I think anyone capable of looking at Trump objectively can see what he's doing. He's not serious but he is making a serious point. He is pushing Europe to step up in NATO and start pulling their weight. He has poked strategic partners like Greenland and Canada to do more in the Arctic. He is poking Canada and Mexico on border issues. He has fired shots across the bow in the Middle East. All of these silly presentations have accomplished results. Canada has been discussing borders since 2015 and voila, have only just now started to take new measures. Mexico has also started to break up migrant caravans. You may not like Trump, but he ceratinly gets results quickly.
I will say, though, that once you commit yourself to a bunch of wild ideas — buying Greenland, annexing Canada, invading Panama, etc — you do eventually have to make good on *some* of them. I have no idea what that will look like, but an administration with a cult of personality behind it and painfully little opposition in Congress does make me pretty nervous.
Interesting perspective and exceptional research. I for one had perceived Mark Carney as a stuffed shirt kind of guy and thought his interview with Jon Stewart ( who was acting very silly even for him) left me with a totally different impression of him as a person and politician. I actually had to eat some of my own words when I had said that I wouldn’t ever considered him whenever I cast my ballot for the Liberal leadership position. Maybe that’s just me but I somehow don’t think so.
I too was pleasantly surprised to find Mark Carney relaxed, funny and rolling with the punches during the interview with Jon Stewart. Then came his announcement in Edmonton: nothing but bromides, working very hard to prove that his roots were in the local hockey arena, and speaking a pretty awkward French -- stilted, heavily accented and making several grammatical errors.
Portraying yourself as a non-politician man-of-the-hour "because these are extraordinary times" will play well with Liberal fans but may not cut it with the general public.
Still, he's better than Freeland, who is so embedded with Trudeau that she will be unable to escape the association.
The thing about Carney is that, having watched some of his lengthier speeches, I am actually quite impressed by the guy. I think he has a clear-eyed view of the world, and manages to see through a lot of the things that trip up conventional politicians.
What bothers me is that he only conveys that view in rooms full of plutocrats and bankers. When he gets in front of 'regular' people, suddenly it's all the same platitudes that have been gushing out of the mouths of liberals for a decade.
Politicians shouldn't be trusted, nor will they win, if they come out to spoonfeed the masses more carefully-packaged jargon. I think it both cheapens politics and robs you of a mandate to actually do anything if you do win.
There's still lots of time for him to pivot to being a serious candidate. But I worry that the campaign wisdom is: Don't use too many big words or you might lose people.
(And agreed, his French is rough. But I've watched an hour-long interview he gave entirely en français — at least he's committed to it.)
I'm not sure Carney will be able to distance himself to much from Trudeau in the public, since he was openly being referenced as an advisor by Trudeau. I think in terms of running the ministry of finance and being clear eyed he'd be good, but so far he hasn't impressed much with his campaign speaking.
I also bristle at how much he's been spoken of by the media as a possible coming savior for the liberals over the past years, without doing the ground work in Canada to get to know the "public". Feels a little anointed by the establishment.
You don't seem very stoked on Carney. I hope you'll expand on that here (for those of us that don't have a subscription to the Star) and also give us some analysis of Freeland.
I find it amusing that both Carney and Freeland have both said they will cancel the liberal carbon tax. The scary part? They said they will replace it with something else. That's even more scary. At the end of the day, attacks is a tax is a tax
I love the Kayfabe comparison, as well as the smack that a tweet from The Donald got more action in seven days than 10 years of gum flapping about the opioid crises. Keep it up. I hope some senior Liberals read you substance. Btw - on your next long roadtrip - get https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60845095-on-tyranny-expanded-audio-edition
I think anyone capable of looking at Trump objectively can see what he's doing. He's not serious but he is making a serious point. He is pushing Europe to step up in NATO and start pulling their weight. He has poked strategic partners like Greenland and Canada to do more in the Arctic. He is poking Canada and Mexico on border issues. He has fired shots across the bow in the Middle East. All of these silly presentations have accomplished results. Canada has been discussing borders since 2015 and voila, have only just now started to take new measures. Mexico has also started to break up migrant caravans. You may not like Trump, but he ceratinly gets results quickly.
