by In a campaign that was among the nastiest in recent memory, history will record: Stephane Dion had the last gaffe. Dion’s belly flop in Atlantic Canada came on the last full day of the campaign, as Canadians prepare for the extended Thanksgiving long weekend. Words don’t do it justice — watch for yourself.
In a campaign that was among the nastiest in recent memory, history will record: Stephane Dion had the last gaffe. Dion’s belly flop in Atlantic Canada came on the last full day of the campaign, as Canadians prepare for the extended Thanksgiving long weekend. Words don’t do it justice — watch for yourself.
As with all of the other gaffes and embarassments in this campaign (puffingate, the sweatervest, the nudists, the pothead, the conspiracist, and others), there is enough blame and shame to go around.
Shame on Dion…. not for failing to understand the query (which was worded quite awkwardly by the interviewer), but for failing to have a stock response prepared to such an obvious question. The Liberals claim Dion has a hearing problem; other sympathizers blame fatigue after a long, grueling campaign. His detractors point to his tenuous grasp of the English language. In any case, Dion’s "30/50 Plan" is as confusing as the "Green Shift", and his lack of ability to communicate either is a severe shortcoming in his quest to be prime minister.
Shame on Harper…. for commenting at all on the story. The Prime Minister actually went out of his way to draw attention to the gaffe, breaking his hard-and-fast rule of addressing the media only once a day, following his main media event. The move looked crass, desparate, and — rightly or not — conjured up images of Kim Campbell’s attacks on Jean Chretien in 1993. It also tore the sweater vest off of the Tories’ makeover of Stephen Harper’s ‘mean’ image.
Shame on the media…. for airing what was easily the crudest instance of "gotcha" journalism in a campaign full of examples. The blame falls on the reporter for poor elocution and judgement, CTV for airing it, and the rest of the Canadian media for giving it credence.
At some point, Canadian politics will evolve beyond this… at least one would hope.
Cynics argue that, as long as there is an audience for this type of campaigning — both among voters and viewers — we’re in for more of the same. That’s the demand-side argument.
A supply-side approach suggests that the parties and the media are just as much to blame. This is not because they’ve failed to act "responsibly" in vetting candidates or eschewing smear politics. (Although, of course, they have.) The real problem lies in the fact that — in the absence of any substantive policy debate — there’s little left to talk about except these gaffes and mis-steps.
In short, it will take a change in demand and supply to elevate Canadian campaings above the "snakesbelly" brand of politics we’ve experienced in 2008. The market analogy is particularly poignant, given the context of this year’s contest.