Where's Brenda?
Posted by Magda
I just came back from what was effectively a Liberal rally at the Italian Canadian Club. Stephane Dion was selling his climate change plan. Frank Valeriote was selling Stephane Dion. Brenda Chamberlain was nowhere to be seen.
“I enjoyed a lot to work all these years with Brenda Chamberlain,” Dion told the crowd.
Later, at the media scrum: "Brenda did a great job for years."
Frank Valeriote jumped in. "I absolutely have her support," Valeriote said. "She has indicated her support for me and said she will support me once the write is dropped."
Still, given how the meeting was a who's who of local Liberals, her absence was almost conspicuous.
Read more about the townhall in the paper tomorrow.
(Photo by Ryan Pfeiffer)

And this is all you took from the event?
Posted by: Anon | July 10, 2008 at 04:54 PM
Sounds pretty conspiracy-like.. but it might have been as simple as a retiring MP didn't want to steal the spotlight away from the candidate who is running to replace her and retain the seat.
Posted by: Scott Tribe | July 10, 2008 at 06:01 PM
Hey Scott... it's actually a local theory that's been floating around for a while now. Brenda has not appeared with Frank at anything since her retirement, the Merc reporter here is not the first one to speculate on this.
The rumour that I've been hearing is that Brenda was uncerimoniously pushed out to make way for a by-election for Frank. Some have said it's left a rather bitter taste in her mouth, and I for one don't blame her.
Posted by: Paul Atarsus | July 10, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Doesn't it embarrass the Mercury to spread rumours started by the local Cons that have no basis in fact? Aren't you concerned about your reputations as journalists?
Posted by: Kevin Ames | July 11, 2008 at 09:53 AM
Kevin, I don't know about where you or the Mercury heard this rumour first, but I got it from a Liberal, not the local Conservatives.
Posted by: Paul Atarsus | July 11, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Paul name names so I can ask this Liberal.
Posted by: Kevin Ames | July 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Yes, please.. Paul.. name names. Because, since we're floating rumours around, the rumour I've heard is that Brenda specifically recruited Frank to enter the race as a Liberal. SO, if that were true, it wouldn't make a lot of sense she'd be miffed at not showing up besides Frank's side.
Maybe the investigative staff at the Merc can, you know, actually track Brenda down and ask her... rather then floating stuff out there with nothing to go on other then speculation.
Posted by: Scott Tribe | July 11, 2008 at 12:25 PM
From what I've read in the numberous stories here in the Merc, they've tried on a number of occasions to track Brenda down, but she won't respond to their requests... that's even part of what has caused this rumour to gain some solid legs.
Posted by: Paul Atarsus | July 11, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Paul,
As much as I'd like more information myself, she *is* retired and it's completely within her rights to disappear off the face of the earth.
Posted by: David Graham | July 11, 2008 at 01:08 PM
Funny David, I think Brenda "disappeared off the face of the earth" even when she wasn't retired.
Posted by: Karl | July 11, 2008 at 01:19 PM
Let's step back and take a look at this situation without the blinders on, shall we Paul?
Of all the nominated candidates, it was only local "Conservative candidate" Gloria Kovach that had to pull strings, make deals, and purge the legitimate candidate Brent Barr from the scene.
Is this the new strategy for diverting attention from that unpleasant, objective fact?
Let see if anyone buys it.
Keep up the great work, "Team Kovach."
Posted by: Banonymous | July 11, 2008 at 01:49 PM
I see you're once again, having to resort to smears and lies Banonymous.
Kovach herself clearly said that she had nothing to do with that, and wasn't aware of it until after it had happened.
Are you calling her a liar? (don't forget, you're never really "anonymous" online, Banonymous)
Posted by: Bookworm | July 11, 2008 at 02:15 PM
Bookworm:
Even if Gloria didn't have anything to do with Barr's bouncing, you must concede it appears suspicious. Appearances count for a lot in politics don't forget.
Posted by: D1andOnlyMichaelStevenDWizardWisniewskiD1st | July 11, 2008 at 05:19 PM
True D1... (boy that's a long name there), it might look suspicious, except don't forget she's publicly denied any preknowledge or connection to whatever happened. So either you believe her, or you think she's a liar, but there's no in-between.
Posted by: Bookworm | July 11, 2008 at 05:53 PM
Is that a threat, worm?
Are "Team Kovach's" lawyers waiting in the wings again?
Posted by: Banonymous | July 11, 2008 at 06:14 PM
I think that's fair to say.
I'm sure it's a matter of public record which camp I fall into.
Posted by: D1andOnlyMichaelStevenDWizardWisniewskiD1st | July 11, 2008 at 06:15 PM
As IF Banonymous, no threat, just with what lies you`re spreading, the Merc can trace you if they want.
Your name is `BeAnonymous`, but your not really anonymous, duh.
Posted by: Bookworm | July 11, 2008 at 07:14 PM
Bookworm, I doubt the Merc has either the time or the inclination to trace Banonymous, bookworm, or anyone else wishing to engage in debate without enough courage of their convictions to stand behind their own identity.
This debate is getting a bit silly, don't you think? We know Gloria was ejected from FCM, we don't know why, and any pondering is conjecture. We know Brenda stepped down as MP, we don't know why, any any pondering is conjecture. We know Barr was ejected from the CPC nomination, we don't know why, and any pondering is conjecture.
Is this thread the level of debate we can expect through this by-election?
Posted by: David Graham | July 11, 2008 at 07:39 PM
The blogosphere is seldom a place for rational discussion with beginning, middle and end, David. Only in a moderated discussion will there be some possibilty of moderate progress from A to B. I find the best way to approach these things is to focus on comments made by contributors who enter these discussions with a visible real world identity. It is easy enough to ignore all the funny little pseudonyms in the same way as it is possible to ignore the hubbub at the square just before the buses arrive.
I think back in the daze before e-net this was commonly known as separating the wheat from the chaff so that the better bred commentary might surface.
Mind you getting into mindless chitter chatter, rumour, innuendo and downright drivel can be fun on occasion. And why settle for whether or not someone is calling Gloria a liar when you can just mumble that her pants are on fire... kids in the schoolyard level scat chat has its place I think and any politician who can't handle that should get out of business before the smoke detetcors go off.
Posted by: Edward Pickersgill | July 11, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Anyway, back to Brenda... (how on earth does Gloria manage to weasel her way into all these conversations????).....
Posted by: Edward Pickersgill | July 11, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Well said David and Edward! Here's hoping that cooler heads, and more rational minds, prevail in the various online debates that are sure to take place here over the coming months.
Posted by: Paul Atarsus | July 11, 2008 at 10:56 PM
On that note Edward, I don't think Gloria is "weaseling" her way into unrelated conversations like this, I think it's more that she's being dragged into them kicking and screaming by those just who want to drag her through the mud! :)
(ohhh... not a nice mental image conjured up there, my apologies to Ms. Kovach!)
Posted by: Paul Atarsus | July 11, 2008 at 11:00 PM
:-) some experienced political wags have been known to say that it doesn't matter whether they say good or bad about you as long as they spell your name right. So the anti Kovaq and the pro Kovaci forces are probably both doing a Glorious job.
Posted by: Edward Pickersgill | July 12, 2008 at 12:34 AM