English-language leaders' debate 2011 post-op, part 2

42 posts / 0 new
Last post
Catchfire Catchfire's picture
English-language leaders' debate 2011 post-op, part 2

Continued from here.

Issues Pages: 
Regions: 
Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

knownothing wrote:

I am ashamed of our Canadian democracy.  Does anyone believe that this process would be worth dying for?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are not aware of the effect of the media. it is not the public's fault they don't care. You are giving the individual too much credit. Read some Marx or Gramsci. People are easily manipulated. The media will tell you that people have a choice all the while telling you that the only options for PM are Harper and Iggy.

Thank you for reiterating my point.  My shame comes from the media manipulation of the inadequate political system we live under.  My shame comes from the fact the media moguls don't even feel compelled to have a veneer of objectivity. 

Knownothing was a stupid party in America, see I know some history.  Do you always assume that other people are less well read than you are?  I suspect you will find many posters here with a depth of knowledge and experience.

knownothing knownothing's picture

knownothing wrote:

I am ashamed of our Canadian democracy.  Does anyone believe that this process would be worth dying for?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are not aware of the effect of the media. it is not the public's fault they don't care. You are giving the individual too much credit. Read some Marx or Gramsci. People are easily manipulated. The media will tell you that people have a choice all the while telling you that the only options for PM are Harper and Iggy.

Thank you for reiterating my point.  My shame comes from the media manipulation of the inadequate political system we live under.  My shame comes from the fact the media moguls don't even feel compelled to have a veneer of objectivity. 

Knownothing was a stupid party in America, see I know some history.  Do you always assume that other people are less well read than you are?  I suspect you will find many posters here with a depth of knowledge and experience.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry I presumed but if you actually read some Marx or Gramsci you would no it is not the media's fault either. As their main end is to make profit for their shareholders and this will always supercede the objectivity that you are craving.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture
Catchfire Catchfire's picture

What does Marx say about the media, knownothing? I'm interested in hearing this. Perhaps you could give a page reference.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Marx talks about how in a capitalist system profit is most important as this is the key to hoding on to power. so how can u blame the media when they are simply doing what they supposed to? First he blamed the individual, then he blames the media. The problem is the profit-driven system. Sure we can't just change it but don't blame manipulated Canadians or media that is just doing what the system tells them to do. This is the reason the NDP gets trashed in the media.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Marx did talk about the media. Not that much but here is a link to a quote from a journal article that talks about it.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=24kOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA498&dq=marx+media&hl=e...

 

Gramsci followed up on the cultural hegemony of the media that strengthens the power of capitalism and reinforces the "absolute" perception of capitalism.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Harper's medicated,almost lobotomized state,kinda reminded me of an old Flintstones episode where Fred's uncanny resemblance to the owner of some huge corporation that went AWOL,got him to take over the business during the CEO's absence.

He was scripted just to repeat 3 exclusive responses - 'Whose baby is that?' ...'What's your angle?' .. ' I'll buy that'

As usual the Cons wheeled out their biggest sociopath,paralyzed his face from moving and gave him a script with 3 exclusive responses.

I don't know why he was let off easy by the 3 other leaders.

I'm hoping that tonight's debate will get very scrappy and Harper will not get an easy ride.

I think it's do or die...I'm guessing Layton,Duceppe and Iggy are smart enough to realize that and will start dropping bombs and spraying bullets at the teflon Emporer.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Marx didn't have much to say about the media, actually. At least, I don't recall he did. Many subsequent Marxian thinkers based their critique of mass media on his analysis of capitalism (of which I don't think "profit is the most important" is a particularly useful gloss). I only bring this up because lecturing people to "Read some Marx and Gramsci" without any specific context or citation is less a contribution to the discussion than it is posturing and condescension. There are, in fact, many babblers here who know Marx and Gramsci inside and out. We're less interested in bibliographies than we are ideas and arguments.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

knownothing is an apt handle. 

I actually believe all others are my equal and unlike you I blame the media pundits for taking their large salaried and corporate endorsements and doing what they are paid well to do.  However I find it bizarro land to be debating whether elections in a bourgeous capitalist democracy have any legitimacy with a poster who relies on Marx to prove to me voting is good.  WOW LMAO

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Please try to avoid personal attacks, NS. Even when a poster needles you or rubs you the wrong way.

knownothing knownothing's picture

I said I was sorry for presuming and I wasnt trying to lecture anybody. I just get mad when people blame individuals for not appreciating democracy, when they are told to not do so by the cultural hegemony. I also find it frustrating when you blame the media as immoral when they are simply doing what their shareholders want them to do. Marx didn't say much about the media but I provided a quote above. I was talking about issues. Why blame people and the media when they are not the problem? How does that help?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Catchfire wrote:

Please try to avoid personal attacks, NS. Even when a poster needles you or rubs you the wrong way.

sorry but I did not know that jokes about people's "names" was not allowed.  I guess I need to study more to figure out how to respond to the following condescending misstatement of my posts.  I thought it was a low level personal attack and that is what I responded with.  If you post using a name like knownothing and then insult people and misrepresent their posts that is acceptable here but making a joke about KNOWNOTHING as a handle is not.  I'll keep that in mind in the future.

