[jbg]

So what's the ultimate verdict on this?

[scribblet]

That it's a no starter, it's not okay to talk about Trudeau's - err - peccadillos but it's okay to trash Harper for something we don't even know is true. This thread is really scraping the bottom of the barrel and goes to show that if they can't find something worthwhile to bitch about, they'll resort to unsubstantiated gossip.

[bloodyminded]

That it's a no starter, it's not okay to talk about Trudeau's - err - peccadillos but it's okay to trash Harper for something we don't even know is true. This thread is really scraping the bottom of the barrel and goes to show that if they can't find something worthwhile to bitch about, they'll resort to unsubstantiated gossip.

Wrong. Both Shakeyhands and I--the only posts at all contiguous to your remark--have stated unequivocally that Harper's marital issues--rumoured or not--are irrelevant, and are nobody's business.

If you don't believe me, you can go back to the beginning of the thread and read what I wrote, rather than imagining what I might think.

In short, shakeyhands and I have taken the stance that mocking and laughing and rumour-gossiping about the marriages of Stephen Harper or Pierre Trudeau is rather a sad waste of time.

None of this is difficult to understand. And yet you have difficulty understanding it?

[Saipan]

Not surprisingly coming from sources like Globe & Mail.

[August1991]

Wrong. Both Shakeyhands and I--the only posts at all contiguous to your remark--have stated unequivocally that Harper's marital issues--rumoured or not--are irrelevant, and are nobody's business.

That may be your opinion but it's neither politically sophisticated nor even legitimate.

The private life of the Prime Minister of Canada is of direct interest to Canadians, as it should be. When someone runs for "public office", they and their family give up any pretense of a private life.

The PM must take many decisions on behalf of Canadians and Canadians understandably want to know what kind of person the PM is.

We don't hire a PM like we hire a car mechanic.

Further, his marriage or lack thereof was also none of anyones business.

Whether in or out of marriage, Canadians had a clear idea of Trudeau's fundamental beliefs and basic values. Edited December 27, 2010 by August1991