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.

Oh look! Harper lied!

Months before the Conservative government dismissed talk of a perimeter security accord with the United States as hearsay, senior officials were quietly discussing a draft of the border agreement...Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama signed an agreement in February that could lead to a formal North American security perimeter.

(image)
The CONs lie.  All the time.  As I said before, that contempt for Parliament and for Canadians is the main issue during this election because nothing else that comes out of any CPC MP's mouth can be trusted.

"Now is not the time for instability, or for reckless, opportunistic experiments."

...and we need to stay the course.  (CPC site, on their platform)

Sure, let's not be reckless.

And hell, none of those opportunistic experiments please.

I'm all for staying this course over the next few weeks.

But we need to shift away from the CPC course of  -

contempt of Parliament :

"This is serious matter that goes to the heart of the House's undoubted role in holding the government to account," Milliken declared.

contempt for Canadians :

For all of its imperfections (and they are many), the only thing close to a democratic national body in Canada is the House of Commons. To be contemptuous of its members is to disdain those who elected them. Canadians get precious few chances to determine what their leaders do. When voters elected a minority government in 2008, they were signalling that they didn’t trust Stephen Harper’s Conservatives (or indeed any other party) to run the nation’s business single-handed.

Instead, they wanted the opposition parties to check government — to act as watchdogs, moderate its ideological excesses and keep it in line.  But throughout the life of this now-dead Parliament, Prime Minister Stephen Harper refused to accept the voters’ verdict. His decision to operate as if he controlled a majority of Commons seats may have been good short-term politics. But it contradicted both the spirit and reality of the very limited mandate voters had given him.

reckless spending :

“The needs of most Canadians are neglected due to reckless spending on Conservative pet projects,” (CCPA Alternative Federal Budget Coordinator David Macdonald) says. “Canadians should be warned: deep spending cuts that will affect the services they need are on the horizon. The government isn’t revealing where the pain is going to come.”

“This budget wastes our time and our money,” says CCPA Senior Economist Armine Yalnizyan. “The Harper government has yet again tabled a fiscal plan that doesn’t deal with the tough issues of the day. How will we deal with aging infrastructure and high youth unemployment, a shrinking workforce and uncertain pensions?  The government’s response seems to be that these are our problems, not theirs.”

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.

Harper plagiarizes Emperor Palpatine's speech

h/t Lisa.

Mandatory Poilievre - the virtues of block letters.

Pirate Fish says: Good idea. Let Pierre be the front guy during the election.

Hon. Marlene Jennings: (Gerstein and Finley, facing jail time for election fraud) - ...How can Canadians trust a Prime Minister who holds our democratic elections in such contempt?

Poilievre: the Liberal Party is holding democratic elections in contempt. It ignored the results of the last election when voters spoke and gave this party increased seats and increased votes. It formed a coalition with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP.

Sort of like the older, dumber kid in the schoolyard, who having been held back several grades comes out with such brilliance as: “oh yeah? You’re the dummy!”

Hon. Marlene Jennings: ...Why do the Conservatives think that they are better than every other Canadian? Why do the Conservatives think they are above the law?

Poilievre: ...I do not know why that member thinks that her party is above the democratic process. After the last election, which the Liberals lost, they then tried to overturn the result by forming a coalition with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, a coalition that would dramatically raise job-killing taxes and destabilize our economy.

Wow. Coalition. Democratic process. Job-killing taxes. Economy. Destabilize.

Toss those words in a hat, add a few random pronouns and verbs, grab a few and form a sentence. Be sure that you have extra “coalition” and “economy” tokens, though.

Then even Pierre can pretend to be a politician.  Maybe we can design picture blocks so he can do away with words altogether.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ADSCAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, well that didn't take long.  After Abbott and Baird mentioning "coalition" several dozen times, O'Connor screams "ADSCAM!!!!"

Harper CONs talking ethics while trying to save their corrupt asses from defeat.  Very Monty Python.

Not many relaxed, confident faces in the CPC seats today.  Frozen smiles, mostly. 

No defense on their part as to the charges of contempt so far other than to mention the useless doc dump that had no new or asked for info.

oh...O'Connor just mentioned "coalition." 

