Less than Five hours to go before the wind storm

Hopefully the wind storm will be hot, not cold like the wind is now.  The Big Three are set for the English version of the Leaders Debate, in less than five hours from now.   The topics are set, the format is set  ( stone from the way the Media Consortium talks about it ) and then it is time to sit back, and enjoy the lies, deceit, mis truths, and campaign slogans.

Aren’t I the Optimistic one? LOL

Point is, that at 7pm ET, the Leaders Debate begins.  Course, it is a slap in the face by the Media, to show it so early, totally ignoring the Western part of this country. I mean most people are at work at 4pm Pacific time, 5pm Alberta time ( is that mountain or standard? I never can remember) are heading home and well, at 6pm most are just home, fixing or eating dinner in Manitoba.

I know why it starts so early in the East too. After all can’t have a Political Debate in Prime Time, or people would not watch, and hey the ratings is what gives them all that big advertising bucks.  Like who wouldn’t want to watch a rerun of some reality show, versus real life?

One thing I do wish, is that the so called Pundits, keep their damn mouths shut during the debates, and that they let us make up our own minds. I am sick and tired of listening to some so-called expert try to tell me, what I just heard, just saw. I have eyes, I have ears, and I have a mind too. ( I know Harper wishes we didn’t, but he can’t have it all ).

And the format? Have you heard about that one? Talk about adding confusion to the whole process. Like just how many times are we going to be subjected to the same tired old rhetoric, the same innane campaign slogans and sound bites?

I WANT A FRIGGING REAL DEBATE…   NOT A MEDIA PHOTO OP   

If I remember, I am going to be sharing my thoughts on my facebook page, if anyone cares to follow along, live as the debate happens.   WARNING: The language & content may not be suitable for all ages. LOL 

Can we say Mis Representation and Fraud

So in a dissenting report, in Parliament, the Conservative Members released their own little report on the hearings they held, about the spending on the G8 & G20 conferences. In that report, they quote our Auditor General heaping praise on the spending by the Conservative Government.

It made the news then, and the attack ads were out in force, blaming the Liberals for distortion, for being on a witch hunt.    Well, it is making news again, but not quite how the Harper Government likes.

Going to be very interesting to see how the Spin Doctors spin this one. Seems that Quote they used, was indeed said by the Auditor General, however it was about the Liberalas, and had absolutely nothing, repeat that .. NOTHING, to do with the Conservative spending at the G8 & G20 summits.

And no, it isn’t a leaked draft memo either, but an actualy letter written to the Committee, by the Auditor General herself.   I wonder where John Baird is? 

Suddenly, those debates tomorrow, look awfully interesting.  Guess Stevie Boy has to practise his  “Wasn’t Me” face now, because somehow, I think today’s events are gonna take center stage tomorrow night….  unless more stuff comes out.

Campaign Diversions or Meat of the Matter

The “OTHER” parties & media, call the whole issue of allowing Green Party Leader Elizabeth May into the Leaders Debate, a diversion from the campaign.  Thing is, how does denying a voice in our political system, from being heard, a diversion?

Around One Million Canadian Voters cast their ballot for the Green Party in the last election. Does that mean, that because they were unsuccessful, their voice should remain still? That it should be hidden from other Voters?

This isn’t about being a diversion, but for me, goes to the root of the whole election process. It is about INCLUSION, and not EXCLUSION.  In other words, walk the walk folks. You all talk about including us, the people into the decision making process, yet you waffle on letting a national political party into your exclusive debate circle. Just what are you afraid of? 

Canada is a diverse nation, isn’t that why the Bloc is allowed to even run candidates, let alone have them seated in Parliament? I mean the Bloc is about Separating Quebec from Canada, in others words, break up the Confederation. Yet we allow it, encourage it even, because open debate, helps cross divides. It helps build bridges, where none existed.

So do we ignore the desires of a Million People, simply because they weren’t able to get a member elected? Do we deliberately push their voices aside, in the interests of the old gang?

As well, what does this say about our other leaders?

They ALL talk about democracy, about choices, and yet when it comes to them putting up, they all run away. To allow ANY business group to dictate who can talk to the voters, is simply Un Democratic.   IF they don’t want her to participate, then stop hiding behind some faceless consortium.  Have the balls to stand up and say that you don’t believe the Green Party should be in the debate.  Have the courage of your convictions, and say it, loud & clear, then defend it.

That is how a real leader would behave. 

If you can’t do that, for something like who can attend a political leaders debate, how well will you stand up to the US President if he wants us to go to war on something Canadians don’t support?   

Jean Chretien told George Bush NO On Iraq, because he was a real leader.

Stephen Harper wanted us to go to war with Iraq ( so badly he even stole Australia’s PM’s speech ), now has us in Libya.  If Michael Ignatieff & Jack Layton can’t stand up now, to a bunch of business execs, how will they stand up to any US President?

Two Party System Not An Option Mr Harper

Stephen Harper’s latest ploy, to score some political brownie points, is what is really diverting the campaign.  Elizabeth May being denied a seat at the Leaders Debate table ahs given Stephen Harper an opportunity to try and change our political system. His offer to debate Michael Ignatieff One On One, is a gimmick, to try and deny all other political parties, their seat at the debate table.

IF this country was like the United States, we would still be debating whether or not to have Universal Health Care.

IF this country was a two party system, we’d have had a lot more Stephen Harper’s in office, because we would be limited to just one choice. In this election, and past elections, we have had at least THREE ALTERNATIVES.   

In the last Federal Election, & this one, we actually have FOUR CHOICES ( Liberals, Green Party, NDP, Harper Alliance/Conservatives ), while Quebec actually gets FIVE CHOICES.  ( Duceppe, Harper, Ignatieff, May, Layton ).

The limiting of choices, means a stifling of free thinking. By going to a two party system, it becomes either him/her or him/her.  And that too becomes even more difficult. To actually have a female Prime Minister. 

Choosing a Government should be about selecting the party whose policies will best serve the Nation. A 2 party system becomes a popularity contest, and pushes issues aside.  Just look at how it has worked in the United States.  We’d have a lot more George Bush wannabees, than we have had now.  That alone makes it important to not let Stephen Harper manipulate the system.

Michael Ignatieff should accept the one on one debate, but only if Harper will also debate Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe, & Elizabeth May one on one. AND then follow those debates up with a full on debate, featuring all of our political leaders.   That would show me that at least Ignatieff gave a damn about our principles, our heritage, and our rights.

Doing otherwise, has me looking more closely at Layton & May.

I simply do not want a type of Government where we vote for the best of the worst. I want to debate issues, not personalities. 

Canada would NEVER have a strong federal Government if we were just a two party system. Provinces would be able to have more say, to the detriment of other provinces.

We would NEVER have a national Education System, if we were just a two party system. Even now, the USA doesn’t have a clear national education system, which is one reason that literacy is dropping, why crime is rising, why productivity is dwindling.

We would NEVER have a National Health System, if we were a two party system. Do you really prefer to pay premiums of hundreds of dollars, for less than what we get now? That is how it works in the USA.  Not only that, but they have a two tiered system. County Hospitals for the Middle Class & Poor, luxury Hospitals for those who can afford deluxe medical plans.

This whole debate issue comes down to whether or not we, the people want choices. The more choices we have, the more options we have. More than that, it stimulates the creative process.  A two party system does the opposite. The less you have, the less interested you are, the less you get done. 

But worse, without options, without choices, the easier it is for corruption & graft to take hold. Just look at the United States.  Do we really want more of our political leaders to take brown paper bags of money?

I want more choices, not less…   Vote For Anyone But Harper.

Diverting Attention or Boosting the Ratings?

Don’t you feel sorry for the poor Broadcast Consortium & Political Leaders?  I mean they are being diverted from their job, because of this whole Elizabeth May nonsense.  After all, she is just the leader of the Green Party, running cadidates in all ridings, but has no seats in the last Parliament. So what nerve she has, to expect to be a part of the Leaders Debate.

And pity our poor Political Leaders who have seats in Parliament. Now they have to take an extra minute or two, to answer a question of whether they oppose her inclusion, or not. I mean, gee, I bet they are sitting down right now, in some back room, plotting their strategy on how to deal with this mega issue.     NOT !

In many ways, this is actually an important issue. 

Such as: Who should decide who can attend a Leaders Debate? Should that decision not be made by those who are running?

Then how about asking why is Gilles Duceppe in the debate? After all, his party will NEVER  form the next government, so just because he has seats, he’s entitled to appear? What about say the Wester Canada Concept Party or Social Credit Party? What if they get seats in this election, while only running in one or two provinces.  Will their leader automatically be included in the next Leaders Debate?

My own opinion is simple. YES I think the Bloc should be included, as they do represent a large segment of our Nation. They do have seats in Parliament as well.  I also believe that the Green Party should be represented, simply by the fact that they have candidates running in ALL RIDINGS.  They Nationally took about 6% of the popular vote in the last election.

So YES, Elizabeth May should be in that debate, not needing a lawyer to contest the decision by a bunch of stodgy Corporate Big Wigs.

The Political Parties don’t need to spend a lot of time discussing this, or ducking the question. IF they are about DEMOCRACY and FAIR PLAY, then they should simply tell the Broadcast Consortium that either she is in, or they are out.

Course, being cynical, one could argue that this ploy by the Broadcast Consortium, is to generate interest in the Leaders Debate, to help boost possible ratings for it, when they relent and let her into the debate.  I think its called Marketing?  Where you create an interest in something, that people perhaps aren’t interested in it.

Yes, I do believe that is a real reason of why the Consortium has made its announcement. That and to perhaps protect their darling, Stephen Harper, from having another critic at the table.

The response so far, from all the Political Parties leaves me cold. I mean I expected the response by Stephen Harper, that he ‘accepts‘ the decision to not have May. I am disappointed in the lack lustre response from both Layton & Ignatieff.  They don’t ‘object’ to having her in the debate.

Like get some damn balls, and tell this Broadcast Consortium to let her in, or they can simply have a debate with only Stephen Harper attending.   Bet that would end the issue fast,  and let us get on with discussing the other issues in this election.