# Goodbye Ms Teskey, Hello "Mrs. Harper"



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

"They" *used* to say, behind every good man, there was a good woman. There is probably a less sexist version of that today.

This story seems so disingenuous to me. Pass yourself off as an independent female, then once your spouse is prime minister say that you are Mrs. Harper instead of keeping the name you claimed to have for so long.

Timing, and optics, are everything in politics. This reeks.










Laureen : Just call me 'Mrs. Harper'

OTTAWA (CP) — Mrs. Harper goes to Ottawa.

The wife of incoming prime minister Stephen Harper has been known by a variety of names since arriving in the capital but has settled on just one.

Not since 1979, when Conservative Joe Clark became prime minister, has there been so much talk about how to address the spouse of the first minister.

Clark’s wife, Maureen, held on to her maiden name of McTeer, which was unusual almost 30 years ago and set tongues a-wagging in the capital.

Harper’s 41-year-old spouse has been known as Laureen Teskey — the online encyclopedia Wikipedia.com refers to Stephen Harper and Laureen Teskey being married in 1991.

During the election campaign, Conservative Party news releases sometimes referred to her as Laureen Harper.

Then, just to make things even more confusing, Thursday’s Ottawa Citizen featured a front page photo of the prime minister designate with a kitten. The photo was credited to Laureen Teskey Harper, no hyphen.

But the self-described small-town girl from Turner Valley, Alta., has let it be quietly known that she now goes only by the name of Laureen Harper.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Timing, and optics, are everything in politics.


True dat!



HowEver said:


> ...Thursday’s Ottawa Citizen featured a front page photo of the prime minister designate with a kitten.


Cute pictures like this will no doubt help get rid of Harper's "scary" image.

The optics of Harper arriving at Rideau Hall in a minivan with his wife and kids is good optics as well, as it makes him look more like "one of us" than the ruling elites, and it's a nice contrast to the image of rich lawyers from Quebec arriving in black luxury cars.

The Tory spin doctors are in high gear, and my guess is this will serve them well. Marketing works!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Timing, and optics, are everything in politics. This reeks.


Reeks? A non issue like this?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

It's not really a non-issue, although it is certainly a damned small one. The bigger point for me is that if this is all the press has to talk about, they are sad, sad people.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> "They" *used* to say, behind every good man, there was a good woman. There is probably a less sexist version of that today.
> 
> This story seems so disingenuous to me. Pass yourself off as an independent female, then once your spouse is prime minister say that you are Mrs. Harper instead of keeping the name you claimed to have for so long.
> 
> ...


that picture is ms teskey waving googdbye to her independence

but in fairness the name of "mrs. harper" gets you a better restaurant table and an appt. at european jewelers or holt renfrew


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

SINC said:


> Reeks? A non issue like this?


Given the small percentage voting difference between the Tories and the Liberals, winning a few percentage points by appealing to women with the appearance of an independent spouse seems to have been worth it.

If the race were slightly closer, and we're only talking about a few dozen seats, this could have made the difference.

As it was, Harper got votes from people who wrongly believed that he was married to someone like Maureen McTeer. This makes a difference to some people. It probably tempered his lack of women candidates, and disrespect for what are traditionally women's issues (although they affect both genders of course) like abortion and job equity, etc.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> The Tory spin doctors are in high gear, and my guess is this will serve them well. Marketing works!


The colours of this website have changed
http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/default.asp
The Canadian red is being replace by Con blue - yuck


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Man if that's not a smirk I don't what is.........


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Man if that's not a smirk I don't what is.........


macdoc, it's not a smirk
they had to photoshop it in

harper needs more ruffage in his diet
he really looks constipated


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Man if that's not a smirk I don't what is.........


That ain't a smirk ... that's a classic s**t-eatin' grin. 

Probably took the picture as Harpo was watching Emerson getting sworn in.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Since this thread has derailed unto looks - I find it odd that Harper was clutching his personal Bible during the swearing in. It prefer a little distance between God and my country. Is this a sign of things to come?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Oh, for pity's sake ... What you CALL the woman has no bearing on who she IS.

She probably just wanted to make things easier for everyone with the 'just call me Mrs. Harper'.

You people really are grasping at straws here.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Since this thread has derailed unto looks - I find it odd that Harper was clutching his personal Bible during the swearing in. It prefer a little distance between God and my country. Is this a sign of things to come?


Isn't swearing on a Bible common practice in this country? What are the alternatives, and has anything else been done before?

