Leading up to the election debates

63 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Leading up to the election debates

-+_

NorthReport

So now Harper says he wants to have a one on one debate with Ignatieff and Ignatieff agrees. My hunch is because of the inroads the NDP are making, and possibly the Bloc as well, both these guys are afraid to have Layton and Duceppe around. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

What a disservice to Western Canada and Quebec.

WyldRage

They won't do that: it would consolidate both the Bloc's and NDP's base and give them ammunitions for the rest of the campaign. It was just a bit of chest-beating: Harper saying that the opposition was interchangeable, and Ignatieff saying he wasn't affraid of him.

NorthReport

Just what Canada needs - two bullies going at it
Harper willing to debate Ignatieff one-on-one
Candidates trade challenges on Twitter

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/03/30/cv-elec...

NorthReport

Did they annouce when the media consortium debates take place yet?

gyor

NorthReport wrote:

So now Harper says he wants to have a one on one debate with Ignatieff and Ignatieff agrees. My hunch is because of the inroads the NDP are making, and possibly the Bloc as well, both these guys are afraid to have Layton and Duceppe around. 

If iggy is stupid enough to accept this he will be slaughtered. Screams of being a trap. People may not sympathise with may, but they will with Jack as Jack is popular and has many seats in parliment and stood up for May.

The irony is many polls had Jack within five points of iggy. 19 to 24 and some have had Jack higher then iggy or tied in Quebec. It is just the GTA and parts of altantic canada that makes the Liberals appear stronger then the ndp.

I don't trust the media and they may go for this. If iggy excepts I expect a backlash against him on the left.

Also I wonder why now Harper is so afraid of Jack?

Iggy is afraid of Harper, Harper is afraid of Jack and I fear the msms worthless coverage. What an election.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Must not have realized what was expected when he/she answered the craiglist ad.

Rob8305

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110330/layton-may-debate-110330/20110330?s_name=election2011

 

I disagree, Harper is a poor debater and if there is a one-to-one debate, he won't just lose his chance at a majority, he'll lose his government. Period.

 

Harper is not a master debater. Ignatieff is.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Much as I have a personal distaste for Ignatieff, he is much smarter and more literate than Harper. I agree with Rob8305 that if there were a one on one between them, Harper would likely end up faring very poorly.

gyor

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Much as I have a personal distaste for Ignatieff, he is much smarter and more literate than Harper. I agree with Rob8305 that if there were a one on one between them, Harper would likely end up faring very poorly.

Debates are not about smarts or education. Its about streetsmarts, animal cunning, and laying traps for your oppentants while remaining gaffe free and staying on message while being charming and using the right emotional energy at the right time. Circumstence being in your favour and being a manipulative **** help too.

bekayne

gyor wrote:

while being charming

Harper?!?!

 

NorthReport

 

 

 

English - Tues, Apr 12

 

Francais - Jeudi, le 14 Avril

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/03/30/cv-elec...

NorthReport

 

 

 

English - Tues, Apr 12

 

Francais - Jeudi, le 14 Avril

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/03/30/cv-elec...

Lens Solution

Rob8305 wrote:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110330/layton-may-debate-110330/20110330?s_name=election2011

 

I disagree, Harper is a poor debater and if there is a one-to-one debate, he won't just lose his chance at a majority, he'll lose his government. Period.

 

Harper is not a master debater. Ignatieff is.

I'm not sure if I would agree that Ignatieff is a "master" debater, but I would agree that he has the potential to do well if he can hit his stride and not get bogged down in the wrong topics.  Harper has not been as good as some of the other leaders in previous election debates.  He's not dreadful, but he's not great either.  He doesn't tend to come across too well.  Layton won the last English debate, and Dion was the surprise winner of the last French debate.

Hurtin Albertan

To me a debate is one side versus another, not sure how effective the debate is when you have 3 or 4 or 5 or more sides.  I think this format isn't going to be very productive if the baseline for entry is having a seat in the H of C.  What's to say next time around we won't have even more new parties springing up and winning seats?  How would a 7 party debate work?

