When I recieved the communication from the PMO respecting the Prime Ministers selfless act, I was struck with a real sense of pride in Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his lovely wife Laureen.

More telling of leadership and resolve was her presence, standing by her man, willing to take risks shoulder to shoulder with the stranded Canadians in Lebanon.

These two make one heck of a team for Canada, don't they?

If any of the stranded Canadians voted Liberal before, they won't be when they finally land on Canadian soil.

Wouldn't you want to support a party and leader willing to step up to the plate, I sure would, in a New York minute.

I only wish I could be on that military plane with them when they return safe and sound.

What Mr. and Mrs. Harper did was purely from the heart because each and every one of us fellow Canadians are important to them and our safety at home and abroad is a top priority to these two great Canadians, and the Conservative government they lead work very hard on our behalf.

God bless the Harpers and Canada, I pray for Godspeed and a safe return for all those that they have personally set out to rescue from a very dangerous corner of the world.

Posted by: Mark-Alan Whittle at July 19, 2006 01:39 PM

---

While I think Mr. Harper's decision to help expedite the safe return of these Canadians is the right one, I can't help but wonder why the airplane's "skeleton crew" includes the official photographer (as reported by CP reporter Bruce Cheadle in the Toronto Star, 07/19/06). Given the ostensible purpose of this unscheduled diversion, wouldn't his/her seat be better occupied by one of the stranded Canadians?

Posted by: Albert Kwan at July 19, 2006 01:46 PM

---

Albert...

Time for your meds.

Posted by: tomax7 at July 19, 2006 01:55 PM

---

I wouldn't get too worked up if the official photographer were on the plane. First, this isn't life or death. Whoever doesn't get on the Prime Minister's plane is not going to be doomed to be eaten by sharks or blown up in a volcano. They just get the next flight. Chances are they will fill the plane in such a way as to keep families together -- the likelihood is that there will be one or more seats not used if they can't fit an entire family in.

Second, the photographer is capturing history. Everyone recalls that famous picture of Kennedy in the Oval Office, in sillouette by the window, the weight of the Cuban Missile Crisis seeming to push down on his shoulders. Pictures like that belong to history, not to the next election. When the next generation reads about these events, and the sidebar is included about this trip, we might be thankful for a photo that captures the event in such a way that it becomes part of our shared memory of this time.

A bit melodramatic, but photos are powerful. That's why politicians do photo ops in the first place. Fortunately, this is no photo op -- all the more reason to make sure we record it for posterity.

Sort of ironic, really.

Posted by: Steve Janke at July 19, 2006 01:57 PM

---

Hey, Albert..

I'm sure Bruce Cheadle appreciates your low esteem of his life.

Posted by: Frampton at July 19, 2006 02:00 PM

---

I was on Scotia St. in Winnipeg sandbagging during the flood. We were sweating bullets and the assembly line was working just fine. All of a sudden here comes a bunch of suits, told us to stop. Then came Cretien dressed in a suit. Walked up to the dyke we were building and with cameras rolling took ONE sandbag and tossed it onto the dyke. Before we knew what happened, him and his entourage were gone.

Posted by: Harry at July 19, 2006 02:01 PM

---

As PM there is a lot of crap he has to take day in, day out.

But today, he's in a position to do something and has chosen to do it. We could debate the cost benefits/photo op/increase in popularity angles until the cows come home but I suspect he's just doing it because, as a human being, he feels the need to do something useful and for once he's in a position where he can do something, instead of being constrained by the office.

Posted by: Kathryn in Canada at July 19, 2006 02:47 PM

---

I remember the Scotia Street Chretien photo-op. I was watching local live unedited coverage. Before he appeared, some Liberal flack was trying to get the citizens all pumped up for his appearance. She was beaming, all rah-rah-rah, exhorting them to give a big warm Winnipeg welcome, etc., the usual sort of intro political-rally style stuff. I was most annoyed to see that. It was good to know the citizens weren't buying, and all anyone remembers is that buffoon Chretien standing there in his business suit with a sandbag saying "What do I do with this?" The obvious, and real answer, however, was never spoken, saving Chretien's proctologist from a big nasty job.