I fail to see the problem with this, regardless of what you may think of Harper or his policies.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

A person in this country is allowed to chose what they swear by, including the option of nothing. We do not require our leaders to be atheists, nor should we.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> We do not require our leaders to be atheists, nor should we.


Agreed!

"Separation of Church and State" != "All leaders must be atheists"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> Isn't swearing on a Bible common practice in this country? What are the alternatives, and has anything else been done before?
> 
> I fail to see the problem with this, regardless of what you may think of Harper or his policies.


Watching the footage it was quite an odd moment. I have nothing against swearing on the Bible, it's swearing on his _personal_ bible - The Cons are a little too Christian for me - Imagine if Martin was clutching a rabbit's foot when he was sworn in?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> We do not require our leaders to be atheists, nor should we.


No, but I do expect a certain separation between Church and Country.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> No, but I do expect a certain separation between Church and Country.


As do I, for the record. So I don't want any decisions being made on the basis of "my church dogma says". But bringing his own Bible to swear on? That just makes sense to me. Whatever else may true about what all this means for the country, there is no denying that this is an enormous personal moment for Harper. Using his own Bible is a nice personal touch. I find it hard to believe that that would be worrying, frankly. But fine, if you want to think about it from a secular point of view, look at it this way: He is basing his personal word of honour on his faith connection. By using his own personal Bible, we actually have a higher degree of likelihood that he means what is swearing, since to violate that promise is not only going against his beliefs, but harming the family memory. Does that help?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RevMatt, yes that helps. 
Thanks

(Shall I tell you about my fears about Stockwell "walk with Dinosaurs" Day?)


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> RevMatt, yes that helps.
> Thanks


Good to hear. 



ArtistSeries said:


> (Shall I tell you about my fears about Stockwell "walk with Dinosaurs" Day?)


Oh, I suspect I share them


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> Agreed!
> 
> "Separation of Church and State" != "All leaders must be atheists"


No.

Here you are missing something that even George Bush understands.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Since this thread has derailed unto looks - I find it odd that Harper was clutching his personal Bible during the swearing in. It prefer a little distance between God and my country. Is this a sign of things to come?


There is a tradition concerning bringing one's own, or a bible of choice, with which to be sworn in.

It is a longer tradition in the United States.

Please count this among the "Things I Learned From West Wing" category of facts.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

However, if I understand you, I think you are misunderstanding 

!= means "is NOT equal to". I think you are both saying the same thing.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> However, if I understand you, I think you are misunderstanding
> 
> != means "is NOT equal to". I think you are both saying the same thing.


You're right, I didn't get that. I thought " != " was intended as "really, really, equal to!"

Then again, I tried to type an interrobang the other day, and couldn't manage it...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> != means "is NOT equal to"


Yes, that is correct.

Edit: Not sure what the symbol for "really, really, equal to" would be!


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

HowEver said:


> There is a tradition concerning bringing one's own, or a bible of choice, with which to be sworn in.


I wasn't aware of this, but I certainly didn't see any problem with it.

If folks have a problem with Harper and his policies, that's just fine by me, but I think complaints about his choice of Bible at the swearing in ceremony, shaking kids his hands, etc. don't really have any merit.

Next thing you know, someone will be complaining about the colour of his socks, or his haircut...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> Yes, that is correct.
> 
> Edit: Not sure what the symbol for "really, really, equal to" would be!


 *=*


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Better cool the customary cartoons too


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> that picture is ms teskey waving googdbye to her independence
> 
> but in fairness the name of "mrs. harper" gets you a better restaurant table and an appt. at european jewelers or holt renfrew


Every time I hear someone speak of "leftists" or "social democrats" as idealistic, I remember talk like this. Only liberals are idealists, while "leftists" are merely cynics. That's why liberalism will always remain the ideology of the west.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

HowEver said:


> As it was, Harper got votes from people who wrongly believed that he was married to someone like Maureen McTeer. This makes a difference to some people.


If it did, those people deserve to be suckered. What a dumb reason to base your vote on.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Watching the footage it was quite an odd moment. I have nothing against swearing on the Bible, it's swearing on his _personal_ bible - The Cons are a little too Christian for me - Imagine if Martin was clutching a rabbit's foot when he was sworn in?


Here's a questions for you all: if a Muslim or Buddhist became PM of Canada, what would he swear on? The Bible?

EDIT: here's a clue: http://www.gg.ca/media/fs-fd/P3_e.asp


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> If it did, those people deserve to be suckered. What a dumb reason to base your vote on.


It may not be the sole basis. It might not have, say, got in the way, or added to a list you thought was positive.


----------

