slimpi66y

Holy fuck, my pal Gilles was firing in all cylinders, last night I thought his insults in French was damn funny, tonight he again provided the much needed entertainment

the point is, we know all four guys are bullshitting us, so the debates are in fact popularity contest and a personal charade of charisma, Pauly was the big loser, didn't focus on the shit he was good at instead he is running an opposition campagin, Pauly's fucking done man

Jack, on the other hand, was a great performer, the confidence really showed, I thought his best point was blasting Pauly for "how the fuck can you say that a Canadian election is only between two parties, what kind of fucking arrogance possesse your fucking ass to say such nonsense", he got Pauly on the spot and if you were paying attention Gilles was laughing uncontrollably

Steve was just trying to hold on to the grounds he already gained, a conservative approach but safe nevertheless

in the end, the liberals are finsihed, 10 days left and Pauly is not running a turn around campagin....

did I mention Gilles was hilarious, he basically said I don't care anything outside of Quebec, that's a good strategy focusing on the people who would listen to him, since voters outside of QC don't fucking care about the Bloc anyway...

Ace_O_Spades

I wish I could have gotten to watch this, but I worked through it... disappointing, because I'm really into this election.

__________________
Feh.

kulrblind

It's perfectly reasonable for Gilles to say he doesn't care about the rest of Canada. Frankly, why should he? His party isn't running in any other provinces (though I was thinking he could probably win a few seats if he ran in NB or some other French-friendly provinces). I'm actually not sure what gives him the right to be at a national debate when he's not part of a national party, but whatever.

I did have a problem with the way Gilles refused to accept any answer to his questions. Yes, I understand he was asking about how we can have spending without a foreign policy directive, but seriously, repeating "You're not answering my question" is doing nobody any good at this debate. If all parties would show some courtesy and let a few candidates finish their thoughts, the barbs and the ribs could have done so much more damage. This goes equally for Steven Harper and Jack Layton talking -simultaneously- for about 30 seconds during one topic. Sheesh, who's listening to that? I'd rather watch the Pistons dismantle the Lakers in game 5.

If asked, I'd score it this way:

Gilles Duceppe: Great speaker, possibly shouldn't be at a national debate except for the fact that his party will likely represent 17% of Canada's population. Thankfully there will be someone in the government to represent more than just the majority of english-speaking Canada. Good at: social policy, cutting down people in both official languages, speaking succinctly.

Jack Layton: Passion and platform aside, he unfortunately still looks like a used car salesman. Will continue to represent what the NDP has worked so hard for: being a pesky fly on the back of the government horse, rallying around social and environmental causes. Good at: smiling and nodding, and making friends with poential coalition parties.

Steven Harper: Unfortunately has no expressed platform on social issues (same sex marriage, abortion), but wild spending plans and some doubt as to the revenue sources to fund said spending. Also appears to be the token "broken record" on liberal spending goofs, but hey, it seems to be working. Good at: looking suave and making hand gestures.

Paul Martin: The 'talking head' of the Liberal movement, whose main campaign is focussed on "how bad can Canada get if you elect the Conservatives?" The smear campaign is alive and well in Canada, thank god. :P Seems to think that promises now will be worth more than broken promises previously, but this is a main challenge for the incumbent in every election. Good at: not answering questions, promising that "this time it will be different", pretending that he has a grassroots social policy.

Yakk

I found it interesting paying attention to who attacked who.

The Conservatives mainly attacked the Liberals.
The NDP mainly attacked the Liberals.
The BQ mainly attacked the Liberals.
The Liberals mainly attacked the Conservatives.

Each party was attacking the party they viewed as their competition.

The Liberals figured that the Conservatives where gaining votes from people who agreed with the Liberal platform, but didn't like the scandals. So, they had the most to gain by beating down the Conservatives with attacks on their social and fiscal policy.

The NDP attacked the Liberals because the Conservative base is so far from the NDP base that there isn't much chance of defection. So, they attacked their nearest neighbours.

The only party with any political capitol in Quebec other than the Bloc is the Liberals. And that isn't saying much. So, the Bloc's attacks where mainly aimed at the Liberals.

And the Conservatives are riding on the Liberal scandals to drum up support for themselves.

Giles was a good speaker: he was much quieter than the other speakers, which leads to the "listen carefully, he must be saying something important" effect. There was one mistake made: he was cornered into talking about seperation of Quebec from Canada, which won't help him with is softer supporters.

Aforsaid Bloc gaff was triggered by Harper. Given that Harper has written off almost all of Quebec, I can't help but wonder why in the world he forced that issue. A weaker Bloc will probably result in a stronger Liberal party, and who else besides the Bloc will Harper form an alliance with in parliament?

The NDP stayed on message: we will be fiscally responsible, but instead of paying down the debt we will spend it on programs. I did find it strange that the two parties most ideologically opposed (Conservatives and NDP) had the least venom in their interactions.

Martin was stumbling. He stressed good enough past government, fiscal responsibility, Canadian nationalism and social libertarianism. Some of his debating techniques where better than his opponents: for example, ever notice how often Paul managed to get the last word? He played the clock quite well.

Critisisms:
Layton had a glued-on-smile.
Giles didn't even try to have closing arguements.
Harper was overly wooden.
Martin was overly defensive.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

silent_jay

Jack Layton just looks phony and shady, I think it might be the mustache. Stephen Harper should watch School of Rock "loosey goosey baby, loosey goosey", Paul Martin looked worried that people were coming after him constantly, Gilles was well very confident, and wanted answers from Martin about the sponsorship scandal that Martin didn't have. All around a good debate.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

prosequence

You guys ever see the Simpsons episode where they go to family counselling, they get wired up to this shock machine and whenever Bart, Lisa or whoever made the other feel bad, they would shock them..... if we could hook these guys onto one of them.... QUALITY ENTERTAINMENT !!!!

__________________
And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

Charlatan

I missed the debates but caught the high lights later on the news... It's too bad that Layton appeared to come off like he did... Meeting him in person, he comes off as brimming with enthusiasm and energy.

That just doesn't translate to television.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke