In an interview on CTV Newsnet’s Mike Duffy Live yesterday, Duffy’s replacement interviewer (Tonda MacCharles from the Toronto Star) asked the leader of the you’ve got to be kidding party, Jack (“ass”) Layton, some pointed questions. Well, one pointed question. The rest were designed as launching pads for his attempt at socialist indoctrination, again. The interview (“interview”—oh my…) lasted several minutes—about as long as the year-end interview (“attack him on every point”) with the Prime Minister of Canada, Conservative Stephen Harper.
SIDEBAR: And if I may interject, this is yet another exquisite example of the media giving artificial life support; propping up; toadying to the you’ve got to be kidding party—providing them a national media platform; giving them credibility (at least amongst their viewers) despite the lack of any basis for that credibility, and thus keeping them alive as a party, solely on media-driven artificial life support. [I wrote about it at length here]. Nobody would vote for this party or even listen to them but for the liberal-left media continually propping them up exactly like this. High school students possess more wisdom, more original ideas, and brighter world view than this bunch of hysterical socialist loons as led by this airhead.
The questions started with the negatives. That way, he can finish on a high note. And of course by “high”, I can never be sure that means high on pot (he is the one who leads a party pushing for the legalization of pot-smoking so all of us and our kids can get high without all the nasty legal repercussions), or just high on the fact that he’s once again managed to parlay his own bullcrap for minutes on end, on national TV.
The first question—the only non-fluffball—was about the most recent of the disgraceful wastes of time and the blunders that he and his party made recently, in which they unabashedly, disgracefully, and as loudly and inappropriately as possible, falsely accused a Conservative member in the House of viewing pornography on his laptop computer while the House was in session. [I quipped about it here]. The “scantily-clad woman”, it turns out, of course, was the Conservative member’s bare naked dog and his bathing-suited girlfriend frolicking at the beach —so we’re left unsure as to whether the pretend-offended socialist (Irene Mathyssen) was concerned about a naked dog running around —POSSIBLY OFF LEASH!— or the bathing-suited girlfriend who also wasn’t leashed (or working, or wearing a pant-suit!); or if Mathyssen just thought using an electrical devise to view anything but statistics on “working families” was pornographic from a “man-made global warming” perspective.
Here’s the first question as it actually happened. Get a load of his answer. It’s a gem. It’s also a load:
Tonda MacCharles: “Look, let’s look back at the parliamentary session that’s just ended—your party ended it on a bit of a low note—with some of your members accusing other party[‘s] members of things like bribery during election campaign on the one hand, and viewing pornography in the Commons on the other; the Prime Minister even raised it today—what do you have to say to Canadians about that?”
Jack Layton: : “Well of course it wasn’t our member being accused of looking at pornography…”
Ah! So, you see, it has nothing to do with what amounted to a totally disgraceful, fraudulent accusation by his party —it is a question of who was falsely ACCUSED, whether rightly or wrongly—wrongly in this case—but whatever! It wasn’t his party who was accused, so, next question! (And pass the joint!)
Jack Layton: ”…but, uh, one of our members saw uh, another member, looking at uh, a photograph of a woman in lingerie and thought that wasn’t appropriate in the House—- and she raised it. Uh when she discovered that it was the girlfriend, apparently, uh, uh, that she accepted that and apologized for it … uh, was that an unfortunate uh way to have handled it? Uh, probably. We, we, uh, we’ll have to look at, at how one handles that kind of situation in the future and uh, you know….”
Tonda MacCharles: “Well how, how, but let’s … I really do want to hear you on this because I don’t think we really have …. when Miss Mathyssen first thought she spotted what she spotted, it was the NEXT DAY that she raised it in the house, and that was discussed at your caucus. Why did you let her go ahead with it?”
Jack Layton: “Well no, I only learned that she was going to make that statement just before it happened. Uh, and what we did was apologize…”
Tonda MacCharles: “Do you regret that?”
Jack Layton: “Well Tonda I, I think when a party apologizes for making a mistake that’s, that’s a good thing, and you move on. You know, we’re uh, we’re human, and uh I think what IS important is to apologize I’ll give you an example where that hasn’t happened, uh, seniors in Canada have been denied their Canada Pension Plan increase under the consumer price index. They’re supposed to have received an increase more than they have received…”
…And then he went on with that tangent for 38 seconds, uninterrupted, about the bad Conservatives and what they should “apologize” for, without ever once returning to the question at hand. It was a hilarious diversion. Total B.S., and spinning the interview to his benefit. But reporter MacCharles simply sucked-up and let him finish—uninterrupted—as he merrily bashed the Conservatives on a totally unrelated thing.
Then she responded with, and I quote, “mm hm”.
And then it was onto providing him with a platform to lecture us about the value of far-left fringe socialist things.
And of course once again a reporter misses the opportunity, on purpose, to force an answer from this socialist about his plans to end the capitalist system in Canada as we know it, and replace it with a socialist order—part of a global socialist order, as per his party’s constitution. The reporter simply gave him addition minutes—several long minutes—to advance his party’s socialist ideas for universal housing and free government services and handouts for all (except “the rich” of course!).
Then it’s over to the state-run CBC to do it all over again.
It’s really quite astonishing to someone who has grown used to watching the vastly superior-in-every-way Fox News Channel, where they aren’t afraid —or dumb enough— to allow this sort of manipulation by reporters or those sometimes greasy, slimy politicians that they report on.
(Hat tip to PTBC reader Jean B. who is about as exasperated as I am about this kind of thing repeating itself over and over and over again.)
PTBC was founded by Mr. Johannesen in 2000.
Contact Mr. Johannesen about this article using this form. Please refer to article's title.
FOLLOW @JoelJohannesen ON X!
- Say something. - Friday October 25, 2024 at 6:03 pm
- Keep going, or veer right - Monday August 26, 2024 at 4:30 pm
- Hey Joel, what is “progressive?” - Friday August 2, 2024 at 11:32 am