Posted by: CMP at July 19, 2006 02:52 PM

---

Mr Janke, thanks for the reply. I agree with your points about the non-critical (i.e., not life or death) nature of this evacuation, and the importance of documentation for posterity.

However, the official photographer does not simply document history as a neutral observer (it is arguable whether any form of photography can be completely neutral). He/she is there to capture subjects in a specific, and generally positive, light. So, for instance, the Kennedy photo conveys the heavy burdens that come with the presidential office, but it is also meant to be poignant, intimate, and reverential - the President as vulnerable but heroic human being.

My point is that the decision to include the only person in the delegation with a camera whose work is directly vetted by the PM's office simply invites suspicion and second-guessing from those who are politically liberal (or even neutral). I would argue that ANY image captured by anyone's "official photographer," the publication of which is carefully controlled by that person him/herself, is in fact a type of photo-op.

Tomax7 and Frampton: I posted my comment on this blog because I was genuinely interested in seeking out a viewpoint different from my own. I'm quite sick of the way that so much of what passes as political dialogue in Canada and elsewhere has devolved into snide remarks and personal attacks. I note that in your comments, neither actually bothered to address my initial question.

Incidentally, Frampton, Mr. Cheadle is the CP reporter who covered Mr. Harper's press announcement, not the official photographer on the plane.

Posted by: Al Kwan at July 19, 2006 03:21 PM

---

Spare the whining Kwan. You aren't looking for anything other than a dig at Harper. You were ready to leave the poor photographer at the airport.

I would hope it would be covered by a photographer..it's now a part of our history. I can't wait to see the pics.

Posted by: Benito Mutumbo at July 19, 2006 03:34 PM

---

"Doing the right thing, and then just looking the part"

You mean, like going to Afghanistan - twice - without much fanfare or without bringing along hoards of media, without the spectacle of a flak jacket, without multiple press conferences, without any claims or rah-rah about how unprecedented the move was... just to meet directly with the troops and raise their morale without trying to make a media publicity stunt spectacle out of it

versus

Announcing, re-announcing a massive media-campaign in Afghanistan, having your minions claim it was unprecedented (even though it wasn't), dragging the media to several stops all the while pulling service men and women away from their jobs just for a good photo?

or

Landing a fighter jet wearing a flight suit with a huge banner of "Mission Accomplished" and hoards and hoards of journalists brought on board?

Is that the kind of thing you mean?

And I wonder what you'd be saying if Chretien hadn't visited Winnipeg.

All politicians seek their photo ops. For some, that's all they do. For others, they don't feel the need to have regular press updates about doing the right thing.

Ted
Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at July 19, 2006 03:37 PM

---

...well well well, talk about irony. Who says the Liberals don't know how to tweak Winnipeg voters?

For all the sandbaggers in here, while I agree with your assessment of the photo-op, I seem to have missed something - what was Winnipeg's 2006 federal election result again?

---------------------------
Liberals 2(almost 3), and NDP 3. Conservatives 3 (almost 2).

Winnipeg:
Liberal:
- Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface - elected)
- Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre - elected)
- Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South - lost by less than 120 votes)
- Terry Duguid (Kildonan-St. Paul - less than 4000 votes)
- John Loewen (Charleswood-St.James-Assiniboia - less than 5000 votes.
- Parmjeet Gill (Winnipeg North - lost to Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP.)

NDP Wins:
- Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North)
- Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona)
- Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre)

Manitoba election year wins:
LIBERAL - 1935-49 inclusive
PC - 1953-62 inclusive
LIBERAL - 1963
PC - 1965
LIBERAL - 1968, 1972, 1974
PC - 1988
LIBERAL - 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election_results_in_Winnipeg

Posted by: tomax7 at July 19, 2006 03:48 PM

---

Of course, he wouldn't have to pick up the 100 passengers, who by the way are coming over on a British ship not a Canadian one, if they were more organized and not running behind schedule.

Posted by: Bailey at July 19, 2006 03:56 PM

---

Benito: "You were ready to leave the poor photographer at the airport." Yes I would, if you mean the airport in Paris, along with the rest of the media personnel covering the G8 summit, who were advised at that point of the journey that they would be taking commercial flights back to Canada.

Ted: I concede a photo-op can be a legitimate political move, but I prefer my photo-ops to be covered by the full spectrum of reporters out there.

Posted by: AK at July 19, 2006 04:02 PM

---

Al Kwan: Giving you the benefit of the doubt in wanting a healthy discussion, here's a tip:

- first, learn how to ask a question.
- second, learn not to answer it before asking it.

You tipped your hand by saying: "I can't help but wonder why" - before you asked the question at the end of your post.

Also, don't take things personally. My apologies if I offended you, but it really is past your medication time.

;-)

Posted by: at July 19, 2006 04:05 PM

---

AK: Not sure what your point is about the "full spectrum of reporters out there" but my point is simply that Janke is typically selective in his comparisons to make an ultra-partisan point.

I am certainly not saying that a photo op can be a legitimate or illegitimate political move, but to claim that Harper ever does anything without the image in mind is ridiculous. EVERYTHING he does is about winning the next election as was Bush with his constant manipulation of the media image. Equally ridiculous is the suggestion that Chretien (of whom I'm no big fan by the way) was all about image and photo opportunities.

My comparison is far more apt because it demonstrates the different approaches by two PMs to the same matter. One goes twice without much fanfare because it was the right thing to do and he wanted to show his personal support for the troops FOR THEIR SAKE. The other makes the event a media circus and makes it more about HIM.

And to be clear, this is not to take away from the move to finally help Canadians in Lebanon. That was both a good thing to do AND a politically smart thing. I just wonder if he would have bothered to do it at all if it had not been the politically smart thing to do.

Ted
Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at July 19, 2006 04:11 PM

---

Ted, you make a good point ("I just wonder if he would have bothered to do it at all if it had not been the politically smart thing to do.") Maybe I'm too cynical, but I find that too often politicians, of any party affiliation, fail to do the right thing b/c it isn't politically expedient.

Also, I misread your earlier post comparing different approaches -- thought you were saying that it was Harper's Afghanistan visit that was without media spectacle. Apologies.

Re: "full spectrum of reporters out there", I simply meant reporters working for both left-leaning and right-leaning papers, in contrast to Harper's decision to only bring aboard his official photog. But this comment only makes sense in the context of my misreading of your post. Please disregard.

Posted by: AK at July 19, 2006 05:18 PM

---

Al, if you want to see it as a photo-op, you're going to see it as a photo-op. Plain and simple.

People want true leadership. They want leaders who are willing to look at a situation and say, "What can I do to help?" I hear people saying they want a leader who has a heartfelt love for Canadians. Here we have a Prime Minister who is emptying his own plane and going to pick up his fellow Canadians. He's not asking whether these Canadians have dual citizenship, like some others. He's not asking whether these people in Lebanon are unsympathetic to Israel. He's just going in there and getting them out.

Cynics and the prejudiced will automatically dismiss this. Why? Because they want to see Harper as some evil robot, Bush-clone. That is their only desire in life because it makes them feel better about themselves the way that anybody with low self-esteem belittles others to make themselves feel higher.

The optimists and those who know Harper know that he is doing this because it is the type of thing he would do naturally. He's not a billionaire politician like so many before him. He's not some person who likes the camera and wants to be the center of attention (we know that because of how hard it was to get him to like the camera in the past two elections). He's just an average guy doing what he does.

Personally, knowing Harper's camera-shy past and his selfless nature demonstrated time and again in the past, I know without a doubt that this being a photo-op wouldn't even cross his mind until somebody else said it. But you believe what you want, because I know that you will...

Posted by: Surecure at July 19, 2006 09:02 PM

---

What's with all the hype about a photographer? It's not like there won't be dozens, if not more, photographers at the Ottawa airport for the arrival home.

The guy is simply being frugal and helping ease the burden of space in Cypress and filling the rest of his plane up. The reporters being left behind are not in the same situation that those waiting in Cypress for flights are.

The man is making the most of our resources. If a photo op emerges, so be it.

Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at July 19, 2006 09:37 PM

---

Like I said before, it's not the photo opportunity (or lack thereof) that I have any issue with. I'm not even challenging Harper's bona fides in doing this.

I am however challenging the ludicrous partisan comparison made in this post. Harper is no less capable of going for the great photo opportunity at the expense of doing right than any other politician as I demonstrated above. And certainly he's shown with his Afghanistan media spectacle that he is can show even less tact than Chretien.

