50

BTC: By request


 

Mike Duffy v. Elizabeth May.

According to a rough transcript sent this way—the full video does not appear to be on CTV’s website—Duffy was setting up a piece on Peter MacKay and Elizabeth May debating at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia. At the debate, May said something about renegotiating NAFTA. Duffy described her statements as “pretty bizarre” and “off the wall” and “bizarre.” He then apparently asked MacKay, “How do you debate someone who is never going to be in power and can promise the world and never have to back it up? I mean doesn’t it put one at a disadvantage.”

That seems to have led to this.


 

BTC: By request

  1. Duffy was pwned.

  2. BAA ZING!

  3. Duffy should have stuck to his guns and challenged May. She doesn’t have a hope in hell, and she’s a political tourist (Come on down, David Orchard!) in this election. If she wasn’t she wouldn’t be running against Peter MacKay.

  4. Good for her.

  5. Does he ask May “How do you debate someone who went back on his word and destroyed one of the great founding parties of Canada? Can you trust a single word Peter Mackay says?”

    Because fair is, y’know, fair.

  6. A politcal tourist who currently has over 10 per cent popular support.

    She roughly has as many supporters (extrapolated to the whole population) as their are people living in Montreal and its burbs and close to that of the population of Alberta…

    Pretty popular tourist if you ask me.

    Time to end first-past-the-post.

  7. I’m willing to debate anyone here who thinks Ms May is not out to lunch on renegotiating the energy provisions of Nafta. I agree with Duffy – she is out to lunch. She doesn’t understand how energy investments are made, and what the relevant section of Nafta dealing with energy means in real terms.

    Any takers?

  8. Dot, you don’t quite get the outrage. A journalist is not suposed to call a crackpot a crackpot. See Layton, Media Coverage of Jack.

  9. It was interesting and quite remarkable that a national politician finally took on Mike Duffy. Like dear old Maggy Thatcher, Ms May has more balls that all the men she encounters.

    She was right to question his professional integrity as a journalist and to set the record straight. The clip will be burned!!

    Duffy was for a very long time a cheer leader for the PC party and now he is the leading cheerleader for the CP. He thinks the role of a journalist is to be making the news rather than reporting and analyzing the news.

    It has often been suggested that he retire from his tele- evangilism for the Tories and run for a seat in PEI or accept a Harper appointment to the Senate!

    Both CTV and its viewers would be better off for the trade.

  10. About time someone calls Duffy on that stuff. It doesn’t matter if she is ‘out to lunch’ or not. The important point is, as May pointed out, that it was poor journalism for Duffy to say that.

  11. Doesn’t Obama want to renegotiate Nafta? Didn’t the Tories in one of their previous two platform’s?

    Beyond that, the point is that he shouldn’t be framing interviews based on conbot talking points. Unless he’s a conbot. He didn’t preface his interview with May by asking wether Peter brought his dog or called her one.

  12. PolPundit and Jesse nailed it…

    You put lipstick on a Duffy, it’s still a Duffy.

  13. For all those who like to complain about the mainstream media’s liberal bias (I don’t buy it, but a lot of you cling to the notion pretty hard),

    perhaps you can learn a thing or two from Elizabeth May.

    It’s pretty hard to feel sorry for the conservatives’ coverage as compared to the bullsh*t May had to endure from Duffy.

    But here’s the thing. Rather than whine, May rolled up her sleeves and got her message out. Let’s not forget she took on the debate consortium and won, too.

    Explain to me how the conservatives wouldn’t be capable of doing the same, were it true that the media was against them? Maybe a little less time on puffins and character attacks would help…

  14. Haha, epic fail for Duffy. She just creamed him.

  15. Gotta give that woman credit. She sure knows how to do a smackdown when it’s needed!

  16. A very polite and respectful smackdown too.

  17. Yup – it’s clear – the Duffster is definitely in Jack’s back pocket!

  18. And the other thing about Ms. May’s performance–not only did she clearly and calmly call him on it, she also did it nicely! No mean feat, I think, to do it without showing personal animosity toward him. Personally, I was most impressed with the way she turned Duffy’s “secret deal with the liberals” around to attack him with it. “Mr. Dion and I respect each other because we’re honest, and I honestly felt that I needed to say your introduction was based on falsehoods.”

    How does one learn to think on one’s feet so fast like that?

  19. Mike Duffy had a look on his face like he’d just gotten to the buffet just as they were serving the last of the of coconut shrimp.