My deepest apologies to knownothing for my suggestion that he knowsnothing.  Hopefully that will clear up my venial sin or do I have to say a rosary?

Quote:

First he blamed the individual, then he blames the media. 

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

I recorded the debate as I had planned to pause the recording, make some remarks here, and then go on with listening to more of the debate. I did this a little, on the other thread, but not much. I had an overpowering reaction to Harper's lying ways. I'm going to have to try again, and soon.

There are some mighty efforts to sculpt these politicians into something they are not. The biggest pocket may very well get the best advice. I think these things are worth studying, carefully, even the parts that make us retch, to learn something about how skillful the marketing of politicians and their messages have become.

Now where is a genuine transcript? It might make it easier for me to watch this debate again. Anyone?

Tirumithir

alan smithee wrote:

Harper's medicated,almost lobotomized state,kinda reminded me of an old Flintstones episode where Fred's uncanny resemblance to the owner of some huge corporation that went AWOL,got him to take over the business during the CEO's absence.

He was scripted just to repeat 3 exclusive responses - 'Whose baby is that?' ...'What's your angle?' .. ' I'll buy that'

Now that I think about it, Harper does look a bit like Fred Flintstone.  Same hair-cut.  Plus, they both know that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.

It's a strategy straight out of the Republican playbook... stick to your message, repeat your talking points, and ignore any factual arguments that your opponents might make.  Sadly, the approach is sufficiently effective that the media can declare Harper the "winner" of the debate, despite not actually debating per se.

Sean in Ottawa

Sorry to be contrary but I think Layton and Ignatieff lost badly.

Here is why:

The people who watched the debate were decided voters mostly. Few people interested enough in politics to watch a two hour debate would not already have formed a political philosophy. Very few undecided voters would have watched.

The media is portraying this as a draw in some places and a Harper win in others acknowledging the others got their licks in. The media declined to call Harper on his outright lies. This is what the undecided will see and hear.

While for those in the room, Layton I think won and Ignatieff did fairly well, none of that will mean anything as the fix is in.

I'm afraid the election is over and the media have decided the winner.

The French language media may be different but Harper does not need or care about Quebec (or Francophones outside Quebec). He will make his majority elsewhere and if the result is Quebec separation, I think he will not mind.

Great for Layton for winning the debate that did not matter-- the real one in the room-- the one we saw. But Harper won the more important one-- the fictional one the media will flog for the next couple days. Then it will be back to the bubble campaign and a wall of propaganda. The opposition has failed because they never stood a chance in the first place. The same people who own most of the media decided this campaign before it started.

Kara

Unionist wrote:

That's odd. I hate Harper and wish for an anti-Harper alliance. But I saw him as a cool, unruffled, professional liar - able to pull it off because no one was passionate enough and evidence-based enough to bring him down. He seemed like a very busy and rather self-effacing civil servant who was wasting the people's precious time by letting himself be slammed by some whiners, but wanted nothing more than to get back to growing the economy and creating jobs, etc. To put this performance down to some spin by the corporate media is to badly miss the point - that there is no effective opposition, hasn't been for five years, and none on the horizon, unfortunately.

Other than the few occasions that Harper unleashed his cold reptilian sneer on the other participants, he actually did quite well and at times, seemed like the only adult in a room of squabbling children.  He is truly gifted at lying and that one skill may be enough for him to secure the majority that he wants.  I did not think there was a winner of the debate.  All had their good moments and all had their weak moments.  A wash is probably what the ConJobs were hoping for.

janfromthebruce

Channeling Wilf here:

"Let some flowers bloom here. Let democracy breathe. Let it live."

Wilf, that made me want to gag literally - omg, ROLL EYES OR WHAT!  egads but Iggy keep it up - you'll turn off more female voters with that wooing!Kiss

Ignatieff's best moment, near the end of the foreign policy question:

Quote:
If we're going to have a foreign policy it's got to be based on democratic values. Respect for Canadians when they go overseas, respect for what they're trying to do, not trying to muzzle people, shut people down. Let some flowers bloom here. Let democracy breathe. Let it live. If you're going to promote it abroad as we should, you've got to respect it at home. You're a man who will shut down anything you cannot control. That's the core of your vision of government. And it's inimical, it's hostile to the values of democracy upon which this country is based.

