Ontario Leadership Debate

[Higgly]

Two questions asked and so far almost all of the discussion has been about education. I'd say McGuinty is not looking bad - opened with a video admitting he couldn't keep his promise to not raise taxes and standing up for public education. Hampton looking not bad. Tory looking weak. Starts talking about faith based schools (both McGuinty and Hampton against) and then seeing he is on the ropes goes on the attack against McGuinty's record. McGuinty defends well. I believe that Tory has lost votes to Hampton so far.

[Higgly]

Up to question 4. So far, Tory has little to say except to attack McGuinty. Hampton is still taking votes from Tory, IMHO.

[Higgly]

YUo tot he second free debate now. Hapmton coming acroos as a champion of the poor. Tory coming across as a whiner. McGuinty defendnign against constant attcks from both sides. I don't believe McGuinty has suffered any mortal blows yet. Still believe Hapton is taking votes from Tory.

[Higgly]

I have to say, Steve Paikin is not looking good as a moderator. He's letting the debaters talk over each other too much.

[kengs333]

Watched about ten minutes of it before it got tiring. There's little point to this because nothing that it says will translate into anything once one of them gets elected. That's the way that it always is. Moreover, with the other parties being excluded from the debate, it doesn't really represent the choices that voters have. All leaders should be participating, regardless of how small the party. Any other arrangement is not democratic as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, I've already decided who I'll vote for, and it ain't going to be any of these three guys.

[Higgly]

I agree. I think the Green Party should have been there. The environment got little attention.

Maybe the referndum to change the electoral system will help enrich the debate next time.

[Topaz]

I say the McGuinty has hold his own and I find his anwers ok, Tory- forget it!!! and Howie, I hope he takes votes from the Tories. I do think they should have let the Green party in and maybe after this election is over they may have enough votes to be part of the gov't.

[Higgly]

That's my assessment as well. I think Hampton took votes from Tory and McGuinty held the fort. Tory just does not seem to have anything to say unless he is attacking McGuinty. Hampton made a big score early on by attacking Tory's plan for faith-based education and I don't think Tory ever recovered.

[betsy]

Well, I must've tuned in at the wrong channel. The McGuinty I saw had hung his head down most of the time. He got stumped most of the time. He was clutching at straws most of the time - blaming the previous governments NDP and Conservative for his record - several times. He was on the defensive most of the time. He did not answer a question repeatedly asked by Hampton! McGuinty was uncomfortably, definitely on the hot seat most of the time.

I found McGuinty's responses to the hot questions and challenges thrown his way quite lame. A few minutes into the debate and he already looked like a deflated balloon. He tried to recover....but I guess it's hard to defend and rise above it. He could not reasonably defend his record.

Reporters during scrum after the debate badgered Tory for being on the attack mode, badgered Hampton for concentrating on McGuinty - and badgered McGunity for being on the defensive most of the time - so the reporters must be on the same channel I was tuned in.

Anyway, I got to Duffy and the parties' strategists (Jeff Norquay, Gerrard Kennedy and Peggy Nash). Really, that Kennedy rudely cross-talked...and got Nash cross-talking too. I was disappointed in Duffy that he was not that assertive enough to shut those two up! Duffy was upset that he was ignored when trying to break up the nonsense.

I'd say Kennedy ought to be duck-taped or better yet, not be invited back to these kind of shows. This is not his first offense by any means. Mike Duffy got a load of angry emails once when Kennedy was rude too and wouldn't let anyone talk! I'd hate to see him running for office and involving in mature debates! He wouldn't know how!

I couldn't understand anything anyone was saying - both were talking at the same time!

Duffy, do your job!

Hampton surprisingly did pretty well for an apparently first-timer, and apparently suffering from flu, I must say. And Tory was quite good too and delivered a heavy blow with his statement about leadership.

Oh yeah, McGuinty and Martin must've had the same coach - the way they move their hands (half-waving) as they talk. They look like mimes. I swear all they need is a baton and they could easily be leading the orchestra at the NAC.

Edited September 21, 2007 by betsy

[Higgly]

I've seen a few people try to pin that 'hanging his head' nonsense on McGuinty. The guy was just listening. I doubt Tory gained any votes. I agree that Hampton came out looking the best.

[capricorn]

I watched the debate. Poor Dalton, by the luck of the draw, was in the middle flanked by his adversaries. Getting it from both sides as they say.

Overall, I thought it was a good debate. All leaders conducted themselves well. There was some cross talking but hey, it adds to the dynamics. Steve Paikin gave them some leeway but steered them back. He's a good and fair moderator.