I'd love to see a Con vs Lib, Con vs BQ, Con vs NDP, Con vs Green, likewise a Lib vs BQ, Lib vs NDP, Lib vs Green, NDP vs BQ, NDP vs Green, did I leave any permutations out?

Mind you I actually enjoy this stuff but there'd probably only be a handful of us who'd actually watch them all.

 

JKR

No matter how good or bad a debater is, it is always easy for a debater to support a good position and difficult for a debater to support a bad position.

So let's say you had a great debater vs a good debater. And the great debater has to argue in favour of:

- Thives should be given more money then law abiding people because thieves obviously want more money.

Eventhough the great debated is a better debater then the good debater, the great debater will be at a huge disadvantage debating this resolution vs the good debater.

Harper finds himself in the position of a debater that has to defend a bad position. And to top that off he may not be a better debater then Layton, Duceppe, Ignatieff, or May.

After 5 years of a lot of duplicity and very few accomplishments, Harper has a bad record to defend so it should be difficult for him to do well in debates this time around.

Conversely, the other leaders are not weighed down with a bad record so they have the advantage. If they are better debaters then Harper, Harper could be in big trouble.

Harper has been able to grab a huge lead in popularity because he has been able to comminicate to the public with thousands of ads while the other parties have been unable to respond. The debates turn this dynamic on its head.

Maybe they'll also be enough to turn this election on its head too.

NorthReport
NorthReport

So expectations are super high for Ignatieff in the debates seeing as he has 30-35 years experience in debating. 

French debate is now on Wednesday.

Incorrect

bekayne wrote:

gyor wrote:

while being charming

Harper?!?!

 

I wonder if he will be wearing his nauseating perma-smile this time around?

Caissa

Anglican primate opines what the issues should be in this election.

Once again we are in the midst of a federal election in Canada.  As a church, our first responsibility is to pray for this country and the welfare of all who live here.  Specifically, we pray for all who offer themselves for public office, that they may hear and respond to the real issues on the hearts and minds of all Canadians.

Our second responsibility is to engage those running for office in respectful discussion.  The Anglican Church of Canada, along with ecumenical and interfaith partners, has prioritized several public witness issues.

With 4.3 million Canadians living in poverty and 150,000 people homeless, we urgently call on all parties to commit to establishing a poverty reduction fund, a long-term housing strategy, social security initiatives, and increased child tax credits. This work should be done in partnership with provincial and territorial initiatives.  We support the recommendations of the recent report, "Federal Poverty Reduction Plan: Working in Partnership Towards Reducing Poverty in Canada," known as the HUMA report.  We call for the dignity for all people to be respected.

We urge all parties to commit to implementation of Canada's November 2010 endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  In honouring that commitment, Canada needs a comprehensive plan for adequate housing, health care and education in Aboriginal communities.  Conditions in many of them are absolutely deplorable and must be addressed.  We also note with grave concern the alarmingly high rate of suicide among Indigenous peoples.   Canada must adopt a national suicide prevention strategy, as all other G8 countries have done.

We encourage Canadians to engage candidates with respect to their personal and party commitment to the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.   Established to hear, record and preserve the story of the Indian Residential Schools system, the commission is hosting several national and regional events.  The hope of the commission and the churches is to set this country on a new and different path of improved relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.

Many faith communities are calling for Canada to adopt a comprehensive climate action plan with firm targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions: from 25% to 40% by 2020.  We must prioritize long-term environmental sustainability and implement concrete plans to ensure global temperatures do not exceed a 2 degree centigrade increase.

With respect to our place in the world, we would encourage renewed commitment to international development assistance that pushes forward the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Let us rise to new heights in our resolve to work for human rights, democracy and peace among all peoples.

Our third responsibility is to exercise our right to vote.  It is a freedom and a right that so many in the world do not have.  We have it - let us use it with care and responsibility. 

The times in which we live call for inspired leadership that is committed to bold action. This leadership contributes to our true growth and well-being as a country, and to our place on this earth in building a truly just, healthy and peaceful world.  For this we pray and work.