Stockholm

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Great for Layton for winning the debate that did not matter-- the real one in the room-- the one we saw. But Harper won the more important one-- the fictional one the media will flog for the next couple days. Then it will be back to the bubble campaign and a wall of propaganda. The opposition has failed because they never stood a chance in the first place. The same people who own most of the media decided this campaign before it started.

So in other words, you don't actually think anyone "won" or "lost" the debate because you think that NOTHING that happened in the debate could ever have made any difference. So then why even bother commenting on the debate itself? Why not just say "the election is over" the debate is irrelevant and it doesn't matter how well or how badly anyone performs.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I like how political discourse has become 'bickering'

It's quite amazing how easy the 'conservatives' are spinning anything and everything that may expose their lies,hypocrisy and blatant contempt for democracy and make the opposition look like the villains.

And is anyone getting tired of the 'the conservatives are the best stewards of the economy'?

When Harper tried to take all the credit for the fact that our economy didn't tank like in the U.S. , why didn't ONE of the other 3 bring up the fact that it was the REGULATIONS we have in Canada that saved our asses.

The same regulations Harper wants to scrap simply because regulations are against his ideology.

Also bring up the fact that the cons pissed away billions in surplus and gave us the biggest deficit in history...Hmm..some stewards,eh?

I hope Layton Duceppe and Iggy are more prepared tonight.

gyor

Jack is holding his own in the spin, although some at the globe are trying pretend iggy won. Still it is clear that Jack did well as his zingers keep coming it. Iggy's stuff gets some attention but lies flat in comparison. So Harper didn't win anything. Plus plenty of election left. Plus I am betting Jack has some aces left just like he dealt at the debate.

Searosia

Stockholm wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Great for Layton for winning the debate that did not matter-- the real one in the room-- the one we saw. But Harper won the more important one-- the fictional one the media will flog for the next couple days. Then it will be back to the bubble campaign and a wall of propaganda. The opposition has failed because they never stood a chance in the first place. The same people who own most of the media decided this campaign before it started.

So in other words, you don't actually think anyone "won" or "lost" the debate because you think that NOTHING that happened in the debate could ever have made any difference. So then why even bother commenting on the debate itself? Why not just say "the election is over" the debate is irrelevant and it doesn't matter how well or how badly anyone performs.

Actually i kinda agree with sean and think it's a valid arguement...only people who had their minds made up watched the debate (especially with the time schedules...couldn't they re-air the debate afterwards?) and the rest of the peoples will just see what the media tells them to see...a battle the Conservative are heavily winning already.

Calgary based comment...I've only found 4 people who watched the debate last night (gotta be out of 100 by now), and all 4 of them are NDP members.  You can win debates all you want, but when nobody watches the debate and only see's the media afterward...Harper wins solely on that regardless of what happened in the debate

Unionist

If Harper doesn't screw up - in the debate, or in the campaign - and if the other idiots keep attacking each other - Harper wins a majority.

Hope I'm wrong.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Are "zingers" the only measure of success in a debate? I think they can backfire, actually - they can be seen as immature and petulant.

The Turner - Mulroney debate classic didn't turn on a "zinger" - it turned on Turner simply he was outmatched by Mulroney, and on a very real issue of the day - patronage.

Krago

I am surprised that no one -- here or in the MSM -- has commented on Duceppe's "I've got nothing against immigration" quip.  If any of the other three leaders had said it, they would have got hammered.

Sean in Ottawa

Stockholm wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Great for Layton for winning the debate that did not matter-- the real one in the room-- the one we saw. But Harper won the more important one-- the fictional one the media will flog for the next couple days. Then it will be back to the bubble campaign and a wall of propaganda. The opposition has failed because they never stood a chance in the first place. The same people who own most of the media decided this campaign before it started.

So in other words, you don't actually think anyone "won" or "lost" the debate because you think that NOTHING that happened in the debate could ever have made any difference. So then why even bother commenting on the debate itself? Why not just say "the election is over" the debate is irrelevant and it doesn't matter how well or how badly anyone performs.

Are you kidding?

I am talking abut the debate as much as I can trying to tell people what happened as they are lied to.

But there is value in telling the truth. The media is lying and campaigning for Harper-- who cares what actually happens if people believe something else. Don't believe me? Read the Globe front page today.

So yes, this election may in fact be over. We need to start talking now about how to create a democracy in Canada. We don't have one now -- you can kid yourself pretending the NDP will win a landslide just because Harper won the debate for those in the room. We need to figure out how to cut through the propaganda and to start we need to recognize the problem.

 

knownothing knownothing's picture

I agree the media is for Harper but the point of this is to scare NDP voters into voting Liberal. I think the media is 2-party bias not Tory or Liberal.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 We need to figure out how to cut through the propaganda and to start we need to recognize the problem.

