# Harper willing to debate Ignatieff one-on-one



## ballz (30 Mar 2011)

And according to the article, Ignatieff responded with "Anytime, any place." Now this would rock!

Shared with the usual caveats...

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=28191151



> Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says he's open to a one-on-one debate with Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.
> 
> Ignatieff said Tuesday he was looking forward to taking on Harper in the televised leaders' debates organized during each election campaign, and added he wanted to debate the Tory leader face-to-face.
> 
> ...



They should have the PM and the leader of the Opposition have a one-on-one debate every year, and then have a seperate debate with the major party leaders afterwards (and no, that does not include YOU Elizabeth you baby). The debate right now is just a bunch of ganging up on one person (usually the PM for most issues), people trying to get quotable sound clips that are always clearly pre-planned and scripted, and a bunch of noise.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Mar 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> The debate right now is just a bunch of ganging up on one person (usually the PM for most issues), *people trying to get quotable sound clips that are always clearly pre-planned and scripted, and a bunch of noise*.


While there may be less "ganging up" (and keep in mind, the incumbent will usually get the most shots because s/he's is the best target - easy to pick on something that's been done, than to pick on "might be's"), I'm not as confident as you are that a one-on-one would be much different in the other respects.


----------



## ballz (30 Mar 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> While there may be less "ganging up" (and keep in mind, the incumbent will usually take the most shots because s/he's is the best target - easy to pick on something that's been done, than to pick on "might be's"), I'm not as confident as you are that a one-on-one would be much different in the other respects.



Well, I would guess that instead of having the best argument, and then 2 or 3 more arguments, before getting a chance to answer to them all (but in limted time), you hear the best argument, and then get just as long to rebuttle with your own argument, focussed solely on one point, woud result in a much more fluent debate.

As for soundclips... I am sure some pre-planned ones would exist, but one-on-one, you would probaby hear some more articulate soundclips that were a more directly the result of what the person just argued, and not forcefully inserted into the debate where they seemingly come out of nowhere (ala Taliban Jack anyone?). Again, just seems like it would be more fluent.

Or that's how I see it playing out in my perfect world anyway :nod:

Anyway, I am sure hoping for one! Might raise some voter care-factor as well!


----------



## Journeyman (30 Mar 2011)

A Harper/Ignatieff one-on-one, while rational -- given their party weights -- would carry the stigma of summarily dismissing the NDP/Bloc FLQ/Greens. We can't have that now, can we? 

Even though the CBC's "coin toss" programme has been dismissed as clearly favouring the Liberals, the media has to pretend they're without bias.


----------



## ballz (31 Mar 2011)

With the money the parties have... couldn't they just arrange one themselves and pay to have it aired?

EDIT: I feel oblivious to all this, so yes, that is a serious question haha.


----------



## GR66 (31 Mar 2011)

I actually think that having a one-on-one debate would be a bad idea for the Conservatives.  The incumbent is always the easier target in a debate...it's easier to target what actually went wrong as opposed to what "might" have gone wrong if the other person was in power.

While Iggy certainly has lots of weaknesses to attack, Harper is unlikely to win with a knock-out punch.  Opposition parties are just too hard to nail to the wall (like jello) because you can only argue against their hypothetical weaknesses.  The Conservatives do have an actual governing record to defend and therefore do have much more potential to actually "lose" in a debate.

The one main strength the Conservatives have right now is being able to lump the Liberals together in a coalition with the socialists (NDP) and seperatists (Bloc).  Giving Iggy a one-on-one debate separates the Liberals from that crowd and marks the Liberals as a clear seperate alternative.  This takes away the Conservative's major current talking point and possibly encourages strategic Liberal voting by otherwise NDP supporters.

Bad call by the CPC back room in my mind.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Mar 2011)

That could be a forum, however, for bringing forward all of the issues that the Liberals are currently wringing their hands over, which they actually started in process when they governed. Given the population's short attention span, refreshing voters' memories in this way may prove useful...especially if someone comes up with a catchy phrase like, "It's _governance_ Iggy, not flip-flopping by weekly opinion polls*."


