Shut Up And Listen 247

In around ten minutes, the federal leadership debate will be on. Like I've done in the past, I'll be writing this column as I watch it. And, like all of those columns, there's a good chance that it won't be well written. It will jump around, lack information needed for reading and give you horribly biased and one-sided opinions. But, fuck it, I like these columns. Every once in a while, I'll hit on something. Just to warn you, though, the debate is scheduled to go from eight until ten, and there's a good chance that I won't make it then entire way. I mean, South Park is on at 9:30 . . .

Which leads me to a topic that's come up a bit over the past couple of days: do people watch these debates? I know I do, but I'm a political junkie and obviously not normal. The news had an informal poll where they shoved a microphone and camera in people's faces, and the general consensus seems to be a mighty apathetic shrug. Hell, look at me: once the clock hits 9:30, I'm out to watch an animated show about foul-mouthed children. I would rather watch that than this shit.

One of the reasons it's said that people tune out is that these debates end up as yelling matches. Am I the only one who enjoys debates like that? They remind me of the way people actually discuss politics. Sure, you're polite for the most part, but every once in a while, you hit that one topic that leads to you screaming at the other person, trying your best not to hit them. And what's wrong with that? When did passion and actual emotion become a problem? So what if they look a little foolish! At least this way we know those fuckers are human. I mean, do we really want debates like those fucking jokes the Americans had? Those weren't debates, those were a series of mini-speeches. Debate implies, you know, interaction and the exchange of ideas. Maybe that will lead to heated screaming, but that's the risk you take.

All I'm hoping is that Stephen Harper will say something about same-sex marriage and maybe one of the other candidates will have the balls to tell him to shut his bigoted mouth.

That leads me to the leaders involved in the debate: Prime Minister Paul Martin of the Liberals, Stephen Harper of the Conservatives (Tories), Jack Layton of the New Democrat Party (NDP) and Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois. This is the first English-language debate, a French-language one was last night.

Martin is up first with his opening statement. Ah, Mr. Dithers, how could we have elected you? Oh, that's right, the other main choice was Harper.

Duceppe is up next and he's emphasising the sponsorship scandal, obviously playing to his Quebec audience. He's a smart guy, Duceppe. Only leader I actually like.

Layton is up now and he looks strangely smug. Despite the fact that I vote NDP, I don't like Layton. But, he's hitting all of the NDP's issue: the people, young people, healthcare, old people, corrupt Liberals and change.

And last . . . Harper. He's also hitting his main points, which he's spent the campaign up until know laying out. He almost comes across as human. I do note that he didn't mention same-sex marriage.

The questions all come from citizens of Canada and the first one is aimed at Harper first, and involves same-sex marriage. Oh, shit, I love it. He's trying to come across as almost reasonable despite the fact that he is espousing bigoted views. He's obviously seen that bringing the issue back up hasn't played as well as he hoped, placing him to the right of where a lot of Conservatives land.

The other three leaders all have taken the opposite view of Harper, for various reasons. That draws a large distinction tha could both hurt and help the Tories. Obviously, if you are against it, the Tories are the only main party to look to. That also spreads out the pro-same-sex marriage group amongst the other parties (although, the Bloc isn't an option for most of the country).

Oh snap, Martin is pissed off! He's just bitching out Harper on this issue. Kind of nice to see.

The new issue raised is gun control, and like the previous question, the questioner's opinion was rather obvious (less gun control is good). Martin wants the ban handguns, Duceppe thinks the Liberals have fucked up the whole issue, Harper says that what the Liberals want to do already existed and works, and have just fucked things up, and Layton points out that it's not a new problem and that the Liberals are just using it to play politics during the campaign (while also discussing the downtrodden people and how the NDP will help them).

Watching Duceppe speak, I wish I spoke French, so I could have watched last night's debate to see how well the others did in that language. He's obviously not that adept at speaking English, but it also seems to help me. His more laboured words come across as very strong and passionate, as if prompted by his frustration with the words not coming out right. It's an interesting dynamic that isn't often seen.

The healthcare issue is an odd one, because every candidate seems to be putting forth the same message, but in different ways. Martin is the target of the other three since he's been in charge for almost two years. He probably has the toughest job in this debate, because he's been in charge, so it's hard to promise that things will change if he's allowed to stay in charge.

Duceppe's strategy is rather unique, though. With regards to this question, he continually emphasises that healthcare is a provincial responsibility, specifically citing how Quebec handles things. Since the Bloc is a separatist party that runs candidates only in Quebec, he's not actually speaking to the entire country, he's speaking just to Quebec. In a way, he's got the easiest job in the debate. He just needs to hammer on a few main points: Quebec rocks, Ottawa sucks, and the Liberals suck even more. He's the spoiler of the bunch, in a way. I don't mean to focus on him so much, but I rarely get to see his influence in federal politics like this because the Bloc is a regional, not national party. The other three are constantly shown in the news, while Duceppe is often ignored.

