That wasn't debate. I'm not sure what it was, but it certainly wasn't debate.
Okay, I suppose it was marginally better than last year's screamfest. But every time somebody started to say something interesting, the moderator would leap in and cut him off. None of the leaders was allowed to adequately defend himself...and Harper had to, because Martin was flinging every bit of mud he could think up in the hopes that something would stick. The facts be damned...
I offer one example. Martin seems utterly convinced that his income tax cut would benefit the poor more than Harper's GST cut. As a long-time Minister of Finance, you would think Martin would know that poor people don't pay income tax. Then again, as Minister of Finance, you'd think Martin would know all about the monies being strewn hither and yon throughout Quebec under his watch...oh, wait a sec. That's right. Justice Gomery "exonerated" him. So that just means he was totally clueless.
Martin did make one major policy announcement on the fly: he said his "first action" if re-elected would be to scrap the notwithstanding clause of the Charter. I suspect many Canadians would ask me to translate that last sentence from the Martian, so here goes: Paul Martin believes the Supreme Court should have absolute power over Parliament, forever and ever, amen.
This is all well and good when you agree with the Supreme Court's position (as I do, for instance, on same-sex marriage). But Harper missed a golden opportunity to make a fool out of Martin here...he should have immediately asked him about that Charter ruling which opened the door to a two-tier health care system. Without the notwithstanding clause, Paul, you're stuck with whatever the Court decides. Who's to say that's always a good thing? Those judges are not elected, and many would argue that they have too much power now as it is.
As usual in these things, Gilles Duceppe impressed me. Even in his second language, he's capable of getting off some solid zingers and holding his own against attack. It's too bad he's a one-trick pony, because I've talked to many Canadians who say they'd vote for him if given a chance. Wouldn't that send a message to Ottawa?
Jim Harris of the Greens was excluded, to his unending fury. Many people feel this is patently unfair. Myself, I'm not so sure. While he is running a candidate in every riding, his party has yet to hold a single seat. If you let the Greens into the debate, where does it end? Christian Heritage? The Marijuana Party? The Sex Party? (yes, there is one...its motto: "Government's job is to screw you. We can make you enjoy it". Okay, I made that up.)
I had the priviledge of seeing Jim Harris on Global's Focus Ontario before Christmas. He was asked how he'd deal with the gun crime in Toronto. Know what he said? That gun crime "isn't the real problem...the dioxins in our air kill more people than guns do".
Wow. Further questions, such as
- so, does that mean there will be a dioxin registry?
- do you actually care about the people in cities throughout the country who have lost family members to gun crime?
- isn't your job to make Canadians want to vote for you?
- do you have a brain? or a heart?
were not forthcoming.
Anyway, the debate didn't do anything to change my vote. Did it do anything for you? (Oh shit, there's that Sex Party again.)
1 comment:
"He was asked how he'd deal with the gun crime in Toronto. Know what he said? That gun crime "isn't the real problem...the dioxins in our air kill more people than guns do"."
That's what I hate about the Green's. They need to expand their platform beyond the environment, because we need to deal with more than one issue. Yes, the environment is important, but so is gun crime. We can't focus on one to the exclusion of all others. On the flip side however, I will still vote for the Green's as a protest, and because they at least share some of my beliefs, because at least they are talking about the environment.
Post a Comment