TONIGHT'S DEBATE

[Guest eureka]

I won't give my impressions since the only ones that count are those of the undecided voters. That applies to no one here and the only unbiased one I could imagine would be mine.

However, out of interest I will give the impression of an American visitor from San Francisco who watched part of the debate with me.

She thought - to encapsulate her comments.

1. Duceppe: - crazy! when will his eyes pop from his head.

2. Layton: - quite good but too bland.

3. Harper; - creepy! That tight face looked like Bush and hides just as much.

4. Martin: - the best of a not very impressive group. The only one who registered any feelings.

[RB]

Martin=Desperate

Duceppe=Incoherent

Layton=Profound

Harper=Direct

Martin=Old money/ Father knows best

Duceppe=Debate king/Prime ministerial

Layton=Buddhist saddened by current world situation

Harper=Dull but studious guy at the back of the class

I have the perverse notion that if Gilles ran Bloc candidates in the ROC he'd wake up PM. He was the only one who could actually think on his feet & wasn't just Binder Boy.

God love Jack Layton ... he's such a delicate flower.

I was glad to be home to watch this debate with my kid who put it into perspective.

Layton: looks like the guy who can take our tax money and head off somewhere for a vacation. damn, always looking good.

Duceppe: looks like the president who can play ping pong

Harper: looks like the guy who opens his blazer wide and show off all those hanging shinny watches

Martin: has the kid's loyality, he is the prime minister

[Dan]

Martin=Desperate

That was the exact word that I was thinking when I clicked on this thread.

[stignasty]

Layton - A crab in a bucket trying to pull everyone else down. Dude, you're stuck at 15% because no one knows what you stand for.

Martin - Looks tired. He'll get a lot of time to rest soon.

Harper - Grinning fool. I wouldn't buy a used car from someone who always has that fake smile.

Duceppe - He had nothing to lose in the English debate and it showed. Actually, he looks a lot like the guy who squeezed through the bars in X-men 1.

[Riverwind]

Martin=Desperate

Duceppe=Incoherent

Layton=Profound

Harper=Direct

Martin=Desperate

Duceppe=Incoherent

Layton=Broken Record

Harper=Credible

I did not think Layton was profound because of his tired language of class warfare. If I heard 'evil corporate tax cuts' one more time I would have tossed my cookies.

[Rovik]

My take:

Martin anxious

Harper evasive

Leyton focused

Duceppe cantankerous

[geoffrey]

The Geoff Opinion:

Martin: Wounded duck struggling to stay above the water. He looked completely out to get Harper, and instead got bit in the rear by Layton and Duceppe. Martin has no new policy, and voters see this. Its same old, same old with the Liberals. All negative, this is why you shouldn't change governments. I haven't heard any reason why I should vote Liberal yet, what are they going to do for me?

Duceppe: I enjoy watching the man absolutely crush the others in the French debates, though in English he looses his charm and efficiency. I enjoyed the Liberals being around back in 205... (I hope someone else caught that). He shouldn't even be there, but oh well.

Harper: He was there to come out even. He's winning the campaign with stunning momentum. He didn't get killed on the Americanism aspects, in fact, he came out very clean on that. Martin looked ridiculous trying to chase him down on that gossip. I was especially amazed with this patience with the host when he asked the leaders if they saw his contribution list, if I were him I'd tell that host to go to hell being on an attack like that. I also was a little anxious when the host apparently got some Republican concept out of Martin's statements, but again, Harper slipped out of that attack quickly and got back onto policy. Closing statement was a KO, I liked this is what I'm going to do for YOU idea, really came out perfectly.

Layton: Less smiley then usual, therefore lost his place as happy Jack. Was all vote NDP vote NDP! Really didn't hear much policy, though more than Martin. Again, shouldn't be there just stirring the pot, but oh well.

[betsy]

Martin - Desperate.

Duceppe - entertainingly direct. I like his style. Came out honest and with integrity. But he is a separatist.

Layton - He's like a commercial break. Everytime he spoke, he always end up with that direct sales pitch.

It was annoying. Dodged the "Swingers Club" -values question. Fuzzy areas around this guy.

Harper - Direct, focused and with believable goals. I felt he really knows what he is planning and doing, thus he gave me a feeling of confidence about him.

