Posted on 12/18/2005 7:21:20 AM PST by fanfan
MONTREAL -- Watching the federal leaders' debates this week left me with a strange sense of deja vu. It seems such a long time ago that John Manley and I squared off against Paul Martin in the Liberal leadership debate -- also in Vancouver.
It is hard to believe those debates were only 2 1/2 years ago. Since then, I have crossed over to the "dark side" (that's how politicians and journalists refer to each other), Manley has left public life and Martin is the leader of a divided party with internal hemorrhaging that continues to this day.
I felt it important to provide you with this backdrop so you might be in a better position to analyze the veracity of the messages that arose from the latest debates.
Normally in a debate, a key moment crystallizes the campaign; a fiery exchange helps viewers understand the differences in policies proposed by the candidates.
The new rules for last week's debates -- which were similar to those used in the Liberal leadership -- rendered such a moment impossible. There was little chance of a "breakout moment" where the public could get a glimpse of the real truth behind the carefully scripted statements and rebuttals.
Even the timing of the English debate -- on Friday night just before Christmas -- pretty much guaranteed that the majority of Canadians, rushing to get ready for the holiday season, wouldn't even see it.
A format which permits little interaction, in which leaders are admonished about debating each other and where microphones are conveniently cut off before challenges take place, leaves viewers hungering for a deeper understanding of the differences in views. Inconsistencies about past positions are left unchallenged and generally the leaders repeat their partisan view of the facts. We witness a kind of political infomercial in which each leader, unchallenged, tries to hammer away at the issues that will get him votes.
In French and English, the Prime Minister repeatedly tried to score points against the U.S., in a bid to move the debate onto ground that he knows is a fertile Liberal vote-getter.
Two and a half years ago, the same prime minister stood on another stage in Vancouver and took the exact opposite position! In fact, so critical was he of the era of Chretien-Bush relations that he endorsed the "perimeter North America" concept proposed by the Business Council on National Issues, which would essentially keep a common fence around, not between, Canada and the U.S. I also recall him working behind the scenes to undermine then-PM Jean Chretien's decision not to send troops to Iraq.
During that same Liberal debate, he also refused to support gay marriage and remained ambiguous about whether he would even sign the Kyoto accord.
Now, he obviously has changed his mind. In last week's debates, he emerged as pro-Kyoto, anti-Iraq-war and a booster of the Charter equality provisions which guarantee non-discrimination in civil marriage. A cynic might wonder what happened between Vancouver 2003 and Vancouver 2005.
If Martin's views have evolved, then we should give him credit for approaching issues with an open mind. (He did, of course, support gay marriage in a House of Commons vote.)
As well, in a party leadership debate, the target audience is different from that of an election debate.
But if Paul Martin is to be forgiven for changing his mind on three major issues in the space of less than three years, why do Liberals think can they score political points by dredging up Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's statements of eight years ago?
And why do certain media outlets think it is relevant to cover Harper's eight-year-old flip-flops but blank out when it comes to Martin's about-face on Kyoto, Iraq and gay marriage? Double standard, anyone?
During that same Liberal debate, he also refused to support gay marriage and remained ambiguous about whether he would even sign the Kyoto accord.
Canada Ping!
Please FReepmail me to get on or off this Canada ping list.
Add to the list of dithering ...
- Ballistic missle defense
- Offshore oil deals with NF and NS
Pathetic.
"I'm almost starting to like Sheila Copps."
In the same spirit as one has a grudging admiration for Trotsky as compared to Stalin. ;^)
LOL!
Audrey McLaughlin might have been Paul Martin in drag.
I wonder how many lefties are actually going to go out in the freezing cold of January and actually vote? One advantage we have is that Conservatives are pissed, we'll have a full turnout amongst our ranks, we're that fed up.
The Conservative party NEEDS to get TV ads out showing a lot of the Martin
flip-flops. Not enough Canadians are as into this as we are and the flip-flops
may not be evident..
This is an important election for Canada and I think we need to hit the Libs real hard
and that means going negative.. This is no time to play Mr nice guy...
I agree. Let them know....
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1045/
Paul Martin scares me so much...he is an embarrasment to Canada.
Wow, Shiela really, really doesn't like Martin. Don't think she doesn't hate Mr. Harper more but she has a vendetta and if we play our cards right we can use this to our advantage.
Does this happen? You have to be joking? I guess as there is no compulsory voting as in Australia, people only have to know the name of someone who is not voting and they can go along and vote twice! Am I going too far?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.