- Reaction score
- 9,369
- Points
- 1,260
Did anyone catch the Leaders Debate in English tonight?
Although Steven Harper displayed his usual dry toast persona, I think it helped him in the end because he didn't seem like a whining 15 year old throwing accusations and insults like the others did at times because he kept his cool.
I give props to Duceppe for his ability to cut straight to the point and really nail his opponent down. As well, I liked his admission "I am de only one here who knows dat I'll be in de opposition on the 28th."
I really developed a dislike for Jack Layton; his constant smiling gave me the impression of a slimy used car salesman. Given that he believes in helping himself to our wallets, I think the persona fits. He really hammered in on his Proportional Representation idea. My question is this Mr Layton: How does proportional representation protect the right of a Canadian citizen to run as an independent. If anything, it seems to me as undemocratic as it forces one to ally with a party to hope for a seat. Along with eliminating the Senate, which has the potential to act as a check and balance if properly reformed, I wonder who's feeding this guy his ideas.
Martin stumbled on his words alot in the beginning, and I was really turned off by his constant rehashing of the abortion debate. Since when did the right to abortions become an issue in this election, let alone in current public discourse? I think arguing against abortion right now is like trying to argue for an all-male military; sorry, but don't waste your breath.
Alas, I was disappointed in the end. All the debate boiled down to was finger pointing and name calling. When will national debate (and Parliament, for that matter) become a place for constructive debate, where politicians can pool perspectives and ideas to work towards the best possible solution? Everyone was trying so hard to slag Paul Martin that the fact that he was probably one of the best finance ministers in Canadian history (I'll give him that) was ignored. What ever happened to working together?
Well, I'll leave you with a good speech I re-discovered the other day for you guys to munch on:
"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but is a member of Parliament."
Edmund Burke (ironically, he was thrown out of office by the constituents of Bristol in the next election, but I think he was on to something....)
Although Steven Harper displayed his usual dry toast persona, I think it helped him in the end because he didn't seem like a whining 15 year old throwing accusations and insults like the others did at times because he kept his cool.
I give props to Duceppe for his ability to cut straight to the point and really nail his opponent down. As well, I liked his admission "I am de only one here who knows dat I'll be in de opposition on the 28th."
I really developed a dislike for Jack Layton; his constant smiling gave me the impression of a slimy used car salesman. Given that he believes in helping himself to our wallets, I think the persona fits. He really hammered in on his Proportional Representation idea. My question is this Mr Layton: How does proportional representation protect the right of a Canadian citizen to run as an independent. If anything, it seems to me as undemocratic as it forces one to ally with a party to hope for a seat. Along with eliminating the Senate, which has the potential to act as a check and balance if properly reformed, I wonder who's feeding this guy his ideas.
Martin stumbled on his words alot in the beginning, and I was really turned off by his constant rehashing of the abortion debate. Since when did the right to abortions become an issue in this election, let alone in current public discourse? I think arguing against abortion right now is like trying to argue for an all-male military; sorry, but don't waste your breath.
Alas, I was disappointed in the end. All the debate boiled down to was finger pointing and name calling. When will national debate (and Parliament, for that matter) become a place for constructive debate, where politicians can pool perspectives and ideas to work towards the best possible solution? Everyone was trying so hard to slag Paul Martin that the fact that he was probably one of the best finance ministers in Canadian history (I'll give him that) was ignored. What ever happened to working together?
Well, I'll leave you with a good speech I re-discovered the other day for you guys to munch on:
"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but is a member of Parliament."
Edmund Burke (ironically, he was thrown out of office by the constituents of Bristol in the next election, but I think he was on to something....)