Dion's 3 strikes interview

[eyeball]

Duffy did not conduct the interview. So you obviously haven't watched the interview, which is at the crux of this matter, and you enlighten us with your uniformed opinion. How very Liberal of you.

So what if it wasn't Duffy the crux of the matter is all the hoopla over Dion having difficulty understanding something he was asked in English. I note that Dion was given the impression the segment was going to be done over again.

So this is all its supposed to take to make or breaks a politician these days? If that's the case the expectations of flawlessness is getting a little over the top. I'll take an imperfect human being over a robot anyday thanks.

Are Conservatives really this unforgiving of a misunderstanding... what's next bringing back the strap for grade schoolers for stammering?

[capricorn]

Are Conservatives really this unforgiving of a misunderstanding...

They don't call them war rooms for nothing. In case you didn't know, each party has one.

what's next bringing back the strap for grade schoolers for stammering?

Grow up.

[Topaz]

They don't call them war rooms for nothing. In case you didn't know, each party has one.

Grow up.

That's exactly what Harper and his young bunch of immature guys should do!! They should go to school in th summer to learn on how to act in the House and Harper should be there too since he starts the wise cracks, personel attacks!

[AngusThermopyle]

You'd thank him later. Markets are cyclical and sooner or later they'll be back up. Buy low, sell high.

Why is it that so many seemingly intelligent people just don't get that?

[unspoken]

I guess you Liberals are right, I mean the nerve of Harper to criticize the policy of his opponent in an election campaign. Who the hell does he think he is?

/sarcasm

Harper hasn't said anything negative regarding Dion's disability. Give it a rest.

[AngusThermopyle]

So $12 billion dollar surplus is a good thing? It means you are being ripped off as a tax payer or the government is fiscally inept. That's all.

Why is it that so many seemingly intelligent people just don't get that?

[wolfd]

Did you watch it?

Dion was angry

frustrated is more like it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpOTh9_92ms...read.php?p=1669

[kimmy]

He was treated respectfully. There were no outcuts from interviews that I recall. Do you recall any?

If I may, your argument here is, essentially, that the media is being mean to Dion. Is that not what this boils down to?

Harper was in and out of federal politics a while before the first debates and interviews with the French media as leader

Who cares? Harper was soundly rejected in Quebec at that time. Outtakes or not, his poor French was a factor in that. Quebecers apparently won't accept a leader whose French isn't to their liking, which you've cited yourself as a factor in Kennedy's failed leadership bid.

Dion was the Intergovernmental Affairs minister in 1996. He's had a prominent role in the federal government for a long time. But unlike Harper, he hasn't improved his skills in his non-native language. He still talks like a cartoon character, he still can't communicate effectively, and evidently he still can't comprehend straightforward questions.

But criticize him for his apparent lack of interest in Canada's most used language, and it's "Allors! Le racisme!"

A number of years ago, I had the idea of applying for a job with the federal government. I submitted my personal details to start the application process, and was rejected right off the bat. Why? Wrong postal code. The government would not accept applications from Edmonton. Or Alberta. Or basically anywhere outside of Quebec and Ontario. The rationale, apparently, involved moving expenses or some such, even though I'd made no request to have expenses paid for me.

A while later that outrageous policy drew appropriate public fury and was corrected, with much ballyhoo. I decided to apply again, but again was out of luck. My ace computer skills, which were good enough for Microsoft, were not at issue. The problem was my fluency in French. The job was designated as bilingual required, and my French language fluency, as an FSL kid from the prairies, would have had to have undergone a test that there was no chance of me passing. Computer techies with the government may be required to interact in either language. So again no luck for Kimmy.

So, my question is: if my French isn't good enough for the federal government, why should I accept a Prime Minister whose English isn't good enough for me?

Outakes and pictures of candidates in unflattering poses are true gotcha moments.

If we were talking about showing up for the interview with some chip-dip on his tie, or belching, or accidentally knocking over the coffee table or something, I'd be with you.

But this wasn't some kind of wacky shenanigans that the public didn't need to know about. This was a guy who wants to be prime minister being unable to answer a straightforward question that is central to the current premise of his campaign.

The outakes was the gotcha moment.

Palin wasn't featured in outtakes.

Palin wasn't given any out-takes. She was caught flat-footed by a question she didn't know how to answer, and sat there uncomfortably while trying to figure out how to respond. Viewers got to see her in that moment, and many decided that her reaction showed that she simply did not have adequate knowledge to be Vice President.

You would have us believe that Canadian viewers should not have had been allowed to see Dion in similar circumstances, because it was ... uh, mean. Or something.

