Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
Sherman probably did more to help the PCs than Redford did in this debate, Redford certainly didn't win anybody over herself (though I can't imagine she lost anybody either). Hell, the NDP could probably steal from the Libs as well.
Considering how much the NDP and Libs were ganging up on Redford I don't think Smith took advantage as much as she could have.
All in all it was like a federal debate, a complete waste of time for everybody, only this time it had commercials.
Did anybody do anything other than try for the sound bite/talking point?
That wasn't a debate, it was a collective/joint talking point session.
Good characterization, that was horrible. It was like every answer was scripted, even the "free debate" parts. One of the trailing parties should have let loose and acted like a real person having a discussion up there. In Smith's case, most people thought she would do well because of her television experience, but clearly debating involves skills beyond looking at the camera properly and enunciating well. Also, was there a camera shining right at her? She was squinting the whole night.
Did anybody do anything other than try for the sound bite/talking point?
That wasn't a debate, it was a collective/joint talking point session.
To me it looks as Redford tried to bring forward arguments a few times. As an example, the citizen referendum where she argued the legal implications of having them (her training as a lawyer surely helped). Another example was the MLA pay where having a third party evaluate the fairness of their remuneration is a reasonable position. "I don't need a judge to tell me what to do", might sound like a great soundbite for the average Joe Blow, but is this really how you think public policy should be set? The lowest moment for Redford was at the beginning, when Mason quoted Redford from the Hansard. She looked confused and all she could say was "it's not true, it's not true."
Danielle was populist from the beginning to the end and she really didn't have to try hard to do anything, given she is the front runner. Was enough for her not to blunder, which she didn't. As one columnist put it, she won by not losing. As personality, to me she seemed arrogant. Several of her answers began with a smirk and with "I must be the only one, etc, etc...". She didn't look (maybe she didn't even try) premier-like, but was rather folksy and simplistic.
Raj Sherman managed to speak a lot, both about his policies and attacking Redford. However, except when talking about health care, he was very unfocused and repetitive. Also he doesn't strike me as being very likeable for the average voter, his delivery sounded a bit awkward and forced at times.
I thought Brian Mason did very well. He spoke clearly, stayed focused, had a good knowledge of the issues, and came out as a likeable character. Unfortunately for the him, the voting pool for NDP is pretty small in Alberta.
The format wasn't very good and the free debates were way too short. They barely scratched the surface of an issue and they had to move to something else. That encouraged the "catchy sound bites" approach at the expense of a deeper debate.
All in all, I don't think this debate will move the polls that much. Perhaps NDP will get a slight bump at the expense of the Libs. But what do I know, stranger things have happened. here's hoping Danielle crashes and burns.
To me it looks as Redford tried to bring forward arguments a few times. As an example, the citizen referendum where she argued the legal implications of having them (her training as a lawyer surely helped). Another example was the MLA pay where having a third party evaluate the fairness of their remuneration is a reasonable position. "I don't need a judge to tell me what to do", might sound like a great soundbite for the average Joe Blow, but is this really how you think public policy should be set? The lowest moment for Redford was at the beginning, when Mason quoted Redford from the Hansard. She looked confused and all she could say was "it's not true, it's not true."
Agreed about the Hansard part.
Alternatively, I think your personal preference might be slightly impairing your political analysis on much of the rest. The exchange on pay was a big loss for Redford.
Quote:
Danielle was populist from the beginning to the end and she really didn't have to try hard to do anything, given she is the front runner. Was enough for her not to blunder, which she didn't. As one columnist put it, she won by not losing. As personality, to me she seemed arrogant. Several of her answers began with a smirk and with "I must be the only one, etc, etc...". She didn't look (maybe she didn't even try) premier-like, but was rather folksy and simplistic.
The "I must be the only one" was a very obvious effort at differentiation from the rest of the field (which I think is a wise strategy). The more she can make Redford look the same as Raj and Mason, the more she wins.
Quote:
Raj Sherman managed to speak a lot, both about his policies and attacking Redford. However, except when talking about health care, he was very unfocused and repetitive. Also he doesn't strike me as being very likeable for the average voter, his delivery sounded a bit awkward and forced at times.
If the poor guy had some flow and rythm he would have been able to have a much bigger impact on the debate.
Quote:
I thought Brian Mason did very well. He spoke clearly, stayed focused, had a good knowledge of the issues, and came out as a likeable character. Unfortunately for the him, the voting pool for NDP is pretty small in Alberta.
