Shut Up And Listen 252

Holy shit, the Tories have a big lead. Latest poll numbers put them at 37 with the Liberals at 29. Can Prime Minister Stephen Harper be far away? Kill me now.

I could be at the grad club at my uni with some friends watching this, but I'm tired and, well, I have a column to write. Lucky you.

They're currently partway into the first question. For this debate, I won't be giving my usual moment-by-moment commentary as much. I'll be looking for larger patterns and judging the candidates on their overall performance.

Since I last spoke on the election, things have turned over because of an investigation into current Finance Minister Ralph Goodale and gun violence in Toronto. As well, a friend was saying today that the Tories have gone up because of family discussions over the holidays where the various ideas the party has put out have been discussed.

I rather like this debate's format. It's more loose and open to discussion than the first one. The moderator is better at keeping order and control when necessary.

Wow. That was a great fucking question! The mod asked Harper a question by setting it up with various things the Reform Party said they wouldn't do and then did, so don't opposition parties always run on platforms of cleaning up the government and then just do the same thing? It was excellently phrased and handled. It was a straight-forward, direct and intelligent question that isn't usually asked.

Because of Harper's lead in the polls, he's taking more of the heat this time around. That isn't surprising, as Martin took most of the beating last time. He's still getting some, but now Harper's getting a larger share.

Martin claims that if the Liberals win the election, they will attempt to amend the Charter so that the Notwithstanding Clause will no longer be an option for the federal government. A bold proposition, but I'm not sure how much it will pay off.

Martin is on the attack this time. You can tell he's pissed off and he's not going to take it anymore. It's rather funny to watch. A stuttering butterball just blasting at his attackers.

While the others are interesting, Martin is the only candidate that's really making me take notice. Not because I necessary agree with what he's saying, but because he's taking stances that are designed to undercut both the Tories and the NDP. This is a typical tactic of the Liberals, but he's doing it in an even more obvious manner. He's stopping just short of saying he agrees with what his opponents have said; well, most of the time.

Layton and Duceppe have all but explicitly laid out how things are now: the Liberals and Conservatives are the same party most of the time. Last time, it was three-on-one and now it's two-on-one-on-one. Interesting how a shift in the polls can affect the debate.

"When he's campaigning, he's like an NDP, but when he's in power, he's like a Tory," Gilles Duceppe just said of Paul Martin. Fuck yeah. (And forgive me if I messed it up. I got the intent of what he said, but may have not quoted him exactly word for word.)

Shit . . . heh. Throughout the debate, Jack Layton has been cracking me up. He just stares into the camera, speaks in a soft voice and uses very inclusive language . . . and it's funny as hell. I don't know why, but it is. He switches between this and total campaigning, and sometimes combines the two.

I've really got to use the bathroom, but the debate on unity is kicking up. Martin versus Duceppe in what almost became a shouting match.

When I hear Duceppe talk about Quebec being different, it reminds me of a whiny teenager complaining that their parents just don't understand. I don't know why, but it just comes across like that. It could be my bias against the Bloc and separatists. I guess I just don't see why there is that desire to separate. It strikes me as being the same as Ontario, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia wanting to separate. All were there when Canada began and all were instrumental in how Canada developed.

Best answer of the night: Duceppe is asked if he cares which of the two big leaders (Martin and Harper) turns out to be Prime Minister and just says, "No." How do you deal with a guy like that? Wow.

* * *

Shit, I didn't write much, did I? I was pretty tired on Monday night and ended up just sitting back and watching a lot of the time. My notes on the debate are pretty sound and accurate. The entire debate turned out to be Paul Martin's show, I think. I read various polls that showed who people thought won the debate and Harper always came out on top, but I'd disagree. That probably means I'm wrong, but fuck it.

Martin impressed me this time around. Not in a way that would make me vote for him, but in the hunger and passion he had. It wasn't the passion of a guy who wants to make the country better, it was the passion of a guy who wants to win. The fighter in Martin came out in this debate and he just beat down on everyone in an effort to win. You could tell that somewhere in Martin's mind, he thought "Fuck these guys, I'm the goddamn Prime Minister and after January 23, I am going to still be the Prime Minister and I am going to destroy these dickheads." It was the will to win.

Harper is still acted detached and cold, but this time, it's played against Martin's hungry passion and it's working in that contrast.

Layton came across as so genuine that it's comical.

Duceppe . . . he wasn't that impressive. He stumbled a lot, but had a few good moments.

Since the debate, the Tories have increased in the polls (partly because of a botched Liberal campaign ad that fucked them up big time) into territory that suggests that they could win a majority government. Heaven help us.

Next week, my column will be the final one going into the election and I may just write it on Sunday night, so it literally is right before the election. See you then.