-k

[jdobbin]

If I may, your argument here is, essentially, that the media is being mean to Dion. Is that not what this boils down to?

Not at all. I'd day the media generally plays the "gotcha" game with many people. The French media though says they generally didn't do it with Harper when he started out as leader.

Who cares? Harper was soundly rejected in Quebec at that time. Outtakes or not, his poor French was a factor in that. Quebecers apparently won't accept a leader whose French isn't to their liking, which you've cited yourself as a factor in Kennedy's failed leadership bid.

I think you are confused here. I said Kennedy's French was an issue for the Liberal leadership. I never said anything about Harper's French being the main issue in him not winning seats in Quebec. He was commended for his attempts at communicating with Quebec. He was rejected at the time because it looked like his party was basically a western Canadian group and many of the ideas of the old party didn't resonate in Quebec nor was their any organization to promote the party.

Dion was the Intergovernmental Affairs minister in 1996. He's had a prominent role in the federal government for a long time. But unlike Harper, he hasn't improved his skills in his non-native language. He still talks like a cartoon character, he still can't communicate effectively, and evidently he still can't comprehend straightforward questions.

And Harper was deeply involved with the right in the 1990s and wasn't really under the spotlight until he was leader.

So, my question is: if my French isn't good enough for the federal government, why should I accept a Prime Minister whose English isn't good enough for me?

I can't speak to your situation.

By all mean don't accept someone's language skills. However, the interview was a gotcha moment that the media can pull on anyone at anytime. Do you disagree?

If we were talking about showing up for the interview with some chip-dip on his tie, or belching, or accidentally knocking over the coffee table or something, I'd be with you.

They do re-takes for the interviewer too as has been mentioned on other media today. They two a two shot, shoot the questions and shoot the answers. The interview in these cases in pre-recorded and generally shot with one camera. It has a series of stops and starts, sometimes the interviewer has to re-phrase the question and sometimes even flubs lines that they correct.

But this wasn't some kind of wacky shenanigans that the public didn't need to know about. This was a guy who wants to be prime minister being unable to answer a straightforward question that is central to the current premise of his campaign.

Palin wasn't given any out-takes. She was caught flat-footed by a question she didn't know how to answer, and sat there uncomfortably while trying to figure out how to respond. Viewers got to see her in that moment, and many decided that her reaction showed that she simply did not have adequate knowledge to be Vice President.

The entire interview was covered in this case. The question was legitimate, the response after was a gotcha moment for some media.

You would have us believe that Canadian viewers should not have had been allowed to see Dion in similar circumstances, because it was ... uh, mean. Or something.

Think what I am saying is that Harper could easily be caught up in the same situation the media wishes to embarrass him.

Was it not him that someone in the media once released a photo of him getting make-up prior to an interview. I thought it was a gotcha moment trying to illustrate whatever angle the media was trying to make. They didn't show the interviewer getting the same treatment.

[Who's Doing What?]

If this is the best response you can come up with for me pointing out a Dion gaffe and calling him to task on it, your wasting bandwidth and time. If Dobbin is allowed to criticize the tories for being mean spirited knowing full well the Liberals are just as mean spirited, I get to criticize the Liberals as well knowing full well the tories are mean spirited. It's called politics.

Dion got burned, and could pay a big price plus tax at election time.

Actually I was responding to:

It's alright to roast Harper on his gaffe in Quebec, but it's not alright to attack Dion, please. Tit for Tat.

Like you think there is a double standard of your own double standard.

I just think it ironically funny that a party that has lived off of the phrase "But the Liberals..." actually feels the need to come out and say "Well Harper is getting attacked so why shouldn't Dion?" You guys justify everything you do because the Liberals have done it first. Bunch of copycats if you ask me.

Whatever, it just follows the childish behaviour of this administration. I guess it is wrong to expect anything different from it's most ardent supporters.

[Who's Doing What?]

The question itself was stupid. What kind of 4th grade grammar school did this reporter flunk out of?

Damn thing nearly confused me.

"If you were Prime Minister now..." Notice the present tense of the opening of this question.

"If you were Prime Minister now what would you have done......" Would have? As in past tense? Get it together buddy. No freaking wonder your still stuck out east on the affiliate station.

Dion asks, "Prime minister 2-1/2 years ago?"

"Prime Minister on tuesday?"

NO.

This rediculous question asks, " If you were made Prime minister right now at this moment what would you have done 6 months ago as prime minister?"

Anyone else see the stupidity in this? You just made him PM 2 min ago, then you ask him what he would have done as PM 6 months ago.

