Kudos to conservatives Joe Clark and Andrew Coyne for their principled stands on the Elizabeth May affair. Praise also to Stephane Dion, for being the only major party leader to unambiguously support the Green Party’s presence in TV debates.
- Comment
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
sans everything 
One correction: Joe Clark has not been a conservative for a long time. Stronach and Brison were conservatives once too, but you wouldn’t describe them that way now, neither should Clark be.
I do believe May should have been included and that the networks should not have caved, but there are two major factors working against her here. One: her alliance with Dion makes it very easy for Harper to claim that adding her would make two liberals at the podium. How can she argue that when she has openly praised Dion as her choice for PM? Harper’s suspicions that May will at some point urge her supporters to vote for Liberals in many ridings is not unfounded. There is a very good chance that she will do that, which does make her a Liberal trojan horse.
Secondly, I think the public will fail to rally for her cause because we’ve seen enough election debates in the last 4 years to recall vividly what a mess they are with 4 candidates. No one wants a 5th, no matter how much they deserve it, simply because it will reduce the debate to a level, errr, even below that which it has occupied formerly.
It is all well and good for May to say she is putting country/cause above party politics in supporting Dion, but if that is the case, she should be merging their parties or converting the Greens to a lobby group.
I suspect that, should the Greens win seats in this election, May will secure her spot as leader, but if not, knives will be out from any candidates who feel she has thrown them under the Liberal bus.
Thanks for your comment David. We should give you a trophy for your outstanding commenting dedication, which I really appreciate.
However, in terms of this particular issue, I have to ask: do you drink all the Conservative-NDP cool aid they offer you? Taking Harper’s argument seriously requires endorsing the idea that the most interested parties imaginable should be deciding whether May is allowed in or not. She shouldn’t be allowed in because she’ll be mean to Stephen Harper? Give me a break! Like Harper should even get a say in the matter to begin with.
You object to one leader unfairly piling on against another? So do I. But that’s exactly what Layton is doing by siding with Harper on May’s exclusion.
And please, spare me the idea that no one wants a fifth leader present. Do you read the papers? This is big news, and lots of people across the country want her in. As for the quality of the debate, that should be for members of the audience to decide–after they’ve heard all the leaders speak.
Hi A.M.
I really enjoy your site because I get politics philosophy culture and weirdness all in one place from intelligent people, even if I often disagree. I also find that you guys can point me in the right direction to appropriate background information, as none of you are research slouches. I used to read a lot of Canadian political blogs but your blog is a heck of a lot more stimulating and less vomit inducing. “Less vomit inducing” is not the best thing I can say bout your blog, just that its the first thing that comes to mind when comparing to other political blogs. Keep up the good work.
David!
I had no idea the power this blog possessed.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080910.wfnelxnlede0910/BNStory/National/home
An astute observation, David. It has been rumoured — by a nervous few — that we are on par with the Trilateral Commission for behind-the-scenes influence. But I think the correct parallel would have to be with the Bavarian Illuminati; except, of course, that we really exist.
Thanks for your gracious response, David. It’s weird, but “less vomit inducing than other blogs” actually has a nice ring to it. We should make that our slogan!