We saw the essence of Poilievre in this election
By Lethbridge Herald on May 7, 2025.
Editor,
Re “One moment captured Poilievre’s fatal weakness” (May 1, 2020): I agree with Dan O’Donnell’s assessment that Poilievre’s apple-munching interview in which he behaved rudely and dismissively toward a reporter was a defining moment. When I saw the news report I immediately thought if Poilievre sticks with that behaviour and approach, it wouldn’t bode well for him.
It wasn’t just because of Poilievre’s bullying treatment of the reporter, although I found that objectionable, in dismissing the reporter he also dismissed every other person who wanted an answer to the question.
Some might see the question asked as a “Gotcha Question,” but a more skillful and less ego-driven politician would have reframed it and used the opportunity to make a positive statement.
I have no inside information, so I don’t know if the fault lies with Poilievre’s media-prep team, or if he is un-coachable. But if I had to bet, and knowing something of Poilievre’s academic and political mentors, and having watched him on the national stage for over twenty years, I’d say we witnessed the essence of Pierre Poilievre’s personality and character in that interview. In retrospect, the question itself didn’t really matter, but Poilievre’s response did.
Tom Johnston
Lethbridge
8-7
As with MP Thomas, Poilievre is a one trick pony. Attack with no actual answers. He could not pivot from his tired and oft repeated mantra. Seeing how well Carney handled Trump yesterday, he is clearly the best man for the job.
I cringe at the thought of Poilievre in that meeting but that doesn’t come close to how I’d feel if Daniele Smith was in that bordello-inspired space.
He is certainly trying to be Canada’s Donald Trump and the people in Ottawa were smart to kick him out. Too bad Albertans aren’t as smart isn’t it?
if only an apple a day kept pierre away.
Well said Tom. Like all these Reformers they never have an intelligent answer to anything they always blame the problem on others and their supporters are no smarter than they are.
Isn’t it too bad they outnumber the intelligent Albertans two to one and we can’t stop their stupidity. What has us so furious is the lack of respect they show our children and grandchildren. They don’t give a damn about the horrific financial mess they have created for them to deal with or what Global Warming could do to them without trying to do something about it, that’s how stupid they are, isn’t it?
As opposed to Singh. You commenters are hilarious.
As are yours. Singh at least is a humanitarian and cares about people of all stripes. He lost his seat as did Poilievre, but the post election remarks uttered by the latter, are in stark contrast to the humble address by Singh. Of the two, Singh clearly is genuine and compassionate, traits lacking in Poilievre.
Singh a humanitarian? The only thing the filthy diaper head cared about was staying at his job long enough to qualify for his tax- payer bleeding pension. And yes , he did relish in his feeling a position of supremacy, even tho it meant bending over for the Turdo.
This is hate speech and should be reported to the RCMP.
I have screen shot it so you can’t edit and remove the evidence.
This comment is absolutely unacceptable. You should retract it and apologize. It is textbook racism. You should be ashamed.
old school has posted HATE SPEECH!
HERALD, DO YOUR JOB!
“Whataboutism” is, of course, a widely used rhetorical device. However, it’s not a very good form of argument. It’s a deflection – here, look at this shiny new penny – and it falls short as a legitimate argument because it fails to address any of the points one purports to disagree with.
Leaving the reference to Mr. Singh aside, please unpack why you think the comments made here are “hilarious.” While you’re thinking that through, keep in mind not only Mr. Poilievre’s temperament, which you may regard as an asset, but also that in his 20+ years in parliament, including as a member of Mr. Harper’s government, Poilievre served mainly as a parliamentary secretary (2006-2013), and spent only two years in cabinet (2013-2015), and not in front-line portfolios. That track record does not instil confidence in his abilities for me. It might for you, and that’s your prerogative.
pierre is a foghorn leghorn, only less charming. smarmy, sarcastic, negative, divisive, and now career flunkie without scruples as he gets punted by his several terms riding only to slide into alberta for a gifted seat. pathetic. that is hardly a quality of a leader (one thing to run in a safe riding one does not live in, which is nonetheless an issue, but quite another to lose one’s seat only to go on to bribe another out of their safe seat…yup, alberta will elect another bale of hay).
While I didn’t vote for or do I like polivier, I thought his concession speech was one of the best I’ve ever heard and was done with class.