Impressions from the debate

[kengs333]

I was completely disgusted with Layton. Just like last time, he was all hot air and rhetoric. The highlight of the debate for me was when the moderator asked him to explain one of his "Big bad Harper" claims and he just stuttered and bumbled. His response, after trying to avoid the question and after looking embarrassed at being called out, was something along the lines of, "Just LOOK at him!"

You'll have to be more specific.

What about the time Harper was going on about him being the only person who uses the public health care system and wouldn't give specifics; Paikin is the one who had to clarify that it was in reference to Layton using a clinic which in fact is NOT private. Harper really looked like a nob on that one.

[kengs333]

I wonder how many in Quebec saw this debate, much better than last night. Harper couldn't help himself but deliver some massive blows.

What massive blows?

Like being forced to admit that he was wrong about Iraq?

Sitting there like a dunce while he was criticized for not having a platform?

Or when he was lambasted about the loss of manufacturing jobs?

[unspoken]

My impressions:

First of all, hated the format. Go back to the round-robin 1 on 1 debates on each issue. Why? Because it would force equal criticism... for example, Elizabeth May took the "we'll stay until it's done" answer with leaving Afghanistan... where were Dion, Layton and Duceppe with their "BUSH!!!" outcries like they have been against Harper?

Also, I thought it led to too much "yours won't work because" and not enough of "mine will work because."

Also, the moderation was just not good. Here's my count of interruptions and speaking out of turn:

Harper and Dion tied at 6 each

Layton next at 19

May at 22

Duceppe at 33

Two biggest losers for me. #1 would be Dion. Not necessarily his words, he handled the language well enough to pass by, although once again, he chose his words to academically, and perhaps unfortunately, you've gotta dumb it down at bit to get some people to understand. But the biggest factor contributing to what was IMO his loss was his facial expressions and body language, especially in the "intro" segments after each video question. Giving the puppy dog eyes and looking like a desperate beggar in every answer. I think he handled offence reasonably well, but he failed miserably when either Harper or Layton put him on defence.

#2 would be Elizabeth May. She almost had me fooled last night. She came off pretty well in the French debate. However, tonight, once again all she became was the arrogant, rude loudmouth know-it-all we've seen in interviews the past two years who couldn't follow simple debate rules. Now, that's not enough to give her a completely bad grade, her absolute worst moment came at the end. When the older gentleman asked what their first move as PM would be, she went straight to Proportional Representation. The only voters she may take that way are from the NDP. And I'm sure that electoral reform is a more of a priority for people than the ass kicking they've taken in the markets the past few days, or whether they're going to be able to keep their job or continue to make their mortgage payment. That was a huge gaffe IMO and people are going to clutch on to that.

[blueblood]

What massive blows?

Like being forced to admit that he was wrong about Iraq?

Sitting there like a dunce while he was criticized for not having a platform?

Or when he was lambasted about the loss of manufacturing jobs?

He had already admitted long ago Iraq was a mistake, Strike 1

He has a 13 point lead without a platform and the other leaders didn't even use theirs, Strike 2

Yet he indicated more jobs were created than destroyed, Strike 3.

What private clinic did you go to Jack? hahhahahahahahaha

You panicked Stephane!!

[kengs333]

He had already admitted long ago Iraq was a mistake, Strike 1

When. Certainly not on national television.

He has a 13 point lead without a platform and the other leaders didn't even use theirs, Strike 2

That's because the 35-40% of people who habitually vote Con don't care.

Yet he indicated more jobs were created than destroyed, Strike 3.

The jobs gained were not manufacturing jobs. He had to admit this, but really didn't seem to care. Then he got beat for the whole issue with awarding contracts to foreign manufacturers.

What private clinic did you go to Jack? hahhahahahahahaha

It wasn't a private clinic.

You panicked Stephane!!

What?

[mcrobert]

I honestly believe that CONs base performance on a persons tone of voice and facial expression above policies and credibility. I mean, its astonishing that I hear people saying Harper WON the debate.

Harper...

A) Was he on opium or something?