  20. Run and Hide Duffy – your biases have been flushed out in the open and you have been shown to be a puffed up old turkey….
    On a related subject – the Green’s current Ads – showing Elizabeth May philosophizing about grass roots politics are remarkably effective – If Harper sees them – he must be knawing on his knuckles – wishing for happier days…

  21. On a related subject – the Green’s current Ads – showing Elizabeth May philosophizing about grass roots politics are remarkably effective –

    Yeah, WW, but rather ironic. This policy to “renegotiate” Nafta was announced by May as GPC policy immediately after she was elected leader. It had not been voted on by “the grassroots” of the party. In fact, it was not a GPC policy, and would not have been had her opponenet , David Chernushenko been elected.

    It, btw, is also an NDP policy, although I believe they want to go further. Another policy that supports my view that the GPC under May is on the far,far left.

  22. Hate to put you straight on that – but I thought Trudeau was right at the time with his National Energy Policy – and looking back – my views haven’t changed.
    But some people’s views HAVE evolved…I hear that Peter Lougheed – Trudeau’s old sparring partner on that file – is definitely having second thoughts – and heck – might be thinking Pierre was indeed right!

  23. wtf are you talking about? WW, was that last comment directed at me? Between you and Geiseric on another blog, I’m lost.

  24. Still searching for a more definitive link about Lougheed’s ruminations…
    this is the best I’ve found todate…
    http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/471512
    Doesn’t sound like Lougheed and Elizabeth May are too far apart in their thinking – and heavens – even though Trudeau was called a “commie ass-kisser” by an Albertan blogger – and don’t think anyone would use anything like that descriptor for Lougheed…

  25. Yeah, so what? Where does Lougheed say we need to renegotiate the energy provisions of Nafta?

  26. To take those thoughts further Dot – do you think it is ultra left wing to propose that the resources within a nation are the property of that nation and its citizens? Look around the world – heck even in the US – the so-called haven of free enterprise – royalties are exacted at the state and federal level.
    Ask Danny Williams in Newfoundland – he’s going ABC/ABH precisely because Harper apparently reneged on a promise of royalty distribution that favoured Newfoundland more than the current regime…
    What is at issue with NAFTA is that buried in the agreement are clauses that give preferecne to the US – not just over the rest of the world’s consumers of oil – but over CANADIANS too!
    FRankly, that’s why I scoffed when McCain AND Obama were nouthing threats to reopen NAFTA – because right now – it is in Canada’s interests to do so…
    Eureka…Ms. May is on the right track – and it isn’t a commie idea…

  27. Dammit Ti-Guy.. I’ve been there. It’s painful memories man, why’d you have to bring it up.

    No coconut shrimp.. *sob*

  28. OK WW, I’ll reply to your points in a second.

    In the interim, this is quoted from a recent G&M ROB Magazine profile of Lougheed (Sept 2008)

    Elizabeth May is in fact supporting George Bush’s view of the eergy provisions of Nafta . Peter Lougheed is supporting the more informed view (mine)

    The first evidence that Lougheed was emerging from political hibernation came at a barbecue he attended at the Calgary home of the United States consul general in the summer of 2005. It was an impressive gathering. The U.S. ambassador, David Wilkins, had flown in from Ottawa, as had then-finance minister Ralph Goodale. The guest of honour was John Snow, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.

    Snow had arrived in Canada to discuss the oil sands. Alberta was already shipping more than a million barrels of crude oil to the United States every day; Washington, anxious about energy security, wanted more. Lougheed was invited because of his stature in both business and politics—and because of his friendship with the United States. He was, after all, one of the instigators of Canada-U.S. free trade.
    Snow and Lougheed got to chatting during the evening. For Snow, it was a shock when the former premier said Canada should consider exporting its oil to China, India or other Asian markets. Why not, Lougheed asked: It’s Alberta’s oil.

    Snow was visibly surprised and upset. He protested that the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement forbid sales of surplus oil to China, that Canada is obliged to sell to the U.S. Lougheed interjected: Having been on the Canadian team that negotiated NAFTA, he knew for a fact that Snow was wrong.