*  Especially, painfully skewed "opinion-_forming_ programmes" like CBC's 'how many ways should I vote Liberal' coin-toss.  :


----------



## dangles (31 Mar 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> A Harper/Ignatieff one-on-one, while rational -- given their party weights -- would carry the stigma of summarily dismissing the NDP/Bloc FLQ/Greens. We can't have that now, can we?
> Even though the CBC's "coin toss" programme has been dismissed as clearly favouring the Liberals, the media has to pretend they're without bias.



Well I mean it seems like Harper at least doesn't believe there is anyone else who will pose a serious threat to his party, if you refer back to the first post. Myself I thought that kind of bold for him to say that, but I mean I guess it is true right? However you make a good point, I couldn't really see a strictly Conservative vs. Liberal debate, unless the other parties also had the chance to debate [in a seperate event].

On another note, why the #@%* is Ignatieff even a leader of the Liberals? I mean I am completely going on the information I received in a commercial [how he has not been in Canada for x amount of years, how he said the US is his country] so yes I know I could be better informed. I mean could they not have found a better leader with a less troubling past? 

Please go easy on me though, I am only just beginning to be interested in Canadian politics so I do not know much about this or Ignatieff himself.
*Link to commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaqNxU2Ea6w&feature=relmfu


----------



## Rheostatic (31 Mar 2011)

dangles said:
			
		

> On another note, why the #@%* is Ignatieff even a leader of the Liberals? I mean I am completely going on the information I received in a commercial [how he has not been in Canada for x amount of years, how he said the US is his country] so yes I know I could be better informed. I mean could they not have found a better leader with a less troubling past?


A little background on the candidate's credentials:





			
				http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/lets-not-make-ignatieff-a-personal-issue/article1957423/?service=mobile said:
			
		

> Let’s begin this election by making a pledge: That Michael Ignatieff should not be an election issue. Whatever the merits of his policies may be, he is, as a writer for the Financial Times has put it, “by any measure an extraordinary Canadian.”
> 
> Personal attacks on Mr. Ignatieff have been the preferred tactic of his political opponents from the moment he entered political life after a distinguished career as a human-rights theorist, writer and academic. These attacks have benefited from an unfortunate national prejudice that views success abroad with suspicion or, in its extreme form, contempt.
> 
> ...


----------



## ballz (31 Mar 2011)

Have to agree... for me the attack ads take a lot of credibility away from the Conservatives. There's nothing I hate more than trying to win votes by saying how much worse the other options are. Tell me why YOU are a better option. But, of course, attack campaigns have proven effective before because as Winston Churchill put it about the average voter...

Ignatieff spent a lot of time out of Canada as a scholar and a professor at some pretty prestigious schools (Oxford and Harvard being the two obvious examples). He's lived in the US and the UK and travelled a hell of a lot more places than that. If anything, it should be considered an asset that he's had these exposures.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Mar 2011)

I too have always disagreed with attack ads.

But that being said, is it not a contradiction, if not outright hypocrisy, to say, "let's make a pledge that Iggy should not be an election issue.....and now I'm going to go on for several paragraphs to talk of nothing but Iggy"?

Ohhhh.....so he cannot be talked about....unless, of course, you're going to say what a brilliant, fabulous, amazing, 'honorary-' person he is.   :


----------



## dangles (31 Mar 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Have to agree... for me the attack ads take a lot of credibility away from the Conservatives. There's nothing I hate more than trying to win votes by saying how much worse the other options are. Tell me why YOU are a better option. But, of course, attack campaigns have proven effective before because as Winston Churchill put it about the average voter...
> 
> Ignatieff spent a lot of time out of Canada as a scholar and a professor at some pretty prestigious schools (Oxford and Harvard being the two obvious examples). He's lived in the US and the UK and travelled a hell of a lot more places than that. If anything, it should be considered an asset that he's had these exposures.



Thank you both for the background. Still though, I am not necessarily convinced...the only thing that eats away at me is how he called the US his home. I mean I want the leader of our country to be a proud Canadian, regardless of credentials and qualifications. 

