French Debate

[August1991]

Some quick comments. I didn't watch all of it but I got most.

It was weird to see "real" francophones in different parts of English-Canada ask questions as if Canada existed the way Trudeau sometimes implied. 30 years ago, there may have been francophones in Quebec who believed that - but no more.

Martin reminded me of Pierre Bourque - an old line pol. Nevertheless, he is kind of seductive when he talks about "l'essor du Québec"... It means nothing but Martin knows how to touch the buttons for indifferent (probably older) voters. He's a politician as some people expect politicians to be. His arguments about Quebec are tired and old.

Duceppe does better because he speaks French but he also has a modern way of inspiring complicity.

The whole thing was weird though. Imagine several Americans debating Canadian politics.

The format is boring, as will be apparent in English tomorrow. It amounts to four press conferences. Too bad that in June 2004 it turned into a shouting match (I blame Layton) and so they adopted this rigid format this time. In January, the format will be different.

Harper made the point afterwards however that a debate need not be spectacle but rather an occasion to inform. In that case, it was in fact possible to learn something about the different parties and the leaders. For the few voters who stayed awake and wanted to learn, it was a good debate.

I give Harper the credit for creating the tone of substance in the campaign so far. I feel sorry for Layton that he has been unable to campaign better. He is clearly a compassionate and empathetic person but even in this debate, he can't seem to show this.

Details: Martin referred to "le caractère distinct du Québec". (Fifteen years ago, the phrase would have caused a scandal in English-Canada.) Harper finished by saying "Joyeux Noël". (Is that scandalous in English-Canada?)

Trudeau was always more interesting to watch in such debates. So were Kennedy and Nixon. Where did all the "leaders" go?

[Biblio Bibuli]

Some quick comments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good observations. I kept awake through the whole thing too. My god could it have been more boring?

My thought is that the 50% of the people who don't bother to lug themselves out to vote weren't watching & the half of us who do already know the various party's positions on everything. We were looking for a little entertainment & checking to see who could think on their feet.

Martin was surprisingly good ... I half expected him to go into goofy mode, but he actually appeared rather Prime Ministerial. He kind of went nuts with his multicultural vision for 30 years from now ... he was looking rather maniacal at one point & I didn't like him referring to BC as the Asia Pacific Coast. Hey ... it's Canada out here, not China.

Harper was his usual dour self. "It's every parent's duty to love their children & I love mine". Duty? I did like his unPC "Merry Christmas" instead of the chorus of "Happy Holidays" though.

Layton was Layton ... telling us about his blind great Grandfather (did you know his grandfather Gilbert founded the CNIB? Living right beside a huge blind school in Montreal too. Guess it was a tribute to his Dad), his lesbian friends & dead neighbors. As you said ... a nice folksy kinda guy. Pleading for a few more seats.

Gilles, as usual, was the best debater. In French or English ... he always comes off very well. His command of the issues is excellent, his language terrific & his manner pleasant.

God ... I'm glad you say the format will be different in January ... I'm not sure if I can take the 2 hour long four-way commercial again tomorrow.

[Riverwind]

Trudeau was always more interesting to watch in such debates.  So were Kennedy and Nixon.  Where did all the "leaders" go?

Consumed by the festering monster we call 24-hour news media. If a young Trudeau is alive today he might not choose a life in politics because it has become such a thankless job.

[Netherlands]

Two thoughts:

The media will certainly not be happy about this style of debate - no chance for arguing, fighting, bickering, etc, which is the kind of stuff that makes it easy for them to report. Can't say their were any winners or knockout blows. But for the undecided viewer, this is what is needed - a fairly civil dialogue, where the leaders get a reasonable chance to get their message across.