Whenever Dalton makes a speech or debates, he never fails to sneak in his familial roots and values. Gives him a sort of a down home aura, you know. At one point I almost reached for the kleenex box.

Yes, Hampton did well in spite of having a cold. Good for him. I liked the way he summed up the NDP platform in his closing remarks. And Betsy, this is not his first debate. It was Tory's first one though.

IMO there was really not one clear "winner" in this contest. Sure, Dalton looked overwhelmed at times but he was defending a less than stellar 4 year record so I'll cut him some slack. Hampton and Tory got their big points across in the limited time allotted. This debate may have unmasked weak spots of the leaders that the others will try to take advantage of in the rest of the campaign.

Duffy's post analysis was the pits thanks to the Liberal and NDP motor mouths. No points scored by either of them.

[Posit]

My summary for tonight's debate?

Dalton McGuinty was apologetic and evasive. He kept repeating that he is still dealing with the Conservatives 8 year massive screw of the adminstration and the deficit.

John Tory was....was.....was....(well I eventually squinted my eyes and all of a sudden his true picture came to mind - A Rat! Smelling, whining and sniveling cartoon rat!)

Howard Hampton looked like a deer in headlights and was obviously stumped most the time. I think it set the tone when Steve Paikin asked him his name and he hesitated like he had to think about it as a trick question.

Overall Dalton wins points for standing up to the whiner.

[scribblet]

Well, I must've tuned in at the wrong channel.

Me too, I thought Tory and Hampton came out okay, and the moderator did a good job. I liked Tory's "it's a wonder he didn't go all the way back to Sir John A's time and blame something on him. "

I would call it a draw, I don't think anyone got a knockout punch in but Tory came off looking pretty good bolstered by Hampton's attacks which did put McGuinty on the defensive. I don't think McGuinty actually answered anything it was all doublespeak, especially about the health tax which hasn't improved anything.

[Keepitsimple]

It was inevitable that the debate would be one of attacking and defending. As Kim Campbell said - "An election is no time to talk about policies".....but I thought that Tory brought up a very important point that has not yet been discussed. Ontario has historically been the "driver" of the Canadian economy and we should have decisive and true leadership when sitting around the table with the other provinces. The Council of the Federation is an tremendously influential body that can have a significant impact on Federal policy. It might be OK for McGuinty to be the front man for Sorbara in Ontario but you need substance, vision and leadership to sit with other premiers and drive consensus. To me, the debate clearly and emphatically showed Tory to have these kinds of leadership traits, traits that are sorely lacking in Mr. McGuinty.

[August1991]

Ontario has historically been the "driver" of the Canadian economy and we should have decisive and true leadership when sitting around the table with the other provinces.

I didn't watch the debate and I don't follow Ontario politics closely but that's an interesting point.

McGuinty doesn't have the stature of a William Davis, John Robarts, Mike Harris or Bob Rae. He's not even a David Peterson. McGuinty should have moved to PEI or Manitoba and gone into politics there.

[Topaz]

I think the race is between Howie and Dalton and I think this time that Howie could pickup some more seats but I'm not sure the voters will take a chance and vote him in as Premier. I not sure a minority gov't is the way either, especially when manufacturing in Ontario is taking a hit. Also, I'm glad Dalton explained the reason for the increase in pay for the MPs and the difference in pay between the Provincial and Federal. Now, about of those guys that criticized him for the pay increase are going to say no to it?????

[Shakeyhands]

I thought McGuinty looked good. He was attacked and he handled it well. I thought he handled himself well in his answers too, It must be easier to attack than to defend in a debate, Ontario is immeasurably better since McGuinty took the reins. Is there room for improvement? Sure.. there always is. But all in all They have done a pretty good job.

I also thought he had a hell of a good point about Tory promising all these things and not being able to pay for it without running Harris/Eves style deficits.

I'd grade it McGuinty, Hampton, Tory in terms of who came out smelling sweetest.

[Argus]

Two questions asked and so far almost all of the discussion has been about education. I'd say McGuinty is not looking bad - opened with a video admitting he couldn't keep his promise to not raise taxes

Why is it everyone forgets that his promise was to not raise taxes - unless he absolutely had to, in which case he would hold a referendum first. Why does no one remember the referendum he never bothered to hold? Even if one buys the corrupt accounting practices he used to exaggerate the deficit, and buys the lie that he had no idea there would be a deficit until after the election, he still completely flouted his promise that if it was absolutely necessary to raise taxes he would first hold a referendum?

