Friday, May 15, 2015

Stephen Harper and the Great Con Debate Scam

For almost ten years Stephen Harper has tried to brutalize this country beyond recognition, bludgeon our democracy, and rape our values.

But still his bestial lust for destruction isn't satisfied. 

Because now as you probably know, he's trying to blow up the party leader debates.

The federal Conservative party announced Tuesday it has shut the door on a proposal by Canada’s major television broadcasters to participate in the traditional televised leaders’ debates — this time two in English and two in French — along the same lines as in the past.

Instead, the Conservatives have accepted proposals for Stephen Harper to participate in at least two other debates, one in French hosted by TVA and one in English hosted by Rogers/Macleans/CityTV, and say they are open to as many as three more debates prior to the upcoming fall federal election — for five in all.

And although the fanatics in the PMO are trying to spin it as a win for democracy and diversity, all you need to know is the name of the Con front man running this grubby operation.

To know it's just a SCAM...

Yes, it's Kory Teneycke, the former Harper fluffer, the hapless right-wing ideologue who drove Sun TV into the ground. Now back on all fours at the PMO, trying to sell us another stinky fish.

Teneycke said the party turned down the traditional big TV networks’ proposal for four debates because they would “for practical purposes . . . effectively exclude other media and organizations capable of hosting debates of this nature.”

Because whatever hot air he blows out of any orifice, what those Con artists are really trying to do is FIX the debates, for their own crass political purposes.

By choosing the most favourable broadcasters, like the right-wing TVA network in Quebec. Removing from the mix some of the best moderators and journalists in the country. Replacing them with people like Paul Wells at Macleans, who wrote a Harper biography and never stops flattering him

And above all fragmenting the audience. And trying to make sure that as few Canadians as possible watch the debates.

And with good reason. Harper would rather we got our information from his massive propaganda machine. He's running from his record. 

And as Michael Harris points out, he's also running from his past. 

My congratulations to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative party; they’ve found an even better form of voter suppression than robocalls.

I guess Steve didn’t want the 10 million viewers that CTV, Global and the CBC have to offer. After all, a mass audience would only give his opponents a bigger opening to track for the entire nation the death spiral of democracy and the rule of law in Canada — to say nothing of the parody of Conservative ethical values the Harper regime now represents.

Because among other things he must be absolutely terrified by the thought that in the unforgiving eye of a mass audience he might be asked the question he once asked Paul Martin.

The defining moment of the 2006 debate came when Stephen Harper said: “Will you tell us Mr. Martin, how many criminal investigations are going on in your government?”

And be exposed to all those watching, as Boss Harper, the morally depraved leader of a criminal government.

At the time Steve asked Martin that question about criminal investigations in 2006, the correct answer would have been “two”. If someone were to ask Steve the same question during the 2015 debate, he wouldn’t have enough fingers on both hands to compute the response. By my count, the Harper team has been the subject of at least 15 investigations. The stable which he was supposed to muck out has become a pigsty on his watch.

So yes, it is just another Con scam. Another assault on our bleeding democracy.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a sucker, or needs a seeing eye dog.

And Harper is a just a cowardly leader trying to hide from his record....

But the good news is he's only doing it because he's desperate. 

We will use that cowardice against him to portray him as he is, in all his sleazy monstrosity.

And it will be just another good reason to get rid of him.

Before he corrupts us further...

Please click here to recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers.


  1. I think Harper is scared of Liz May. Since she aimed an F-bomb at the federal cabinet he's looking for a new closet. I expect he'll ensure that any debate he participates in excludes her.

    The other party leaders should stick with the traditional consortium's debates and watch what happens to the Conservatives hopes when Steve is a no show.

    1. hi UU4077....I honestly don't know what the other parties should do. Because without Harper even less people would watch which is exactly what he wants. He must be engaged but the other parties should be making a huge fuss over what he is trying to do...

  2. Anonymous9:16 AM

    I think the other leaders should go on with the usual format and networks and leave him in his symbolic closet. When I saw Teneyke on P&P I was uplifted. Harper has chosen a person to advise him who has run a whole network into the ground with his bad judgement. Another sneaky crook.

    1. hi anon....I think the parties should take the question to the brink, and try to force the Cons to back down. They can add more debates on other media if they want but only the big three TV networks can provide the number of viewers who should watch that debate...

