Harper turns down one-on-one debate with Ignatieff

Sailor · April 2, 2011

Hellfire Harper win a debate against a Harvard prof?

That'll be the day

wyly · April 2, 2011

Ugh! The fewer debates the better I say. One in French and one in English presents plenty of opportunities to make your opponent look worse than you. Realistically, a good debater does not a good Prime Minister make.

ya for the same reason MP rob anders has been gagged PMO indefinitely because of his poor debating skills :lol:

anders won't meet the press or any opponent on any open riding forum,as usual he's missing in action until after the election...harper wishes he could do the same...

cybercoma · April 2, 2011

I'll parse it out for you. I know words are hard for some people. He is game to debate Harper, any time and any place. It however does not excuse Mr Harper from attending the regular leaders debate.

I can understand Harpers reluctance to do the debates, he can only come off looking very badly.

He should just go to the one-on-one with Ignatieff and step out of the regular leaders debate.

Shakeyhands · April 2, 2011

Harper won't. He'll only end up looking horrible and as such has nothing to gain. It's fun watching the gyrations from both the party and the booster club as they twist and turn trying to blame it on Ignatieff though.

Shakeyhands · April 2, 2011

And it gets more interesting... Just heard that Rick Mercer is willing to produce and make a 50K donation to the charity of choice to get these two together, Ignatieff has already agreed to do it... no word yet from the Harper camp.

My guess is that he will still chicken out.

Remember kids, don't open your mouths unless you are absolutely sure.

blueblood · April 2, 2011

And it gets more interesting... Just heard that Rick Mercer is willing to produce and make a 50K donation to the charity of choice to get these two together, Ignatieff has already agreed to do it... no word yet from the Harper camp.

My guess is that he will still chicken out.

Remember kids, don't open your mouths unless you are absolutely sure.

Given the latest poll numbers and their trend, why does he need to get into a debate? The debate only would improve ignatieff's numbers. However if the polls drop for harper, he'd probably entertain the idea.

jamescanuck2001 · April 2, 2011

Given the latest poll numbers and their trend, why does he need to get into a debate? The debate only would improve ignatieff's numbers. However if the polls drop for harper, he'd probably entertain the idea.

mercer is going to have a field day if harper declines. and harper's poll numbers will plummet.

given how secretive and untransparent harper has been as a prime minister, will certainly be apropos if the issue of this election becomes his refusal to debate the issues, and instead follow a carefully scripted and choreographed campaign

YEGmann · April 2, 2011

Insisting on an additional debate Ignatieff looks like a beggar with Harper saying him "Get lost!"

It is not wise behaviour.

Edited April 2, 2011 by YEGmann

Shakeyhands · April 2, 2011

Insisting on an additional debate Ignatieff looks like a beggar with Harper saying him "Get lost!"

It is not wise behaviour.

What is not wise behaviour is Harper offering it in the first place. Put up or shut up territory.

Jack Weber · April 2, 2011

What is not wise behaviour is Harper offering it in the first place. Put up or shut up territory.

Pretty much...

blueblood · April 3, 2011

mercer is going to have a field day if harper declines. and harper's poll numbers will plummet.

given how secretive and untransparent harper has been as a prime minister, will certainly be apropos if the issue of this election becomes his refusal to debate the issues, and instead follow a carefully scripted and choreographed campaign

If it worked for obama it can work for harper

cybercoma · April 3, 2011

Given the latest poll numbers and their trend, why does he need to get into a debate?

Because maybe party leaders should be open to discussing their ideas and beliefs about where they want to take the country? They should be open to defending those ideas against others. It's the democratic thing to do anyway.

blueblood · April 3, 2011

Because maybe party leaders should be open to discussing their ideas and beliefs about where they want to take the country? They should be open to defending those ideas against others. It's the democratic thing to do anyway.

The party leaders can campaign however they want, the voters decide who campaigned the best at the ballot box. Its the democratic thing to do.

cybercoma · April 3, 2011

You're right. The voters can vote however they want. Except now, they'll be asking themselves, "what is Harper hiding?" His cabinet ministers hid stuff from parliament, his Senators tried to hide fundraising, he hid expenses in the budget and now he's hiding from a debate with Ignatieff. For someone that campaigned on transparent and accountable government, his government has been anything but.

Bryan · April 3, 2011

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I can't see Harper agreeing to an ADDITIONAL debate. A different format for the two already scheduled debates on the other hand, I'm sure would be perfectly fine.

The best compromise I could see happening would be a segment during the regular debate where the discussion is limited to responses from Harper and Ignatieff. They could even write that into the "rules" of the future debates that it's whatever two parties are polling the highest at the time get that one segment.

ToadBrother · April 3, 2011

You're right. The voters can vote however they want. Except now, they'll be asking themselves, "what is Harper hiding?" His cabinet ministers hid stuff from parliament, his Senators tried to hide fundraising, he hid expenses in the budget and now he's hiding from a debate with Ignatieff. For someone that campaigned on transparent and accountable government, his government has been anything but.

If I was a strategist for any guy leading by 10 points in the polls, and someone strolled up and said "Our opponent wants to debate our guy mono-e-mono", I'd tell him no way. Harper has absolutely nothing to gain by such a debate, and everything to lose. Even if he outright wins the debate, he lends Iggy legitimacy, but odds are on, in such a debate format, Iggy, with his academic experience, would mop the floor with Harper, and what would that tell us exactly, other than it's frickin' hard to win a debate against an academic with years of experience in such formats?