    As he recounts the conversation with the agitated Treasury Secretary, Lougheed smiles the smile of a man who does not mind the prospect of a fight, even with a friend and neighbour: “It was quite an unusual dinner. It was polite, but, you know…”

    However, after the smile, Lougheed acknowledges there is contention regarding NAFTA’s proportionality clause, which specifies that Canada must not reduce the share of its oil production that it ships to the U.S. The clause was inserted in NAFTA because Canada thought it needed a guaranteed market for its oil—what a difference a few years make!
    Lougheed seems ready to dispute the American interpretation of the clause; that is a fight that would involve the federal government as well as Alberta. To the simple question of whether Alberta can resist the American pressure for guaranteed oil, he has a simple answer: “Sure. We own it. We’re in a seller’s market.”

  29. It is about time somebody called the Greens and NDP on their promises. It is so easy to promise the world when you know you won’t be in government. Bob Rae got caught and look what Ontario lived through. Bob Rae and Mike Harris. Of course Lynn McLeod of the Liberals had it won until she opened her mouth.

    If I’m right and the Liberals do get a minority I wonder how far our dollar and markets will fall on October 15th?

    BTW I’m not trying to scare anyone. It is me who is scared!

  30. WW,

    You’ve apparently been listening to Dvid Orchard and Elizabeth May or other lefties too much.

    The energy provisions of Nafta only kick in when there is rationing due to an unforseen problem (say the Middle East shuts down world production)or there is a terrorist attack on a pipeline, say, and we lose production. Both countries, in the interim ration scarce oil or whatever proportionally, as both have invested billions in infrastructure.

    But, there is nothing preventing an oilsands pipeline to eastern Canada, or to China if that makes economic sense. The reason that eastern Canada imports crude from overseas (rather than from Alberta) is because it is cheaper.

    If there is a concern about energy security, then one would need to subsidize the O&G companies to build pipelines and upgrade refineries to get it there. Otherwise, it will go to the cheapest place, right now the US, but could be China etc.

    Nothing in Nafta precludes this, despite what the lefties claim.

  31. Unlike you apparently Dot – I do my own research.,..and appraoch much of this with scepticism – but I don’t spout partisan talking points – which I think I might be hearing from you…

  32. Whatever Lougheed said in that speech – he said it off the record…
    but here he is on the record…look at page 2…

    Unlike you apparently Dot – I do my own research.,..and appraoch much of this with scepticism –

    Yeah, some research, and some “off the record speech”

    The stuff I quoted was from the article you linked to, – part of it is right at the top of page 2!!!

    FOOL

  33. Actually Dot, NAFTA just says that the government cannot place any restrictions on export due to supply shortage. So it doesn’t have to be anything unusual.

    Now I’ll agree, it doesn’t place market restrictions on it, so if we happen to be short for any reason, we’re certainly allowed to get into a bidding war with the US for our own oil. Boy, that sounds grand.

  34. I retract my snide last comment Dot – your well researched comment had not popped up when I wrote it…
    however – that said – Lougheed is quoted as saying much the same in the ROB article I quoted…
    and it seems its not the lefties who are misinterpreting NAFTA – but the Yanks!!
    I agree with Lougheed about who owns the resources – that was the point of my earlier post!
    However – we thought we were in the right on pulp lumber too – and so did the World Tradce Organization – but the Yanks continued to go with their “interpretation” and whacked us good on counter-vails..
    you want to go on…?

  35. Now I’ll agree, it doesn’t place market restrictions on it, so if we happen to be short for any reason, we’re certainly allowed to get into a bidding war with the US for our own oil. Boy, that sounds grand.

    We pay the world price for oil wherever it comes from. Nafta does not change this.

  36. wow. good for Elizabeth May. It’s hard to watch Mr. Duffy some nights, especially since the Conservatives have gone done in the polls he seems to be letting a Conservative bias slip out more and more. MSM media bias my a**… I notice when the Conservatives make much of journalists connections to Liberals they seem to leave out any Conservative connections. Isn’t there a big one between CTV and Peter MacKay? Or is he loving and leaving them again?

  37. See Layton, Media Coverage of Jack.

    Actually, that should be “See Layton, Jack, Media coverage of”

  38. And by the way, Duffy really needs to lay off the cheeseburgers. How can we trust anyone who can’t stop stuffing his face?

  39. Elizabeth May, impressive, feisty and classy at the same time.

    Hope Central Nova folks give her a chance; she’d wake up HoC. Petey Mackay is weak — everyone loved his father (Mulroney and Schreiber simply glow when they speak of him).

    Yeah, good to see someone slap Duffy.

    How can he get his senate appointment from harper if harper does away with the Senate (in a fit of petulance)?