  3. No one who votes watches the debates..let's be hones t here..
    If capturing the non-voters in Canada is what the agenda really is for the Opposition, what they should do is buy some time on US TV stations for the debates and discuss issues among themselves, without backbiting and nastiness...I would watch that, since the Harperoids have nothing to say that I want to hear anyway...
    All that the Cons will achieve is what they have achieved with their 24/7 online one watching but the faithful, and they won't be swayed by anything the Opposition has to say, and we all know it.
    Key in this election is getting out the vote, especially the young (yes, like Scotland!) and ignoring the stupidity spewing from the PMO...

    1. hi mizdarlin...I don't agree with you. I think that Harper should be engaged, because Mulcair will tear him to pieces. Harper likes to think he's a great debater, but I watch question period all the time and Mulcair grills him like a criminal. And after all the ammunition he has given us it would be a shame to waste. What harper is doing is trying to suppress viewers as he would suppress voters, and he can't be allowed to get away with it...

  4. Anonymous1:14 PM

    Nonsense. The debates for the past ~15-20 years as organized by the consortium have been truly awful. They're weren't really debates, they were flimsy excuses for the leaders to stick to their talking points, where they were never actually challenged, drawn offguard or forced to think, much less, forced to think on their feet.

    And in Harper's case, repeat them, his talking points, ad nauseum while staring directly into the camera with the most sallow, blank expression I think I've ever seen from anyone. I'm a Harper voter, and seriously, during that last leader's debate it looked like he could have been carved out of wood. And that's not meant to be a favorable review, he could have been a mannequin during that debate. I've seen bricks more animated than Harper.

    Therefore, I'm thankful to be spared, hopefully, that degree of mind-numbing insipid, tedious attempt to score a stupid knock-out punch instead of actually weighing and measuring the leader's positions.

    Blood hell, the Consortium proposed debates moderated by TV stars, who aren't exactly impartial. How about being moderated by someone with a grasp of the issues, instead of someone from the media party? And how about someone who tries to draw the leaders offguard instead of the sycophants in the media?

    And how about Elizabeth May? I wouldn't be caught dead voting for the gun-grabber, but is she invited to the debate or not? Invited in 2008, un-invited in 2011? By what criteria should she be included or not? Could we have a clearly defined criteria for inclusion? Official party status maybe? That might be a good measure, but it could just be a singular non-independent seat in the house, I'd be okay with that too, but how about some disclosure? From the consortum, not so much.

    This will actually be *good* for democracy. Might be one of the best things to happen to our democracy in a long time.

    1. Anonymous5:29 PM

      OK, you have convinced us that you voted for a guy who could have been carved out of wood, a mannequin, and repeated his talking points ad nauseam. Seems to me, your judgment is very questionable, if not actually poor, so why would we believe you have anything useful to say about the consortium organized debates?

      If you are truly so biased that you have no problems admitting you voted for Harper despite his piss poor performance in the debate, what skin do you have in who hosts the debates, and why are you apparently pretending that you are really all for improving the quality of the debates?

      Is this the new Con, or maybe "con" line that you perhaps hope will fool the weak minded? Or is it Liz May that has your guy peeing in his pants and is desperate to avoid? Lol

    2. hi anon I:14.... I don't disagree with you that the debates the consortium has organized could be a little more lively, and maybe they can change the format and have more of them. But the point I'm trying to get across is that only the three big networks can deliver the number of viewers that should watch this debate. Having five small networks, or streaming something from Macleans won't deliver half the viewership. That proposal is just an attempt to reduce the number of viewers, and that's what's wrong with it...

    3. Anonymous9:47 AM

      Anon 5:29 - My judgement only appears poor because 1) you don't understand the rationale behind it. I'm not sure you are capable of understanding it period, suffice it to say, you don't understand. When you understand, maybe we can talk about why my understanding might be incorrect. 2) Because my judgement doesn't agree with yours. Is anything I've said about the debates not factual?

      And as for Elizabeth May, I'm not of particularly strong feelings about whether or not she should be included. I am of strong feelings however, of setting a standard for the inclusion or non-inclusion of what you could call small parties, and sticking to it. This invite one year, and not the next is bullshit. Either she meets the standard, whatever that is, or she doesn't, but pick one, and stick to it.

      Simon; I'm not sure that the viewership argument is persuasive, and it's because the consortium doesn't do a good job reaching people, and providing enough space for depth. The Americans are leaps and bounds ahead of us in this regard. The Republican candidates for the last presidential nomination had over twenty (20) debates. The Democrats had almost as many at I think it was seventeen (17) debates.

