Keeping it Real…

I admit it: I’m a junkie.  I still need my regular daily fix of politics, even though I’ve been retired for years now.

It all started with covering Burnaby City Council meetings for The Vancouver Sun … clearly a gateway event …that eventually led me to cover Vancouver City Hall, the GVRD, the Legislature in Victoria, Parliament in Ottawa (see the progression?)  … and now lately, I’m even hooked on watching U.S. Presidential politics.

And trust me … stay away, unless you are prepared to be let down.  U.S. Presidential Primary Debates may attract viewers looking for an ultimate high … but what you get is an initial rush, followed by a high or two as lines are delivered,  but ultimately ending with a crash at the end of it all, leaving you empty, unfulfilled and exhausted … time after time.

Why?

Because the “reporters” asking the questions, probing the candidates have forgotten to be real journalists.

They all seem to be sticking to pre-scripted questions on pre-determined topics in pre-allocated segments ..all in an orchestrated, precisely timed order … which forces the whole debate into a pre-measured straight jacket formula that almost totally removes the essential questioning tool of cross-examination.

So we get assigned discussion segments on The Economy, Social Issues and Foreign Relations.

And admittedly, I do get my expected high from some of the questions and the responses from the candidates, or lack of responses, and parrying that follows between the aspiring Presidential candidates, and sometimes, the reporters on the panel.

But then comes the crash.

Why?

Because the journalists are so tied to their scripts, they don’t  think about previous answers tossed out by the contenders as they totally contradict themsleves 20 minutes later in another segment.

For example, in Monday’s debate on Fox News the candidates, in the section on The Economy,  were asked what level of personal income taxes they thought should be applied, even for the highest earners … and, of course, they responded calling for lower personal taxes …right down to zero in the case of Ron Paul. An easy lob to experienced journalists:  what would lowering taxes on EVERYONE do to the US deficit, debt, economy???? And down to zero??  Where would Paul make up for the HUGE loss of revenues?  Nothing.  Nada. Rien.

And of course, they all called for lower corporate taxes as well.   But even that didn’t lead to a single question about the impact this shallow rhetoric would have on the US government operations, its deficit and debt.  The journalism was as shallow as the responses.

And it got even worse.

In a later segment on Foreign Affairs, all of the candidates, except Paul, called for a STRONG US defence policy and did quite a lot of saber-rattling in the direction of Iran.  And even seemingly-isolationist Paul called for a strong US miliitary to DEFEND the country.

The OBVIOUS question ..how would they pay for all that …in light of their earlier pledge to lower or compeltely eliminate personal taxes, lowewr corproate taxes etc etc.?????

But apparently, when these illustrous journalists move on to a new segment …they MUST STICK to their pre-determined questions.

And they totally forget everything said by the candidates only minutes earlier … so there are no “wait a minute” moments, no questioning of how they intend to pay for a stronger military, a new war on Iran … while lowering taxes even more.

What would they cut … even eliminating two or three departments (likely impossible-to-keep rhetoric) and cutting foreign aid wouldn’t be enough to do all they kept promising to keep America “strong” without MAJOR service eliminations in huge already-committed social programs.  Which would they cut or eliminate? And what would happen to those people who can’t find jobs and depend on those programs.  Nothing. Nada Rien.

It’s actually quite a surprise to see such seasoned senior reporters failing to connect the dots between what a politician says now and what he said 20 minutes earlier.  And it was not just done in the latest debate on Fox.

Quite shameful.

But now that you’re on to it, if you too are a political junky like me, I urge you NOT to watch for it next time. Take it from me: that will just make your crash when it’s over even worse. And vow never to do it again.

Until the next one.

Harv Oberfeld

• Share

So the federal Liberal Party wants (again) to make inroads in BC and the West!  But they clearly still don’t get it, so they won’t get it.  Get it?

At their weekend convention, according to The Vancouver Sun, the “new” Liberals actually reasoned that “a new spirit of openness and a policy in favour of legalizing and pot will help breathe life into the Liberal Party in Western Canada”.

What an insult!

I’m surprised they didn’t also pass motions saying the Libs LOVE wheat, oil,  salmon, samosas and dim sum … to really reach out to the West in 2012.

Do they think we didn’t notice that when the subject of giving BC and Alberta our DESERVED RIGHT to additional Commons seats, the Libs weren’t exactly defending our rights?

From the Windsor Star Jan 3: “The NDP and Liberals criticized the bill for relying on the population formula and for the speed at which it was rushed through Parliament and the Senate before receiving royal assent.”

Well, we already knew the federal NDP had sold out BC and the West during the last election, as Jack Layton promised Quebec anything and everything it wants, including more seats if BC got more seats, and BC’s NDP MPs and candidates not only went along with that, but actually defended the outrage.    Of course that worked in Quebec … just the way favoring the East, at the cost of fairness in the West, has always worked for federal parties down East.

But where were the Liberals?  Certainly not defending BC rights or justice or fair play.

In fact, when a Francophone NDP MP from New Brunswick also pushed a Private Member’s Bill that would have made sure almost no Westerners could ever qualify in the future for nomination to Canada’s Supreme Court by requiring expert level bilingualism for all new appointees, the Liberals joined the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois and voted FOR that Bill.

The unofficial  Commons Coalition to Screw the West (Liberals, NDP, Bloc Quebec) succeeded in the House…. overwhelming the Conservative minority government and passed the legislation.  The only thing that stopped it from becoming law was the Tory majority in the oft-maligned, but in this case, West-saving Senate.  (Perfect example of why we should keep the Senate …until our democracy truly gives the West its fair share of power in Ottawa!)

And what about the recent contracts to build new coast guard and navy vessels … contracts awarded by the Tory government to BC and Nova Scotia firms …  based totally on independent assessments of costs and technical merit,  without ANY POLITICAL  INTERFERENCE.  Does anyone really believe the Liberals would have carried out the process that way????

Do the federal Liberals think we don’t know about all this … about how the ACT back East … compared to what they SAY out West?

And they think saying they would legalize pot (which they wouldn’t do anyway, because the Americans would shut the border tighter than a drum) is the key to winning BC votes!

Maybe they should start Keeping It Real and read more BC and Western Canada blogs.

Harv Oberfeld

• Share