"O God, keep this nation under your care.  Bless the leaders of our land, that we may be a people at peace among ourselves and a blessing to other nations of the earth.  Help us elect trustworthy leaders, contribute to wise decisions for the general welfare, and thus serve you faithfully in our generation to the honour of your holy name.  Amen."

I am, sincerely yours,

Archbishop Fred Hiltz

Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada

Malcolm Malcolm's picture
RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

bagkitty brought up that apparently the debate is scheduled for 4pm PST. Has it always been thus? If so, why isn't there more concern paid the folks out West and their interest?

 

http://rabble.ca/babble/alberta-and-british-columbia/scheduling-leaders-...

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Former rabble.ca editor Derrick O'Keefe tweets

Quote:
Teetotaller's drinking game for leaders' debate: Take a shot each time you hear "Libya" "Afghanistan" "Gaza" or "war resisters"

 

remind remind's picture

Oh...so they want to cut the west out from viewing the debate, hoping that Harper will get his majority if the west  is locked out from viewing the debate.

And Stoumbo had May on last night, which was very amusing. Could not decide who was more fake George or Elizabeth. Settled on George though, as he  was wearing a suit jacket.  Elizabeth came a close 2nd though with her  "we"  when she was talking about  the west coast, and with her "I am running neck and neck with Lunn".

But then hearing May complain about top down politics was the cherry on top of the bull shit amusement factor.

gyor

Caissa wrote:

Anglican primate opines what the issues should be in this election.

Once again we are in the midst of a federal election in Canada.  As a church, our first responsibility is to pray for this country and the welfare of all who live here.  Specifically, we pray for all who offer themselves for public office, that they may hear and respond to the real issues on the hearts and minds of all Canadians.

Our second responsibility is to engage those running for office in respectful discussion.  The Anglican Church of Canada, along with ecumenical and interfaith partners, has prioritized several public witness issues.

With 4.3 million Canadians living in poverty and 150,000 people homeless, we urgently call on all parties to commit to establishing a poverty reduction fund, a long-term housing strategy, social security initiatives, and increased child tax credits. This work should be done in partnership with provincial and territorial initiatives.  We support the recommendations of the recent report, "Federal Poverty Reduction Plan: Working in Partnership Towards Reducing Poverty in Canada," known as the HUMA report.  We call for the dignity for all people to be respected.

We urge all parties to commit to implementation of Canada's November 2010 endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  In honouring that commitment, Canada needs a comprehensive plan for adequate housing, health care and education in Aboriginal communities.  Conditions in many of them are absolutely deplorable and must be addressed.  We also note with grave concern the alarmingly high rate of suicide among Indigenous peoples.   Canada must adopt a national suicide prevention strategy, as all other G8 countries have done.

We encourage Canadians to engage candidates with respect to their personal and party commitment to the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.   Established to hear, record and preserve the story of the Indian Residential Schools system, the commission is hosting several national and regional events.  The hope of the commission and the churches is to set this country on a new and different path of improved relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.

Many faith communities are calling for Canada to adopt a comprehensive climate action plan with firm targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions: from 25% to 40% by 2020.  We must prioritize long-term environmental sustainability and implement concrete plans to ensure global temperatures do not exceed a 2 degree centigrade increase.

With respect to our place in the world, we would encourage renewed commitment to international development assistance that pushes forward the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Let us rise to new heights in our resolve to work for human rights, democracy and peace among all peoples.

Our third responsibility is to exercise our right to vote.  It is a freedom and a right that so many in the world do not have.  We have it - let us use it with care and responsibility. 

The times in which we live call for inspired leadership that is committed to bold action. This leadership contributes to our true growth and well-being as a country, and to our place on this earth in building a truly just, healthy and peaceful world.  For this we pray and work.

"O God, keep this nation under your care.  Bless the leaders of our land, that we may be a people at peace among ourselves and a blessing to other nations of the earth.  Help us elect trustworthy leaders, contribute to wise decisions for the general welfare, and thus serve you faithfully in our generation to the honour of your holy name.  Amen."