I think we pretty much heard the CPC election talking points:  look at all the itsy bitsy things we did; scary coalition; and the all time favourite - ADSCAM!!!!!

About that budget, steve

h/t to Far and Wide and Dammit Janet!

Enough Harper

  enough said.

Love the new Conservative accountability ads

Oh wait...those are news headlines.  From today.

Opposition parties: Scandals could topple Conservatives

Kenney faces new accusation of partisanship  

Jason Kenney’s performance shows some ministers aren’t created equal 

  Conservatives’ in-and-out scheme: applying smell test to facts

Stephen Harper finds his Dingwall

A government for all Conservatives

Access-to-information woes grow ever more absurd 

Kenney fends off demands for resignation over fundraising letter

Justin Trudeau takes Jason Kenney to task for alleged abuse of ministerial office    


Looks like the Liberals and NDP agree that  the so-called in-and-out election spending scandal and other missteps (should be) the springboard to Election Day 2011.

Nice to see unity on that from opposition.  The CONs can say all they want that Canadians don't care about those issues, but they would like us to forget that they beat the Martin Liberals pretty much on the accountability issue alone.  And pompously promised they'd be different.

Oh, they're different, all right:
During the Chrétien government years, I reported extensively on malfeasance by the Liberals. To do the math on the Harper government is to conclude that, while it has no sponsorship scandal on its books, it’s already surpassed its predecessor on a range of other abuse-of-power indices. (Lawrence Martin)

And for those people who really don't care that the harper team has beaten even the eternal ADSCAM (!!!!!), the CONs provide headlines today about other things, those things dealing with budgets, finance, and the economy, those things harper says are really what Canadians care about:


Critics slam feds’poverty plan 

Commons committee keeps MPs' legal fees under wraps  

Federal spending rising in areas where Tories vowed to tighten belts: budget watchdog.

The feds are spending billions without looking at the bill

A Good Line

Saw this in the comment section of a G&M story about Stevie trying to put the big coalition scare on us:

I Am Not Your Sweet Babboo writes (bold put in by moi):

Article: "And the Conservative Leader is already test-driving what will doubtless become a relentless message: that Canada is really a two-party state, with the Conservatives on one side and a “coalition,” as he calls it, of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois on the other."

And here is the perfect way to frame the response and therefore the election campaign:

The Conservatives on one side and the rest of Canada on the other.

Slam dunk. Goodbye, Harper.

Simple, direct.  I like it.

We can add insipid to the master strategist’s characteristics

With Pompous Pilot at the helm, it’s no wonder the CONs can’t break out of minority territory.  Stevie’s vision is impaired.  He sees no shades of grey.

"But, friends, when an election does come, Canadians are going to face a pretty stark choice. The next election will be a choice between a Parliament with a majority made up of a Liberal-NDP-Bloc Québécois coalition, or it will be a stable majority for our Conservative government." 

 Well, no, Stevie-boy.  There are other choices, and most of us with an imagination at all richer than that of a sea cucumber are aware of them.  I’m going to feel silly writing them out for you, I’m sure, as they are so obvious to, well, normal folks, but here – a gift:

There aren’t only two choices on a ballot.  Also, please take note, the only two choices you offer will most certainly not be on the ballot.


Each voter is entitled to one choice out of several MPs on a ballot.  These voters do not need to vote as a group but – now listen carefully – can decide individually who they want to vote for!

Individuals can also base their decision on criteria they themselves set up!  Yes, it’s hard to believe, but true.

Let’s examine other possibilities: A Liberal majority or a CON-NDP-Bloc coalition; a Liberal minority; a Liberal majority with NDP opposition; a Liberal majority with CON opposition.  It’s voters who will decide by their vote and since they don’t vote as a bloc or for the same reasons, many voters will not end up with the Parliamentary makeup they hoped for.

But keep insulting our intelligence.  Keep up the obvious lies and bullying.  Please.  That will assure those of us who actually understand how elections work that we will definitely not end up with a majority Harper government.

Oh yeah…please keep shooting yourself in the foot.