He may not match the breezy ease at which Martin dealt with the debate,....but then, I don't hold it against him, for he is still new at this. He did not resort to cheap theatrics and bogus passion to grab attention. His vision and his platform..and his believable resolve in doing what he is promising did that.

And his smiles .....you could almost hear the strategists reminding him, "don't forget to smile!"

His effort at it was just poignantly endearing.

[betsy]

But I liked Layton's performance tonight. I would call it a tie between Layton and Harper (err and eureka...surely you can appreciate my honesty).

I don't know...he seemed too "VOTE NDP!" for me. He was like that in the last election. He kind of goes into these uncomfortable poses. He is like that Video Professor person on infomercials...too "Buy ME, BUY ME!"

Wow! Yes! I was trying to think who he reminds me of.....you're right! Even that posture and way of looking at the camera! It's the video professor!

[betsy]

Did anyone else catch the moment when the camera caught Duceppe making starnge faces?

I think this took away from Captain Canada's rant, it made the viewer watch Duceppe instead of listenenig to Martin. Probably got a chuckle from Bloc supporters.

It took away from Martin's on camera time because everyone was watching Duceppe's facial expressions. Including the camera.

They weren't so strange ... just facial variations on the gallic shrug.

Yes! It was a clever way of "rebutting" what Martin was saying. It really was a scene-stealer.

[Argus]

I thought they all did reasonably well considering what they had to work with and where they were trying to get. The polls will be interesting.

Martin - Feisty performance but a lot of baggage to overcome. Wonder if he convinced anyone.

Prefaced to many answers with a speech that had nothing to do with the question.

I find that irritating. Not a quitter though.

I was particularly irritated when he attacked Harper on an old speech rather than answering a question about using the Notwithstanding Clause. I think he said the word "American" about ten times during that rant - another desperate, anti-American effort at portraying Harper as unpatriotic because, apparently, he doesn't hate the United States as much as Martin does.

[wellandboy]

Martin came out attacking Harper and has made a colossal mistake attempting to differentiate himself from the rest of pack talking about values. This gave everybody opportunity to hammer him once again on the scandalous Liberal past. The Constitutional ammendment challenge to Harper was just plain bizarre. It came in a moment of pique and he made no attempt on following up or clarifying his argument. The rest of the time he tried to be PM'ish but came across as indignant and a carriciture of himself.

The rest performed okay. Duceppe struggled more than usual with his English and played to his constituancy, Layton pushed his third option pitch but didn't smile much other than when he talked about his municipal politics days. Harper stayed on message but at times seemed a little stiff.

Big loser -Martin

BTW- Steve Pakin did a good job as moderator, I thought.

[sage]

Is it just me, or is the only leader who seems to have any honest passion in this campaign Jack Layton? Harper is in a straightjacket, and Martin is always on some emotional rant just so he can play the "I have passion. I love Canada." card.

To be frank I'm a conservative, and so I find this bothersome. I think we all know Harper actually would just as soon not participate in the political games (though he does and must), and is only in Ottawa out of what he feels is an obligation to set Canadian policy. If this is indeed the case, why can he not succintly get this point across?

I've been hearing a lot of talk lately as to the lack of a vision for Canada lately, and I have to say all leaders fail on this front. The only leader that can detail his vision is Duceppe, which should be expected given that his vision consists of one thing. All 3 other leaders are horrendous on this point.

Harper's vision for Canada is reducing crime and wait times? Martin's is dispatching the notwithstanding clause? Layton's is to "look out for families"? Is no-one looking past the next year to year and half?

I think what Canadians need is someone who can say where they will take the country after the next series of minority governments. Coincidentally, I think it's the only way to obtain a majority government.

[Argus]

I've been hearing a lot of talk lately as to the lack of a vision for Canada lately, and I have to say all leaders fail on this front. The only leader that can detail his vision is Duceppe, which should be expected given that his vision consists of one thing. All 3 other leaders are horrendous on this point.

Harper's vision for Canada is reducing crime and wait times? Martin's is dispatching the notwithstanding clause? Layton's is to "look out for families"? Is no-one looking past the next year to year and half?