Anyways, I agree that the ad hominem attacks in smear campaigns are flawed in that sense...but it's like what Aaron Eckhart said in the movie "Thank you for Smoking"...."I didn't have to [prove I was right]. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong, I'm right."


----------



## Rheostatic (31 Mar 2011)

dangles said:
			
		

> I am not necessarily convinced...the only thing that eats away at me is how he called the US his home. I mean I want the leader of our country to be a proud Canadian, regardless of credentials and qualifications.


Every politician has a lifetime of soundbytes for their opponents to dig up. One calls the US his home, while living and working there. Another calls Canada a "Northern European welfare state".

Just give me a competent government, and hold the chest-thumping.


----------



## ballz (31 Mar 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I too have always disagreed with attack ads.
> 
> But that being said, is it not a contradiction, if not outright hypocrisy, to say, "let's make a pledge that Iggy should not be an election issue.....and now I'm going to go on for several paragraphs to talk of nothing but Iggy"?
> 
> Ohhhh.....so he cannot be talked about....unless, of course, you're going to say what a brilliant, fabulous, amazing, 'honorary-' person he is.   :



Well besides the fact that it was 3 sentences and not several paragraphs ( : ), they were in response to Dangles concerns (sparked by the attack ads) of him being outside of Canada for so long.

But I would hardly think it's hypocritical to say "attack ads are dumb" and "education and exposure to different cultures is an asset." Perhaps you could explain how those two things conflict?


----------



## Journeyman (31 Mar 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Well besides the fact that it was 3 sentences and not several paragraphs ( : ),


I was referring to the opinion piece, _repeated_ here, not your post:





> Let’s begin this election by making a pledge: That Michael Ignatieff should not be an election issue. Whatever the merits of his policies may be, he is, as a writer for the Financial Times has put it, “by any measure an extraordinary Canadian.”
> 
> Personal attacks on Mr. Ignatieff have been the preferred tactic of his political opponents from the moment he entered political life after a distinguished career as a human-rights theorist, writer and academic. These attacks have benefited from an unfortunate national prejudice that views success abroad with suspicion or, in its extreme form, contempt.
> 
> ...


Grab a Valium and count the paragraphs above. 

 : , indeed.


----------



## dangles (31 Mar 2011)

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> Every politician has a lifetime of soundbytes for their opponents to dig up. One calls the US his home, while living and working there. Another calls Canada a "Northern European welfare state".
> 
> Just give me a competent government, and hold the chest-thumping.



Really? I'd love to know the context of that quote...very bizzare. But yeah, I understand the point you make that no matter how perfect one seems there will always be something to find that can tarnish their record when presented the right way.


----------



## ballz (31 Mar 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I was referring to the opinion piece, _repeated_ here, not your post:Grab a Valium and count the paragraphs above.
> 
> : , indeed.



Yeah yeah, easy mistake


----------



## Redeye (31 Mar 2011)

dangles said:
			
		

> On another note, why the #@%* is Ignatieff even a leader of the Liberals? I mean I am completely going on the information I received in a commercial [how he has not been in Canada for x amount of years, how he said the US is his country] so yes I know I could be better informed. I mean could they not have found a better leader with a less troubling past?
> 
> Please go easy on me though, I am only just beginning to be interested in Canadian politics so I do not know much about this or Ignatieff himself.
> *Link to commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaqNxU2Ea6w&feature=relmfu



It's a commercial - an attack ad - by a party that wants to go after him personally rather than issues, that's the simple answer.

Why's he leader?  Because the Liberal Party of Canada, through their process, chose him to be.

Ignatieff spent a long time out of Canada both in the United Kingdom and in the United States before returning to Canada and getting involved in politics.  Why this is spun as a negative is beyond me.  He's spent time in other countries, been exposed to other ideas and political systems, great.  It really makes no difference.

