Is Stephen Harper's Marriage on the Rocks?

[bloodyminded]

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

August, your idea of "politically sophisticated" is doubtless not mine.

[Jack Weber]

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.

Who's trashing the Prime Minister's potential marital breakdown???

Or is this more of your faux outrage at some perceived outrage?

[scribblet]

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.

Whether in or out of marriage, Canadians had a clear idea of Trudeau's fundamental beliefs and basic values.

Well, I disagree, they do not give up ALL pretense of a private life, they are entitled to privacy at least in their bedrooms and marriage. We don't 'hire' a PM either, you know how they get there. It is disturbing that some people who usually are pretty good (including Specter) would stoop so low as to muckrake like that.

Apart from that, many marriages fall apart for various reasons, it doesn't make them lesser beings, I wouldn't wish that and divorce on anyone.

[August1991]

August, your idea of "politically sophisticated" is doubtless not mine.

If Stephen Harper's marriage is truly in trouble, you can be certain that it will become a subject of conversation among Canadians and it will play in the future election. To pretend ottherwise is not "politically sophisticated".

IMHO, the big question is "if". Spector stands by his story and Cohen only refers to a couple. The general consensus of people I know (and my own opinion too) is that the rumour is baseless.

[Shakeyhands]

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.

Who is resorting to unsubstantiated gossip here? It was a CPC booster that started the thread, and other than a tongue in cheek post by William Ashley it's the CPC boosters that are trying to make something out of it, even going so far as to bring Trudeau, Ignatieff and Rae in to it. Talk about partisan reaching.

Any of the non booster club posters are saying it's too bad and none of our business.

Try again.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Shakeyhands

[Shakeyhands]

What's with the liberal obsession with Stephen Harper?

Even as far back to Brian Mulroney.

I'm not even sure what this means. The only consolation is however, is that I'm sure you don't either.

[Shakeyhands]

So what's the ultimate verdict on this?

I'm sure the majority would say, thats too bad for them if true, and none of our business either way.

[August1991]

It was a CPC booster that started the thread...

I don't know if I would classify myself as a "CPC booster". (since you didn't ask, I'm a fiscal conservative, a social liberal and a proponent of limiting federal power. IMV, too many leftists criticize markets and corporations and naively think government bureaucrats will do better.)

----

We live in a world where politicians typically have to equivocate to avoid alienating too many voters. Hence, the public is forced to use other means to distinguish among politicians. How politicians conduct their private lives, particularly in Protestant countries, is the standard deciding factor.

Harper's people should be concerned about this rumour whether or not it's true.

Edited December 28, 2010 by August1991

[PIK]

When you have a idiot for a leader and no ideas on what to do with the country, the hidden adgenda does not work anymore, what else is there to do but attack the family and so what if there is trouble , so are most marriages, so attack harper on it, is attacking most of the country , thanks for the majority.

[Shakeyhands]

When you have a idiot for a leader and no ideas on what to do with the country, the hidden adgenda does not work anymore, what else is there to do but attack the family and so what if there is trouble , so are most marriages, so attack harper on it, is attacking most of the country , thanks for the majority.

Who is attacking the family?

[August1991]

Back in the news, sort of.

This sort of misplaced politesse is the reason that mainstream papers are increasingly obsolescent in an age of internet journalism and wikileaking, no matter how many iPad applications they produce. Readers are increasingly aware of how much the old-school media choose not to tell us, whether for political or financial reasons, or from some misguided notion that it’s for our own good. And increasingly we reply: We’ll be the judge of that.

Link

When you have a idiot for a leader and no ideas on what to do with the country, the hidden adgenda does not work anymore, what else is there to do but attack the family and so what if there is trouble , so are most marriages, so attack harper on it, is attacking most of the country , thanks for the majority.

PIK, Michael Ignatieff may be a flake but he's no idiot.

As to Stephen Harper's family, anyone who chooses public life necessarily chooses intense scrutiny, rumour and innuendo. Membership has its benefits, and its costs.