Today I was stopped in my tracks by Garth quoting Garth on John Baird. He's writing a piece on how unsuitable Baird is for Minister of the Environment, and quotes a post he made when Baird was first appointed:
I probably know John Baird better than you do. I don’t traipse around official Ottawa on his arm, the way Laureen Harper does . . .I don't know what the rest of today's post says. I just stopped reading. I couldn't get past this statement, first made on January 8th and repeated today.
Turner would probably say he meant nothing by it. He would likely say that it was irrelevant to the point he was trying to get across. Why then, did he include it? What exactly is he trying to say about Laureen Harper?
The mention of Laureen might just have been name-dropping back in January when it was first written-- a way to show he was aware of who was in the good-books while he was shunted off to the dog house. But Garth has reiterated an irrelevant statement made by Garth, and is using it to support his opinion that Baird is ineffective as Environment Minister and Garth Turner knew he would be . . . It does nothing to advance his argument or to validate his premise. There can be no reason for its inclusion except that it's a bit of gossipy insinuation.
To those who would suggest I'm making a big deal out of nothing . . . my guess is that John Baird hangs out with a lot of people on the Hill, probably a lot of Conservative MPs. Everyone knows that Lurleen needs an escort to official functions when Stephen Harper is away, and John Baird has filled that role. Why not say 'I don't hang out at the pub with the guy like (Clement, Moore, Ambrose . . . anyone) . . . why Laureen?
When the only function of the statement at is to show his own distance from Baird, why did Turner make special mention of the Prime Minister's wife -- twice?
What a tiny, little shade of a man that guy is.
canadianna
