Interesting perspective and exceptional research. I for one had perceived Mark Carney as a stuffed shirt kind of guy and thought his interview with Jon Stewart ( who was acting very silly even for him) left me with a totally different impression of him as a person and politician. I actually had to eat some of my own words when I had said…
Interesting perspective and exceptional research. I for one had perceived Mark Carney as a stuffed shirt kind of guy and thought his interview with Jon Stewart ( who was acting very silly even for him) left me with a totally different impression of him as a person and politician. I actually had to eat some of my own words when I had said that I wouldn’t ever considered him whenever I cast my ballot for the Liberal leadership position. Maybe that’s just me but I somehow don’t think so.
I too was pleasantly surprised to find Mark Carney relaxed, funny and rolling with the punches during the interview with Jon Stewart. Then came his announcement in Edmonton: nothing but bromides, working very hard to prove that his roots were in the local hockey arena, and speaking a pretty awkward French -- stilted, heavily accented and making several grammatical errors.
Portraying yourself as a non-politician man-of-the-hour "because these are extraordinary times" will play well with Liberal fans but may not cut it with the general public.
Still, he's better than Freeland, who is so embedded with Trudeau that she will be unable to escape the association.
The thing about Carney is that, having watched some of his lengthier speeches, I am actually quite impressed by the guy. I think he has a clear-eyed view of the world, and manages to see through a lot of the things that trip up conventional politicians.
What bothers me is that he only conveys that view in rooms full of plutocrats and bankers. When he gets in front of 'regular' people, suddenly it's all the same platitudes that have been gushing out of the mouths of liberals for a decade.
Politicians shouldn't be trusted, nor will they win, if they come out to spoonfeed the masses more carefully-packaged jargon. I think it both cheapens politics and robs you of a mandate to actually do anything if you do win.
There's still lots of time for him to pivot to being a serious candidate. But I worry that the campaign wisdom is: Don't use too many big words or you might lose people.
(And agreed, his French is rough. But I've watched an hour-long interview he gave entirely en français — at least he's committed to it.)
Interesting perspective and exceptional research. I for one had perceived Mark Carney as a stuffed shirt kind of guy and thought his interview with Jon Stewart ( who was acting very silly even for him) left me with a totally different impression of him as a person and politician. I actually had to eat some of my own words when I had said that I wouldn’t ever considered him whenever I cast my ballot for the Liberal leadership position. Maybe that’s just me but I somehow don’t think so.
I too was pleasantly surprised to find Mark Carney relaxed, funny and rolling with the punches during the interview with Jon Stewart. Then came his announcement in Edmonton: nothing but bromides, working very hard to prove that his roots were in the local hockey arena, and speaking a pretty awkward French -- stilted, heavily accented and making several grammatical errors.
Portraying yourself as a non-politician man-of-the-hour "because these are extraordinary times" will play well with Liberal fans but may not cut it with the general public.
Still, he's better than Freeland, who is so embedded with Trudeau that she will be unable to escape the association.
The thing about Carney is that, having watched some of his lengthier speeches, I am actually quite impressed by the guy. I think he has a clear-eyed view of the world, and manages to see through a lot of the things that trip up conventional politicians.
What bothers me is that he only conveys that view in rooms full of plutocrats and bankers. When he gets in front of 'regular' people, suddenly it's all the same platitudes that have been gushing out of the mouths of liberals for a decade.
Politicians shouldn't be trusted, nor will they win, if they come out to spoonfeed the masses more carefully-packaged jargon. I think it both cheapens politics and robs you of a mandate to actually do anything if you do win.
There's still lots of time for him to pivot to being a serious candidate. But I worry that the campaign wisdom is: Don't use too many big words or you might lose people.
(And agreed, his French is rough. But I've watched an hour-long interview he gave entirely en français — at least he's committed to it.)