[betsy]

I just finished watching that City On Line show where-in they talked about the debate.

Funny, a couple of callers - including the host and her guest - had complained about the "negativity" of the debate.

YOO-HOOOOOO....that's what a debate is supposed to be. They were there to ARGUE!

Well, too bad that Dalton McGuinty got picked on about his broken promises...but hey, he should've known that his broken promises would be the albatross around his neck....so of course the two, especially Tory would be hammering on that! What do they think?

The guest at City On Line ridiculously said that the fact that McGuinty survived the debate made him victorious!

EH? Come again?

Just because McGuinty did not go sobbing and running out on the debate...that he stood there and took it ,(because what else could he have done)....that means he won? Get real!

McGuinty did not handle it well either! Right off the bath on the first round, he deflated and floundered.

Tory and Hampton smelled blood! The press smelled blood!

McGuinty knew very well that the two will get him for his broken promises. How could he not?

He and his strategists knew there's no escaping that.

He was hanging his head most of the time simply because he did not know what else to do or say!

He has no choice! Tory and Hampton were determined not to let him distract, dodge or slink his way out of it.

McGuinty's strategy was to make it look like he was "ganged up" by the other two. He was hoping and counting on the fact that viewers will be turned off by the NEGATIVE factor. That's why he admonished Tory twice, commenting on Tory's "negativity". It's even a rehearsed line. He spouted it exactly the same way.

Anyway that's what a real debate is all about! He had the floor to correct or oppose or argue back! The fact that he couldn't does not make Tory and Hampton into bullies or villains since both were just simply reiterating the facts.

As a voter I'd like to have all the information. If someone is lying, somebody ought to be able to point that out.

I don't watch debates just to see who smells sweet! I watch them to get some information as much as I can....expose some that's hidden.

A good pounding and heated debate usually delivers a different picture! You get closer to seeing what's real and what's bull!

Well McGuinty should be grateful that Tory did not go far as telling him to his face: You sir are a liar!

Strategist Jeff Norquay at MDuffy did not hesitate. In fact he said he wants to say just that. And he explained how McGuinty lied.

Tory and Hampton's assertions of "negativity" was just challenging McGuinty about the FACTS concerning his 4-year record!

Tory and Hampton tied with their performance....the two won. McGuinty was clearly the loser.

Edited September 21, 2007 by betsy

[uOttawaMan]

I didn't watch it, because noone cares.

[betsy]

Why is it everyone forgets that his promise was to not raise taxes - unless he absolutely had to, in which case he would hold a referendum first. Why does no one remember the referendum he never bothered to hold? Even if one buys the corrupt accounting practices he used to exaggerate the deficit, and buys the lie that he had no idea there would be a deficit until after the election, he still completely flouted his promise that if it was absolutely necessary to raise taxes he would first hold a referendum?

Oh, they also mentioned about his broken promise regarding the coal mines....and his promise to help autistic children where-in not only did he backed off from that promise, but he also fought the parents in court using tax-payers money!

[Keepitsimple]

The thing about Dalton's broken promises, at least the big ones that got him elected. is that he knew he wasn't going to keep them when he made them. Governments sometimes have to make tough decisions that result in a broken promise - but when you make promises that you have absolutely no intention of keeping - that makes you a liar.

1) Health Premium - he says it's because he inherited a surprise deficit. Crap. There were several reports months before the election that projected a deficit of anywhere from two to six billion. He was even asked - "what if there's a deficit?" and he still said he wouldn't raise taxes. There was no "surprise" deficit.

2) Closing the coal plants. Please. They were told over and over that it couldn't be done. But he promised anyway - because he said people were dying. Then he set another date and he broke that promise as well. Two for the price of one.

3) Autistic Children - he promised additional funding - and now he's fighting them in court!

[Posit]

The thing about Dalton's broken promises, at least the big ones that got him elected. is that he knew he wasn't going to keep them when he made them. Governments sometimes have to make tough decisions that result in a broken promise - but when you make promises that you have absolutely no intention of keeping - that makes you a liar.

1) Health Premium - he says it's because he inherited a surprise deficit. Crap. There were several reports months before the election that projected a deficit of anywhere from two to six billion. He was even asked - "what if there's a deficit?" and he still said he wouldn't raise taxes. There was no "surprise" deficit.

