We have TV in the campaign office now, and while watching political coverage usually causes me to unleash strings of profanity, this morning it was in a good way.
Watching Stephen Harper's press conference today, he was asked about Elizabeth May's participation or non-participation in the televised leader's debates, and while running through the options he said he would be open to a one on one debate between him and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.
Let me just say, bring it on! If the Liberal campaign doesn't accept this challenge within minutes, the profanity will be the bad kind again because I'll have lit my hair on fire.
It's clear that there is only one party that can stop the Harper Conservatives, and that's Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada. Even the (now former) NDP candidate in Elgin-Middlesex-London has come to that conclusion; he's dropped out to support the Liberal Party as the only choice to stop the Harper Conservative agenda.
Iggy would mop the floor with Harper in a one-on-one debate. The Conservatives must be worried but this plays into our narrative, not their's. We should accept before they change their mind.
Bring it on!
UPDATE: Ignatieff responds:
Any time, any place.
It's on!
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Posts
20 comments:
This election has me at my wits end. I simply can't believe that the CPC would enter it in the way it has, that is, amateurish. This just makes me even more nervous. Harper can't debate Ignatieff, that seems like a pretty safe statement to make. Harper is a useless speaker when he's not talking to the faithful. Ignatieff would rip him to shreds, full stop. I'm across the Atlantic Ocean and this election is still driving me nuts... what's Harper's game???
I'm laughing heartily at all the assumtions that Harper can't debate Ignatieff. This isn't a classroom. If Harper was so scared, if Harper was so incapable of debating Ignatieff, why would he offer up the challenge in the first place? Do you honestly think that there isn't some type of a game plan going on here? You guys are taking too much for granted. That will be proven when this debate takes place, much to your chagrin. I can't wait!
if Harper was so incapable of debating Ignatieff, why would he offer up the challenge in the first place? Do you honestly think that there isn't some type of a game plan going on here?
Actually that's exactly what my question is above, what is the game plan? Ignatieff is a better speaker than Harper. Harper has the charisma of a warthog. His aversion to town halls is infamous, his outright hostility to journalists who don't tow the party line legendary. If the Cons want this it's because they have something slimey in store, that's what is making me nervous.
This suits the Conservatives just fine and Harper backed Ignatieff into a corner.
Iggy had to agree to it or be called a coward. By excluding the other parties the "Harper or the coalition" narrative is reinforced.
Michael is right, Harper is not scared of Iggy's hyped up intellectual prowess or he wouldn't have suggested it.
I agree with most though. This would be awesome. If they can agree to a format and hold it AFTER the all candidates debate it would be one for the ages.
Backed Igg into a corner! LOL-squared. I bet they're doing cartwheels down the aisle of the Liberal campaign plane. This is a dream for the Liberals. BRING IT!
And also beating Stephane Dion into submission during a leadership debate within your party is one thing, but hardly impressive; Harper is not very likely to roll over like Dion.
It will be amusing to no end to see Ignatieff try the elitist, professorial, classroom theatrics routine that is his wont. And perhaps that is the plan all along - to give Ignatieff a debate stage all by himself to show that side of him to everyone.
Yes, we're sooooooo scared of Stephen Harper. I hope he doesn't start singing or something.
Talk is cheap.
Bring
it
on.
Michael - I have news for you. Dion was widely recognized as doing well by the media during the 2008 English debate, and was crowned to outright winner in the French debate. Lib poll numbers actually went up for the week after the debates. Then Dion's gaffes began to show up again, along with the infamous 'no-do-overs' ATV clips. That sunk it for them.
Head to head Dion could hold his own against Harper, even with his fractured English.
I can only imagine what a professional debater like Ignatieff, comfortable with English, would do to Harper. Compare Iggy comfortably wading through townhalls, complete with Reformatory plants, taking all questions; versus Harper who's never taken an unscripted public question since he became PM.
Well maybe I won't have to imagine if this Iggy Vs Harpo debate actually goes through. Shiner, don't over-think things, this is a gift for the Grits.
Yes, we're sooooooo scared of Stephen Harper.
Well Jeff, I'm not suggesting that you are or should be, am I? What I'm saying is that this prevalent notion on your side of the aisle that Ignatieff is some sort of deific speaker/debater that will crush Harper under his boot is just going to set expectations so high that when it doesn't happen, people will be left scratching their heads.
