Tuesday, May 19, 2015
The Cowardly Dodger Stephen Harper and the Great Con Debate Scam
It's frustrating to see that even some of my readers think that Stephen Harper's crass attempt to fix the party leader's debates might be good for progressives.
And are sending me comments like this one, with lots of periods in it:
Anonymous 2:29 AM
So that I might read it slowly, and understand that hopeful belief better.
Even though I thought I had made it clear that Harper's plan, as might be expected, is just another grubby Con scam.
So. I. guess. I'm. going. to. have. to. be. even. clearer.
(1) Stephen Harper doesn't like to answer questions about the sordid record of his terminally rotten regime. That's why he rarely holds press conferences.
And why he's always dodging Question Period.
Stephen Harper skipped out on answering opposition questions in the House of Commons more often in 2015 than in any other year he has been prime minister. Harper has attended only 35 per cent of the daily question periods in 2015, his lowest rate for any year since 2006, a Citizen analysis found.
(2) Even when he does bother to show up, he doesn't answer many questions.
On days he shows up, Harper answers an average of eight questions, and in recent years has adopted the custom of only responding to questions from other party leaders, not other opposition MPs.
(3) When asked a question like this one from Tom Mulcair, he clearly thinks he can get away with limp answers like this one.
Because he knows that just a handful of ordinary Canadians are watching.
(4) His debate proposal is designed to keep it that way. By giving the debate to smaller media organizations, which would both shrink and fragment the coverage.
(5) While he makes vice sound like virtue...
And somehow manages to con so many in the MSM, that you have to travel all the way to Nanaimo to find a media outlet that questions his motives.
Canadians may roll their eyes and hold their noses through political debates during federal elections - yearning for knockout punches the debates generally don't deliver. But voters clearly pay attention. In 2011 the leaders' debates drew more than 10 million viewers.
For many voters, it's the only chance to hear the contenders in a face-to-face debate. And many voters start making up their minds only after the debates.
So why then are Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives so anxious to wrest control away from the consortium of major broadcasters that traditionally hosts these events, and let other media outfits stage mini-versions?
One that also wonders what else Kory Teneycke, the Harper fluffer and failed former head of Sun TV News, might demand?
Will the Conservatives try to nix embarrassing subjects? Or hold out for longer rebuttal time? Or a Tory-blue backdrop? And what sort of pushback might they expect from non-consortium hosts? Lots of debates? By all means. But let's not toss out the main event for a series of sideshows.
So while Tom Mulcair, and Justin Trudeau, and hopefully Elizabeth May, could very well end up debating an empty chair, they should not go for the Con scam so easily.
Not before every Canadian understands why Stephen Harper is proposing it...
Greg Perry/Toronto Star
And should that farcical debate go ahead, they should insist that an appropriate representation of Great Closet Leader be propped up in that empty chair...
And should spend most of the time attacking that Con puppet instead of each other.
And the good news is that if they do that, they can make Stephen Harper look cowardly and pathetic, and win the debates before they even begin.
I. don't. know. if. that. is. any. clearer. eh?
But we do have to be really smart, if we are going to destroy him...
Please click here to recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers.