I'm a little surprised at all the delicate flowers here who get the vapours when a candidate for — hang on, I'm just getting word that he advertises himself as a candidate for Prime Minister — gets asked hard or edgy or snarky or, in the words of one reader, poo-based questions.
Pierre Poilievre's *entire shtick* during the two years before he announced his candidacy for the office of Prime Minister was that he was the guy who asked questions. Just asking questions! Why won't the minister just answer a simple question! Answer the question, Jean! Answer the question, Mr. Carney! Just asking questions!
Now. I know this is tricky, but try to stick with me. He is trying to get from a place where he... *asks questions*... to a place where he would... *get asked questions*. And it's been a while since I checked the rules, but in my experience, a prime minister usually gets asked questions by (a) members of political parties he doesn't like; (b) snarky poo-based journalists; (c) most importantly, the cold and heartless universe, which sometimes hands leaders a two-year global calamity, and which is, for instance, less interested in the Bank of Canada governor you just fired, and more interested in the one you'd hire. The aforementioned universe asks its questions whether a leader is glib or not. It's unimpressed, this cold and heartless universe, by people on comment boards making excuses. The questions keep coming, no matter what.
Paul, love your newsletter and I am a paying customer! I don't know the news/media business, but perhaps you should look back at your post of yesterday with respect to Lia Scanlan's thoughts on the state of the business to get some insight into why Pierre won't speak with you. I am indifferent as to your position on Poilievre, but your questions give a pretty good sense of which way you are leaning.
Firstly Paul, keep in mind that the questions you hypothetically posed to Pierre Poilievre were very confrontational in nature. Politicians especially are aware that journalists with a particular bias will definitely record any response with a negative spin. It is human nature. Sure, it would be interesting to see how Poilievre can respond to such confrontational questions; but I can well appreciate his reluctance to not.
Secondly, as for Rachel Gilmore, did she pose questions directly to Pierre Poilievre or simply go on a rant labelling him as guilty by association of association. You read the news reports. You know that Pierre joined James Topp for two blocks and he made it clear he was there supporting James Topps' right to protest. Rachel clearly misinformed and skewed the facts. Pure fearmongering.
Back on January 14, 2021, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when referring to passports/mandates, made it clear he was against mandates as they would be divisive and unfair. The man could not have been more right. The mandates clearly have been divisive, and definitely unfair. Now it seems there has been a complete reversal of that thinking, and anyone who still has that mindset is a racist, a misogynist and someone who should not be tolerated. How quickly the swords were drawn.
When one is a critical thinker biases are usually formed. There may be some open-minded journalists, but most come with their preconceived mindset. Yours is obviously against Pierre Poilievre. Mine is in favour of him. For me he is a breath of fresh air. He is holding the government and its departments accountable to the people. Now that is a democracy.
The fact that your questions were all a variation on the theme of "tell us sir, when did you stop beating your wife?" likely had something to do with why you are being ignored.
When Pierre was in Harper's governing cabal, he would never have supported the Occupation. Just sayin'...he was good with the Barbaric Cultural Snitch Line though....so much for freedom.
Perhaps when you speak with young trudeau at the Munk Centre -who funds that establishment again?- and his associate Jagmeet , would you ask them why they did not speak to those who are the less than a "fringe " majority ? I was really excited when you actually had an interview with True North - thought I saw something that looked very brave indeed but then after your last post , I thought it looked suspiciously like something CBC would do . Just suspect Pierre , is watching and waiting - like they all do - to protect himself from someone who is obviously on the "other side " with a transparent bias - that is, at least honest looking to me. Will always read your posts and look forward to seeing what you deem important .
I’m still an undecided Conservative leadership voter. I want to pick a leader that will win the next election. That’s how the Liberal Party picks their leader. Just ask David Herle 😉
My issue, with politics in general, is the hypocrisy and lack of integrity. As a CPA, my entire career has been about professional judgement & ethics. What Justin Trudeau has done to the Liberal Party & the Canadian political landscape has been a disgrace (said by a lifelong Conservative voter). His constant stream of non-answer after non-answer has, in large part, created the vacuum of leadership which has created Pierre (in his current form).
The media has a role to play in all of this. I look forward to reading your critical thinking on these issues. I often feel like the old man from The Simpsons who yells at the clouds ☁️ but at least I’m not alone 😜
Poilievre seems to have been swept away by this campaign to the point where anything incoming is an attack on him and anything outgoing has to be an attack on someone else.
Disappointing because he has enough to actually win some meaningful arguments.
Paul - your questions are at the least very weighted. And I get the other's point that Trudeau will never be subjected to questions that he has to answer.
But your point is on the money: Poilievre is throwing a lot of mud around and should be held to account for it.
Like most things Louise, the world is upside down and with respect to what is happening in the Ukraine I think there are probably many sides to this very complicated issue . As far a political issues go , I feel as if I am in a football game with no equipment but know enough not to trust what any one is saying on either side. I did thoroughly enjoy Ben MacIntyre's :The Spy and the Traitor and how Thatcher and Regan, at that time ,worked with a Russian spy and was able to forge diplomatic relationships with Russia . Now I think, there is a real desire for a greater war and lots of provocation for just that... in my opinion.
I'm a little surprised at all the delicate flowers here who get the vapours when a candidate for — hang on, I'm just getting word that he advertises himself as a candidate for Prime Minister — gets asked hard or edgy or snarky or, in the words of one reader, poo-based questions.
Pierre Poilievre's *entire shtick* during the two years before he announced his candidacy for the office of Prime Minister was that he was the guy who asked questions. Just asking questions! Why won't the minister just answer a simple question! Answer the question, Jean! Answer the question, Mr. Carney! Just asking questions!
Now. I know this is tricky, but try to stick with me. He is trying to get from a place where he... *asks questions*... to a place where he would... *get asked questions*. And it's been a while since I checked the rules, but in my experience, a prime minister usually gets asked questions by (a) members of political parties he doesn't like; (b) snarky poo-based journalists; (c) most importantly, the cold and heartless universe, which sometimes hands leaders a two-year global calamity, and which is, for instance, less interested in the Bank of Canada governor you just fired, and more interested in the one you'd hire. The aforementioned universe asks its questions whether a leader is glib or not. It's unimpressed, this cold and heartless universe, by people on comment boards making excuses. The questions keep coming, no matter what.
Maybe he'd like to practice some.
When Justin starts taking questions maybe Pierre will😀
Paul, love your newsletter and I am a paying customer! I don't know the news/media business, but perhaps you should look back at your post of yesterday with respect to Lia Scanlan's thoughts on the state of the business to get some insight into why Pierre won't speak with you. I am indifferent as to your position on Poilievre, but your questions give a pretty good sense of which way you are leaning.
Good afternoon,
Firstly Paul, keep in mind that the questions you hypothetically posed to Pierre Poilievre were very confrontational in nature. Politicians especially are aware that journalists with a particular bias will definitely record any response with a negative spin. It is human nature. Sure, it would be interesting to see how Poilievre can respond to such confrontational questions; but I can well appreciate his reluctance to not.
Secondly, as for Rachel Gilmore, did she pose questions directly to Pierre Poilievre or simply go on a rant labelling him as guilty by association of association. You read the news reports. You know that Pierre joined James Topp for two blocks and he made it clear he was there supporting James Topps' right to protest. Rachel clearly misinformed and skewed the facts. Pure fearmongering.
Back on January 14, 2021, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when referring to passports/mandates, made it clear he was against mandates as they would be divisive and unfair. The man could not have been more right. The mandates clearly have been divisive, and definitely unfair. Now it seems there has been a complete reversal of that thinking, and anyone who still has that mindset is a racist, a misogynist and someone who should not be tolerated. How quickly the swords were drawn.
When one is a critical thinker biases are usually formed. There may be some open-minded journalists, but most come with their preconceived mindset. Yours is obviously against Pierre Poilievre. Mine is in favour of him. For me he is a breath of fresh air. He is holding the government and its departments accountable to the people. Now that is a democracy.
The fact that your questions were all a variation on the theme of "tell us sir, when did you stop beating your wife?" likely had something to do with why you are being ignored.
Ask a facetious question, get no answer.
When Pierre was in Harper's governing cabal, he would never have supported the Occupation. Just sayin'...he was good with the Barbaric Cultural Snitch Line though....so much for freedom.
Perhaps when you speak with young trudeau at the Munk Centre -who funds that establishment again?- and his associate Jagmeet , would you ask them why they did not speak to those who are the less than a "fringe " majority ? I was really excited when you actually had an interview with True North - thought I saw something that looked very brave indeed but then after your last post , I thought it looked suspiciously like something CBC would do . Just suspect Pierre , is watching and waiting - like they all do - to protect himself from someone who is obviously on the "other side " with a transparent bias - that is, at least honest looking to me. Will always read your posts and look forward to seeing what you deem important .
He prefers holding other politicians to account under a blow torch, Paul. Give the poor guy a break! Ease up on the logical questions.
"Knowing" him, in your capacity as a journalist, doesn't count.
I doubt any paid subscribers are whining about you doing your job.
I’m still an undecided Conservative leadership voter. I want to pick a leader that will win the next election. That’s how the Liberal Party picks their leader. Just ask David Herle 😉
My issue, with politics in general, is the hypocrisy and lack of integrity. As a CPA, my entire career has been about professional judgement & ethics. What Justin Trudeau has done to the Liberal Party & the Canadian political landscape has been a disgrace (said by a lifelong Conservative voter). His constant stream of non-answer after non-answer has, in large part, created the vacuum of leadership which has created Pierre (in his current form).
The media has a role to play in all of this. I look forward to reading your critical thinking on these issues. I often feel like the old man from The Simpsons who yells at the clouds ☁️ but at least I’m not alone 😜
Poilievre seems to have been swept away by this campaign to the point where anything incoming is an attack on him and anything outgoing has to be an attack on someone else.
Disappointing because he has enough to actually win some meaningful arguments.
Paul - your questions are at the least very weighted. And I get the other's point that Trudeau will never be subjected to questions that he has to answer.
But your point is on the money: Poilievre is throwing a lot of mud around and should be held to account for it.
Keep up the great work. Pleased to support you
Like most things Louise, the world is upside down and with respect to what is happening in the Ukraine I think there are probably many sides to this very complicated issue . As far a political issues go , I feel as if I am in a football game with no equipment but know enough not to trust what any one is saying on either side. I did thoroughly enjoy Ben MacIntyre's :The Spy and the Traitor and how Thatcher and Regan, at that time ,worked with a Russian spy and was able to forge diplomatic relationships with Russia . Now I think, there is a real desire for a greater war and lots of provocation for just that... in my opinion.
Whining is a good look....said no one ever. Just stop it, Paul.
Maybe that is all there was for now!