I, too, got pretty much the same response as Kady to my query, submitted via an online form, when I asked who was behind Republicans for Ignatieff. On Sunday we both get on e-mail from “The Colonel” behind the site. I've put the version I got below. (I don't think there's much difference between, the responder has a bit more at the top here, saying his group is small but growing, but the other stuff is pretty similar to Kady's)
Now, when I first saw Republicans for Ignatieff, I strongly suspected that the Conservative Party of Canada was unofficially behind it and/or responsible for it. I based that hunch on the fact some Conservative operatives have been known to do some stuff like this before; when do they stuff like this it tends to be a little more sophisticated; and, most of all, the point of the site fits right into the narrative currently being pushed about Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, warning Canadians that he is “Just Visiting”.
The group has a “press release” scheduled for tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. and this week, it says at the site, “Republicans for Ignatieff will be making the case – using Michael's own words – for targeted assassinations and coercive interrogations.” Now that can't be for real, can it?
I used to think it wasn't for real but I'm less inclinded to think so after reading the e-mail reply from The Colonel behind the site. Tell me what you think and, more importantly, if you were a politics reporter, what do you do with this? Thoughts on tracking down the real people behind this?
From: semperficolonel@aol.com
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:00:01 -0500
To: dakin@canwest.com
Subject: Republicans For IgnatieffThanks for your e-mail and interest in the site.
I should tell you right off the top that I am not a media savvy individual nor do I crave media attention for myself. This is not about me it's about Michael Ignatieff. Our group is small (but growing) and members live in both the United States and Canada.
The site is what it is: a modest attempt to show why Republicans want Michael Ignatieff to become Prime Minister of Canada.
We've received several thousand unique visitors – more than we imagined.
Speaking for myself, I can tell you:
– I live in the United States.
– Everyone, except my Mother, calls me The Colonel.
– I am deeply invested in foreign affairs.
– I believe energy security is the single biggest foreign affairs challenge facing America.
– I first discovered Michael Ignatieff when I picked up a copy of Blood and Belonging in 1994.
– Although I don't agree with everything Michael Ignatieff stands for, particularly on social policy, I strongly support him on energy security and the war on terror, the two issues that matter most to me.
I suspect this is the case for most other Republican supporters of Michael Ignatieff.
– I also admire Ignatieff for his willingness to admit hard truths that many Canadians are unwilling to accept, particularly the strategic importance of the tar sands, the need for coercive interrogation as a tool in the war on terror, and the irrelevance of Canadian foreign policy under the Chretien and Martin administrations. In challenging the conventional wisdom of his own party, he reminds me a great deal of Tony Blair who took on the trade unions and the peace movement and re-invented the British Labour Party, culminating of course in his courageous support of President Bush in Iraq.
At this point, we have not, as a group, decided on an official spokesperson.
Over time, we hope to inform, educate and recruit more people to join us in backing Michael Ignatieff.
Thanks again for your interest.
The Colonel
semperficolonel@aol.com
This is clearly the Tories. Perhaps not the party itself, but at least some energetic supporters. At first it seems like perhaps a parody by leftists, but if you examine the language closely you can tell it is 'Tories pretending to be leftists parodying Republicans.' Surprisingly clever, but not clever enough. I'm a little disappointed that there are some in the Canadian media falling for “The Colonel.”
I have unverified info that the guy behind this site is Mark Reeves, a retired Colonel in the CAF. It's possible he currently lives in London, Ontario.
Try emailing him at this address (mreeves@aol.com) to solicit a reply and then compare the header info with the email you received from semperficolonel@aol.com.
Interesting email address. The motto of the United States Marine Corps is “Semper Fidelis” – Latin for “always faithful.” US Marines customarily shorten it to “Semper Fi.”
David,
If it is a legitimate site, why are they remaining anonymous? Why would a group of real American Republican Iggy-lovers want/need to protect their identities?
The fact they seem unwilling to stand publicly behind their Web site makes it difficult, if not impossible, to take them seriously, and gives more credence to the belief they are not what they claim to be, but are rather Canadian political operatives playing shenanigans, and trying to take the media along for the ride.
Try to investigate, absolutely. But if you're unable to verify their identity and their motivations, it would seem questionable to take them at face value and give them a platform.
At least with normal anonymous sources, you (and your editor) know who the source is and have judged their credibility, and as the reader I'm trusting in your judgment as a journalist. But this is a step beyond: even the journalist doesn't know who they are.
This is so obviously not 'straight'. The lack of identification is suspect to put it mildly. I'm not a reporter, but I sure wouldn't be manipulated by anonymous web authors. If he 'fesses up', I guess you could use the 'identity witheld' thing, but as it stands, this stinks
By hosting it outside Canada, the individual(s) and/or group are trying to avoid identifying themselves should they intended to carry on the website during an election campaign. Setting it up outside Canada might put it outside of the scope of the Elections Act provisions on the declaration and reporting by third parties wanting to advertise in favour or against a party or candidate. What's weirder is that they claim they are supporting the candidate, when in fact they are doing him no good. I wonder how they would declare that on the registration form. Anyways, something for the Commissioner of Elections to consider, I'm sure.
You might get something off the full email message headers, but I suspect if the person's identity is ever going to be uncovered it's going to be because they were just so proud of what they did, that eventually some day they will just have to tell someone. And then they'll tell someone. And so on, and so on.
As someone pointed out on Kadey's site, “The Colonel” is a character (antagonist) in Iggys novel “Charles Johnson In Flames”
Just to address a few points from commenters:
@John D. “I'm a little disappointed that there are some in the Canadian media falling for “The Colonel.”” I don't know that we're “falling” for anything. The news of this site has made its way around the blogosphere pretty well without the help, so far as I can tell, of any notice by most MSM outlets. My interest — and I'm sure the interest of most of us — is determining if there is any connection to the Canadian Conservative Party, the Canadian NDP, disgrunted Canadian Liberals or any other Canadian group who would benefit from a public relations campaign that seeks to tie Ignatieff closely to the U.S.
