Harper willing to debate Ignatieff one-on-one

[ballz]

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.

Ignatieff made the statement in response to a question about a decision by broadcasters to keep Green Party Leader Elizabeth May out, in which he said he believed she should be included.

Wednesday, Harper said he was willing to take on Ignatieff.

"We're open to any number of possibilities. We could have a traditional debate of Parliamentary leaders, we could have a debate that includes Miss May in such a format, we could have a debate that includes every party that's on the ballot," Harper said.

"We could also have a debate between Mr. Ignatieff and myself, since, after all, the real choice in this election is a choice between a Conservative government or an Ignatieff-led government that all of these other parties will support.

"The networks will ultimately have to make a decision that serves the public interest and we will insist that it treat ourselves and all parties fairly."

Ignatieff responded a few minutes later at his own event in Vancouver.

"Anytime, any place," he said.

Harper visited an industrial manufacturer in southern Ontario Wednesday to announce the Conservatives would extend the accelerated capital cost allowance that allows businesses to write off the cost of new equipment faster. The measure was in the budget last week that died when the government fell.

Speaking at an event with local candidates at auto parts manufacturer Hydroform Solutions in Brampton, Ont., Harper stressed his party's lower-tax plan for businesses.

He also announced an extension of accelerated business write-offs for capital investments. He said this would help Canadian companies invest in machinery and equipment to raise productivity and create jobs.

"Our plan is designed to complete Canada’s economic recovery and support job creation," he said. "It will achieve these goals through incentives for protecting jobs and creating jobs by keeping taxes low."

Harper said that according to the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the accelerated capital cost allowance boosted investment by more than 11 per cent between 2006 and 2009.

"If you want people to invest, you need to make it easy for them," he said. "Lowering taxes on investments will create and protect jobs for Canadians."

He also mentioned an $80 million increase in funding to increase collaboration between manufacturers and colleges — the Industrial Research Assistance Program.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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.

Many people lament the poisonous atmosphere in Ottawa, and, fairly or unfairly, the ostensibly poor quality of those attracted into political service, especially career politicians. Mr. Ignatieff is the antithesis of this type.

He is indeed an extraordinary Canadian. He was listed as one of the world’s 100 leading public intellectuals by Foreign Policy for his thinking on the “tension between security and human rights, the fight against modern terrorism and the philosophy of freedom.” (That quote is taken from the citation of one of his 11 honorary degrees.) His books have received many awards, including the Governor-General’s Award for Literature and the George Orwell Prize, and one was short-listed for the Booker Prize. The American philosopher Francis Fukuyama called Mr. Ignatieff’s Lionel Gelber Prize-winning book, Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism, “a marvellous work that shows the diversity, complexity, agonies and horrors of nationalism with greater depth and insight than most, if not all, academic treatises.” He has written for The New Yorker, hosted programs for the BBC, and has held teaching positions at Cambridge, the University of London and Harvard.

No one would argue that Mr. Ignatieff’s achievements entitle him to ride a howdah to 24 Sussex Drive, whereby he would descend to take up his seat as prime minister. But at the same time, they should not be thrown in his face in the form of corrosive personal attacks.

The Conservatives have already tried to make Mr. Ignatieff’s career – read, his accomplishments – an issue. They have unleashed attack ads with the slogan “Ignatieff: he didn’t come back for you.” It is an ugly and impoverished strategy. There are many good reasons not to vote Liberal; the leader’s character is not one of them. For once, let’s debate ideas and not deride success.

 

[ballz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Many people lament the poisonous atmosphere in Ottawa, and, fairly or unfairly, the ostensibly poor quality of those attracted into political service, especially career politicians. Mr. Ignatieff is the antithesis of this type.

He is indeed an extraordinary Canadian. He was listed as one of the world’s 100 leading public intellectuals by Foreign Policy for his thinking on the “tension between security and human rights, the fight against modern terrorism and the philosophy of freedom.” (That quote is taken from the citation of one of his 11 honorary degrees.) His books have received many awards, including the Governor-General’s Award for Literature and the George Orwell Prize, and one was short-listed for the Booker Prize. The American philosopher Francis Fukuyama called Mr. Ignatieff’s Lionel Gelber Prize-winning book, Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism, “a marvellous work that shows the diversity, complexity, agonies and horrors of nationalism with greater depth and insight than most, if not all, academic treatises.” He has written for The New Yorker, hosted programs for the BBC, and has held teaching positions at Cambridge, the University of London and Harvard.

No one would argue that Mr. Ignatieff’s achievements entitle him to ride a howdah to 24 Sussex Drive, whereby he would descend to take up his seat as prime minister. But at the same time, they should not be thrown in his face in the form of corrosive personal attacks.

The Conservatives have already tried to make Mr. Ignatieff’s career – read, his accomplishments – an issue. They have unleashed attack ads with the slogan “Ignatieff: he didn’t come back for you.” It is an ugly and impoverished strategy. There are many good reasons not to vote Liberal; the leader’s character is not one of them. For once, let’s debate ideas and not deride success.

Grab a Valium and count the paragraphs above.

: , indeed.

 

[dangles]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.