He gave non answers and was repetitive CLEARLY CLEARLY CLEARLY (American politics 101)

C) His policies are not inline with other sucessful G8 nations

D) He was for destroying our health care system

E) He passed a deal with Exxon within a week against the better judgement of a panel I believe

F) Manufacturing sector has gone tits up in CANADA

G) We are not investing in new technologies and future Energy solutions

H) He is CLEARLY for supporting the top and HOPES for a trickle down effect

I) Iraq (His position)

There is even more but its late I if you cant see whats going on good luck to you! Our economy is about to get shot up soon after this election as our banks start to announce the losses they took in American investments!! You are all going to wake up one day.. seriously.. wake up to what this idiot is doing and more importantly not doing.. You will wake up in a Mulroney situation and seriously kick yourselves in the head. The guy is slick and as far as I am concerned preys on WEAK MINDED INDIVIDUALS and works for the Corporate Elite. Pathetic sheeple

-Regards

Edited October 3, 2008 by mcrobert

[Riverwind]

Our economy is about to get shot up soon after this election as our banks start to announce the losses they took in American investments!!

Old news. They already have written down large chunks of it. They is probably more but there is no reason to believe it will be enough to undermine the bank's ability to lend to Canadians.

The guy is slick and as far as I am concerned preys on WEAK MINDED INDIVIDUALS

I would say that description fits Jack Layton perfectly. In fact, weak minded is a good way to describe anyone who believe the BS about the Canadian economy or the CPC policies that you listed.

[mcrobert]

Because they are largely facts?

Perhaps Merril Lynch Canada just released that document about Canadian households being over-extended for FEAR! Maybe the independent polls that state Canadian's are severely hurting right now.. Or that the Job creation is in low paying sectors.. Thats all fabrication I suppose. Lets live under a rock some more eh comrade..

[Riverwind]

Perhaps Merril Lynch Canada just released that document about Canadian households being over-extended for FEAR!

That would be the same Merril Lynch that went down in flames because they mis-read the US market?

Why don't you try reading an opinion from some sources with a slightly better track record:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...wn-kind-of.aspx

Maybe the independent polls that state Canadian's are severely hurting right now..

If that was true then you should be absolutely opposed to any polcies that increase the cost of energy. But you seem to think that is a good idea. The conservatives are the only party that recognizes that the economy is way more important than hypothetical threats 100 years from now.

Or that the Job creation is in low paying sectors.

Really? I guess you have missed all of those high paying jobs in the oil patch. Edited October 3, 2008 by Riverwind

[August1991]

#2 would be Elizabeth May. She almost had me fooled last night. She came off pretty well in the French debate. However, tonight, once again all she became was the arrogant, rude loudmouth know-it-all we've seen in interviews the past two years who couldn't follow simple debate rules. Now, that's not enough to give her a completely bad grade, her absolute worst moment came at the end. When the older gentleman asked what their first move as PM would be, she went straight to Proportional Representation.

I noticed the same point.

PR is to her advantage now. If May ever made PM, I doubt she would favour PR as a priority. IOW, May is anaive politician.

Naive? Maybe stupid. As the leader of the Green party, I would never choose PR as a first priority. I thought the Green Party's first priority was the Environment.

By choosing PR as her priority, I think Elizabeth May just lost many Green votes.

[Bryan]

I honestly believe that CONs base performance on a persons tone of voice and facial expression above policies and credibility. I mean, its astonishing that I hear people saying Harper WON the debate.

I wasn't quite convinced that he won either. He was far too humble, and did not take the opposition to task nearly enough for their lying and gross exaggerations of his policies and governance. He was clearly holding back. I almost wonder if he was intentionally letting Layton win just to further fragment the left-wing vote.

His policies are not inline with other sucessful G8 nations

Considering we're the only country in the G8 that is running a surplus, and that our unemployment is at a 30 year low, I'd say that's a good thing.

He was for destroying our health care system

The Liberals cut $25 billion from healthcare when they were in. Only 2.5 yrs in, the Conservatives had already restored $23 Billion of it.

E) He passed a deal with Exxon within a week against the better judgement of a panel I believe

F) Manufacturing sector has gone tits up in CANADA

G) We are not investing in new technologies and future Energy solutions

Now this just makes me laugh. The hypocrisy of the left on the issue of investing in corporations is astounding.

On one hand, we have sunset industries that are always needing to be propped up just to avoid layoffs, and when you do give them money, they take it and turn around and announce that the plant is closing anyway. When those jobs are lost, this is supposedly the government's fault for not just shoveling more good money after bad.