As I heard the question I thought it sounded strange, then add into it the fact that English is Dion's second language, and it is no wonder he got confused.

Rag on it all you want. The journalists I listened to tonight were, for lack of a better term, ashamed of CTV for airing the entire interview, including the redundant opening explaination from the grammar school failure of a reporter.

Dion asked to start over and that usually means everything before the restart is left on the cutting room floor. The journalists said they had been through this themselves several times and thought this looked very badly on the CTV.

[Smallc]

Rag on it all you want. The journalists I listened to tonight were, for lack of a better term, ashamed of CTV for airing the entire interview, including the redundant opening explaination from the grammar school failure of a reporter.

Even CTV reported that they have received a large amount of angry feedback. And I think your right about the question. It seemed to baffle him as he couldn't be PM now unless he were PM 2.5 years ago. It really did make no sense when you think about it.

[AngusThermopyle]

Damn thing nearly confused me.

Are you serious? Do you honestly expect me to believe you found this question confusing?

Instead what I find is a lot of rationalization intended to excuse the mans total lack of an answer. Screw that , he had no answer. You can sit here all day debating the gramatical integrity of the question but every one who heard it understood exactly what was being asked, except Dion, and, apparently you.

So go ahead, play the village idiot if that makes you feel more comfortable, it still doesn't change the fact that this human Poodle dropped the ball in a major way.

Shit man! Is there no limit to the rationalization, just grab a sense of reality, everything looks different when you do.

[independent]

So $12 billion dollar surplus is a good thing? It means you are being ripped off as a tax payer or the government is fiscally inept. That's all.

You must be unaware that canada has a huge debt.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr/2008/afr2008_1e.html

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/04/21/dbrscanada.html

[Jobu]

You must be unaware that canada has a huge debt.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr/2008/afr2008_1e.html

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/04/21/dbrscanada.html

Yep. So why didn't they use the surplus to pay down the debt instead of retaining it in their coffers?

[Jobu]

Why is it that being bilingual is a requirement for military service, RCMP service, etc., but not PM?

[Argus]

Why is it that being bilingual is a requirement for military service, RCMP service, etc., but not PM?

Because the rules were made by Quebec politicians, and they exempted themselves.

But bilingualism is a side issue. It might have played a part in his confusion, but he clearly knew what the question was for he attempted to answer it by saying something to the affect that "i would have had an agenda for two and a half years" which, mind you, is nothing more than saying "I would have had a plan of some kind", which is about the same as "I will talk to some people after I get elected and find out what my plan should be".

I think the real issue is he had no plan and has no plan, but doesn't have the honesty or integrity to admit it or the intelligence or vision to develop one.

[Jobu]

Because the rules were made by Quebec politicians, and they exempted themselves.

But bilingualism is a side issue. It might have played a part in his confusion, but he clearly knew what the question was for he attempted to answer it by saying something to the affect that "i would have had an agenda for two and a half years" which, mind you, is nothing more than saying "I would have had a plan of some kind", which is about the same as "I will talk to some people after I get elected and find out what my plan should be".

I think the real issue is he had no plan and has no plan, but doesn't have the honesty or integrity to admit it or the intelligence or vision to develop one.

I agree.

[independent]

Yep. So why didn't they use the surplus to pay down the debt instead of retaining it in their coffers?

They did use it to pay down the debt.

[myata]

The references to the plan are everythere, this thread included (or this morning, on CBC The House), or elsewhere. No, we dont' see it.

I'd suggest it would be extremely dangerous to elect somebody who has selective vision of things (based on ideology, or personal liking) in these precarious times.

[Jobu]

They did use it to pay down the debt.

Then there shouldn't be a surplus.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Bryan]

You must be unaware that canada has a huge debt.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr/2008/afr2008_1e.html

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/04/21/dbrscanada.html

I'm not sure that those links mean what you think they mean.

The Conservatives paid down almost $40 Billion on the federal debt in two years, a savings of $2 billion a year in interest payments alone.

[Smallc]

Why is it that being bilingual is a requirement for military service, RCMP service

It isn't. It is to be an officer in the military or to join CSIS though.

[kengs333]

I'm not sure that those links mean what you think they mean.

The Conservatives paid down almost $40 Billion on the federal debt in two years, a savings of $2 billion a year in interest payments alone.

That's a holdover from the Liberals, and wouldn't be happening if Harper had a majority. If Harper had a majority we would be in a serious deficit by now and the debt would be ballooning like it did under Mulroney.

[kengs333]

You mean, upward trend?

No, downward; as in 9 is lower than 12, and 3 is lower than 9. Downward trend.