Categories: Andrew Coyne, Capital Read

That Dion interview, in full

by Andrew Coyne on Friday, October 10, 2008 1:51am - 0 Comments

I cannot believe we are discussing this. But for the record:

- The question was clumsily phrased, but clear enough in the broad strokes: If you were in Stephen Harper’s shoes, what would you do differently? You’ve criticized him for doing nothing in the midst of a financial crisis. Fine: If you were prime minister today, what would you do? Does he mean if you were just elected, or had been in government for the last two-and-a-half years? Who cares? Pick one, and answer it.

- That Dion was unable at first to offer an answer has nothing to do with any hearing problem, and I would judge is only marginally to do with English being his second language. It’s mostly a matter of over-thinking the question. So, okay, he has an embarrassing moment. Who cares? Why is this news? Show it bottom of the newscast, as a “whoops” story, maybe. But convening a panel of MPs to analyze it? Reading all sorts of deep significance into it? Lordy.

- It’s probably true to say that if an English-speaking politician had as much trouble with a French question, the francophone press would be all over him. Who cares? Is that going to be our standard: thin-skinned, language-obsessed ultra-nationalists? It’s also true that Dion’s English is less than ideal. Voters, in whatever part of the country they may live, are entitled to take that into account. They are also entitled to ignore it. Either way, it’s hardly news.

- When he did finally answer the question, Dion did not give a good answer. But the bad answer he gave is the same bad answer he’s been giving since the French debate: If elected, I’d convene some meetings. That’s worth exploring — the Libs have been denouncing the Tories for doing nothing, but offer next to nothing as an alternative — but it doesn’t warrant the “aha!” tone of the coverage of this particular non-event.

- Duffy was way offside in giving this so much attention. But it doesn’t bear comparisons with the Chretien “face” incident. And it doesn’t warrant some of the personal attacks on him that have appeared on this site.

- As for the Chretien “face” incident: we’re all total hypocrites. We all agree the Tories were terrible people to have made sport of his lopsided face in 1993. And in private we all do the same. Be honest: have you not at some point imitated Chretien’s speaking style? And did it not involve speaking in a heavy Quebecois accent, while shoving your mouth out to one side? Is that not the image we have seen in a hundred thousand editorial cartoons?

- Final point: our hypocrisy in this regard is completely defensible There’s a time and a place for offensive humour: at a private party, or a comedy club, or in an editorial cartoon. These are and should be sanctuaries, where we are (more or less) free to say what we please, without fear (within limits) of the judgement of others. Political campaigns are not that time, or that place.

Tags: Election Watch, Mike Duffy, Stéphane Dion

More by Andrew Coyne

ALAN WEBSTER

Andrew

Having read all your article – and the many blog comments up to Jack Campbell’s erudite analysis of the reporter’s question in English – I have to respond that most Canadians would have known what he was asking .

The fact that despite Mr Dion stopping the taping three times to think about an answer – speaks volumes about his lack of political skills as well as questioning his language skills – especially in English – as the leader of a Canadian federal party .

No doubt- both he and his Liberal party – accepted the interview with the full intention of running the edited version many times on TV ! The fact that we have finally had the opportunity to see him in action – without the benefit of a tape editor – is very timely /

Your assertion that this episode is not substantive in the current election , cannot be supported . What can be more important than the personal skills and knowledge of the leader of a Canadian political party? Mr Dion’s failure to answer the question, despite his personal attempts to avoid an answer is plain to see by all.
.
Many blogs have pointed out the radical difference in the approach of the opposition parties ( and the media ) to Mr Harper and the Conservatives during this election campaign . Good on Mike Duffy for showing us the other side of the picture – very enlightening – to say the least.

The responsible LEADERSHIP for Canada that Mr Harper and his team , has been demonstrating during the last parliament , will be badly needed as Canada and the rest of the financial world struggle to offset the negative effects that the USA have wrought on us all.

We do NOT need a waffler – in either of Canada’s official languages – to be at the helm of the World’ s No 1 economy . That’ s Canada – in case your readers have not seen the latest IMF ratings !
Mary Metcalfe

Tempest in a teapot all around.There are far more important/impactful things happening in the world right now than to worry about the question, how poorly it was structured, Dion’s response or Duffy’s obsession with it all. Duffy does his thing and the politicos soak it up… most of the rest of the real world does not.
Siobhan

I agree with Andrew and in to whoever said this is comparable to Harper’s stock advice, think again! In the midst of th worst financial turmoil to affect this country since the Great Depression and when people are losing jobs and homes and ENTIRE communities are threatened as paper mills ad manufacturing plants close (especially in that “defeatist” part of the country Harper likes to point to, the Maritimes(who are actually the best savers in the country – w have to be I suspect), I was stunned to hear our Prime Minister make that kind of comment!!

Yes, it might be true. However, he was asked the question in a public forum by a reporter who wanted know just what kind of action – as in government (New Deal, interest rate changes,protecting our savings and RRSP’s et al) – was he preparing to commit to do? And what does this PM – who s running on no less than “leadership” respond? He informs us it’s a good time to buy stocks.

And here I thought government had a legitimate role to play in helping people. Obviously, this PM does not share that view.

Politicians make the kind of errors M. Dion made all the time and broadcasters redo the taping. Often! I have never heard them play anything like this unless it is a TV blooper ten years later.

As Andrew noted, what does it matter when he is PM – next week, that moment, tomorrow – the answer is essentially the same. I can’t believe this is what we call news. I am deeply saddened by our news people for letting all down – and I do not even vote Liberal!

However, if I WAS going to vote for Harper, rest assured his reply – so unlike McCain in the US who stood up for his opponent when he was verbally assaulted by one of his supporters – ensures his lac of humanity (I almost want to say what we think of as Canadian, polite and kind), ensures I would NOT!
http://Gotcha Murray Littlejohn

I spoke to Steve Murphy last year when he was interviewing Peter C. Newman before a live audience in Saint John New Brunswick. Both men took swipes at Stéphane Dion on the stage during their ‘fire-side chat’. Their view was the standard conservative “Dion is not a leader” – He does not have ‘it’”. His linguistic skills were brought up for particular criticism. Speaking to Steve Murphy after the event, he reiterated his view of Dion to me with even more conviction. His dislike of Dion was palpable. I walked away from the conversation wondering how Dion could ever get a fair hearing from such a journalist – when the fierce criticism of Dion is a matter of ‘style over substance and character’.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Mr. Murphy could have linguistically confused question as trap for Dion he would have. Surely the incident would have brought sheer delight to Murphy. That CTV ensured the release and immediate distribution of the ‘outtake’ speaks for itself. “Gottcha!” – Journalistic standards are so high these days!

Andrew is one of several exceptions. His article on Harper is right on target, piercing beyond the shadow and the disguise. Agree or disagree with Andrew Coyne, there is always substance to the conversation. One can gain traction in the conversation and the discussion can go somewhere.
Francien Verhoeven

Jarrid,

“It’s a momentum changer on the economy question, the key question on which the election hinges. He’s gone from offence to defence. Indeed, he’ll be impotent and not credible when he henceforth attacks Harper on this issue.”

Quite the reverse in fact. This whole incident will show how much common sense has been turned upside down. The current economic upheavel is partly as a result of a world having been turned upside down also.

Dion’s and Liberal logic triumph over common sense, time and time again:

“When one is weak, turn that into being his strenght.”

It’s called Human rights!