Comments on: ‘In what respect, Charlie?’

By: Martha Maus

Martha Maus — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:46:18 +0000

The journalist who asked the then Premier of Queensland, Joh Bjelke Peterson, about the Westminister doctrine of the separation of power was the ABC’s Quentin Dempster. Dempster also asked the next National Party leader, and new Premier Russell Cooper, again on ABC tv. Cooper didn’t have a clue either.

The Premier was also questioned about the separation of powers be a lawyer at the Fitzgerald Inquiry. The Premier replied “Well you tell me. And Ill tell you whether youre right or not. …” http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/rules/sep/

The Goss Labour government was elected not long afterwards.

By: Niall

Niall — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:09:26 +0000

Below the belt?!!??? Load of crap! It’s the media’s job to test the veracity and standing of politicians. Pity the media doesn’t do more of it in a better targeted manner.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:39:57 +0000

wilful, so what about Obama’s?

By: Adrian

Adrian — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:33:09 +0000

Hey I think she handled it well, really well.
It is a dodgy tactic for journalists, but it does work, sometimes.
Palin’s response was certainly fair enough, she asked him to clarify, and that is something can be done when anyone asks “do you agree with this doctrines”, cause they’re big.
Why didn’t he say:
“Do you agree with torture?”
“Do you think it is OK to spy on Americans?”
“Do you think it is OK to invade countries without the UN”
“Do you think democracy is a precondition for aid, or a goal for American Foreign Policy?”
OH… one more
“How will you feel being VP when China’s economy overtakes the United States’?”
That would have got her.

By: wilful

wilful — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:21:55 +0000

Our organic milk is $5.50 for two litres. I guess that identifies me as a real elite. But seriously, Ive seen plenty enough about Sarah Palin to be flabbergasted that this person is a couple of heartbeats away from the US presidency. I mean, thats a serious bloody job, and anyone who wants to defend her resume and her performance to date can go right ahead and look foolish.

By: Yobbo

Yobbo — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:00:42 +0000

Nothing at all wrong with trying to sort out the stupid politicians from the smart ones IMO.

Of course it depends on how relevant the question is. Asking what “The Bush Doctrine” is would be a much fairer question than asking what a litre of milk costs.

People working in high-profile jobs don’t usually do their own shopping. I’d be much more concerned if they didn’t know the interest rate or something.

By: Neil H

Neil H — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:44:05 +0000

how many here know the price of milk?

Home Brand or Farmer’s Dairy?

No, honestly, I really couldn’t say. About $2 a litre?

By: wanderer

wanderer — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:39:58 +0000

There is a question of relevance, relevance of the question to the circumstance, and even then, it’s how the question is handled as much as the exactitude of the answer that interests me. In Hanson’s case “Please explain” said it all, blunt, direct, and honest – a more literate person may have apologised for having a mental block and asked that the question be rephrased. It was an irrelevant vocabulary test that she failed, and thereby endeared herself to anyone else who didn’t know either. Likewise Bush’s spoonerisms make for lots of gags but help the everyman see him as one of them. One the other hand, Joe and separation of powers – relevant; Palin and the Bush doctrine – very relevant (I think she failed on both counts). As for milk prices and the like, juvenile journalism – straw poll: how many here know the price of milk? I have no idea.

By: Neil H

Neil H — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:24:55 +0000

I’m starting to wonder if I really am suffering from some sort of Palin Derangement Syndrome. it’s like I see things concerning her that seem invisible to other people.

Am i the seriously the only one who thinks her responses showed that she didn’t even know that “What do you think of the Bush doctrine?” was a foreign policy question until Charlie Gibson explained that it was?

By: William Bowe

William Bowe — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:26:17 +0000

I don’t know that the question put to Joh about the separation of powers was a “trick question” comparable to stuff about economic indicators or grocery prices. You really are in trouble when a leader answers a question like that the way Joh did. Also, Pauline Hanson was asked not to define xenophobia but, less unreasonably, if she was xenophobic.

By: gilmae

gilmae — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:39:03 +0000

It would be particularly strange for an Australian with more than passing interest in politics to be confused about the Bush Doctrine being preemptive attack as defense. At the time there was much polite discussion and discourse when John Howard talked about preemptive strikes against terrorists in the region. Bloggers and media were pretty sure back then that the Bush Doctrine was as Gibson enunciated, and that Howard was echoing it. Short memories?

By: Jacques Chester

Jacques Chester — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:27:32 +0000

On my first day of campaigning for Parliament I was asked by radio station for the current RBA interest rate. I had no idea. Little did I know Howard had flubbed it the night before on ACA. I guess that makes me an out-of-touch elite.

On the other hand I did offer the interviewer the price of milk. In my case, $2.28 per litre. Bloody lactose intolerance.