  40. In the English leader’s debate Elizabeth May said that all it would take to realize Universality in Healthcare would be to enforce the Canada Health Act and in the same breath she intimated that the provisions of NAFTA could threaten the Act. No wonder she couldn’t get an answer to that question because it was so clearly naive. The Canada Health Act does not protect Universality. There are already American organizations providing healthcare in Canada. The Ontario Liberals are the worst offenders against Universality with their Family Physician Plans that micromanage doctors in a system that is designed to manufacture wait times in the doctor’s office and create user dissatisfaction through rules that force doctors to address only 1 complaint per visit and second-tier walk in patients who didn’t sign away privacy rights to be restorized. Ms. May is ill informed and Duffy was right to say how can you argue with that?

  41. I seem to recall the Minister of Foreign Affairs having no problem with the renegotiation of NAFTA as floated by the Obama campaign on the basis that Canada had its own list of issues it would welcome an opportunity to fix.

    Was David Emerson out to lunch too?

  42. I seem to recall the Minister of Foreign Affairs having no problem with the renegotiation of NAFTA as floated by the Obama campaign on the basis that Canada had its own list of issues it would welcome an opportunity to fix.

    Was David Emerson out to lunch too?

    Only if he, like Elizabeth May and the Green Party, feels it would be limited to the issues THEY want to renegotiate. The WHOLE Nafta agreement, including water rights, would be back on the table.

    Emerson, I suspect knows the reality.

    May is delusional.

  43. Interesting that Macleans, and its single most biased columnist would invite conversations about media bias.

    Just so I’m clear: bias in media is only a conspiracy theory when its coming from conservatives. Right.

  44. Dot, you’re surely right on policy, if that’s the right word for May’s stance, but you have to admit this clip is the single best “attack the interviewer” response ever seen on Canadian TV.

    Ti-Guy, your comment cracked me up.

  45. Yeah, good theatre, I just wish some of the media would dig deeper into what she is saying. She throws a lot of mud, and constantly calls people names. Much of it could be turned around and properly directed at her. But you have to research what she claims.

    Most MSM are too lazy, or don’t have the necessary background to understand the issues, or just enjoy her personality or watching horse races, and so give her a free pass.

  46. “The WHOLE Nafta agreement, including water rights, would be back on the table.” – except by expanding our roster of FTA agreements with partners like the EU, we reduce the necessity to make a bad deal such as flogging water. The time to make a deal is when we’re stronger than they are (or at least when that’s the perception).

  47. Mark,

    I don’t disagree with diversification into other markets. This, in effect, will weaken NAFTA.

    Similarly, when one is losing secondary or tertiary industries to developing countries (as in China/India) many anti-Nafta activists incorrectly blame this on Nafta. Renegotiating Nafta won’t change this reality.

    I disagree with you on timing. With Canada’s exports to the US currently amounting to in the neighbourhood of 85%, there is nothing that would be more disruptive to business/investment decisions than uncertainty over changing rules/regulations that would result in a wholesale renegotiation of Nafta.

    That is why most businesses, if faced with dealing with emissions, would much more prefer the certainty with a carbon tax as they could forecast their costs, as opposed to a cap and trade where the marketplace will determine the cost of carbon.

    Elizabeth May, in bringing up and incorrectly categorizing the energy section of Nafta (as well as Chapter 11 as she also often does), is, in my estimation, appealing to the protest and/or anti-American voters. It’s pure politics, lacking substance once you look into the facts.

  48. NAFTA, as it currently stands, has enormous impact, is manifestly controversial and challenges many of our principles and institutions. To preclude it from renegotiation:

    1) accords it a perfection which no man made legislation has ever acquired,

    2) reinforces its failures for its want of enforceability

    3) ignores the possibility of trilateral satisfaction through renegotiation, which, improved by experience, would be more informed than the initial negotiation which created it.

    The mainstream view of Canadians toward NAFTA is skeptical. How could mainstream become “bizarre” except in Mr. Duffy’s highly subjective charge against Ms. May. Moreover which of them do you think has more likely read the actual Act?

    Admittedly, my own viewpoint would be more informed from first reading the NAFTA legislation. Here’s a link for anyone who wants to join me in exercising their civic responsibility. (Legal dictionaries and lot’s of coffee at the ready!!).

    http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/nafta-alena/texte/index.aspx

    Skeptically Yours
    Don

  49. Wow… Duffy and both of his chins got TOLD

Sign in to comment.