I think what Canadians need is someone who can say where they will take the country after the next series of minority governments. Coincidentally, I think it's the only way to obtain a majority government.

Unfortunately, in an era of limited attention spans, where 10 second sound bytes are all most people see of what any of the leaders have to say, it's not really smart to try and articulate a grand vision, especially during an election campaign. It's too easy to attack, too easy to twist around your words, too easy to read things into it you don't want read into it. This is particularly so for Harper where his "grand vision" is probably fairly conservative and would, taken together, cause people who already distrust him to worry even more. I'm sure he has a vision of some kind, but you're only going to see it a piece at a time, depending even then on how long he's in office and how much of that vision he's allowed to embrace given the political realities of a minority government.

[sage]

I've been hearing a lot of talk lately as to the lack of a vision for Canada lately, and I have to say all leaders fail on this front. The only leader that can detail his vision is Duceppe, which should be expected given that his vision consists of one thing. All 3 other leaders are horrendous on this point.

Harper's vision for Canada is reducing crime and wait times? Martin's is dispatching the notwithstanding clause? Layton's is to "look out for families"? Is no-one looking past the next year to year and half?

I think what Canadians need is someone who can say where they will take the country after the next series of minority governments. Coincidentally, I think it's the only way to obtain a majority government.

Unfortunately, in an era of limited attention spans, where 10 second sound bytes are all most people see of what any of the leaders have to say, it's not really smart to try and articulate a grand vision, especially during an election campaign. It's too easy to attack, too easy to twist around your words, too easy to read things into it you don't want read into it. This is particularly so for Harper where his "grand vision" is probably fairly conservative and would, taken together, cause people who already distrust him to worry even more. I'm sure he has a vision of some kind, but you're only going to see it a piece at a time, depending even then on how long he's in office and how much of that vision he's allowed to embrace given the political realities of a minority government.

All too true, I suppose. What was Kim Campbell's line: "An election is no time to discuss policy" (or something like that)?

[speaker]

Duceppe, on his toes

Martin, on his heels

Harper, smarmy

Layton, desparate

none of them were honest often enough to get me to vote for them. Hopefully one of the people running where I actually get to vote will have a better attitude.

[Chimera]

My favourite quote from the debate was Layton telling the Libs/Cons that their guarantees weren't worth the paper they were written on. Reminded me of the line from the movie Tommy Boy:

"The reason why they have a guarrantee on the box is because they know all they sold you is a guarranteed piece of sh!t. Hell, I can take a crap in a box and slap a guarrantee on it for you, if that's what you want."

Aside from that, not impressed enough by any of them to earn my vote yet.

[tml12]

I thought they all did reasonably well considering what they had to work with and where they were trying to get. The polls will be interesting.

Martin - Feisty performance but a lot of baggage to overcome. Wonder if he convinced anyone.

Prefaced to many answers with a speech that had nothing to do with the question.

I find that irritating. Not a quitter though.

I was particularly irritated when he attacked Harper on an old speech rather than answering a question about using the Notwithstanding Clause. I think he said the word "American" about ten times during that rant - another desperate, anti-American effort at portraying Harper as unpatriotic because, apparently, he doesn't hate the United States as much as Martin does.

I did see that too Argus. Very sad coming from a man promising to improve relations between us and the States.

[August1991]

I've been hearing a lot of talk lately as to the lack of a vision for Canada lately, and I have to say all leaders fail on this front. The only leader that can detail his vision is Duceppe, which should be expected given that his vision consists of one thing. All 3 other leaders are horrendous on this point.

Harper's vision for Canada is reducing crime and wait times? Martin's is dispatching the notwithstanding clause? Layton's is to "look out for families"? Is no-one looking past the next year to year and half?

I think what Canadians need is someone who can say where they will take the country after the next series of minority governments. Coincidentally, I think it's the only way to obtain a majority government.

Unfortunately, in an era of limited attention spans, where 10 second sound bytes are all most people see of what any of the leaders have to say, it's not really smart to try and articulate a grand vision, especially during an election campaign. It's too easy to attack, too easy to twist around your words, too easy to read things into it you don't want read into it. This is particularly so for Harper where his "grand vision" is probably fairly conservative and would, taken together, cause people who already distrust him to worry even more. I'm sure he has a vision of some kind, but you're only going to see it a piece at a time, depending even then on how long he's in office and how much of that vision he's allowed to embrace given the political realities of a minority government.

