Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children? Um, Not You, Jack
So, all leaders of federal parties suck. This suckiness was on parade on last night's English leaders' debate. It probably behooves me (whatever the hell that means) to offer some sort of comment. So, here goes nothing:
If the debate had a winner, it was Stephen Harper. Watching his performance, the charges Martin was levelling at him about his being Stockwell Mk. II didn't seem credible. Overall, Harper made a good first impression. The problem is that he might be two weeks away from becoming Canada's twenty-second post-Confederation Prime Minister: shouldn't we be past first impressions by now? Shouldn't we already have a clear understanding of where he's coming from? Also, he seemed a little, uh, non-human, by whch I means that I'm pretty sure I actually saw his tongue dart out to catch a fly at one point. Over all, he was the most invisible contender in a debate that was supposed to catapult him into our hearts and minds.
Jack Layton, at least, was a presence, where "presence" is a euphemism for "probable child molester". The moustache is creepy enough, but when combined with that big omnipresent grin of his. . . well, let's just say that if children are the nation's future, I don't want Jack handling the future. Or even coming within fifty feet of it. Also, Jack, here's a tip: the NDP is supposed to be the good guy, the principled loser. You exhibited far too much smugness and self-satisfaction to play this role, and instead played the role of that obnoxious guy nobody liked in junior high (we'll call him Steve). He easily did himself the most damage, and was the debate's clear loser.
Paul Martin came across as what he is - an indecisive demagogue afraid of answering questions. While he gets points for cracking one of the evening's two jokes, asking Layton if his handlers told him to talk all of the time (which prompted one of the crowd of hacks with whom I was watching the debate, probably Kyle Kawanami, to comment on the irony of Paul Martin admonishing anybody else for having their actions dictated by handlers). He stumbled and stammered in response to his opponents' questions, and once actually said "I'd love to answer your question, but we're out of time". He didn't get any points in against anybody but Layton, and at that debate a reasonably gifted four year old could have scored points Inadvertently, however, he may have provided Canadians with their most compelling argument yet for putting the Grits back in: a Stephen Harper government will be blessed with the least effective leader of the opposition in a long time.
And then there's Gilles "Smiley" Duceppe, who came off rather well, mostly by default. Certainly, he's the only one of the four that I trust. On the other hand, allowances need to be made for the fact that he has nothing to defend, and is free to spend all of his time on the attack. He also had the best line of the evening: "Me too," in response to Stephen Harper's assertion that he wanted a sovereign nation.
No, actually, Alex Abboud had the best line of the night: "When [Paul Martin] talks about a woman's right to choose, is he talking about suffrage?"
Last word, as always, to Paul Wells: "What a bunch of braying jackasses. The lot of them."
|
So, all leaders of federal parties suck. This suckiness was on parade on last night's English leaders' debate. It probably behooves me (whatever the hell that means) to offer some sort of comment. So, here goes nothing:
If the debate had a winner, it was Stephen Harper. Watching his performance, the charges Martin was levelling at him about his being Stockwell Mk. II didn't seem credible. Overall, Harper made a good first impression. The problem is that he might be two weeks away from becoming Canada's twenty-second post-Confederation Prime Minister: shouldn't we be past first impressions by now? Shouldn't we already have a clear understanding of where he's coming from? Also, he seemed a little, uh, non-human, by whch I means that I'm pretty sure I actually saw his tongue dart out to catch a fly at one point. Over all, he was the most invisible contender in a debate that was supposed to catapult him into our hearts and minds.
Jack Layton, at least, was a presence, where "presence" is a euphemism for "probable child molester". The moustache is creepy enough, but when combined with that big omnipresent grin of his. . . well, let's just say that if children are the nation's future, I don't want Jack handling the future. Or even coming within fifty feet of it. Also, Jack, here's a tip: the NDP is supposed to be the good guy, the principled loser. You exhibited far too much smugness and self-satisfaction to play this role, and instead played the role of that obnoxious guy nobody liked in junior high (we'll call him Steve). He easily did himself the most damage, and was the debate's clear loser.
Paul Martin came across as what he is - an indecisive demagogue afraid of answering questions. While he gets points for cracking one of the evening's two jokes, asking Layton if his handlers told him to talk all of the time (which prompted one of the crowd of hacks with whom I was watching the debate, probably Kyle Kawanami, to comment on the irony of Paul Martin admonishing anybody else for having their actions dictated by handlers). He stumbled and stammered in response to his opponents' questions, and once actually said "I'd love to answer your question, but we're out of time". He didn't get any points in against anybody but Layton, and at that debate a reasonably gifted four year old could have scored points Inadvertently, however, he may have provided Canadians with their most compelling argument yet for putting the Grits back in: a Stephen Harper government will be blessed with the least effective leader of the opposition in a long time.
And then there's Gilles "Smiley" Duceppe, who came off rather well, mostly by default. Certainly, he's the only one of the four that I trust. On the other hand, allowances need to be made for the fact that he has nothing to defend, and is free to spend all of his time on the attack. He also had the best line of the evening: "Me too," in response to Stephen Harper's assertion that he wanted a sovereign nation.
No, actually, Alex Abboud had the best line of the night: "When [Paul Martin] talks about a woman's right to choose, is he talking about suffrage?"
Last word, as always, to Paul Wells: "What a bunch of braying jackasses. The lot of them."