As for the "my America" quote -  that's a commonly used tactic called "quote mining" - extract a quote or soundbite from its context and use it to suggest something about the speaker that is not in fact true.  It's widely used and it's why you have to research such things.  I've not been able to find a complete transcript of the speech/source, but obviously it was directed at an American audience, and as a rhetorical device it's reasonable to assume that in the context the statement was made it made sense - if he's addressing, say, students at Harvard about something like political engagement - or really anyone in general, the statement's not an unreasonable one to work with.

The fact is petty attacks are the last resort of scoundrels, in general.  But they work on a lot of voters, which is why it's done.


----------



## ModlrMike (31 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The fact is petty attacks are the last resort of scoundrels, in general.  But they work on a lot of voters, which is why it's done.



It's convenient that you neglect to mention that it was the Liberals who opened that particular Pandora's box. "Guns in our streets" ring a bell?


----------



## Journeyman (31 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Why's he leader?


At the time, the options were Ignatieff, Dion, or Rae. Dion was seen to have lost the Liberals enough already, and Rae would cost too many Ontario votes. He was the only one left in the race.

I suspect they're all just marking time, waiting for Trudeau to become the party saviour.


----------



## Redeye (31 Mar 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It's convenient that you neglect to mention that it was the Liberals who opened that particular Pandora's box. "Guns in our streets" ring a bell?



The box was opened much longer than that, and never did I claim any one party didn't do it.  But hey, let's turn a statement about a particular thing into something bigger, why not?

Say, who was it that made the ads about Chretien's Bell's Palsy...? etc etc etc.

Or we could try to stick to more reasoned discussion.


----------



## Acer Syrup (31 Mar 2011)

I am a blue blooded, through, and true Conservative; but Harper IMHO will get stomped if he steps toe to toe with Ignatieff. His pedigree, eduction, and experiences (besides actually being PM) far out way Harper. Know your enemy, I have read pages and pages of his works. He is no dummy and won't come out swing wildly, they will deceive blows.

I saw picture of a CF member and Harper in Afghanistan and they were shaking hands. I asked that member "Weak hand shake?" and he replied "How did you know? Have you met him?" "Nope, it doesn't take a great judge of character to figure that one out."


----------



## Rheostatic (31 Mar 2011)

dangles said:
			
		

> Really? I'd love to know the context of that quote...very bizzare.


http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SpecialEvent7/20051213/elxn_harper_speech_text_051214/



			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> --- Quote from: ModlrMike on Today at 13:22:43 ---It's convenient that you neglect to mention that it was the Liberals who opened that particular Pandora's box. "Guns in our streets" ring a bell?
> --- End quote ---
> The box was opened much longer than that, and never did I claim any one party didn't do it.  But hey, let's turn a statement about a particular thing into something bigger, why not?
> 
> ...


Regardless of who started it, it's safe to say both parties have wandered down that road, to their discredit.


----------



## Redeye (31 Mar 2011)

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SpecialEvent7/20051213/elxn_harper_speech_text_051214/
> Regardless of who started it, it's safe to say both parties have wandered down that road, to their discredit.



Exactly!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Mar 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> It's a commercial - an attack ad - by a party that wants to go after him personally rather than issues, that's the simple answer.
> Why's he leader?  Because the Liberal Party of Canada, through their process, chose him to be.
> 
> Ignatieff spent a long time out of Canada both in the United Kingdom and in the United States before returning to Canada and getting involved in politics.  Why this is spun as a negative is beyond me.  He's spent time in other countries, been exposed to other ideas and political systems, great.  It really makes no difference.
> ...



The liebrals aren't lily white in this. Let's 'call a spade a spade'. Turning bull shyte spin and conjecture from the liebral press, but I suppose their supporters have some sort of excuse for saying it's OK for the liebrals because, it's not really the same, yada yada yada. : It's only a low life attack ad if it comes from the CPC right? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzoLVNs1eGI&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Rheostatic (31 Mar 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> They should have the PM and the leader of the Opposition have a one-on-one debate every year, and then have a seperate debate with the major party leaders afterwards (and no, that does not include YOU Elizabeth you baby). The debate right now is just a bunch of ganging up on one person (usually the PM for most issues), people trying to get quotable sound clips that are always clearly pre-planned and scripted, and a bunch of noise.


