Has Stephen Harper made his first mistake of the campaign? Probably.
It’s nowhere near a fatal mistake and voters will likely have forgotten it by election day, but it is a mistake nonetheless.
He should not have objected to the presence of Elizabeth May during the televised leader’s debates.
For the life of me I don’t understand why he objected, since Ms. May’s appearance would have done nothing except perhaps bleed a few votes away from the Liberals and NDP.
Because let’s be honest here: No one who would vote for the Green Party would ever be caught dead supporting the Conservatives. It’s just too large a leap.
But joining Jack Layton of the NDP in opposing Ms. May’s inclusion on the broadcasts helps to reinforce the message that Stephen Harper is a mean son of a bitch, cold and aloof.
Elizabeth May, of course, is playing all of this right to the hilt. Making claims of an old boy’s network: Four male leaders, male TV network executives etc. etc. Noise which undoubtedly will create a sympathy vote for the Greens which is not deserved.
But it’s not only the subtle message concerning Stephen Harper’s meanness involved here. My experience with Elizabeth May during a recent edition of the Lunch Bunch Program leads me to believe she’s not far removed from nut case status.
I won’t go into full details here, suffice to say when I quizzed her on the Green Party’s stance concerning electrical power generation, she was very adamant that not only would she close all coal-fired generating plants in Canada, but she was opposed to nuclear generation as well. When pressed as to how we would be able to power our homes and industry, Ms. May’s reply was simply that she was sure we would come up with something!!
Amazing!
Now I understand why she and Stephane Dion are in league together. They both have a magic wand stored away some place. A magic wand, which when waved, not only eradicates all carbon emissions, but provides all the energy we need to power our cars, our trucks, our homes, our industries and puts an organic pumpkin on every table.
By the way, those organic pumpkins she dumped on the food bank yesterday as her solution to world poverty-just hope they were locally grown.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
I am amused to no end to see so many 'oh woe is us, the media is biased' Conservatives lining up behind the media consortium's "in the best interest of Canadians" decision.
Who appointed the media the arbitrator of what is/is not "in the best interests of Canadians" and why are Conservatives not all over this?
I have to agree, Lowell. It was a mistake.
Having Elizabeth May at the podium can only help the Conservatives. All three other parties are going to launch a relentless attack Harper. She is a poor debater and inexperienced. She would likely implode, just as she is doing now with her "because I am woman" rant.
Her views are easily countered, and in the short time during the debates, Harper would have an easy time dealing with May's attacks.
Then again, doing whatever it takes to win an election, right or wrong, is more the Liberals domain.
Maybe Harper just felt it was the right thing to do.
Elizabeth May does not deserve to join the debate because the green party is not a real electable party. If you allowed her to join the debate then the other fringe parties would have to be invited also.
The block should not have been allowed to join in either as they are not a national party. It is easy to tell that the leftie are at work with this one. Don't fall into the trap Lowell, you can't win this one.
The leaders debate is just that, people that have a chance to form the next government and be the leader of the country. Maybe jack should not be invited either.
How could she be controlled.I hear her talking over everyone in any conversation i hear with her involved.She is not a member of parliament,,she has no members who were in parliament as green party members.She represents who???And who gives a crap if she is a woman or not.A green man would not be invited either.
Lizzy May might seem like a nutter but make no mistake, she is a terribly bright and articulate person.
And to those who insist that she is a one-trick pony, think again;
All I have heard from her lately is the tired old arguments of how to fight poverty in Canada and how bad and mysoginistic PM Harper is.
She is a dangerous firebrand and one could understand why the PM did not want her involved in the debates. She would draw the undecided female vote to the Liberal camp.
Regardless, the decision to not have Ms. May attend the debates was not of the PM's design; This was decided by a consortium of Canadian broadcasters. Perhaps the PM should have just kept quiet.
In a way Lowell is right, but it is against the official rules. Change for one then all may attend. And that would be a fiasco. I don't think this country needs a pot head party at the leaders debate.
I do not think Elizabeth May should be in the debates. Stephane Dion would "hide" behind her as his speaking style is one of his worst attributes, and I also think she would try to "drown" out any other leader, especially Stephen Harper from speaking. (I have heard her in radio interviews.)
I can just hear her during the debate with buzz words like "George Bush" and "American style" and "neo con", hidden agenda, etc.. which as you know, is all some people need to vote against you, not having to tell Canadians exactly how, they would manage the economy, justice, health, infrastructure, and other topics; it's not "just" the environment.
If after this election, they elect at least one Green Party member, then, at the next election, she can take part of the debate.
I am with Stephen Harper on this one, the debate doesn't need two "Liberal" representatives, as she has publicly endorsed the Liberal party.
Marc
If the Ms. May is not allowed to participate due the "Not a national party" view, then Mr. Duceppe should also be excluded. We all know that is not going to happen.
If the rules enable her to participate then Ms. May should be allowed to debate.
I do not understand why Mr. Happer is so afraid of her; or for that matter all the party leaders.
deneb: I guess you have forgotten, or you just didn't bother looking further into the event than what you wanted to see -- it rolled out with the broadcast consortium approaching the 4 other political parties to work out a format and being told by three of them that they wouldn't show up if May was on the stage with them.
(Since then Duceppe seems to be backtracking in the face of negative publicity but the CPoC and the NDP are sticking to their 'if she shows up we ain't coming' guns)
Personally I think the broadcast consortium needs to grow a pair and stand up to the political parties. Harper may think he's got big enough ones to refuse to attend, but Layton would certainly cave if the debate was called, regardless of who was on the stage.
They should schedule the debate and if Harper and the CPoC are content to have "Stephen Harper was invited to the debate and refused to attend" announced on TV's across the nation so be it.
Did she have a hand in this?
A Melting Arctic: Happy News for Mankind
September 8, 2008, 7:59 AM
Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage
September 3, 2008, 2:44 PM
These 2 story's appear exactly this way at www.dailytech.com
so what gives? What the hell is the truth?
I feel it would be a waste of time to have Ms. May in the debate. If she is such a nutcase, time would be wasted listening to her babble on about irrelevant and absurd solutions to important issues.
There appears to be a distinct absence a rules governing who gets invited to the national television debates. In that absence, I suggest that the rules should be such that (a) there is no doubt as who the invitees will be and, (b) they facilitate a civil debate and obviate the cacophany that has characterized the national debates here-to-fore. Ergo, Rule No. 1 should be that to be invited to the debate, one must be the leader of a national party that has a demonstrable chance of forming the next government. And Rule No. 2 should be that if there is any party leader has complaints of chagrin caused by being ignored, they are to be referred to Rule No. 1.
I trust that this clears the matter up.
I disagree, your rule would see the CPoC & the LPoC standing up against each other with the other parties sitting on the sidelines not benefiting from the free publicity the others are.
If you want criteria go with a national party running candidates in more than 50% of the available riding's.... if they are willign to front that sort of money they deserve the air time.
Ah, so this is why you spread the lie that the Green Party wants to take Canadians back to pre-electricity?
They are of course one of the parties that wants to ensure that future generations HAVE electricity. Because I have a feeling it will get under your skin, I have to mention that Al Gore's We Campaign is all about making those alternative electricity/energy sources within the next decade, so we may find coal plants to be of little use anyhow. Wouldn't you rather Canadians beat Americans to the next technological breakthroughs that the world can't live without?
Saskboy. By all means where you live can be the area that has no coal fired or nuclear created power. Your area can be the first to experience the Green Party's "vision". Let us know how it goes. BUt I'll guess you'll have to walk here from there to tell us.
Post a Comment