I am, sincerely yours,

Archbishop Fred Hiltz

Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada

It is good to see religious leaders with good spiritual and moral priorities. That shows leadership.

knownothing knownothing's picture

I think Jack needs to attack on Afghanistan. Both Harper and IGGy support this war that most Canadians don't want. He should just hammer them on it all night. That's what Canadians want to hear about!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I won't be watching the debate; I am afraind Iggy is going to win it. Watching the debate is like watching a Bomber game. The bombers tease and then loose miserably.

For sure, Jack is smarter then all those guys put together, but I just can't see Iggy not rising to the occassion. I am really worried. Does anyone have thoughts on how it is likely to go? Am I worrying about nothing?

Thanks.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I hope Ignatieff shows some aggressiveness and wins the debate. Anything to knock Harper off his high horse. I expect Layton will do well. Duceppe - I suspect he'll be full of righteous anger and come off as too extreme. But I hope Duceppe gets in at least one "liar, liar" directed towards Harper. That will make my day. Laughing

gyor

Oddly I am looking forward to the Layton Gilles subdebate part. Are they going to attack each other on policies or will it be about who can best stop Harper.

I think I know how Harper vs. Anybody else is going to go and it will be nice to see Harper held to account.

Layton vs. Iggy. Both are intelligent, educated individuals. Jack has the popularity, the experience in this area, and I am betting a few aces in hole based on the fact that iggy's arguements are going to be predictable. Iggy is also vulnerable on past policy positition like torture, war, as well as his voting record and flip flops. In Iggy's favour is if aquits himself well even if he loses to Jack his personal popularity may improve as well he is smart. Iggy also has a fair amount media support, TS, CTV and others love him now that he @ucked the left over on the question of a coalition with the ndp. Twice. Expect iggy to have to deal with questions about the coalition from both the right and the left. His rejection of the Dion coalitition and the post election possiblity leaves him vulnerable. Plus coalition talk helps the NDP look more important, the Liberals less usefully as well as polarized, the BQ left out, and can be couched in terms that attack the cons.

gyor

Boom Boom wrote:

I hope Ignatieff shows some aggressiveness and wins the debate. Anything to knock Harper off his high horse. I expect Layton will do well. Duceppe - I suspect he'll be full of righteous anger and come off as too extreme. But I hope Duceppe gets in at least one "liar, liar" directed towards Harper. That will make my day. Laughing

I hope both Harper iggy lose the debates and Jack Wins. Or I like to say I hope Canada wins. Means the exact samething of course.

Stockholm

Boom Boom wrote:

I hope Ignatieff shows some aggressiveness and wins the debate. Anything to knock Harper off his high horse. I expect Layton will do well. Duceppe - I suspect he'll be full of righteous anger and come off as too extreme. But I hope Duceppe gets in at least one "liar, liar" directed towards Harper. That will make my day. Laughing

The problem is that in the English debate - the mere presence of Duceppe is a God-send to Harper. He is a prop that Harper can point to when he starts going on about evil coalitions and he will try to point to the three other leaders as being the collective alternative to him. It will be a different story in the French debate, but in English Harper will be only too happy to get into emotionally charged debates with Duceppe because Duceppe isn't on the ballot in English Canada and in any shouting match between Harper and Duceppe - the vast majority of anglos will be rooting for Harper.

JeffWells

One scheduling observation: it's starting at seven Eastern tonight, right? Isn't that unusually early? Are the broadcasters presuming poor numbers, and just want the obligation to show it out of the way (and then do what they excell at: declare their favourite the winner)?

Unionist

If Stockholm were correct, then Québec would have no business remaining in a Canada "the vast majority" of whose citizens were chauvinistic hateful lowlifes who would cheer on Harper under any circumstances.

Luckily for all of us, Stockholm is wrong.

Stockholm

Unionist wrote:
If Stockholm were correct, then Québec would have no business remaining in a Canada "the vast majority" of whose citizens were chauvinistic hateful lowlifes who would cheer on Harper under any circumstances. Luckily for all of us, Stockholm is wrong.