      The presidential debates tend to vary a little, but are usually are broken into three (3) segments 90 minutes each. And as they're set up by an independent body, moderated often by a university professor, often at a major university, and I find upon review that the candidates know their platforms in considerable depth.

      In Canada we've tended to have one English debate, and one French debate, sometimes two hours each, sometimes less, with a format that encourages the leaders to talk over each other and take cheap shots at each other. As a bilingual Canadian, I tend to tune into both. But most people aren't fully bilingual, and so they only tend to watch one or the other. As such, the format doesn't lend its self to exploring the issues in depth, and I like depth. So, on average, if people pay very close attention to the debate, we see the leaders talk over each other and parrot inane talking points for maybe, two hours. In America, it's four and a half. Six, if we include the VP debates. That gives the candidates the ability to be well-prepared and explore the issues in depth, and reach many people. Where we have very shallow exploration, under optimal circumstances, far less exposure to the leaders.

      If you're correct about Harper, then depth can only help your candidates, and depth is something we don't get with the consortium.

      As for sheer numbers, invite the networks anyway, I'm in favor of them broadcasting the debates. But I don't favor them being in control.

  5. Anonymous1:29 PM

    I'm probably in the wrong area to post this, but I find it simply amazing how, STEVE continues to LIE, RIP OFF ALL Canadians, and travels the world, as the "GREAT WARRIOR" seeking approval, giving CANADA away for "FREE" ... at other websites I read how "CANADIANS" are disgusted in him ... TODAY they all love him because the other Federal Leader's members are cutting up their cards, due to that NEW BILL ... WHAT A SCAM !!!!! ... There's that old saying "U can lead a jack-arse to water but U cannot make him drink" ... at least a HORSE will drink the water ... Thanks for listening ... I LOVE THIS WEBSITE SIMON !!!!!

    1. hi anon...thank you, and those are as you know the questions I ask myself all the time. I simply refuse to allow this outrageous disrespect for democracy and decency to become the new normal. Far too many in this country are far too complacent, and we need to shake them out of it....

  6. Harper is a coward. The last thing he wants is 10 million of the Canadian majority, who he has given the finger to for more then 4yrs watch him get desimated in a debate with the other leaders. His campaign is completely choreographed. Will he speak in front of a group of Canadians that are not part of his base or conservative friendly? He rules from the sidelines and he campaigns from the sideline. This is one arrogant buffoon.

    1. hi Pamela...exactly, that's all it is. He doesn't want a large audience watch him being grilled on his shabby record. Every speech he gives is a tightly controlled photo-op, where questions are choreographed, and the media must watch at a distance. And this is just more of the same. A blatant attempt to control the debates, and an absolute scam...

  7. e.a.f.4:23 PM

    Stevie is a coward. Stevie is a coward. Stevie is a coward.

    1. hi e.a.f.. a coward AND a control freak who has lived in his bubble of power so long he's afraid somebody might pop it...

  8. Anonymous5:39 PM

    Macleans has several Con friendly pundits/ journalists (e.g. Paul Wells, Colby Cosh) who, as moderators, could possibly frown on any attempts by Mulcair or Trudeau to point out the fairy tales that Dear Leader would be weaving.

    Remember how Obama was taken aback, to his disadvantage, by Romney's flipping back 180 degrees on important issues during the first debate? Not difficult to imagine the moderator allowing Dear Leader to get away with that by stopping the others from pointing out the flip flops.

    Then after he wins, there could be a new bunch of Senate appointments ... Senator Wells, eh?

    1. hi anon...I'm not saying that Wells is a bad journalist, but if you write a biography os someone, you do tend to get closer to that person, and Wells does have a soft spot for Harper. Like quite a few other journalists, he sees Harper as a shrewd political operator, and seems to forget the moral dimension. Besides how many ordinary Canadians are going to go to the trouble of watching a debate on the internet. Those who follow politics closely will, but I doubt many others will....

  9. debate as usual without harper if
    he wants to play games. he'll look bad and also mulcair can shred trudeau and take care of vote-splitting concerns!

    1. hi's tempting to do that, but neither the NDP or the Liberals will win if they just attack each other. We need to attack Harper, degrade him, and defeat him or we will end up exactly where we are now...

  10. Anonymous2:29 AM!!!!!