Ted
Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at July 19, 2006 09:58 PM

---

Partisan, Ted would seem to be anyone who you percieve to be to your right politically. Saw it somewhere recently, a quote atributed to Churchill where he implied the middle ground so often occupied by Liberals is somewhere between the fireman and the fire. Wonderfully concise and, I think, applicable to you.

Posted by: ward at July 20, 2006 12:34 AM

---

I would think that it would be obvious that this is not a photo op, since they sent the reporters out of Paris on a different flight. You kind of need to have the press with you if you are attempting a photo op.

Posted by: Ed Minchau at July 20, 2006 01:33 AM

---

Some enlightenment for Tomax7 et al.
"Who says the Liberals don't know how to tweak Winnipeg voters?
Apparently the voters say so.

What was Winnipeg's 2006 federal election result again?"
Liberals 2(almost 0), and NDP 3. Conservatives 3 (almost 5).

Winnipeg:
Conservative:
- Ken Cooper (Saint Boniface - lost by less than 1600 votes)
- Michael Richards (Winnipeg South Centre - less than 3300 votes)
- Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South - elected)
- Joy Smith (Kildonan-St. Paul - elected)
- Steven Fletcher (Charleswood-St.James-Assiniboia - elected)
- Garreth McDonald (Winnipeg North - less than 1000 votes behind the Liberal)
- Helen Sterzer (Winnipeg Centre - less than 1400 votes behind the Liberal)
- Linda West (Elmwood-Transcona - over 6600 votes ahead of the Liberal

NDP Wins:
- Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North)
- Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona)
- Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election_results_in_Winnipeg

I would say the Liberals in Manitoba should worry about losing their last two seats.
Andrew

Posted by: Andrew at July 20, 2006 02:00 AM

---

My two cents.

I sincerely believe that Stephen Harper is a just and righteous man, whose only motivation in going to Cypress was to repatriate Canadian citizens. No more, no less.

Posted by: Mike D at July 20, 2006 04:44 AM

---

MikeD: if his only motivation was to repatriate Canadian citizens and there was very limited space on his airplane, why did he feel the need to take a photographer and his public relations people? Why did Laureen have to go? Why indeed did he have to go himself? Like I said before, I don't question that it was the right thing to do and that Harper wanted to do the right thing. I do wonder if he would want to do the right thing if it also did not come with a nice photo opportunity for him. I think not.

Ward: You are missing my point. Janke makes another silly partisan comparison, selectively taking disconnected events and trying to make them sound comparable. I provided a more comparable example only to highlight his silliness, not even to say that Chretien is any better. I say every politician (that means Liberals too, my friend) seeks out photo opportunities. Harper is no different and no righteous man.

Ted

Posted by: Ted at July 20, 2006 09:41 AM

---

Fair enough Ted. I guess we will see if you're right if and when said photos make the front pages.

Posted by: ward at July 20, 2006 10:34 AM

---

It's not a photo op, that's why it's even more important for historic purposes that there be a photographer there?

Sorry, I can't connect those dots.

Look, I agree with the gesture and the magnitude of the act. i think this is the right thing to do for practical, political, symbolic or whatever reasons.

But can't we be honest enough to say that we brought the photographer along because this is, in part, a photo op?

Posted by: peter at July 20, 2006 03:57 PM

---

Re Chretien and the Winnipeg flood....

That little prick was handed the sandbag by one of the local baggers...he just about shit himself and handed it to someone else like a hot potato.

And yes the shitsticks packed up and left ASAP after that.
What a self centered fool to have come here to politic in the middle of an emergency!

BTW.....another notable event was the arrival of Peter Mansbridge....that jerkoff got off a plane and limo'd to the Forks where a camera crew was waiting for him..next thing he's being interviewed by other MSM c**suckers on what his opinion of the situation was. As if he knew a damned thing!
He was probably sent here to cover Chretien and missed the boat!

So what's the connection?

Chretien and his gang were only ever interested in furthering their own political careers. ( or lining their pockets)....

Harper gives a shit about something other that his.

That alone is enough reason to support him and his party.

Lebanon is just one more illustrative example of this.

Although.... I would have liked to see the PR gang sent home on a different flight.

OMMAG

Posted by: OMMAG at July 20, 2006 05:33 PM

---