Rascals, rogues and colourful speakers: We seem to have fewer characters in our politics these days - CBC.ca | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Politics

Rascals, rogues and colourful speakers: We seem to have fewer characters in our politics these days – CBC.ca

Published

 on


Danny Williams, seen during election night in 2007, was rarely quiet during his two terms in office — and knew how to push political buttons. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)

There’s a certain kind of litmus test for politicians from Newfoundland and Labrador: would Mark Critch want to play you in a sketch on 22 Minutes?

That notion came to mind after a conversation I had with a younger colleague last week about a story with long roots, and we wound up talking about a particular cabinet minister from an earlier age. His name didn’t ring a bell with her, so I mentioned a few yarns from decades back, including a mini-scandal or two.

“He was quite the character,” I said. Her response boiled down to this: do we have fewer characters now in politics, or what?

I thought about it, and came to this conclusion: yes, we do.

Maybe it’s for the better, maybe it’s not, but it seems like we no longer have the kind of political types to which we have long been accustomed. In a saucy take on a roguish persona that was more familiar years ago, the late, great Ray Guy once described Newfoundland politicians as the sorts of people whose mothers count the silver after they’ve come over for tea.

While Ray was talking about rascals drawn to politics, his comment is also about our political culture: we love talking about politics, and — admit it — everyone loves it when they act up.

Take no prisoners

Over the years, we’ve definitely had a political stage filled with colourful players: larger-than-life personalities, bombastic speakers, quick wits, quirky souls. Think about Brian Peckford, whose career started with earnest patriotism and fishermen’s sweaters, ending with sour cucumbers and fur coats (with police protection on the campaign trail in between).

John Crosbie was unapologetic about making controversial remarks during a career that took him from St. John’s city council to the House of Assembly to the House of Commons. (CBC)

Think about John Crosbie and his townie drawl, flaying his political opponents over a decades-long career, and well into his retirement. Think about John Efford, whose unabashed partisanship was matched by his good humour. Think about Brian Tobin, whose preferred campaigning style was take no prisoners and whose rhetorical pitch could go to 11.

And there was Joseph R. Smallwood.

Ah, Joey … or, to be more precise, “Joey.” Smallwood didn’t go by the name himself — his associates called him just Joe — but crafted the “Joey” persona as a political weapon that helped keep him in power for almost 23 years. Smallwood may have formed and broke the mould for political personality for a generation. How many future politicians grew up to be influenced by that rhetoric?

Joseph R. Smallwood leaned into his ‘Joey’ persona during his lengthy political career. These items are among the memorabilia on display at the Smallwood Interpretation Centre in Gambo. (CBC )

Smallwood was frequently criticized for hogging the political stage for himself, accused of hiring cabinet ministers whose skill he most admired was nodding. He grew into the stature, that’s for sure.

Rex Murphy described being a young broadcaster at VOCM whose duties included collecting tape for a segment called Conversations with the Premier. In a speech, Murphy recollected that once, he just stuck his microphone into Smallwood’s car when he pulled into the lot, and then took it back when Smallwood was done. He didn’t get to hear the “conversation” until he got back inside. (Crosbie, who quit Smallwood’s cabinet with future premier Clyde Wells, at least once called the segment “Monologues with the Master.“)

After Smallwood came Frank Moores, who in the ’70s leaned into a devilish style while proving to Newfoundland and Labrador you could have a different party in government. I recall Donna Butt, whose Rising Tide Theatre has been mocking politicians for decades in the annual Revue shows, describing Moores as a “good time Charlie.”

Making a racket

More recently, there was Danny Williams, who was not above over-the-top quotes (“they should be shot,” he once said of Eastern Health‘s leadership), stomping out of meetings, pulling down flags and banning reporters during live interviews. Like Tobin, Williams enjoyed popular support by making a racket. It’s a card that’s been played many times over the years.

WATCH | Mark Critch talks with (and scares) Danny Williams about his heart surgery in this 2010 clip: 

Mark Critch visits Premier Danny Williams after heart surgery. 2:09

It’s all a bit of a boys’ club, huh?

I remember speaking a few times years ago with Ann Bell, the first president of the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women. By all rights, Bell and quite a few other women ought to have been inside the House of Assembly, not outside advocating for ways to get women in the scene. Bell, who organized for the PCs back in the day when Tories could more easily be progressive on social issues, lamented how party brass would agree to a woman candidate — in districts where they were having trouble recruiting.

