Seven candidates so far this election have decided to quite or step aside due to various controversies.
"These resignations have dominated the news of this election campaign, as the politicos have become so much more savvy at surfing Internet social websites, such as Facebook, and blogs to uncover the mutterings and rants (sometimes from years ago) of candidates," Jane Taber wrote in her story Candidates Haunted By Past Rants in a Wired World.
"Elections Canada doesn't track how many candidates abandon the race partway through, but there is a sense that this time there have been more firings and resignations in the campaign for the Oct. 14 election than ever before.
"What about the vetting process? And will these gaffes and public firings scare off good people from running for office?" Ms. Taber asks.
Has the selection process changed now that the intimate details of candidates' lives are available online? Is this kind of vetting a positive or negative thing for the election process overall?
Ms. Taber took your questions Wednesday on the changing face of politics in the wired world. Your questions and Ms. Taber's answers are at the bottom of this page.
Jane Taber is the Senior Political Writer for The Globe and Mail in Ottawa and was a regular contributor to CTV's Question Period before becoming co-host. She has reported on Parliament Hill since 1986, working as a parliamentary reporter, editorial writer and columnist for The Ottawa Citizen, The National Post, and for the past six years with The Globe.
For three seasons, from 1995 to 1997, she was host of a 30-minute political affairs program on WTN called Jane Taber's Ottawa. She also co-produced an hour-long documentary on the difficulties women face in politics that was broadcast during the 1997 election campaign.
Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.
Globeandmail.com editor Darren Yourk writes: Thanks for taking the time to join us this afternoon Jane. I'll start us off today by asking if you think these gaffes can have any real impact on the poll numbers, or should be looked at as little more than short-term embarrassments that all parties are facing. It feels like having these stories crop up about candidates rather than established party members negates any real long-term damage.
Jane Taber: Thanks Darren: Good question. So far the gaffes - and there have been quite a few since the writ was dropped - have not had much impact on the poll numbers. There is little time for the public to dwell on these controversies in this fast-paced news cycle of ours. It seems that something, there's a bit of a flap about it and we're on to something else. As well, the parties have done their research so it seems that they are matching gaffe for gaffe. No party has been immune: equal opportunity gaffes!! However, a well-time gaffe can dramatically hurt a campaign. We saw this most dramatically in the 2004 campaign when Mr. Harper refused to back down over a press release issue by his war room that Paul Martin was soft on child porn. That happened near the end of the campaign and helped to drive voters back to the Liberals and Paul Martin.
Globeandmail.com editor Darren Yourk writes: Are you worried we may lose good candidates over this? I think of someone like Barack Obama who has been quite open about past drug use.
Jane Taber: I think one of the problems with these sorts of gaffes is that potential candidates will be turned off from politics. There is far more scrutiny now on the individual and there are very easy ways of delving into someone's past, given the easy access on the Internet. Social networking websites, such as Facebook, provide a ton of information about an individual (if they have a Facebook account, which so many people do), as do blogs. And that's what has tripped up so many of the candidates in this election - past writings on blogs and videos on YouTube have resulted in controversies and subsequent resignations. In researching a story on this, I spoke to Arthur Milnes, who is the fellow at the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Queen's University. He said that he wouldn't want to see Canada becoming like the U.S. in that candidates are scrutinized to the point that only picture perfect people can even contemplate running. He mentioned, too, that Barack Obama did have to get his book out well in advance of his bid to control the "spin" on the fact that he had tried drugs in his past.