I like this idea. There's no reason why we can't do both. Call the second debate a "rematch" if you need to jazz it up. 

And I don't want to derail, but I hope they would include May (I think it was announced this morning that she was not invited). The Greens don't have a seat but they did earn a significant portion of the popular vote last time, and are the best argument for some kind of proportional representation.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Mar 2011)

http://thestar.blogs.com/davidolive/2011/03/a-chicken-and-a-liar.html

David Olive's Everybody's Business 03/31/2011

*A chicken and a liar.*

What on Earth possessed Harper yesterday to challenge Iggy to a duel? And less than 24 hours later refuse to show up? And then lie about the incident?

Here's Harper's "explanation" in Halifax today for why he's turning chicken in revoking his own challenge yesterday to Ignatieff for a one-on-one debate:

    We were open to all kinds of options. Our first preference was a direct debate with the leader of the coalition. Mr. Ignatieff insisted that his first preference was to have his coalition partners with him at the debate. That’s the format that was proposed. We’ve accepted it.

We've learned - or re-learned - these past few days how hard Harper has worked to rewrite the history of his many flirtations with a coalition of opposition parties including his own to deny power to the party winning the most seats. We've heard less about his climbdowns on writing to Ralph Klein with a brainwave on Alberta separatism (the scurrilous "firewall" letter of which Mr. H no longer speaks), and that Belgium, sight unseen by Harper, has a better form of government than Canada (still without a government a year after its most recent election, there's talk in Brussels of the country splitting up on ethnic lines as the former Czechoslovakia did); and JIm Flaherty's transports of admiration for a now-insolvent Ireland's ultra-low corporate-tax regime, which should be applied post haste to to Canada. The Tories forget all these things, and the MSM, appreciating that people change and ideas are in flux, hasn't dwelt on them.

And that, as an incident like this shows, was wrong. Since we've not challenged Harper on his past, we're all condemned to relive it. In the fake costing of 65 jet-fighter planes (Harper cost, $17 billion; real cost, $29 billion) to the non-costing of new and expanded prisons that would be required by Harper's proposed tougher sentencing guidelines. (The outside estimates are roughly $9 billion.) It was a vote on that contempt of the people's house, and not the budget, that brought this government down last Friday. 

But this episode is astonishing, a Harper rewrite of events that unfolded just yesterday. To the question of how far Harper will go in insulting the voters, there is no apparent answer.

Soon after Harper suggested the notion yesterday of squaring off with Iggy alone in a televised debate, Iggy's immediate response in fact was:

    A one-on-one debate? Any time, any place.

Iggy tweeted that response to the world, aware of the consequences of backing out.

Harper or his war room quickly decided the leaders' hustings challenge of a one-on-one debate was not such a great idea. So within hours, Harper was pulling back his own idea, in the most disengenuous way.

Harper yesterday tweeted Ignatieff:

    Curiously, my team proposed 1:1 to TV consortium today; however, your team did not speak up. 

That is, excuse me, horse dung. The "teams" take their orders from the leaders. If the teams were tied up in logistical knots about an agreed-upon mano-a-mano, they'd just have to figure it out. Because their leaders were on record agreeing to a duel, and voters give a rat's ass about logistics.

Each would invite accusations of cowardice if he backed down. So Harper has tried his best to depict Ignatieff as being the one to back out of a one-on-one debate.

And that's a lie.

Kinsella dumps all over Harper today as a "chicken."

It's worse. In this incident, Harper has shown himself to be cowardly and a liar.

I don't use either word lightly. I admonished Duceppe for his Day 2 labelling of Harper as liar for distorting the intent of the notorious 2004 letter signed by Harper, Duceppe and Layton, making themselves available for the G-G's consideration as a coalition government seeking to deny Martin the chance to lead a minority government. There's enough wiggle room in the wording of that document to make "liar" uncalled for.