Heh. They're starting the next major theme of questions: "Ethics and Governance." I'm thinking that Martin is going to get fucked up the ass here.

And right away, he's scrambling, just stumbling over his words to show that he didn't fuck up, it was other people, elect him, he's here to serve, oh lord he didn't fuck the people, he did good, please oh please don't blame him! HE'S INNOCENT, DAMMIT!

Meanwhile, Duceppe, Harper and Layton have jumped right on him. Duceppe has the passionate outrage (including referencing a question Martin didn't address last night in the French debate), Harper has the calculated argument that change is needed and Layton hits somewhere in between while continuing to point out that people should elect NDP candidates.

That is really bothering me. No one else keeps saying elect their candidates, while Layton harps on it over and over again. I think this is because the NDP needs votes more than any other party. This is its chance to make its mark in the House. He also makes sure to say "New Democrats" instead of NDP. The name evokes change and democracy, which is what he's going for. Not a necessarily overt thing, but possibly an attempt at influencing voters in a subtle way. But, maybe I'm overthinking this.

He also references Ed Broadbent a lot, an old school NDP member who many people seem to respect. Interesting.

The new question raises the concept of party-jumping by MPs, which is basically the Belinda Stronach question. Stronach was a candidate for the leadership of the newly merged Conservative Party who lost and then this summer switched from the Tories to the Liberals, taking a cabinet position in the process. It was quite the scandal (or coup depending on who you talk to). This makes sense since for most Canadian voters, the main influence in voting is party, then the leader of the party and then the local candidate. This says that party-jumping isn't welcome. Although, Duceppe presented a good argument, saying that it really depends on why the MP has left the party. If it's a matter of conscience then that's okay and if it's just political ambitions then that's not okay. Layton also raised the idea that if an MP feels strongly enough about an issue that they should leave the party, but sit as an independent, not join another party. Martin can't really argue against this as he was the one who gave Stronach a cabinet position.

Wow, Martin is getting gang-raped by these guys in this line of questioning. I can't really think of any Prime Minister who wouldn't, though. Obviously when it comes to ethics and governance the only real reference point is the current leadership. It's the one real area where the opposition leaders have a chance to just beat on the Prime Minister.

Hey, Jack Layton? Way to keep pointing out that Ed Broadbent should have your job. That's really smart. Retard.

"The only real question we're asking is `Is it good for Quebec's interest or not?'" Duceppe just said, while explaining that the Bloc doesn't play partisan politics. Shit, how do you deal with a wild card like that in a situation like this? Until someone learns to somehow counteract this sort of thing while not alienating the rest of the Canada, the Bloc will continue to dominate Quebec in federal politics. I mean, by electing the Bloc, they essentially elect a provincial government that sits in the federal House of Commons.

Oh shit, oh shit, oh shit! Heh. God, Layton is funny at times. The topic is the uncivil nature of question period (the time in Parliament when the opposition parties are given a chance to directly address the Government) and just launches right into a rant about how electing women will solve the problem. I don't disagree necessarily, it just seemed like obvious pandering to women. That's how Layton keeps coming off, I think. He never seems sincere to me, he just seems like a politician. This really frustrates me.

I expected Harper to be a stronger influence, but he just seems to keep blending into the background even when he's speaking. I can't explain it. It could just be me and what I'm looking for, but he just isn't presenting himself as strongly as he needs to be, I think. He could be doing this on purpose, trying to come across as a reasonable, soft-spoken guy going into the Christmas hiatus. If that's what he's doing, I think it's a smart strategy. It plays more towards the centre, portrays him as less of a radical and helps to work against the view many people have of him.

The current question regards Atlantic Canada and making that area more economically viable, but the interesting part was that Harper began his answer by pointing out that his family originated there and then Layton began by pointing out his family was there before Harper's. The moderator just pointed that out by asking Martin if he had any Atlantic Canada roots when calling on him. I don't think Duceppe is going to argue that he has those roots, but probably play up that Liberals have fucked over that area. And hey, that's what he's doing!

Hey, let's watch everyone avoid the question and launch into attacks on each other. The question is Canadian/American relations and no one seems to be answering how to improve them and instead just attack one another. I don't mind bitching one another out, but actually address the fucking question, people!

You can't tell, but I haven't been writing much the past fifteen minutes or so. The debate is interesting and engrossing, but highly intricate in details. Trying to record it all would do an injustice to the complex issue of taxation and the myriad views presented by the candidates.

The final theme: national unity. Here's where Duceppe takes centre stage. He presents a very smart view of separatism: Quebec isn't better than Canada, it's just different and deserves to be separate because of its differences. It is a smart way to address the people of Quebec as it promotes them while not bashing Canada.

This issue is difficult, but it walks a tightrope of appeasing Quebec while not seeming to give Quebec special treatment that will annoy the rest of Canada. So, Harper and Layton do the smart thing and take the view that what will help Quebec feel more at ease is getting rid of the corrupt Liberals.

