13 Apr Debate: readers disagree… and agree

Ritchie Simpson writes:

I just bet you were the guy behind the Robert Stanfield Banana pic, which was my first taste of negative campaigning. I know, I know it was the media and not the LPC that had its foot on the gas on that one, but then,  as now, it’s almost impossible to distinguish between the CBC and the LPC.  Still I fail to see what ignites your passions for this minor intellectual arriviste.

The tragedy here is that the best among this bunch of midgets is nominally a separatist.

Another reader is “baffled by Contrarian’s

…optimistic reading of Michael Ignatieff’s stumbling, stammering, word-grasping, repetitive, negative performance last night.  Isn’t a Harvard professor supposed to be good in a debate?

Harper, on the other hand, much as I hate all he stands for, used clear language, stayed calm, and parried blow after blow with what sounded like facts and positive policy, rather than negative attack.

I think Canadians are used to his terrible “silent test” performance — helmet hair, piss-hole eyes, mouth full of distaste, and I think last night he didn’t look as bad as he usually does.

For me, the expectations ran the opposite to how you laid them out. I expected Harper to be angry and arrogant, but he wasn’t so bad. I thought Ignatieff would shoot holes in him, but he stammered and struggled for words so much I was taken aback.  Layton wasn’t bad, although I wish he’d smile less, and I was afraid that Gille’s eyes were going to burst out of his head.

Perhaps Contrarian is strategically doing his best to influence the interpretation of the debate.

Bruce Wark adds:

Not sure I would go as far as you do in predicting the outcome of the election, but I do agree that Ignatieff shone in the debate in spite of what all the insider pundits and hacks were saying.

As you know, the pack mentality is a huge problem in press galleries. I served six long years at the Ontario legislature and although I understood, in theory at least, the dangers of pack thinking, I believed we gallery hacks were so well-informed that it couldn’t possibly apply to us.  We knew for a fact (as certain as night follows day) that the Conservatives would continue in power for at least another 42 years! How could it be otherwise? Every morning we began the day in the press gallery coffee room where we assured each other that Ontario was a Red Tory province and that the Liberals and NDP had absolutely no chance because they would always split the opposition vote.

Then came the 1985 provincial election and the beginning of the end for the Tories. I was co-anchor on the CBC election night radio broadcast and I seriously thought the computers were malfunctioning as the results showed one “safe” Conservative seat after another falling like nine pins.

“This simply cannot be happening,” I thought in panic. Later, after I had calmed down, I realized that the denizens of the press gallery had not been wrong after all. It was the ill-informed voters who just didn’t get it. Long live the pack mentality!

Andrew Terris, who has been promoting Project Democracy’s Anybody But Harper strategic voting campaign, writes:

Harper did much better than I expected.  He was smooth, even, had a consistent narrative, and deflected criticisms well.  He was very effective at playing his good management of the economy against the “bickering” of the opposition and the “unnecessary” election, all the while appearing calm and assured and “prime ministerial.”  At first I was impressed, but the more he went on, the more the self-conscious smoothness started to feel like slime.  My conclusion?  He had the finest media coaching money could buy.

Meanwhile, the opposition felt scattershot.  I expected much more from Iggy, less from Jack, and little from Duceppe who is severely hampered by his poor command of the English language.  And Iggy totally missed one golden opportunity to nail Harper for the vicious personal attack ads.

My sincere hope is that below-the-media-radar-viral-internet campaigns like Project Democracy and Catch 22 will have a significant effect on the election.  This is the kind of stuff the inside-the-beltway “commentariat” (Layton’s term) usually misses until it’s too late. We shall see.

PS: Harper used the word “clear” at least 467 times, which in the world of Orwellian doublespeak means that he had an awful lot to hide.

PPS: Just read Steve Maher’s Herald column about the debate.  He nailed it.

A Contrarian friend writes:

I have to differ with you on the debate. Ignatieff was extremely strong and well presented, especially in the first half, but by the end, it seemed like all of them (with the partial exception of Duceppe) were reciting their well rehearsed attacks and/or responses. And as someone in NB pointed out this morning, Iggy didn’t achieve an Obama-like, “Follow Me” moment — though he may yet pull it off. The education “learning passport” plank came close, but he seemed to be pleading last night to be known as the learning prime minister.

Contrarian Wayne Moores writes:

Well Parker, at least you are consistent. Claiming the Count won the debate. You would be saying the same if he keeled over from cardiac arrest in the first minute. Would have won it on style points, no doubt. I suggest you look at the polls which you assured us would show Iggie triumphant with the proletariat. According to one on line poll with absolutely no axe to grind showed Iggie in third place at 9%, Jack at 11% and the “Evil Harper” at 40%. This poll was on the MSN website. Look for yourself if you wish. No doubt you will conclude that “shadowy forces” had rigged it somehow. Iggie blew it and everyone but you and Jane Taber knows it. Cheers. See you on election day.

Heather Holm writes:

Ignatieff’s body language and tone of voice matched what he was saying, unlike Harper’s.  He showed an internal congruency and authenticity that you just don’t see in Harper.  This is what bothers many people about Harper: you can’t read the man.  His soothing voice and his passive face mask whatever it is that he is really feeling. Sure Harper “did well,” but it was acting – and from a script.  It leads many of us not to trust him. Many other people, unfortunately, are deceived and satisfied by the mask.  By contrast, Ignatieff’s considerable intellect is much better aligned with his heart and soul.