Friday, December 16, 2005

Debate Part 2 - Meet the new boss...

Well. That was... BORING. I'm not sure this new debate format is doing anyone any favours. First off, I have to mention that I thought all the leaders did a good job of sticking to thier platform ideas. Not as though that's very hard to do when you aren't actually in a DEBATE. I can't say I was overly impressed with Stephen Harper, though he would have to collapse pretty significantly to sway my vote away from the Conservatives.
The more Gilles Duceppe speaks the more I actually LIKE the guy. Although I certainly don't support his views on separation, I do agree with his strong stance on governmental jurisdiction. Sadly, Harper didn't really take full advantage of that - I think that is one of the palpable differences between him and Martin - Harper should have vigourously defended the Constitutional definition of the jurisdictions.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the six hundred and fourty two times Jack Layton said, "Elect New Democratic MP's to make change". Whatever came over him to say that SOOO many times makes me wonder - Do all NDP supporters need to be told a million times to get something done? I guess it's just that they need coaxing since there is no chance on this frozen planet that they will ever form a government.
Anyhow, it's time for me to head out for the evening. Cheerio!

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Debate…hmm…not according to my dictionary.

de·bate (dĭ-bāt')
v., -bat·ed, -bat·ing, -bates.
v.intr.
1.To consider something; deliberate.
2.To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3.To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See synonyms at discuss.
4.To fight or quarrel.

Tonight’s lacklustre Leader’s Q&A session reminded me of that Simpson’s episode where little Lisa was handed a carefully scripted card question for Mr. Burns about how his campaign has the momentum of a runaway freight train. Yes…the new format was neat and tidy and will make for perfect sound bites with no threat of voices overlapping (a censor was on standby with microphone kill switch), or politicians sweating or stammering. No one seemed to veer from their rehearsed retorts on any of the 4 pre-selected themes.

Call me nostalgic but I like my debates old-fashioned & open. Where the most memorable and defining moments of a campaign emerge during heated discussion, and where politicians are coaxed away from their speech writer’s Cole’s notes. Who can forget Mulroney’s swift and decisive attack on Turner’s patronage appointments? That salacious exchange was considered a turning point in the ‘84 campaign. Just imagine what Brian could have done with Adscam!

In case you don't have to work tomorrow (I do), and were at the bar, shopping, or a holiday gathering (who would schedule it for a pre-Christmas payday Friday night?), here are some stats:

# of questions submitted by Canadians: ~10,000
# of references to change: 91
# of references to Adscam/Gomery/Scandal: 47
# of references to Income Trust: 0
# of references to Ed Broadbent: 8
# of references to Beer and Popcorn: 1
# of times the censor hit the microphone kill switch: 9
# of times Layton asked me to vote NDP to elect and NDP MP: 8 (a few were cut off by the censor)
# of times Layton reminded me of the Video Professor: 16

01:00  

Post a Comment

<< Home