Yup, exactly.
I will say, though, that once you commit yourself to a bunch of wild ideas — buying Greenland, annexing Canada, invading Panama, etc — you do eventually have to make good on *some* of them. I have no idea what that will look like, but an administration with a cult of personality behind it and painfully little opposition in Congress does make me pretty nervous.
Tell me when you run for political office ... I will vote for you!
Interesting perspective and exceptional research. I for one had perceived Mark Carney as a stuffed shirt kind of guy and thought his interview with Jon Stewart ( who was acting very silly even for him) left me with a totally different impression of him as a person and politician. I actually had to eat some of my own words when I had said that I wouldn’t ever considered him whenever I cast my ballot for the Liberal leadership position. Maybe that’s just me but I somehow don’t think so.
I too was pleasantly surprised to find Mark Carney relaxed, funny and rolling with the punches during the interview with Jon Stewart. Then came his announcement in Edmonton: nothing but bromides, working very hard to prove that his roots were in the local hockey arena, and speaking a pretty awkward French -- stilted, heavily accented and making several grammatical errors.
Portraying yourself as a non-politician man-of-the-hour "because these are extraordinary times" will play well with Liberal fans but may not cut it with the general public.
Still, he's better than Freeland, who is so embedded with Trudeau that she will be unable to escape the association.
The thing about Carney is that, having watched some of his lengthier speeches, I am actually quite impressed by the guy. I think he has a clear-eyed view of the world, and manages to see through a lot of the things that trip up conventional politicians.
What bothers me is that he only conveys that view in rooms full of plutocrats and bankers. When he gets in front of 'regular' people, suddenly it's all the same platitudes that have been gushing out of the mouths of liberals for a decade.
Politicians shouldn't be trusted, nor will they win, if they come out to spoonfeed the masses more carefully-packaged jargon. I think it both cheapens politics and robs you of a mandate to actually do anything if you do win.
There's still lots of time for him to pivot to being a serious candidate. But I worry that the campaign wisdom is: Don't use too many big words or you might lose people.
(And agreed, his French is rough. But I've watched an hour-long interview he gave entirely en français — at least he's committed to it.)
I'm not sure Carney will be able to distance himself to much from Trudeau in the public, since he was openly being referenced as an advisor by Trudeau. I think in terms of running the ministry of finance and being clear eyed he'd be good, but so far he hasn't impressed much with his campaign speaking.
I also bristle at how much he's been spoken of by the media as a possible coming savior for the liberals over the past years, without doing the ground work in Canada to get to know the "public". Feels a little anointed by the establishment.
You don't seem very stoked on Carney. I hope you'll expand on that here (for those of us that don't have a subscription to the Star) and also give us some analysis of Freeland.
I'm *hoping* to snag interviews with both Freeland and Carney. When I do, I'll drop the full audio/transcripts here!
Dare I ask if you've also sent a request for Poilievre?
Oh, multiple. They've finally acknowledged my request. I'm really keen to sit down with him, actually! I think it'd be a fascinating conversation.
I find it amusing that both Carney and Freeland have both said they will cancel the liberal carbon tax. The scary part? They said they will replace it with something else. That's even more scary. At the end of the day, attacks is a tax is a tax
I love the Kayfabe comparison, as well as the smack that a tweet from The Donald got more action in seven days than 10 years of gum flapping about the opioid crises. Keep it up. I hope some senior Liberals read you substance. Btw - on your next long roadtrip - get https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60845095-on-tyranny-expanded-audio-edition
The US watched so much reality TV that their reality became a TV series. Why is it so hard for the Libs to oppose him effectively?
Hopefully you will drop some of your great analysis with those interviews.