On the other hand, we have industries that are booming. They are expanding so fast, they can barely find enough workers. And these jobs pay incredibly well. The government gives these companies some business tax incentives to encourage them to keep doing what they're doing, and the result is an even greater increase in jobs, and an even greater increase in the wages. That somehow gets painted as lining the evil corporation's pockets at our expense.

You've got to make up your freaking mind. The left keeps screaming "job creation, job creation"; Dude, this IS job creation. It's basic math. When more new jobs start than those that are lost, you have MORE jobs, not less. Even bigger bonus is these jobs even pay more than the old ones.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Bryan

[Topaz]

I try to watch both the US and the Canadian and found the US boring and I also thought that Palin may have been hooked up like GW was in the 2004 debate with Gore to give her help with her answers. If you noticed her eyes looked like she was reading but since she wasn't then I figured the only reason for her to appear like she was, was she was listening to her answers. As far as the Canadian debate I thought they were a little more like themselves ,except, Harper held back some what. I think May would make a very good opposition party, she seems very smart and she can talk and I don't think Harper appreciated a lot of what she was saying about his ways. Duceppe, made a lot of good points, too mad he has to be a separatists. I think Jack is always a good opposition debater and Dion didn't do as well as the French debate but his heart is in the right place.

[scribblet]

Why so many references to 'Bush'? Is he running for office in Canada now?

LOL might as well be - see - they are playing to the anti Bush anti U.S. sentiment; if they can convince the viewers that Harper really is Bush clone they can score some political points.

I didn`t watch the whole thing but didn`t like the format, what I did see showed Harper taking the high road while the other cretins tried to outshout him. Dion and the others got to speak uninterrupted but they didn`t give Harper the same opportunity. I also thought the `barbarian`question from the moderator was out line. I wonder how many people heard the facts about some issues Harper gave out, e.g. increased funding for the arts.

It looks like the Liberals will go down in flames, but I`m going to say that it will be a small minority CPC, not a huge landslide.

[scribblet]

I wasn't quite convinced that he won either. He was far too humble, and did not take the opposition to task nearly enough for their lying and gross exaggerations of his policies and governance. He was clearly holding back. I almost wonder if he was intentionally letting Layton win just to further fragment the left-wing vote.

Considering we're the only country in the G8 that is running a surplus, and that our unemployment is at a 30 year low, I'd say that's a good thing.

The Liberals cut $25 billion from healthcare when they were in. Only 2.5 yrs in, the Conservatives had already restored $23 Billion of it.

Now this just makes me laugh. The hypocrisy of the left on the issue of investing in corporations is astounding. .

Agree, Harper needs to be a bit more animated and give it back in spades.

[nbguyca]

If you win a debate by not answering questions, then Harper was clearly the winner.

These debates are a useless waste of time. They will not change the minds of the people who actually watch.

[Argus]

I think May has a teleprompter in her glasses. Whenever she is off-script, she starts shouting and pointing. She even called Harper 'stupid' at one point - great debate tactic!

I had never seen much of her prior to this. And after this I hope I never see more of her. She was a shrill, rude, confrontational, and ignorant woman.

Dion was a shrill, rude, confrontational woman, too, btw, but he wasn't as loud and didn't interupt as much.

[Argus]

Are you kidding? Dion got killed in the debate! The man should learn to speak one of Canada's official languages.

He was completely boxed in: Steve had him on one side, and Jack had him on the other. Down in flames.

Harper majority just became more likely.

I don't think his English was that bad at all, not much worse than Chretien's. What was bad was his tone, and his mannerisms. He often seemed frantic or desperate, with wide eyes and wild hand gestures. And he was rude - but not in the way a tough, cocky guy can be rude (Chretien) - more in the way a whiny nerd can be rude because he has no social skills.

[Argus]

Of about 20 million Canadian voters the media reported 10% tuned in last night to the French debate. Tonight's debate probably only drew 15%. These debates will fall into obscurity very quickly.

Yeah, but the people who watched will almost certainly vote, a far higher percentage than of the general population. And if you were undecided, you were more likely to watch than if you already had made your decision. That's why the thing was important.

[White Doors]

You'll have to be more specific.

What about the time Harper was going on about him being the only person who uses the public health care system and wouldn't give specifics; Paikin is the one who had to clarify that it was in reference to Layton using a clinic which in fact is NOT private. Harper really looked like a nob on that one.

It was a private clinic. Privately owned. The definition of private..