At St. John’s city hall, we had Dorothy Wyatt, whose “I don’t care what you think” attitude involved far more than her personal style (cartoonists loved her headbands and glasses as much as they loved Crosbie’s look). Wyatt called them as she saw them, a style that shook up council.

John Efford, seen during a 2019 interview, never shied from expressing his opinions, even if they put him at odds with political leaders. (Eddy Kennedy/CBC)

In the ’80s, we had the infamous “debates” — they were often more like comic shouting matches — between John Murphy and Andy Wells. For a while there, they had a recurring role on CBC Radio’s As It Happens, which dined out on their caustic, often hilarious exchanges. In their midst was Shannie Duff, who became mayor in the ’90s; while she felt under siege from Andy Wells, she was known for speaking her mind, as frankly as anyone else.

Where are we now?

And now … things have been a lot more quiet. On the provincial scene, after Williams, we had a string of PC premiers (Kathy Dunderdale, Tom Marshall, Paul Davis) whose style emphasized caution, even amid controversy.

Then came Dwight Ball, whose political style was (to tweak a phrase that’s been very popular in the pandemic) an over-abundance of caution. Though an image of Ball with his teeth bared gained traction as a meme, Ball took care to steer to the neutral. Ball wanted things to be calm, so much so that things backfired and he wound up with tumult both internal and external.

Now we have Andrew Furey, whose early premiership is being tested by an ongoing pandemic and a series of economic crises. We’ll see in time what his personal style is like.

It seems like local politics has been strongly influenced by a contemporary playbook used far and wide: say little, be cautious. Politicians often now eschew interviews and off-the-cuff constituent meetings for written (and often very brief) statements and bland, manicured speeches that emphasize positive but vague phrases. In the end, those comments don’t reveal much — which is exactly the point.

Which is a shame. Many of the politicians I mentioned above had their lovers and haters, but — like many, many others over the years — they were genuine. They told you what they thought. (Sometimes they yelled it.) They were, truly, characters.

Joey and Danny, Dottie and Shannie, the Brians … we’ve had so many characters over the years. I hope we’ll see a great many more for years to come.

Read more from CBC Newfoundand and Labrador

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Politics

Trump is consistently inconsistent on abortion and reproductive rights

Published

 on

 

CHICAGO (AP) — Donald Trump has had a tough time finding a consistent message to questions about abortion and reproductive rights.

The former president has constantly shifted his stances or offered vague, contradictory and at times nonsensical answers to questions on an issue that has become a major vulnerability for Republicans in this year’s election. Trump has been trying to win over voters, especially women, skeptical about his views, especially after he nominated three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn the nationwide right to abortion two years ago.

The latest example came this week when the Republican presidential nominee said some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”

“It’s going to be redone,” he said during a Fox News town hall that aired Wednesday. “They’re going to, you’re going to, you end up with a vote of the people. They’re too tough, too tough. And those are going to be redone because already there’s a movement in those states.”

Trump did not specify if he meant he would take some kind of action if he wins in November, and he did not say which states or laws he was talking about. He did not elaborate on what he meant by “redone.”

He also seemed to be contradicting his own stand when referencing the strict abortion bans passed in Republican-controlled states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Trump recently said he would vote against a constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot that is aimed at overturning the state’s six-week abortion ban. That decision came after he had criticized the law as too harsh.

Trump has shifted between boasting about nominating the justices who helped strike down federal protections for abortion and trying to appear more neutral. It’s been an attempt to thread the divide between his base of anti-abortion supporters and the majority of Americans who support abortion rights.

About 6 in 10 Americans think their state should generally allow a person to obtain a legal abortion if they don’t want to be pregnant for any reason, according to a July poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Voters in seven states, including some conservative ones, have either protected abortion rights or defeated attempts to restrict them in statewide votes over the past two years.

Trump also has been repeating the narrative that he returned the question of abortion rights to states, even though voters do not have a direct say on that or any other issue in about half the states. This is particularly true for those living in the South, where Republican-controlled legislatures, many of which have been gerrymandered to give the GOP disproportionate power, have enacted some of the strictest abortion bans since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Currently, 13 states have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, while four more ban it after six weeks — before many women know they’re pregnant.

Meanwhile, anti-abortion groups and their Republican allies in state governments are using an array of strategies to counter proposed ballot initiatives in at least eight states this year.

