don't sweat the debate

Despite most journalist not understanding how to score debaters, people aren't likely to decide their vote on those.

There were many articles going on about how harper won simply because he didn't totally lose his shit during the debate last night and because he managed to squeeze some words out in response to critical questions. That he lied and lied, that he responded without actually answering the questions or giving any kind of supporting arguments seemed to mean nothing to most journalists.

Dan Gardner has an excellent piece, though.

Harper's preferred word was "bickering." That's how he described Parliamentary debate. It's all just bickering. (It wasn't only him, to be fair. Jack Layton used every clash between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff as a chance to smile wryly and pose as the only adult in the playground.)  But what exactly is Parliament, and more specifically the House of Commons? It's the place where people chosen in ridings across the country gather to talk about the nation's business. Our representatives often disagree. Is this bickering?

Gardner says that less than half of Canadians are so clueless about Canadian governance that they actually think the people elect the prime minister. Rather than sweep away that ignorance, Harper makes use of it. Indeed, he fosters it in order to advance his immediate political interests.

Those of us who do understand the dangers harper poses to our democracy as he not only undermines it but attempts to set false beliefs in people concerning it can't possibly educate 50% of the population in three weeks.  That will have to wait until we have a Prime Minister who favours education and doesn't refer to educated people as elitists or imply that intellectual is a bad word.

However, people do respond to day after scandal ridden day, seeing the party that rode in on outrage and promises of accountability and transparency lie to us, steal from us, hide information from us, line their friends pockets with our money, and show appalling insensitivity to voters.

These new stories came up in the last two hours:

Conservatives quit over Vaughan health-care money - Two Conservatives have quit their own riding association in Vaughan north of Toronto, accusing incumbent candidate Julian Fantino and the Conservative government of handing $10 million in public dollars to a private non-profit group involved in a major health-care development.

Conservative candidate asks for ‘ethnic costumes’ for Harper photo op
A Conservative candidate in the GTA is at the centre of a growing controversy after his office asked multicultural groups in the riding if they would like to wear “ethnic costumes” to a photo op with Stephen Harper.

G8 legacy fund: boon or boondoggle?

As controversy continues to swirl around a $50-million "G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund" that beautified a Conservative-held riding last year, the debate has centered on a key question: Was this spending typical of cases when Canada hosts international events, or was it a ploy to help Tory MP Tony Clement get re-elected?

Ignatieff has been taking some flack for spending too much time in the debate on the contempt issue and not enough on the Liberal platform.  I thought he did what was right , effective, and necessary.  The government was brought down over being in contempt.  We are in an election because the government was voted to be in contempt.  That is what this election should be about first of all.  Yes, each party must state what it will do with whatever power it gains, but let's not forget why harper and his party got the boot.  And they did get the boot.

Two thirds of Canadians through their elected reps fired him.  Said they don't trust him.  Said he has no respect for the very institutions established over many, many years of government to give a fair and accountable Parliament.  Accountable to us, the people.

Ignatieff drove that home over and over.  It's something that most Canadians could be made to understand even if it's on a simple level.  The two thirds of elected reps representing Canadians said they don't have confidence in harper and his party.  Ignatieff made this clear, and added the very good keeper lines:

“A majority? ... Majorities are things you earn when you earn the trust of Canadian people and you haven’t earned the trust of the Canadian people because you don’t trust the Canadian people.” 


Go to Far and Wide to see how people are shifting their support.  Steve V gives a terrific analysis of the recent polls, and while the shifts are rather cautious and a little slow, they are steady, show a definite trend, take place in areas of the country that make a difference in an election, and show that people are reacting to the repeated examples of contempt the harper government has been displaying daily.

He's not a leader, he's Chicken Boo!

“I want to get out and campaign and meet Canadians.  I don’t want to spend it meeting the same party leaders I meet every day in Parliament.”

Sure, Steve.  Sure.

steve meets Canadians.

And Wayne, why didn't you call him on his lies?

Why? Because he's afraid, that's why.

Chase, Curry, and Taber ask: Why won't Harper take Ignatieff on in head-to-head debate?

He has no spontanaety, isn't as quick as Ignatieff, and has far, far too many issues he'd rather dodge.  Lacking the skills of a relaxed debater, knowing he can't stick to scripted answers, there's no way he's going to let people see how poorly he preforms in situations he can't control especially when he has a clever, impassioned opponent he can't intimidate.

I never believed steve would agree to this in the end.  Especially if he couldn't frame it as a debate between him and The Coalition™ leader.  Ignatieff is no idiot and insisted that another debate with all the leaders would still have to be held.

So steve is backing up, and earns himself the Backing Up song:

Don't get too excited

There is no way that harper will have a one-on-one debate with Ignatieff.  Unless, of course, he can frame it as the leader of the CPC against the leader of The Coalition™.  And only if he can control who ask questions and what those questions will be.  Maybe have Duffy pretend he's still a journalist of sorts.

This is a guy who only days into the campaign is even frustrating conservative activists by limiting reporter and controlling appearances to a paranoid degree.

steve does not do well when he is caught off guard or hasn't been able to rehearse and plan every word.  Even if his massive ego does not let him realize that he would be no match for Ignatieff in a one-on-one debate, he simply cannot handle situations where he does not control the agenda.

Also, look at steve's word-choice (emphasis mine):

"We're open to any number of possibilities. We could have a traditional debate of Parliamentary leaders, we could have a debate that includes Miss May in such a format, we could have a debate that includes every party that's on the ballot," Harper said.  "We could also have a debate between Mr. Ignatieff and myself, since, after all, the real choice in this election is a choice between a Conservative government or an Ignatieff-led government that all of these other parties will support." 

He's not saying he wants a debate with Ignatieff or that he will have one.   Unlike Ignatiegff's response, "any time, any place," steve is non-committal and vague, using the opportunity to wave the coalition myth around again.

People who think harper is oh so smart, oh so masterful a politician, and oh so trustworthy should ask themselves why he won't answer questions he hasn't approved, and why he needs to control all media events.  If he can't answer questions during an election, how can we possibly trust him to be open and truthful as PM?  Five years of harper has shown us that we can't.

CPC: Contempt of Parliament.  Harper: contempt for Canadians.