Argus, if you think about it, Harper has done precisely what you argue he shouldn't do.

Harper has proposed many concrete and specific measures. Instead of twisting his words or attacking him, Canadians (and the media) have listened and argued the relevant merits of the proposals. This election has been policy driven, with admittedly a backdrop of Liberal corruption. (I am convinced many people will vote Tory because of the GST cut and the $1200 per kid. If Harper gets the chance to implement these proposals, he will be remembered for them for the rest of his political career.)

As to the "vision thing", true, this has not been an election such as 1988 with a single choice about direction. At most, the Tories' general theme has been that the federal government is too big and has too much money and can too easily avoid accountability for its actions.

Pierre Trudeau was the guy with the big picture thing. The péquistes are constantly going on about un projet de société, but it seems old-fashioned now. This approach appeals to young people who are seeking some purpose in life. When the baby-boomers were in their twenties, I imagine the "vision thing" was popular.

In any case, a country is much, much more than its government. Having spent the past few days in the US, I was struck by how disparate the US is. It is certainly not unified by its federal government. But I guess that's a separate thread topic.

[Wilber]

"In any case, a country is much, much more than its government. Having spent the past few days in the US, I was struck by how disparate the US is. It is certainly not unified by its federal government. But I guess that's a separate thread topic."

I've spent a few years working in the US and disagree completely with your position on the unifying effect of it's government. It is unifying because it's citizens feel they are a part of it no matter where they live.

The US has a government that respects rep by pop in in it's House of Representatives, respects States with equal representation in its Senate and respects every citizen by allowing him or her to vote directly for their head of government. How could any such government be unifying?

Yes the US is very disparate but if it is not unified by it's federal government, why do you never hear any Americans in any region of the US talking about alienation or separation?

Unfortunately to admire anything American in this country makes you a bad Canadian. Americans have no such hangups. When it comes to the US, this country has a short complex.

[USA_Liberal]

Martin=Desperate

Duceppe=Incoherent

Layton=Profound

Harper=Direct

MARTIN- SPECTACULAR

DUCEPPE- N/A

LAYTON- LOST

HARPER- MYSTERIOUS

my take

[USA_Liberal]

wow ! i thought Martin was spectacular but there's lots more in that arsenal to dish out. there is no point fooling around with duceppe and layton. i really liked the manner in which he went after harper. Harper, for his part i will congratulate for maintaining composure and showing canadians the fake side of himself. we saw a lot of smiling teeth from harper this time around. he knows that his scary face is a liabilty. i congratulate harper for maintaining his composure, but as good as Martin was, he needs to continue to differentiate himself from harper and go on an all out assault. we don't have canadians coming home in body bags from Iraq! let's cash in on that mr martin, let's take harper through preschool again.

* on a sidenote, NDP lost some votes to the liberals last night by agreeing with Harper on mandatory sentences.

[tml12]

Martin=Desperate

Duceppe=Incoherent

Layton=Profound

Harper=Direct

MARTIN- SPECTACULAR

DUCEPPE- N/A

LAYTON- LOST

HARPER- MYSTERIOUS

my take

USA_Liberal,

Can you provide some detail as to why you think Canada is more democratic than the States?

[USA_Liberal]

Martin=Desperate

Duceppe=Incoherent

Layton=Profound

Harper=Direct

MARTIN- SPECTACULAR

DUCEPPE- N/A

LAYTON- LOST

HARPER- MYSTERIOUS

my take

USA_Liberal,

Can you provide some detail as to why you think Canada is more democratic than the States?

sure thing my friend. US isn't a democracy, its a republic ! Canada is !

[Biblio Bibuli]

My take on the debate last night:

Martin=Old money/ Father knows best

Layton=Buddhist saddened by current world situation

Harper=Dull but studious guy at the back of the class

Hugh Segal's take on the debate in the National Post today:

Martin-Father knows best

Layton-Too earnest

Harper-Consistently sober.

Hughie, Hughie, Hughie! Are you lurking around here & stealing my material?