I doubt the vast majority of the Canadian electorate would agree there is a problem. They probably desire strong, steady government, a growing economy and more jobs, and fewer elections - which is why Harper has been in majority territory - off and on - for so long, despite the scandals, financial incompetence, and all the rest of it.

Bärlüer

Krago wrote:

I am surprised that no one -- here or in the MSM -- has commented on Duceppe's "I've got nothing against immigration" quip.  If any of the other three leaders had said it, they would have got hammered.

This was Duceppe's worst segment in what was a generally lackluster performance (I'm referring to the English debate only).

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

The closed captioning during that segment was so atrocious I couldn't make out what was being said.

Le T Le T's picture

Quote:
This was Duceppe's worst segment in what was a generally lackluster performance (I'm referring to the English debate only).

Ducceppe on multiculturalism always comes across as absurdly eurosupremacist. He, like most Quebeckers and Canadians, doesn't realize that multiculturalism existed in Quebec for like 1000 years before Cartier was even born.

Fidel

I think Harper lost his majority with his general all around disdain for democracy and accountability in government.

He lost it with oppressive immigration policies and lacklustre performance on the economic recovery compared to dozens of other rich countries now ahead of Canada in growth and job creation. 

Harper lost his coveted phony majority when cavorting with crooked lobbyists and scandals in the senate. The Harpers are strong on crime alright.

I could not believe how he equated his party's record number of years in minority government as some sort of proof that they have earned a majority. Harper then described his so-called democratic debates with the opposition parties over the last five years as "bickering". 

Sean in Ottawa

Fidel, Ihope you are right but --I remain concerned. Especially if a bunch of NDP votes go Liberal -- if this happened in the wrong places that majority could be in reach.

melovesproles

That is a real danger.  I talked to a friend last night who is voting for the first time in her life(she's in her 30s)because she can't stand Harper and her mom told her to vote Liberal to stop Harper even though her mom preferred the NDP.  I looked up her riding and it's Nanaimo Cowichan with an NDP incumbent and the Lib a distant third.  More worringly her mom's riding is Vancouver Island North where the NDP just barely lost out to the Con last election.  I have nothing against strategic voting and I might even do it in my riding (Sea to Sky-Sunshine Coast-North Vancouver...)but it is scary how many people still don't take a riding to riding approach.

janfromthebruce

So you would let her know where her vote should go and also let her know to tell her mom where her vote should go!

 

melovesproles wrote:

That is a real danger.  I talked to a friend last night who is voting for the first time in her life(she's in her 30s)because she can't stand Harper and her mom told her to vote Liberal to stop Harper even though her mom preferred the NDP.  I looked up her riding and it's Nanaimo Cowichan with an NDP incumbent and the Lib a distant third.  More worringly her mom's riding is Vancouver Island North where the NDP just barely lost out to the Con last election.  I have nothing against strategic voting and I might even do it in my riding (Sea to Sky-Sunshine Coast-North Vancouver...)but it is scary how many people still don't take a riding to riding approach.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

melovesproles

Yeah of course.  She said her mom would be relieved.  I was just surprised that narrative would still be dominant in two ridings where it so clearly didn't apply.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Did anyone else think it odd that Count Ignatieff referred to the importance of immigrants learning "French or the other official language."?

Doesn't the other official language have a name?

What IS the other official language?  Esperanto?

Vansterdam Kid

I was under the impression we spoke German. Maybe I'll ask Mme Paille?

janfromthebruce

Well, Liberals have used it forever, each election it is the same. It's like been embedded in their DNA!Yell

 

melovesproles wrote:

Yeah of course.  She said her mom would be relieved.  I was just surprised that narrative would still be dominant in two ridings where it so clearly didn't apply.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

melovesproles wrote:

Yeah of course.  She said her mom would be relieved.  I was just surprised that narrative would still be dominant in two ridings where it so clearly didn't apply.

The CBC and the other MSM outlets in BC have been pushing this message over and over.  

Van Isle North needs the large chunk of liberal voters who switched to the Conservatives last time to decide Iggy is their guy and return to the liberal fold.  In that riding like in some others in BC the poll tracking after the election showed basically that the liberal vote collapsed and went 2 to 1 for the Cons not the NDP.  

It is those kinds of numbers that always give me cause to ponder when people say merge the NDP and Liberal party.  There are a whole lot of Liberal supporters who like them as a centre right party and that would not change after any merger.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Lots of stories out today about a Liberal NDP merger. More fear-mongering by the Liberals.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

knownothing wrote:

Lots of stories out today about a Liberal NDP merger. More fear-mongering by the Liberals.

 

If there is alot of talk about a Liberal/NDP merger,that would be more fear-mongering by the CONS.