I expect that the next question will raise the idea of the West, which will allow Harper to shine a little and play to his support.

Layton did just bring up a good point that I think could help him come across well: why focus on how Quebec can separate instead of focusing on how to make it feel more involved.

Another interesting thing raised is that both Martin and Layton are from Quebec. That's always been a very odd thing about this issue where for the past few decades, the Prime Minister has almost exclusively been from Quebec.

Oops, South Park began almost ten minutes ago. Ah well. I'll watch it on time-shifting. This is one damn good debate.

Martin is getting very defensive. Hell, I would be too if I'd spent the past hour-and-a-half being attacked.

Hey! A question about the West! Who didn't see that coming?

I make jokes because these issues are old issues and it pains me that they're still active. They shouldn't be. They should have been solved or had progress made.

Layton keeps talking after his time is up and they cut his microphone and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not. Personally, I like it, but I'm not sure how others watching will view it.

Duceppe delivered another great quote: "The West wants in, while Quebec wants out." I'm not sure he's wrong.

The final question of the evening is what each leader's view of Canada is and Paul Martin is delivering a fantastic view of Canada (what he said can be found below in my additional comments written after the debate). It's one that I can't find anything wrong with. Except that I know he can't deliver it. Harper's view was kind of meh, Layton's should echo Martin's but doesn't and Duceppe's is a sovereign state of Quebec (surprise, surprise).

HAHAHAHA! Harper just delivered what could be the strangest and smartest strategy in proving that Quebec shouldn't separate: our national hockey team wouldn't be as good. Heh.

Final statements are being spoken, but I don't think these are really worth addressing as they were obviously written before the debate when they should actually be a response to what has been said here tonight. I wish one of these guys would just speak from the heart and not rely on some speech written by their handlers. We already got one of these pieces of shit at the beginning of the debate, we don't need another. This is especially true, because the things each candidate said during the debate were much more smart and interesting than these closing remarks. These are just the opening speeches reworded and it sucks.

Well, that's it. Either later tonight or tomorrow, I'll add an additional part below where I'll give my overall thoughts on the debate. But you can read that right now as it's the next part of this column. Heh.

* * *

Well, it's Sunday now. I meant to get to this yesterday, but I had a family thing (fun) and didn't have the time.

Looking back on the debate, I don't think any of the candidates were a clear winner. None of them were amazing or crap. It was a contest of mediocrity. Sure, it was an interesting debate and far more engaging than the American ones from last year, but it was still disappointing.

I read some of the follow-up pieces written on it and most of them seemed to agree that it wasn't that spectacular. Both Harper and Layton went up in the polls after, while Martin and Duceppe went down (although, with Duceppe, I'm not sure if that was a Quebec poll only because that's the only one that matters).

I'm not sure Martin's decline in the polls is reflective of his performance, though. He was just as engaging as the others (and outdid Harper easily), but it was nearly two hours of Martin- and Liberal-bashing by the other three leaders. Not that he doesn't have it coming. He did relatively well under attack. Although, around the 9:30 mark he seemed to have had enough and was visibly annoyed. I would be too, but it was entertaining. Especially his "You're not breaking up my Canada!" rant to Duceppe, who resembled a kid who just got caught doing something bad.

Harper's performance at the debate bothers me, because it was so damn weak. It had to be strategy, because there's no way he could still be that poor a politician. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if he was, but I honestly expected more out of the guy. He honestly seems like a guy who only does as well as he does because of the hardcore Tory base and the fact that the Liberals are fucking up so much. I mean, if he was the leader of some independent party, they would be doing even worse than the Christian Heritage Party currently is.

Layton . . . he didn't wow me and I'm already on his side. I just don't like the guy for some reason. He tries to come across as genuine, but he just strikes me as too polished and pre-planned. Even when I agree with his words, I don't hear a tone that matches the words. He's just like Stephen Harper in that regard: trying to appeal to the centre while expressing views that aren't in the centre. Harper does it for the right, Layton for the left. It just seems so dishonest. Wait, I'm surprised why?

As for Duceppe, I'm not sure I can really judge him because I'm not his target audience. My reaction to a lot of his words comes from the fact that I'm a Canadian who lives in Ontario and is very much against separatism. I think he probably did well in Quebec and the Bloc will get almost all of the 75 seats in Quebec.

Well, that's it. I'll do this again for the next debate in January. Odds are, it will be a bit more aggressive because no one wants to look like an asshole going into Christmas. I bet Martin won't take it up the ass as much as he did during this debate. Harper will probably appear more humanlike and Layton . . . well, he'll probably do the exact same thing. Duceppe will just show up and play to Quebec again. And I'll be there to tell you all about it. Lucky you.

(Oh, and because every transcript of the debate I can find isn't complete--or close to it--I can't give you Martin's vision of Canada that I actually agree with it. Sorry.)