I, too, thought he did well. Just in talking with some non-politicos the morning after and a few people have said they were weirded out that he seemed to avoid eye contact with the camera and, according to one girl, he had 'creepy eyebrows.'
Quote:
The format wasn't very good and the free debates were way too short. They barely scratched the surface of an issue and they had to move to something else. That encouraged the "catchy sound bites" approach at the expense of a deeper debate.
The format was a travesty. In my opinion, there should be two debates. One at the end of the first week of the campaign and one the third week of the campaign. They should be split, one on the economy/finances, the other on everything else (social issues, governance, etc). I mean, people complain that our politicians aren't nearly enough about substance, yet then we put them at a podium and tell them they've got 30 seconds to talk about serious issues. When one 'small' portion of each issue could be the subject of an entire graduate level seminar.
This comes back, somewhat, to a point I made a while ago in another thread. As much as everybody likes to blame the politicians for their style/approach/methods, I actually think they're only partially responsible. There are three key components responsible for the state of our politics. Obviously politicians are one of them. The electorate is another. However, perhaps primarily, the gotcha/sound bite media is very responsible, too.
Quote:
All in all, I don't think this debate will move the polls that much. Perhaps NDP will get a slight bump at the expense of the Libs. But what do I know, stranger things have happened. here's hoping Danielle crashes and burns.
I thought Mason should have made something more of an effort to promote himself as the party/defender of Edmonton.
On abortion: “... Any politician who challenges the status quo gets pilloried by the media, abortion rights groups and opposing politicians ... Yet, second- and third-trimester abortions are a horrific practice ... Most Canadians respect that the decision is between a woman, her doctor and God, but I’m sure they also agree that the taxpayer should not be on the hook to pay for it.”
Quote:
On university behaviour codes: “It is perfectly reasonable (to) expect its students to refrain from practices that are biblically condemned, and sign a pledge not to get drunk, swear, harass, lie, cheat, steal, have an abortion, practise the occult, or engage in sexual sins such as premarital sex, adultery, homosexual behaviour and viewing of pornography.”
Quote:
On the courts: “There are several decisions social conservatives point to in order to make the case the courts are out of control: Striking down the abortion law, the change in the traditional definition of marriage, the legalization of swingers’ clubs.”
Quote:
These days, however, Smith is a professional politician. She is, accordingly, crafty. Despite those very clear words above, she now claims she is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and so on. The person she is today doesn’t resemble the person she used to be.
Wildrose candidate Allan Hunsperger wrote about his views on homosexuality on his blog in 2011. Hunsperger, a minister with The House church in Tofield, suggested if gays and lesbians continue to choose their sexual orientation they will suffer in the afterlife: “You will suffer the rest of eternity in the lake of fire, hell.”
Hunsperger suggested that for their own sake, gays and lesbians must be made aware of the imperative to change, and not simply accept who they are, as singer Lady Gaga suggests they do. “Accepting people the way they are is cruel and not loving!”
^ The Sun article was written by Warren Kinsella. Not exactly an impartial voice on the subject. And when Liberals are trying to come to the defense of the Alberta PC party -- stick a fork in 'em. They're done.
The Alberta PCs have been in power too long and whatever core conservative beliefs they had have rotted beyond repair. They've allowed their provincial finances to seriously deteriorate since Klein's departure and there was no need for it. This Redford clown rightly belongs in the Liberal party, if not the New Democrats; there's not a conservative bone in her body. She's going to get smoked at this election and rightfully so. Albertans need to eject these phony PCs from power and allow that party to purge from itself all its power-seekers and hangers-on.
I find the wailing from the liberal/progressive columns of the country about the fate of the Alberta PCs both highly amusing and highly telling.
^ The Sun article was written by Warren Kinsella. Not exactly an impartial voice on the subject. And when Liberals are trying to come to the defense of the Alberta PC party -- stick a fork in 'em. They're done.
Kinsella was hardly coming to the defense of the PC party (though he is from Alberta and is none too sympathetic to the Alberta Liberals), all he's doing is reposting Danielle Smith in her own words, which is quite different from Danielle Smith the politician. Add to it that she clearly supports a contemptible homophobe like Allan Hunsperger and it fairly clearly shows Wildrose is just another Reform Party, warts and all.