 

I wish i was wrong - but the fact remains that by virtue of being a separatist - Duceppe is toxic in English Canada. The ONLY people outside Quebec who have the slightest bit of positive feelings for Duceppe are a minority of NDP voters in academia who who still get a lump in their throat when they hear DeGaulle say "Viive le Quebec Libre" - needless to say Harper couldn't care less about that micro-segment. His base and a lot of swing voters get energized by the mere sight of Duceppe. Remember how support for the coalition went into free-fall just from the very idea that the BQ would be a silent partner.

I wish i was wrong but that's the way it is. You can be sure that if Harper and Duceppe have an emotional screaming match - the Tory backrooms will be full of people high-fiving each other.

Unionist

Stock, the reason the coalition failed was twofold: 1. Dion. 2. Ignatieff. The BQ had nothing to do with it.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Harper probably expects he will lose the debates to Layton in the first place - but losing to Ignatieff would truly knock his momentum off.Laughing

NorthReport

I agree Unionist.

 

Quote:
Liberal party reaction

After the Governor General prorogued parliament, there were questions within the Liberal Party regarding the future of Dion's leadership and the coalition. In a caucus meeting held the same day of the prorogation, Dion was criticized for sacrificing the party's federalist principles; for disallowing dissent once the coalition accord was presented to caucus; and for the amateur, out-of-focus video of his address to the nation which undermined public support for the coalition.[95][96] Former deputy prime minister John Manley asked that Dion resign immediately, saying it was incomprehensible that the public would accept Dion as prime minister after rejecting him a few weeks earlier in the general election. Manley also said that a leader was needed "whose first job is to rebuild the Liberal party rather than leading a coalition with the NDP."

Michael Ignatieff
Bob Rae

Michael Ignatieff
Bob Rae

Several other insiders advocated moving up the date of the party leadership vote, rather than have Dion remain leader for either a potential election or coalition, while leadership contenders Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae both agreed that Dion had to quit immediately.[94] Dion initially scheduled his resignation for the party's leadership convention in May 2009, but on December 8, 2008, he announced that he would step down upon the selection of his successor.[97]

Bob Rae, who helped to persuade the Liberal caucus of the power-sharing deal,[98] took over as the coalition's spokesman and planned to travel throughout the country to promote the coalition. By contrast, Michael Ignatieff, the frontrunner to succeed Dion, was said to be uncomfortable with the idea of sharing power with the NDP and receiving committed support from the Bloc Québécois. Ignatieff said that there would be a "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition," noting that the coalition served a useful purpose by keeping the Conservatives in check,[99] but warned that the Liberals should look over the budget before deciding.[100][101][102][103] After the withdrawal of his two rivals,[104][105] Ignatieff was left as the sole declared leadership candidate, so he was appointed interim leader, and his position was ratified at the May 2009 convention.[106]

[edit] Resolution

On December 12, Ignatieff met with Harper to discuss the budget, with their spokesmen describing it as a "cordial" meeting.[107] Layton and Duceppe remained committed to ousting the Harper government,[108][109] pledging that the NDP would vote against the Conservative budget regardless of what it contained.[110] Layton urged Ignatieff's Liberals to topple the Conservatives before the shelf life of the coalition expired; constitutional experts said that four months after the last election, if the government fell, the Governor General would likely grant the Prime Minister's request to dissolve parliament instead of inviting the coalition.[111]

On January 28, 2009, the Liberals agreed to support the budget as long as it included regular accountability reports, and the Conservatives accepted this amendment. This ended the possibility of the coalition, so Layton said "Today we have learned that you can't trust Mr. Ignatieff to oppose Mr. Harper. If you oppose Mr. Harper and you want a new government, I urge you to support the NDP."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_parliamentary_di...

ygtbk

Unionist wrote:
Stock, the reason the coalition failed was twofold: 1. Dion. 2. Ignatieff. The BQ had nothing to do with it.

Unionist, I think you may be shooting the messenger on this one. It is possible that you've underestimated the distaste that many in the ROC feel for Duceppe. You may rightly say "But they shouldn't be that way!", but that's not the point that Stockholm is making.

The Conservatives spiked into the low 40's during the Coalition fracas of 2008, and a good chunk of that was because of the perception that Duceppe was, as Stockholm said, a silent partner.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Let's just hope that Ignatieff is smart enough to attack Harper on the ministerial pay raises his party quietly passed as well as the fighter jets and the crime bill.

