Garth Turner is the Liberal Party candidate in Halton. He is the incumbent, and he's faced with a problem. He won the 2006 election as a Conservative.
Since then, he's crossed the floor to the Liberals, and now has to face the electorate, asking for their votes, but under the banner of the other guys.
Well, he's trying. In this CPAC piece, Garth Turner goes door to door.
The first visit seems to go well. Very friendly and cheery. Garth Turner chats the man up. He asks after the man's new house, but then, how did Garth Turner know that this was a new home?
Especially since the man admits he'd been living there for a year -- still new, I suppose, but after a year, there's not going to be any signs of a recent move.
Then the man brings up Stephane Dion's carbon tax as the issue to discuss. OK, sounds fair. I mean, most people are worried about the economy, but the Green Shift is what the Liberals are running on.
Garth Turner responds by gently correcting this man. It is not a "carbon tax", it's the "Green Shift". It will result in more money in his pocket.
What a lucky break for Garth Turner, eh? He gets to plug the alleged benefits of the Green Shift and not have to answer questions about the actual details of the Green Shift, or for that matter, about Stephane Dion's leadership or what the Liberals will do to the GST, or anything else.
Compare this to the second visit. That man is not voting Liberal. Or at least that's my read.
Now, one thing to note is Garth Turner admits that putting more money in the pockets of Canadians is "the plan". Is Garth Turner waffling? Sounds like it, at least to Matt at A Step to the Right.
And yet it was a pretty good visit, all in all, compared to the second guy.
Is Garth Turner really that lucky?
Not surprisingly, the answer is no.
First, note that there is a Garth Turner sign on the lawn of this house, but it goes much deeper than that.
Garth Turner's top assistant is Esther Shaye. Anyone who has been to Garth Turner's blog knows that name. Anyone who has crossed Garth Turner knows that name.
Well, guess what? Someone recognized that first guy and sent me a quick note. I think it was a neighbour, but I'm not certain. But it was enough to start digging.
Here's are some screen grabs from the video:
Pretty distinctive red hair, receding around a widow's peak, prominent nose...now compare against this photo:
Heck, it looks like the same blue alligator short-sleeved shirt! Look at the collar. The right end has the same up-twist, compared to the left end which lays flat.
That is Michael Shaye. He curls in Oakville. He is listed in the phone book, and his house number is 178, which appears quite clearly in the video.
He is Esther Shaye's son.
Coincidence? Or is does it explain how Garth Turner knew that this was a "new" home, even though Michael Shaye says they've been there for a year?
Really, does Garth Turner expect to fool anyone with this? Maybe he has.
Do the folks at CPAC know that Garth Turner dragged their camera crew to the home of the son of his constituency office manager for a visit to a "typical" constituent?
Does the average viewer know to wonder whether the issue of the carbon tax was raised on purpose?
Hey, politicians play to the camera. They even manipulate the press when they can. It's not a hanging offense. But when you do spot what might be an example of manipulation, the entire episode loses credibility.
Sometimes that loss of credibility extends to the politician in question.
I can't shake the feeling that Garth Turner wanted to have an example of an extended visit for the cameras to record, one in which he could speak briefly on the carbon tax, but not be forced to answer any real questions about it (Michael Shaye expresses interest in the carbon tax, but doesn't actually ask any questions after Garth Turner puts out the party line that taxes will go down). When I watch the second visit, in which the voter admits to having made up his mind how to cast his vote, but pointedly did not tell Garth Turner where that vote was going, I think that Garth Turner wanted to be certain that he had at least one good visit.
What a coincidence that this good visit was at the home of his constituency office manager.
What this means: Like I said earlier, no one deserves to be drawn-and-quartered for this. I'm certain MPs from all parties do this sort of thing from time to time. Getting caught doing it hurts though, and here's why. Obviously the viewer is cheated of the opportunity to see how a real conversation with a constituent goes. But it's the media that gets kicked hard. If the news outlet knew that the meeting was pre-arranged and the conversation staged (by the way, we don't know for certain that this is the case here, but what a coincidence if it wasn't), then they would report that the encounter was simulated before presenting it. Simulated -- see, I'm being diplomatic. The audience can then judge the value of the information they've heard. But when the media doesn't know, and then the media presents the information without an explanation of the nature of the encounter, the viewers take everything at face value. The media is now an unwitting accomplices. Accomplices in what? Well, that's for each viewer to decide for himself or herself -- if they learn after that the encounter was staged. Regardless of whether you think it's harmless or not, I bet the media doesn't appreciate being used like that. You don't annoy the media during an election campaign. They have ways of getting back at you.
Mad Media: Guess what? I was right. The media doesn't appreciate it. Not at all. CPAC tears Garth Turner a new one (video and transcript).