Kinsella was hardly coming to the defense of the PC party (though he is from Alberta and is none too sympathetic to the Alberta Liberals), all he's doing is reposting Danielle Smith in her own words, which is quite different from Danielle Smith the politician. Add to it that she clearly supports a contemptible homophobe like Allan Hunsperger and it fairly clearly shows Wildrose is just another Reform Party, warts and all.
I wonder how the Intelligent Octogenarians feel now that the Social Credit and CCF are the largest parties in Canada.
Hilarious; I had just said how I thought that the PCs could/should talk to Kinsella about his strategy to deny standing to Day!
But does Kinsella think that a little Alberta bashing is going to help the PCs? I actually don't think he cares whether the PCs win or not. He would way sooner prefer a real conservative in Alberta so as to have that boogie man available to use against the federal Tories (though I think that ship has sailed, too).
Kinsella was hardly coming to the defense of the PC party (though he is from Alberta and is none too sympathetic to the Alberta Liberals), all he's doing is reposting Danielle Smith in her own words, which is quite different from Danielle Smith the politician. Add to it that she clearly supports a contemptible homophobe like Allan Hunsperger and it fairly clearly shows Wildrose is just another Reform Party, warts and all.
And Trudeau was a provincialist decentralizer prior to entering politics...
Worth quite the laugh though... " SMITH IS WORSE THAN A LIAR "
It's going to be neat television watching the election night coverage. Probably most interesting provincial election campaign (outside of my home province - in the sense i have no real direct interest or rooting interest) in my lifetime.
Look beyond the person and look at the message. It's not Alberta bashing, it's hypocrite and bigot bashing.
You find me a succesful politician who's politics haven't evolved/changed to the point of taking some old quotes and comparing them to the present to present them as hypocrits.
I find it funny that people are questioning Smith's sincerity about being pro-life and pro-choice. Both Harper and Klein both, personally, held those views and it didn't prevent them from success with the Alberta electorate.
Smith and her supporters tried to avoid discussion (though it was well known) during her leadership bid about those contentious issues because it could have cost her a lot of votes. And now a position which could have been politically damaging to her earlier (pro-life, pro-choice) is only a facade and is ingenuine?
It's going to be neat television watching the election night coverage. Probably most interesting provincial election campaign (outside of my home province - in the sense i have no real direct interest or rooting interest) in my lifetime.
I don't ever recall there being even a fraction of the coverage for any of the other elections that there has been for this election.
I'm curious, is it something people are paying much attention too (in as much as Canadians pay attention to politics) out east?
There's hardly anything scary about being a provincialist decentralizer...
I consider myself to be one.
My point was that taking some random, select, old quotes and trying to use them to dismiss a person is easy to do with almost every politician of note.
I don't ever recall there being even a fraction of the coverage for any of the other elections that there has been for this election.
I'm curious, is it something people are paying much attention too (in as much as Canadians pay attention to politics) out east?
The interest seems higher among political junkies, but I don't think it's water cooler talk among anyone else. Certainly the national media is focusing more on this election than any one I can remember in quite some time. Maybe a few of the Quebec ones, but there's a different national dynamic in those ones that makes it apples and oranges, really.
You find me a succesful politician who's politics haven't evolved/changed to the point of taking some old quotes and comparing them to the present to present them as hypocrits.
I find it funny that people are questioning Smith's sincerity about being pro-life and pro-choice. Both Harper and Klein both, personally, held those views and it didn't prevent them from success with the Alberta electorate.
Smith and her supporters tried to avoid discussion (though it was well known) during her leadership bid about those contentious issues because it could have cost her a lot of votes. And now a position which could have been politically damaging to her earlier (pro-life, pro-choice) is only a facade and is ingenuine?
Repeatedly you advocated for more independence and importance of individual MPs or MLA. But now you discount the bigoted views of some of Wildrose candidates as being unimportant, because Danielle Smith doesn't personally have these views. You cannot have it both ways.
If Allan Hunsperger was the Wildrose candidate in your riding, would you vote for him on the basis that you like Danielle? Isn't voting for him (because one checks the ballot for a person, not for a party) an approval of his view and a mandate to represent those views in the legislature?
I sort of want to live in that sort of ideal world. Where women can't do anything, maybe that would spare us Danielle Smith being in politics and instead she would become an object to look at.
I'm a Liberal and I would hit.