@Robert McLelland – thanks for the tip which we are pursuing.
@BCer in Toronto: I'm pretty sure neither Kady nor I are giving anyone a platform. Rather the reverse: We are doing what smart reporters do, i.e. co-opt any and all to help us investigate and probe. See response to John D: R4I have done a pretty good job on their own publicizing themselves without anyone's help and I suspect they will continue to do so even if the MSM ignores the site.
@bluegreenblogger How are we being “manipulated”? We're clearly sceptical about the motives/identity of those behind the site and we are seeking more information. That ain't being manipulated: That's demanding answers.
@A Reader: You raise some good points about implications for political advertising/donations in kind, etc. vis-a-vis Canadian federal election law. That's one of the reasons we want to know more.
Thanks for all the feedback.
I suspect the identities of whoever is behind this website are guarded to the max and I would expect them to have exercised great caution with the email identity as well. This does not look like a completely amateur production. However, if one could find out anything, of course it would be of great interest.
Likely they have legally covered themselves by the disclaimer on their site about not being connected to the Republicans, because I suspect the Republican Party would not be too happy being associated with Liberals, abortion rights, gay marriage, nationalized health care, etc. On the other hand, to the extent that the Republican Party cares at all about Canada, it would be happy to give Harper a boost. CPC reps attend some Republican workshops, just as Liberals attend some of the Democrats workshops, and some suppliers (of voter tracking for example) deal exclusively with Rep/Con or Dem/Lib, and will not cross party lines.
I didn't say you were being manipulated, I said I wouldn't want to be, and I assume that you don't want to be either. Therefore, be very cautious, which I think you are being.
It's been a few years since I read the elections finance act(s), but I don't think that it applies, for the simple reason that no money (or at least an immaterial amount of money) is being spent to date. As far as US hosting goes, it could be that it was simply the cheapest, or most convenient host was there, or it could potentially be a bit of jurisdiction shopping for anticipated libellous statements, or it could be nothing at all. I agree though that it will be news if you can find remove the veil, so keep on digging!
This reminded me of that Chipeur/Weyrich stunt :
http://www.observer.com/node/28485
A domain registry search turns up that the registration service is provided by NEARLYFREESPEECH.NET, and the contact information for the registrant is RespectMyPrivacy, LLC.
A visit to the website of respectmyprivacy.com provides the following information about their services:
“offer domain registrants the option to … to help protect their privacy, identity, and peace of mind”
In this case the registrant is not willing to be exposed. Authors not willing to reveal their identity deserve to have their entire exposé discredited, not publicized. Odds are that this is NOT a US Republican group!
Does it not strike you as ironic, EyeOnTheSky, that, as you hide your identity behind a pseudonynm you argue that “Authors not willing to reveal their identity deserve to have their entire expose discredited …”
Just sayin…
Fair enough.
Rene Stock in Saskatoon (EyeOnTheSky)
No one seems to be concerned about the contents of the site. Do these quotes, clip, etc represent Ingnatieff's true beliefs, or are they taken out-of-context, or are they faked?
As to who may be behind the site, both the Conservatives and the NDP have been asked and deny that they have anything to do with it. Has anyone asked the Liberals the same question?
I can think of two possible reason for this being a Liberal-backed site:
1. To bring Conservative voters to the Liberal party – “See, Iggy isn't so bad!” – while being deniable to Liberal supporters.
2. To get the Conservatives to be blamed for the site – from what I've read, this seems to be happening.
It is hard to understand the mind set that drove this blog. Are Canadian conservatives trying to disassociate themselves from the remnants of the American right wing movement by this rather ironic presentation or is this just a campaign to spread more confusion in political market place? In either case, few Republicans know who Igatieff is, if they did, they would lose their party membership as he is not an American. They do not appear to recognize that a world may exist beyond their state's border. Secondly, if they cared about what a foreigner may think about American policy, they would be excommunicated from the inner circle of Christian ideals and families so white and nice…. Next, they would have no idea what a “leader of the opposition” might be so why support such a person. And finally, they may know Stevie Harper, the current Canadian PM as Bush seemed to like him and pat him on the head but Bush didn't know anyone else in Canada and how would they know what Ignatieff wrote, do they read the academic journals on a regular basis?
If I publish under wraps then my claims to who I am is unsubstantiated, unproven, un-sourced and so should not be used by reputable journalists. The rest of what I say must then stand on its own merits. Increasingly Journalists report on rumor on the excuse that once somebody reports/regurgitates the rumor then the rumor becomes news and the fact to be reported is that somebody else reported it. This weakness in journalism has been used to launder untruths even in our own political elections and not just by the current masters of spin running the current government.
Anyway the lack of accountability of ownership for the site is highly suspect but not proof of who he is. But then you should have noticed the Colonel's usage of a non-US spelling of 'Labour” too. US children learn to spell it as in “Secretary of Labor”. Now you might think he got it from the internet but surprisingly “British Labor Party” Googles a few times over more often than its British and Canadian spelling. Even in the UK where the British spelling dominates, the American spelling crops up on sites that may have an American connection (like Amazon.uk…). So the self proclaimed American was either lucky, or very highly knowledgeable, or NOT from the US school system. I suspect its a Canadian's Freudian slip in the rush to reply. Granted it's not a wooden stake but just one more nail in the coffin of his trustworthiness.
As to is it a left of center plot?, well it gives Harper the role of Caesar, Iggy the Role of Brutus, and reads like Mark Antony's eulogy to Caesar. So not likely.