2) Closing the coal plants. Please. They were told over and over that it couldn't be done. But he promised anyway - because he said people were dying. Then he set another date and he broke that promise as well. Two for the price of one.

3) Autistic Children - he promised additional funding - and now he's fighting them in court!

Ernie Eves stood in the legislature and under-stated the deficit by about $3 billion. Finding it at almost $6 billion required a whole new strategy.

Coal plants? Big deal. Ontarians - including big industrial Ontario - need to conserve. That is the only way we can get rid of the fossil fuel generators.

Autistic Children? I believe he said that he has injected new money into providing for special needs in the school system.

[Higgly]

Why is it everyone forgets that his promise was to not raise taxes - unless he absolutely had to, in which case he would hold a referendum first. Why does no one remember the referendum he never bothered to hold? Even if one buys the corrupt accounting practices he used to exaggerate the deficit, and buys the lie that he had no idea there would be a deficit until after the election, he still completely flouted his promise that if it was absolutely necessary to raise taxes he would first hold a referendum?

I'm not forgetting that. I'm also not forgetting that he had to because he was ambushed by a fake Jim Flaherty budget which showed a balanced budget when in fact the province was billions in the hole. Why would he know what the deficit was? You are making him responsible for the budget when he was in opposition. That's not how the system works, mister. That was Flaherty's job, and look at what he did! McGuinty did what he had to do to fix the incredible damage done by Harris - who, by the way, was an ideologue just like Tory. Lots of unworkable, impractical theory that leads to disaster.

[Higgly]

I just finished watching that City On Line show where-in they talked about the debate.

Funny, a couple of callers - including the host and her guest - had complained about the "negativity" of the debate.

YOO-HOOOOOO....that's what a debate is supposed to be. They were there to ARGUE!

Well, too bad that Dalton McGuinty got picked on about his broken promises...but hey, he should've known that his broken promises would be the albatross around his neck....so of course the two, especially Tory would be hammering on that! What do they think?

The guest at City On Line ridiculously said that the fact that McGuinty survived the debate made him victorious!

EH? Come again?

Just because McGuinty did not go sobbing and running out on the debate...that he stood there and took it ,(because what else could he have done)....that means he won? Get real!

McGuinty did not handle it well either! Right off the bath on the first round, he deflated and floundered.

Tory and Hampton smelled blood! The press smelled blood!

McGuinty knew very well that the two will get him for his broken promises. How could he not?

He and his strategists knew there's no escaping that.

He was hanging his head most of the time simply because he did not know what else to do or say!

He has no choice! Tory and Hampton were determined not to let him distract, dodge or slink his way out of it.

McGuinty's strategy was to make it look like he was "ganged up" by the other two. He was hoping and counting on the fact that viewers will be turned off by the NEGATIVE factor. That's why he admonished Tory twice, commenting on Tory's "negativity". It's even a rehearsed line. He spouted it exactly the same way.

Anyway that's what a real debate is all about! He had the floor to correct or oppose or argue back! The fact that he couldn't does not make Tory and Hampton into bullies or villains since both were just simply reiterating the facts.

As a voter I'd like to have all the information. If someone is lying, somebody ought to be able to point that out.

I don't watch debates just to see who smells sweet! I watch them to get some information as much as I can....expose some that's hidden.

A good pounding and heated debate usually delivers a different picture! You get closer to seeing what's real and what's bull!

Well McGuinty should be grateful that Tory did not go far as telling him to his face: You sir are a liar!

Strategist Jeff Norquay at MDuffy did not hesitate. In fact he said he wants to say just that. And he explained how McGuinty lied.

Tory and Hampton's assertions of "negativity" was just challenging McGuinty about the FACTS concerning his 4-year record!

Tory and Hampton tied with their performance....the two won. McGuinty was clearly the loser.

The debate was negative mostly because of the constant barrage of whining from Tory - something he has been doing ever since he became leader.

McGuinty defended himself well. He had facts and figures at his fingertips while Tory and Hampton were basing all of their arguments on anecdotal evidence using single individuals they had run into.

McGuinty was the clear winner. Took the high road and stood up for himself. If McGuinty hadn't of been there, Tory would have had nothing to say.

Both Hapton and McGuinty made mincemeat out of Tory's dumb-ass plan for faith-based schools.

That aside, I found Steve Paikin's moderation of the whole thing disappointing. Paikin has been right wing for some years now and just does not know how to provide a neutral environment for political debate. Next time, I'd say the whole thing should be either handled by the CBC who are better at this sort of thing or TVO should try to find somebody else for the job.