This past week, John Efford was more like the John Efford we have seen over the past 20 years of his political career. He was focused, handled media questions with clarity and participated in strong, positive announcements on everything from economic development in his riding to support - albeit indirect - for the Lower Churchill.
Truthfully, that's what political commentary should be focused on - actual performance. For someone who has taken to commenting on politics and public life, it is refreshing to have something positive to say.
Personal digs, especially ones divorced from substantive issues, are corrosive and can only be looked upon with scorn by anyone interested in contributing positively to our province and its political life.
The reason Norm Doyle got a bit of a roasting here lately has been the fact his comments are so far out of character for him that it had to be noted forcefully. I'd expect Norm to continue giving us all some solid performance again soon. That's why he has been a successful and well-regarded politician over the past two decades or so. Norm's inherently strong qualities are why, in the last federal election, my Conservative neighbours volunteered to work on Norm's campaign rather than help in their own riding. They voted with their feet and people should notice that.
In the comments, I did not attack Norm personally or lampoon either his intelligence or integrity. I poked some fun, hopefully taken in the good-natured spirit with which it was intended, in order to get at the larger point, namely the political bind in which Doyle finds himself.
In dealing with recent events in the House of Assembly, I have argued that Harvey Hodder should resign because his performance is lacking. I do not doubt that Hodder is a man of good intention and integrity. I simply find that his performance as Speaker of the House of Assembly is actually such that he is calling the House itself into disrepute.
Where I have taken to speaking on integrity or ability I have endeavoured to base it on something substantial like the gap between claim and fact. Norm Doyle's colleague from Renews, I mean St. John's South-Mount Pearl, falls into this category.
In Loyola Hearn's case, the contrast between his claims and his behaviour lends itself easily to pointing out that the erstwhile minister in a Conservative government has scarcely a credible tad to clothe his form. His efforts on tackling the non-existent problem of post office closures are just a case in point. His fisheries comments ignore completely the depth of the challenges involved and on more than one occasion Hearn appears to be acting less in the best interests of the public than in his own.
Hearn is also deserving of special attention since he has never failed to launch into vicious, personal attacks on John Efford at every turn. In that context, Hearn cannot expect to receive different treatment himself. Brian Tobin was the last politician I recall who engage in political tactics that, when turned on him, made him cry foul with just a hint of hypocrisy. Let's at least be thankful Hearn has had the strength to take it as well as he has dished it out, his miserable behaviour on the most recent federal election night notwithstanding.
As much as possible, the commentaries posted here have strived to work with information, some insight derived from experience and less of the gossipy or catty stuff one usually finds in coffee shops or at local bars. Others can judge the success or failure rate. Sure there has been some strong opinion and no one is expected to agree with any of the opinion or the conclusions reached. Make up your own mind on the arguments advanced here.
All that leads to a comment on Bill Rowe's column in The Telegram on Saturday.
The radio spots flooding over VOCM speak of "staggering insights" from this column, a phrase I have heard people around town tear to shreds for its pomposity and fatuousness. The eating of the Rowe pudding, though, seems to leave one consistently without any proof that there are insights at all, let alone ones that would leave a reader staggered by their profundity.
On Saturday, his comments on John Efford were based entirely on gossip. There is an extensive list of the catty, biting, condescending remarks of mainlanders and others about John Efford's performance as a federal cabinet minister over the past year. Since we are not given the context in which some were offered, we only have Rowe's interpretation that allows him to fit them into the negative cast of the column.
Despite his protests to the contrary, Rowe is merely letting others tear down John without having to sully his hands with doing the job himself. Others are his mouthpiece.
One would reasonably expect some perspective from Rowe, some balance based on Rowe's knowledge of Efford's career. One would expect something a little better than jokes made by unnamed small minds about Mr. Efford's speech patterns. After all, that is the sum total of Rowe's column arguing that Efford should stand again for election so that Efford's constituents may vote on his performance. Mr. Rowe should wish for such a personal record of electoral success either for the party he led or the one he aspired to represent and which latterly has paid his salary.
The superficial nature of Rowe's column tell us little of Efford and more of the columnist and those he quotes. Rowe neglects to offer any balance in his piece. He endorses the snotty remarks as his own even when he may protest mildly one or two aspects. If Bill didn't think accents were important, as he claims, he wouldn't then repeat a litany of jokes about Efford's speech made by people who, one supposes, were like Bill himself in Ottawa - lacking influence.
What makes this column all the more distasteful is that Rowe knows full-well, both from his time as open line host and in his time as employee of the provincial government, that the offshore revenue debate was deliberately directed by some away from matters of substance and fact and toward petty, personal issues. While Rowe obviously lacked the ability or willingness to challenge knowledgeable callers, he frequently allowed superficial nonsense to dominate thereby abetting some of the attacks on Efford.
By continuing those attacks, Rowe can never again be viewed as a credible analyst or commentator. He is an active propagandist and should be treated accordingly.
Even worse, though, Rowe has treated his audience with contempt.
That is an unforgivable sin for a talk-show host or political commentator.
Perhaps Bill would have the courage to once again stand for election and let his audience vote on his merits or demerits before presuming to suggest the same approach for someone else.