Jack Weber · April 3, 2011

If I was a strategist for any guy leading by 10 points in the polls, and someone strolled up and said "Our opponent wants to debate our guy mono-e-mono", I'd tell him no way. Harper has absolutely nothing to gain by such a debate, and everything to lose. Even if he outright wins the debate, he lends Iggy legitimacy, but odds are on, in such a debate format, Iggy, with his academic experience, would mop the floor with Harper, and what would that tell us exactly, other than it's frickin' hard to win a debate against an academic with years of experience in such formats?

er..

It's mano y mano,NOT,mono-e-mono...

Man to man...mono-e-mono sounds like a confrontation between communicable viruses...

Shakeyhands · April 3, 2011

If I was a strategist for any guy leading by 10 points in the polls, and someone strolled up and said "Our opponent wants to debate our guy mono-e-mono", I'd tell him no way.

Which is why it boogles me that Harper thought to offer up te debate in the first place. Brain fart moment for sure.

But with the electorate so afraid of "an illegitimate coalition", Harper should just go for it and do the debate. He's not looking good on it despite the club trying and trying again to make it look like this was Ignatieffs idea.

Shakeyhands · April 3, 2011

mono-e-mono sounds like a confrontation between communicable viruses...

I'm not sure that isn't too far off..

"nanoo-e-nanoo" Mork from Ork

Edited April 3, 2011 by Shakeyhands

YEGmann · April 3, 2011

Which is why it boogles me that Harper thought to offer up te debate in the first place.

It was Harper's mistake. Everybody knew that outright. Why this happened is a big puzzle.

But with the electorate so afraid of "an illegitimate coalition", Harper should just go for it and do the debate. He's not looking good on it despite the club trying and trying again to make it look like this was Ignatieffs idea.

Not with Ignatieff (read: main opposition leader, not person) one-to-one regardless of any topic.

There will be enough time to discuss everything during the two debates.

Edited April 3, 2011 by YEGmann

Scotty · April 3, 2011

I'll parse it out for you. I know words are hard for some people. He is game to debate Harper, any time and any place.

Except in the actual debate.

Look, this is all patently obvious on both sides. Harper wants to debate Ignatieff, confident (with reason) he would prevail. However, the Tories don't want to push away the NDP and elevate this election to a two-party race. He doesn't want to see NDP voters staying home, or worse, voting Liberal. Also, he's well ahead in the polls, and really has little to gain in a debate unless he absolutely crushes Ignatieff.

Ignatieff, on the other hand, is way behind, and is game for anything that will make hims seem more important, put him on the same level, so to speak, as Harper. He'd love to have a debate with just him and Harper, shutting out the NDP and hopefully losing the NDP support, status and credibility as a serious contender. All he has to do, given what little everyone thinks of him, is survive, to come out ahead.

I'm sure that the Conservatives would love to see Harper against Ignatieff in the main debate, then Harper against Layton, then Harper against Duceppe. But they're not going to give Ignatieff a gift by elevating him alone.

Scotty · April 3, 2011

mercer is going to have a field day if harper declines. and harper's poll numbers will plummet.

Why on earth would Harper accept Mercer, as anti-Tory an entertainer as ever existed, as the 'moderator' in a debate with a Liberal?

cybercoma · April 3, 2011

If I was a strategist for any guy leading by 10 points in the polls, and someone strolled up and said "Our opponent wants to debate our guy mono-e-mono", I'd tell him no way. Harper has absolutely nothing to gain by such a debate, and everything to lose. Even if he outright wins the debate, he lends Iggy legitimacy, but odds are on, in such a debate format, Iggy, with his academic experience, would mop the floor with Harper, and what would that tell us exactly, other than it's frickin' hard to win a debate against an academic with years of experience in such formats?

Not showing up to the debate is the worse of two evils, IMO. Harper has been criticized for not implementing his promises of transparent and open government. In fact, he has been slammed recently for the exact opposite of what he promised, being elusive and outright lying to parliament. Not showing up to the debate just gives ammunition to the other parties that are trying to show that Harper has a hidden agenda, is not accountable and has gone back on his promise of transparent government.

Grimzby · April 3, 2011

Except in the actual debate.

Look, this is all patently obvious on both sides. Harper wants to debate Ignatieff, confident (with reason) he would prevail. However, the Tories don't want to push away the NDP and elevate this election to a two-party race. He doesn't want to see NDP voters staying home, or worse, voting Liberal. Also, he's well ahead in the polls, and really has little to gain in a debate unless he absolutely crushes Ignatieff.

Ignatieff, on the other hand, is way behind, and is game for anything that will make hims seem more important, put him on the same level, so to speak, as Harper. He'd love to have a debate with just him and Harper, shutting out the NDP and hopefully losing the NDP support, status and credibility as a serious contender. All he has to do, given what little everyone thinks of him, is survive, to come out ahead.

I'm sure that the Conservatives would love to see Harper against Ignatieff in the main debate, then Harper against Layton, then Harper against Duceppe. But they're not going to give Ignatieff a gift by elevating him alone.

Maybe Harper should of thought of that before he said "We could also have a debate between Mr. Ignatieff and myself because, 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," said Harper

Oleg Bach · April 3, 2011

For disappointed Senator and Leaf fans, this could have been the game of the year. But at this point, no-go says Mr. Harper. Also, I like the prominent use of the word 'coalition' by Mr. Harper. Nice touch! Apparently that concept is still game for the Cons.

Harper turns down one-on-one debate with Ignatieff

I wonder if Mr. Harper is afraid of taking Mr. Ignatieff on one-on-one. Sure looks like it.

I bet this isn't over yet.

Would you want to take on Mr. Book himself? Harper knows that Ignatieff is over loaded with trival acedemic knowledge and the public might actually believe that Iggy is actually smart.