Try the veal

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 1:44 PM - 29 Comments

Mike Duffy, comedian.

Duffy also roasted Federal Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP leader Jack Layton, as well as the Jean Chrétien-era Federal Liberals’ sponsorship scandal — topics that left the audience laughing.

“What kind of work do I think Michael Ignatieff is doing? He works very hard and he is doing the work of three people — Larry, Moe and Curly,” said Duffy in a series of rapid-fire jokes. “What is the difference between a member of the NDP and a Liberal? About $500 of suit material,” went another.

It's not television's fault

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 1:41 AM - 6 Comments

It’s the people on it.

From New York’s profile of Rachel Maddow.

This is not to say that Maddow doesn’t have opinions about cable news. For starters, she loathes the format that casts the host as a referee between squabbling guests and has vowed to have only one speaking guest at a time, because, she’s says, it’s more respectful. “You’re essentially watching for the kinetic activity of the fight rather than listening to what anybody says about the issue,” she says. “And I think what people end up cheering for is winning, you know, rather than getting something out of it. I think there’s more intelligent ways to entertain people” … “Put a lot of information out there. People can handle it. It’s okay to use big words. You don’t need to dumb stuff down! You don’t need to make stuff simple and repetitive for people. If you assume that your audience is as interested in what you are talking about as you are, you’re going to connect with your audience in a much better way.” She might not be saving the world, but she is intent on making it a little smarter.

Megapundit: "Bob Rae chaos theory"

By selley - Friday, October 10, 2008 at 12:46 PM - 0 Comments

Must-reads: John Robson on our “disgusting” politics; Don Martin on the Dion interview; Chantal Hébert on Harper’s Quebec debacle; Lorne Gunter on the Canadian economy; Rosie DiManno on negotiating with the Taliban; Jeffrey Simpson on Dion-mania.

“We got nothing”
In which Canadian politics touches bottom in the cesspool, and starts digging.

John Robson‘s column in the Ottawa Citizen isn’t about what you might think it’s about, but his lede is entirely apropos today: “With the election just days away, it’s not enough to declare that contemporary Canadian politics is disgusting. You need to show it.” His evidence, as usual, involves the dozens of asinine, self-congratulatory, “redolent of the frat house” press releases that arrive in his inbox every day during the campaign, and the unalloyed lies political leaders spew on the campaign trail—such as Jack Layton’s assurances, “despite clear evidence to the contrary from the Quebec National Assembly’s Journal of Debates,” that Thomas Mulcair never advocated exporting fresh water. “It’s the tone of angry self-satisfaction that I find not merely unjustified but actively disgraceful, given public disenchantment with the whole business,” he writes, eliciting firm nods of agreement throughout the land. “OK, guys. You got them, and they got you. But we got nothing.”

On the National Post‘s Full Comment blog, Don Martin contributes the best-yet reaction to CTV’s jaw-dropping hatchet job on Stéphane Dion. “Aside from the questionable ethics of CTV airing a segment when both Mr. Dion and interviewer Steve Murphy twice agreed to restart the interview to clarify the question”—questionable at best, we’d say—”this is a damning insight into how desperate the Conservatives have become in their battle to belittle a Liberal leader they never dreamed could pose a threat to their government,” and “may actually provide more telling insight into the character of Stephen Harper.”

Continue…

Les mots justes

By selley - Friday, October 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM - 0 Comments

“If I gave you a sandwich made of baby seal meat right now, would you have eaten it two years ago?” –DTK

That Dion interview, in full

By Andrew Coyne - Friday, October 10, 2008 at 1:51 AM - 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.

BTC: By request

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 6:31 PM - 53 Comments

Mike Duffy v. Elizabeth May.

According to a rough transcript sent this way—the full video does not appear to be on CTV’s website—Duffy was setting up a piece on Peter MacKay and Elizabeth May debating at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia. At the debate, May said something about renegotiating NAFTA. Duffy described her statements as “pretty bizarre” and “off the wall” and “bizarre.” He then apparently asked MacKay, “How do you debate someone who is never going to be in power and can promise the world and never have to back it up? I mean doesn’t it put one at a disadvantage.”

That seems to have led to this. Continue…

Weekend Notes (Vol. 1, No. 16)

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 3:08 PM - 0 Comments

After the Globe reported this week that Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan were reaching out to members of the Taliban, Defence Minister Peter MacKay moved quickly to clarify for the nation that we were not, in actual fact, speaking with the evildoers. 

“We’re going to work with the Afghans in a democratic way, but we are not involved in any direct discussions with Taliban terrorists,” he told reporters after QP. “We don’t do that, we will not do that. We will work on national reconciliation, reconstruction development, all of those things with sovereign decisions made by the Afghanistan government.”

To that clarification, Deepak Obhrai, the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, offered this during Friday’s QP.

“Mr. Speaker, the decision to engage the Taliban was made by the government of Afghanistan. Canada does not interfere with what the government of Afghanistan does,” he said, later going just a touch further. “It is the responsibility and the prerogative of the Afghan government to negotiate with its citizens, including the members of the Taliban. Any reconciliation process that will bring peace to the region, they can count on Canada’s support.”

So. Canada is not currently communicating with the Taliban. But the Afghan government is pursuing such discussions. And we will do everything we can to support them in this matter. All clear?

And those troops who are talking to the Taliban?

Continue…