The PM's conduct yesterday and today are different. The PM lied to Canadians. A bald-faced lie, and not about the actual intent of an arcane document seven years ago. But on the question of who said what when in recent hours about a challenge to a duel - something any voter can relate to.

I don't get it. Partisan sentiment aside, what Harper and Ignatieff said is on videotape and printed-out tweets. Common sense says you can't try the gambit of the cheatin' good 'ol boy of C&W songs, who, contronted by his wife, asks: "Who ya gonna believe, me or your cheatin' eyes?"

For the umpteeth time in a campaign not a week old, Harper has stepped on his own message. But it's Week 1 and no one's paying attention. At least that's one of the truisms of the game. I have a feeling, though, that this item has legs, as Variety would say. 

If the folks at Grit ad agency Red Leaf aren't splicing up footage right now for ads running during the NHL playoffs they should be fired.

Update

No name yet for the Tory campaign plane. Scott Feschuk suggests Chicken Wings.


----------



## GR66 (31 Mar 2011)

You typically won't find me jumping to Harper's defence, but I think David Olive needs to take a deep breath and maybe take some time to understand what actually happened.  My understanding of Harper's comment was that while the teams from ALL parties were discussing the televised debate format with the Broadcast Consortium the Conservatives floated the idea of a 1 on 1 debate between Harper and Ignatieff.  Harper stated that the Liberals didn't respond one way or the other AT THAT TIME to the suggestion...not that it would have mattered because frankly I can't see any way that the NDP, the Bloc, or the Broadcast Consortium would have gone for that set-up.

Harper's PUBLIC call for the 1 on 1 debate was AFTER the Broadcast Consortium (together with the teams from the various parties) agreed to the televised debate format.   The "proof" of Harper's cowardice apparently occured BEFORE Harper ever made the public challenge to Ignatieff!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Mar 2011)

God, can the liebral 'Red' Star be any more over the top and sensationalistic? Can they not even read english? News of the World, here we come.

Harper was tossing out hypotheticals. "We'd be open to doing this, this, or this. Whatever people want'

There was no open challenge to the Count Iggy, as all the leftist screaming tin foil brigade claim.

Harper chicken and a liar? How childish and immature. He's shown more balls in the last five years than the whole other side of the house put together.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Mar 2011)

The truth shall not stand in the way. I think, as posted previously, that the media has influence way out of proportion to any of their human abilities.

I fear that the election may be lost (my preference) due to the hatred of the media to all things/anything Mr. Harper.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Mar 2011)

>I suspect they're all just marking time, waiting for Trudeau to become the party saviour.

I don't see how being Margaret Trudeau's son qualifies one for high office...


If I had to draw up a top 10 list of Liberal fart-catchers, I'd be hard pressed to decide between David Olive or Aaron Wherry for #1.


----------



## Redeye (1 Apr 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The liebrals aren't lily white in this.



Never did I say they were.  Never did I even imply they were.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 Apr 2011)

Asked and answered:


----------



## hold_fast (8 Apr 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> "We'd be open to doing this, this, or this. Whatever people want'


Sounds like someone I want leading the country.


> There was no open challenge to the Count Iggy, as all the leftist screaming tin foil brigade claim.


Is it Count or Prince? I'm getting confused by where he is on the rung. It might affect my ballot, so I really want to be informed by what Russian dynasty he's connected to and how many people it would take to die for him to be the next President. or Tsar. or something.


----------



## Sythen (8 Apr 2011)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> Sounds like someone I want leading the country.



Love the drive by one liners from you. Its simple to understand that the debates are not for the candidates, they are for the people. PM Harper being open to whatever format the majority of people are in favor of is a good thing.


----------



## Scott (8 Apr 2011)

hold_fast said:
			
		

> Sounds like someone I want leading the country.Is it Count or Prince? I'm getting confused by where he is on the rung. It might affect my ballot, so I really want to be informed by what Russian dynasty he's connected to and how many people it would take to die for him to be the next President. or Tsar. or something.



Are you bored? Exams finished?

If you've got nothing constructive to add then don't post.

Staff


----------