I hope Ignatieff's handlers arm him with the coalition lies and further attack him on the deficit.

There is a huge artillery to attack Harper with.

So hopefully Liberal strategists are prepared and on the ball and Ignatieff proves himself a great debater.

I guarantee Harper will come across as arrogant and condescending..After all,that's his natural personality.

Having said that,I think televised debates should feature the leaders of all the parties on the ballots..The Christian Democrats,the Communists,the Independants and the Rhino Party (or whatever they are calling themselves these days)..etc..

Anonymouse

Harper is a God-send to Duceppe like Duceppe is a God-send to Harper.

While Harper can and will use him as a prop, as Stockholm suggests, Duceppe will also take the bait and make a case for sovereignty as part of his latest audition for PQ leader.

I think the debate is going to prove a major wash unless one of two things happen: 1) Harper is lulled into making a gaffe (e.g. like the culture cuts "gala" comment in 2008), 2) One of the leaders changes their campaign strategy and the media enjoys it.

Harper is going to try to make the debate as boring as possible, especially the opening stages. He is hoping people will tune out and that the opposition will just look like they are talking to a brick wall. This is what people expect and what keeps him at 40% in the polls. Later in the debate, when most people have changed channels, or if he finds himself on the ropes early, he will reach out to Duceppe for a lifeline.

Iggy will try to appear smart. He will pursue one of two strategies: 1) Attack Layton very harshly and Harper more stand-offish and incisively or 2) Ignore Layton and go for the gusto with Harper. His strategy may depend on Layton's. Essentially, he wants to mute Layton, leaving Iggy in the one-on-one match-up with Harper.

Layton will either go after Harper with gusto, which will draw attacks from Ignatief to try and throw Layton off, or he will turn on the Liberals and Harper equally. Personally, I think Layton's best strategy is to take out Iggy early in match. Not many people will be expecting it and it will go against the first three weeks of the campaign where Layton built up political capital attacking Harper. This should mark a turning point for the NDP campaign to driving people back out of (their vote-park with) Liberals and into the NDP. Then with Iggy nursing wounds, Layton should go straight for Harper. This should keep the debate interesting from beginning to end. Layton could also join Harper in a team up on Duceppe...in fact he should. In the West this will help Layton AND also in the East (if he plays to QC in his attacks).

D V

"I have a feeling that we might even see some well-timed Zaccardelli-like bombshell(s) in the middle of the campaign (this time anti-Con), although Canada being what it is, might not even take (as if there is not plenty enough on the record to condemn the Cons for any thinking person)."

I remembered saying that on another thread here and dug it up for this thread on the debate, how the G8 Aud Gen leak is likely to be a big deal therein.

As for Stockholm's comment about only some "minority of NDP voters in academia", while I don't enthuse about De Gaulle, I haven't been an NDP voter, nor am in academia, and have commented favourably from my station in ROC on the BQ & their leader at times, noticed apparently by some BQ-istes. I said this on some other thread here, which in its way makes Stockholm's point as well (Harris thing as representative), "Funny thing, I had contributed so much for [GPC], some BQ advisor must have mistaken me for the previous Green leader (couldn't have been on content or close reading, though), for the BQ leader (I think it was) actually said that that previous leader said he could vote BQ, when it was only I who had said as much (Harris of course denied saying so)." Anyway, for those (far too few) who look, for example, into what happened in Oct '70, and see various continuities today, it should not be hard to lose the Duceppe "toxicity".

I wonder what other prepared bombshell awaits, post-debate.

Unionist

ygtbk wrote:

Unionist, I think you may be shooting the messenger on this one. It is possible that you've underestimated the distaste that many in the ROC feel for Duceppe. You may rightly say "But they shouldn't be that way!", but that's not the point that Stockholm is making.

I never said, "They shouldn't be that way!" I'm not some kind of Christian preaching morality to lesser beings. I said, "They're not that way!"

Of course there are anti-Québec trends throughout Canada. There are also racist trends. Maybe if the Liberal leader were African Canadian, Stockholm would be making exactly the same "analysis"?