I laughed when Harper called Layton on it. He muttered and flustered. lol

He said well it was paid for by OHIp or whatever it is. irrelevent! He doesn't believe in private delivery of 'public healthcare'. what a hypocrite!

[Argus]

What massive blows?

Like being forced to admit that he was wrong about Iraq?

Five years ago he, like many others, based on the evidence of that time, made a decision which in retrospect, since the evidence turned out to be wrong, was incorrect. So what? It's not like the Liberal decision at the time was wiser. Everyone knew their decision was based on extensive polling which told them the politically smart thing to do was stay away. Whether there were WMDs in Iraq or not was not of any particular importance in that decision.

Sitting there like a dunce while he was criticized for not having a platform?

He wasn't given an opportunity to respond. If he did he doubtless would have suggested that not spending tens of billions of dollars on new programs, and not bringing in punishing new business taxes in these difficult economic times was a lot smarter than what Layton was proposing.

Or when he was lambasted about the loss of manufacturing jobs?

Again, no opportuinty to respond. And do you think, like Dion and Layton, that the answer to the loss of manufacturing jobs is to hit manufacturers with a whopping new tax increase?

[betsy]

May was so annoying. She interrupts everytime Harper is given the floor to defend himself. I would understand if she was caught up in the midst of a heated argument, but her interruptions are nothing more than cheapshots at distracting and minimizing the chances of Harper to explain his position. The moderator had to stop her several times.

She doesn't accord the same respect that is given her during her alloted time. She cheapened the debate.

As a voter, I want to listen to all the details, not to some shrill shrew who couldn't manage to contain herself and practice decorum. The moderator was ineffective in a number of occasions. For this reason I hate this format.

[Wild Bill]

Well, I sure hope so, but you are not the rest of the world. Sad that your gain can only be defined in terms of the American foil (as usual).

It's an American infestation!

Lemme see here, we gave you innumerable actors, comedians and Apollo rocket scientists to help put a man on the moon.

You gave us a few draft dodgers and Elizabeth May.

Thanks a lot for nothing!

[Argus]

I honestly believe that CONs base performance on a persons tone of voice and facial expression above policies and credibility.

We already knew everyone's policies. And for myself, as I actually know something about economics, I know that Layton's and Dion's would be economic disasters if they were ever put in place.

I mean, its astonishing that I hear people saying Harper WON the debate.

That seems to be the consensus in the media.

A) Was he on opium or something?

You mean because he was speaking softly and respectfully instead of shouting and waving his arms around wildly like the others?

He gave non answers and was repetitive CLEARLY CLEARLY CLEARLY (American politics 101)

I thought he gave fairly clear answers given he only had 30 seconds to respond, often to multiple questions.

C) His policies are not inline with other sucessful G8 nations

Like who? Like what policies?

D) He was for destroying our health care system

By putting more money into it?

E) He passed a deal with Exxon within a week against the better judgement of a panel I believe

You believe? You don't even know what you're talking about. This sounds like something based on the scrap of a memory of some nonsense Layton was spouting.

F) Manufacturing sector has gone tits up in CANADA

Hmm, slowing demand from our largest partner, 20% increase in the value of the Canadian dollar (which means it costs other countries 20% more to buy the same thing from us. Yup, Harper's fault!

G) We are not investing in new technologies and future Energy solutions

And you know this because.....

H) He is CLEARLY for supporting the top and HOPES for a trickle down effect

Almost all economists and almost all major countries have concluded that the best way of stimulating the economy and promoting job growth is corporate tax cuts. Even left wing governments throughout Europe have realized this.

Our economy is about to get shot up soon after this election as our banks start to announce the losses they took in American investments!!

They did that last year. That you are unaware of this does not give me much confidence in your knowledge about what is going on in the financial system.

[Argus]

Because they are largely facts?

Perhaps Merril Lynch Canada just released that document about Canadian households being over-extended for FEAR!

Just what do you expect the government to do about Canadians over-extending themselves with credit? Give them all a spanking? Ban people from borowing money? Perhaps new government panel to approve each and eveyr individual loan and credit card purchase by analysing the individual's credit, value and debts to determine whether they're borrowing money responsibly?

What??

[nbguyca]

We already knew everyone's policies. And for myself, as I actually know something about economics, I know that Layton's and Dion's would be economic disasters if they were ever put in place.

The thing about economists is that you can always find one to tell you what you want to hear.