*Shrugging* So, uh yeah, "bring it on".
Anything can happen Michael, for sure. Let's just say, I like our chances. And Harper must like his as well, or he wouldn't have thrown down. So I think it would be must-see tv, and I look forward to it.
I've been wondering if wanting to debate Ignatieff one on one isn't part of Harper's attempt to further Presidentialize Canadian politics. Wouldn't it create a two-tier approach to the parties? Yes, there is sort of one already but such an act would really institutionalize it. There might be some long play strategy going on here.
That is the point, KW; people set expectations so high that Harper would smash Dion that when it didn't happen, people were surprised. You guys benifited from Dion being low-balled so much, so we've learned from that. Clearly you guys have not.
Don't make the same assumption that same can't very well happen with Ignatieff VS Harper; you guys can't afford to. We're not making that assumption because our side is the one that issued the challenge in the first place, so you can be absolutley sure that we've thought this all through.
Cara, cute as it is that Layton's campaigning to be PM, everyone knows he will never be. There are only two people who could possibly become Prime Minister of the 41st Parliament, and that's Harper or Ignatieff. They should debate each other head-to-head.
Our leadership debates were fine when it was only 3 major parties; then it broke down when Reform and the PCs split, and to add insult to injury the Bloc joined in. And though I really like the Greens, May being involved doesn't help matters.
We need to have a national debate again where the only people with a realistic chance at forming government can argue and defend their policies.
Speaking of expectations, it's worth noting that Harper is a known quantity. We've seen him debate. Igg is a wildcard, but the CPC has pummelled him with negative ads to the point where most Canadians would be surprised if he could tie his own shoes. We partisans may have high expectations, but for most Canadians, they could hardly be lower.
Shiner, don't over-think things, this is a gift for the Grits.
TofKW, I know, I know, but this gong show of a campaign start for the Cons is completely out of character. Besides, a pessimist is never disappointed.
Michael, I'm actually not a Liberal and my comments are for the benefit of the LPC supporters here. I'm more myself at Red Tory's blog. I in fact voted Green for the first time in my life in '08.
Keep this in mind when you use terms like 'your guy' or 'my side'. My only side is I'm fed up with Harper and wish the Grits to win a minority in '11, so maybe the CPC can ditch Harper and find a leader that doesn't automatically piss of 60% of the population.
That said, yes anything can happen in a debate, though I think Harper's temper will get him and he'll end up doing something stupid ...like Stockwell Day calling Chretien a supporter of child porn felons (for his correct decision in not involving the federal government while a high-profile child porn case was playing itself out in the BC courts) during the 2000 leadership debate. That outburst may have been praised by the SoCon Reform-base, but he looked like a fool to everyone else.
Harper has problems harnessing his temper, and I'm looking forward to him losing it on nationwide TV when he can't control Iggy's questions.
Shiner:
For the last three elections, after the Liberals stumbled out of the gates, it was heard in some circles that the Liberals were proven campaigner and they would turn things around.
They were wrong.
Stephen Harper has had it relatively easy the last few years, battling a party mired in scandal and saddled with a leader who ultimately proved ineffective.
Now they are being challenged, not just by their chief opponent but the national media as well. This is the first time in about 5 years that they have asked him tough questions and he is not reacting well.
So, this bumbling campaign might be out of character when compared to past campaigns but this is a whole new campaign with a different dynamic. It could be they will get their act together but maybe they won't. We will have to wait and see.
@ToKW
Have you considered the reason why Harper wants one on one debates is because it continues the impression we elect presidents not a leader of a party who just happens to get to be PM. It reinforces the impression that we elect leaders and not individual mps. That was part of the logic Harper was relying on in the 2008 coalition scare he fanned which lead to some thinking it was illegitimate
Regardless of who wins, I think as a general rule there should be a debate between the top two parties in all elections.
It's all off apparently, not just because of the consortium; from paul wells, harper put a condition on his interest in participating - that there be only one all-party debate (whether in french or english) and Ignatieff said that wouldn't do. Harper chickened out, but will spin this again like he's spinning his dalliances with coalitions.
Post a Comment