Here's what I think: Some leftists have sought to understand the world. The point, however, is to change it. If Canadians are so anti-Québec that they will cheer on Harper because of their distaste for Duceppe, then Canada is not worth saving. That's the point Stockholm ignored. It's my point.

But it simply isn't true. It's our job to struggle unrelentingly against racism, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny, etc., so that those can never become determining trends. It's not our job to merely observe those phenomena, and then get back to the main job of electing Tweedledumb.

Right here on this discussion board, there are people who express anti-Québec sentiments. Today. They say they would never unite with "secessionists". I'm not making this up. So Stockholm is not the "messenger" here. He is the unruffled observer who, by not standing up and saying, "this must stop!", becomes part of the problem. Nothing personal - he is in excellent and widespread company.

 

Ghislaine

I think the debate is going to be very nasty, especially the "one-on-one" between Ignatieff and Harper. I completely expect Harper to directly ask Iggy about voting in other counties and/or not voting in Canadian elections. He is not going to give up on the "he's just visiting" meme. However, I hope this plays into Jack Layton's hand by causing distaste in both Iggy and Harper. Layton is by far the better debater and is consistently chosen as most likeable, favourite leader, etc. I think Layton will "win" tonight.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

knownothing wrote:

I think Jack needs to attack on Afghanistan. Both Harper and IGGy support this war that most Canadians don't want. He should just hammer them on it all night. That's what Canadians want to hear about!

If they had not called for bombing Libya and overtly supporting NATO's Duty 2 Protect that would be an excellent strategy but if they go there now they will look like hypocrites.  Too bad they blew it on the eve of the election.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

ygtbk wrote:

Unionist, I think you may be shooting the messenger on this one. It is possible that you've underestimated the distaste that many in the ROC feel for Duceppe. 

The mythical ROC.  Cool

 

ROC

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Or maybe you are talking about the voters who support this political party?  The Marxixst Leninsts have more credibility than ROC.  I make no apologies for the fact that people in ROC can't spell but they really aren't a factor as a group.

Quote:

) All Canadians are paying for DUPLICATE SERVICES both from the Provincial and Federal Goverments.  This is why your taxes are so high!

2) The U.S. standard of living is 22 per cent higher than our Canadian standard of living and the spread continues to increase.

3) Disunity exists not only in Quebec but throughout Canada.

4) The Canadian Dollar is de-valued on world markets because of the uncertainty resulting from Canadian Disunity.

5) The ROC Party is the ONLY Canadian political party that has an "already proven" solution to these problems. 

6) The ROC Party has the strategy to make this "already proven" solution a "political reality".

 

http://www.rocparty.ca/

ygtbk

Northern Shoveler wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

Unionist, I think you may be shooting the messenger on this one. It is possible that you've underestimated the distaste that many in the ROC feel for Duceppe. 

The mythical ROC.  Cool

 

ROC

That is one HECK of a neotenic ostrich - looks more like a dragon, really.

Unionist

Northern Shoveler wrote:

http://www.rocparty.ca/

That party sounds like it has rocs at its head.

 

Stockholm

Unionist wrote:

Here's what I think: Some leftists have sought to understand the world. The point, however, is to change it. If Canadians are so anti-Québec that they will cheer on Harper because of their distaste for Duceppe, then Canada is not worth saving. That's the point Stockholm ignored. It's my point.

If someone REALLY is anti-Quebec - then they should be cheering Duceppe on becaus ethe logical conclusion of being anti-Quebec would be to WANT Duceppe to succeed and for Quebec to separate. If people don't like what Duceppe its because they love Quebec and want it to remain part of Canada.

Anonymouse

Lol. Stockholm is right. The people with the most antipathy towards Quebec that I have met, all want it to separate. Whenever someone says but..but..but what about the separatists this or that, these people say "Good! Let them separate. I don't care how or why they do it, just let it happen and please don't bore me with the details."

The people that do care about Quebec are apalled whenever the separatists do x or y, and see Duceppe as the enemy. They see the BQ (which Duceppe is an extension of) as everything from disloyal to actively damaging the wider country.

Pages