Here’s a breakdown of Trump’s fluctuating stances on reproductive rights.

Flip-flopping on Florida

On Tuesday, Trump claimed some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”

But in August, Trump said he would vote against a state ballot measure that is attempting to repeal the six-week abortion ban passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

That came a day after he seemed to indicate he would vote in favor of the measure. Trump previously called Florida’s six-week ban a “terrible mistake” and too extreme. In an April Time magazine interview, Trump repeated that he “thought six weeks is too severe.”

Trump on vetoing a national ban

Trump’s latest flip-flopping has involved his views on a national abortion ban.

During the Oct. 1 vice presidential debate, Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social that he would veto a national abortion ban: “Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it.”

This came just weeks after Trump repeatedly declined to say during the presidential debate with Democrat Kamala Harris whether he would veto a national abortion ban if he were elected.

Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, said in an interview with NBC News before the presidential debate that Trump would veto a ban. In response to debate moderators prompting him about Vance’s statement, Trump said: “I didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness. And I don’t mind if he has a certain view, but I don’t think he was speaking for me.”

‘Pro-choice’ to 15-week ban

Trump’s shifting abortion policy stances began when the former reality TV star and developer started flirting with running for office.

He once called himself “very pro-choice.” But before becoming president, Trump said he “would indeed support a ban,” according to his book “The America We Deserve,” which was published in 2000.

In his first year as president, he said he was “pro-life with exceptions” but also said “there has to be some form of punishment” for women seeking abortions — a position he quickly reversed.

At the 2018 annual March for Life, Trump voiced support for a federal ban on abortion on or after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

More recently, Trump suggested in March that he might support a national ban on abortions around 15 weeks before announcing that he instead would leave the matter to the states.

Views on abortion pills, prosecuting women

In the Time interview, Trump said it should be left up to the states to decide whether to prosecute women for abortions or to monitor women’s pregnancies.

“The states are going to make that decision,” Trump said. “The states are going to have to be comfortable or uncomfortable, not me.”

Democrats have seized on the comments he made in 2016, saying “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions.

Trump also declined to comment on access to the abortion pill mifepristone, claiming that he has “pretty strong views” on the matter. He said he would make a statement on the issue, but it never came.

Trump responded similarly when asked about his views on the Comstock Act, a 19th century law that has been revived by anti-abortion groups seeking to block the mailing of mifepristone.

IVF and contraception

In May, Trump said during an interview with a Pittsburgh television station that he was open to supporting regulations on contraception and that his campaign would release a policy on the issue “very shortly.” He later said his comments were misinterpreted.

In the KDKA interview, Trump was asked, “Do you support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception?”

“We’re looking at that and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly,” Trump responded.

Trump has not since released a policy statement on contraception.

Trump also has offered contradictory statements on in vitro fertilization.

During the Fox News town hall, which was taped Tuesday, Trump declared that he is “the father of IVF,” despite acknowledging during his answer that he needed an explanation of IVF in February after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law.

Trump said he instructed Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., to “explain IVF very quickly” to him in the aftermath of the ruling.

As concerns over access to fertility treatments rose, Trump pledged to promote IVF by requiring health insurance companies or the federal government to pay for it. Such a move would be at odds with the actions of much of his own party.

Even as the Republican Party has tried to create a national narrative that it is receptive to IVF, these messaging efforts have been undercut by GOP state lawmakers, Republican-dominated courts and anti-abortion leaders within the party’s ranks, as well as opposition to legislative attempts to protect IVF access.

___

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan Party’s Scott Moe, NDP’s Carla Beck react to debate |

Published

 on

 

Saskatchewan‘s two main political party leaders faced off in the only televised debate in the lead up to the provincial election on Oct. 28. Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe and NDP Leader Carla Beck say voters got a chance to see their platforms. (Oct. 17, 2024)

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan political leaders back on campaign trail after election debate

Published

 on

 

REGINA – Saskatchewan‘s main political leaders are back on the campaign trail today after hammering each other in a televised debate.

Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe is set to make an announcement in Moose Jaw.

Saskatchewan NDP Leader Carla Beck is to make stops in Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert.

During Wednesday night’s debate, Beck emphasized her plan to make life more affordable and said people deserve better than an out-of-touch Saskatchewan Party government.

Moe said his party wants to lower taxes and put money back into people’s pockets.

Election day is Oct. 28.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 17, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version