Secondly, it is unreasonable to expect that you will have politicians coming out and making great statements and being super eloquent - to be like Trudeau. Very few people are comfortable with public speaking to begin with. I get nervous when I have to talk to class of kids, so I would melt into the floor if I had to talk in front of millions of Canadians. So, all the leaders should be given credit for just showing up. Moreover, all four of these men are intelligent and savy enough not to make glaring mistakes or come off as a fool. When you are at this level, you are not incompetent and won't leave room for others to exploit you. If you want to hear a more interesting kind of debate, where someone can really make a monkey of their opponent, go to the local riding debates. You have good odds that you will hear some funny stuff there.

[Netherlands]

One more:

The debates are extra boring for those of us who are pretty much set into supporting one party (the true believers). We agree with everything that our leader says, and think about all the little errors his opponents make. We only really watch to see fireworks, and when you don't have any, it was a waste of time. But we will all still watch tomorrow's debate, cause were suckers for politics!

[Kiraly]

Some thoughts on tonight’s debate:

(Listened to it translated in English on CPAC)

Best non-verbal communication goes to Duceppe. He looked very comfortable, didn’t move around excessively or awkwardly and used hand gestures effectively.

I thought Layton also performed well, especially in the beginning. Nailed Martin right away with the point on greenhouse gas emissions. Smartly, reserved his attacks for Martin. He did seem to be less effective in the second part of the debate. Probably more to do with the type of questions being asked.

Stephen Harper, the weakest of the four in French I believe, performed alright. He seemed to not understand a couple of questions posed to him. He also seemed to tilt his head quite a bit to the left….

…ahhh, Stephen, moving to the left was to be taken figuratively.

I thought his response to the home care question was weak – probably caught him off guard with that one. I also didn’t think his answer to the question “where do you see Canada in 30 years?” was all that inspiring. As a leader, you have to be able to answer these types of questions in a way that elicits a positive emotional response from the listener. There is room for improvement in this area.

I thought it was smart of him to include the names of some of his candidates running in this election. Good promo. Also liked the fact that he used “we” and the “Conservative Party” as opposed to “I”.

Regarding Martin, I found his hand gestures very distracting. To his credit, the smugness that I felt he portrayed in the debates in '04 was not apparent tonight. I also thought that he appeared to be very scripted. For example, after Harper said he would not use the NWC, Martin said that Harper needs to tell the public whether he would use the NWC….

...ahhh Mr. Martin, I think he just did.

Don't think he saw that coming.

Martin also seemed unable to address the fiscal imbalance question and seemed frustrated with the follow up question regarding the same.

I've noticed that some people (including conservatives) watching the debates in French, thought Martin didn't do poorly. Personally, I didn't think his performance was very good. Perhaps something gets lost in the translation. or maybe I'm just too partisan.

Martin was the target tonight. So I’m guessing surviving the debate is in itself a victory. How they convinced him to do four of these, I’ll never know.

[kimmy]

I didn't watch the debate, but I did watch some of the follow-up on CTV with Mike Duffy. I've got a question: why do they put spinmeisters from the parties on the wrap-up discussion panels?

Rather than have actual journalists, or even a "focus group" evaluate the content of the debate, they give big chunks of their post-debate coverage to party officials like Liberal spinmeister Michael Eizinga, NDPer Joy McPhail, CPC spinmeister Fatty McButterpants, and some French goof who used to be a PQ MNA.

Rather than discuss what the leaders said during the debate, the CTV wrap-up (and every other post-debate show I've ever seen) chose instead to give these party hacks a chance to blather away at their party's favorite talking points. Essentially it winds up looking like a cut-rate, made in Canada rip-off of Crossfire, except with crosstalk coming from 4 directions instead of just 2 (and without the fag with the bowtie.)

How is this valuable to the viewer? I don't want to watch partisan hacks wage a second debate of their own. I want objective analysis. Is that so much to ask?

-kimmy

[Clopin]

Isn't it a similar format to the U.S presidential debates?

I don't think it's a bad idea... it's an opportunity for those in the general public who are not political enthusiasts to get some general idea about the party platforms.

Anyone know if Harper made it a policy not to shake Duceppe's hand? He persistently refused to shake prior to the debate.