Last night's Leader's Debate in Alberta was less than impressive.
If I were an undecided voter, what was in that "debate" didn't help make any decisions.
Frankly, the debate itself was no debate. The leaders were all so carefully scripted that they avoided saying anything of value at all. The entire event was more of an excuse to trot out and reiterate the broad, and relatively dull statements that one can find in any of the party's websites.
There was no point and counterpoint in that debate, it was almost exclusively talking points.
Worse, in my view, was the fact that all four of them were constantly trying to talk overtop of the others. If Albertans want to see grown men shouting at each other, we'll watch Question Period.
These aren't debates in any meaningful sense of the word, and I wonder if we wouldn't do just as well to have a set of speeches for that hour and a half instead of a four-way argument that's less coherent than you usually find at 2 am in the bars.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
On March 19, 2024 the United Conservative Party of Alberta held an event that they called " Let Kids Be Kids " (spoiler alert: i...
-
So, India is expanding its temper tantrum over Canada expressing concerns over the suspected role of the Modi government in the murder of ...
-
There is an entire class of argument that we see in discourse that basically relies on the idea that “physical attribute X means that Y can ...
3 comments:
More importantly what does Craig Chandler think about this? Democracy was denied and he should be leader of one of the parties!
Democracy was denied
That's Chandler's line alright. What it really tells us is that he has an amazing sense of entitlement - and that calls into question how well he will actually represent his constituency - especially those whom he disagrees with on some level.
And if we are going to make that claim about Craig, what about the leader of the Green Party (George Reid)... or even the Social Credit Party (Len Skowronski). At least for those two there is an actual party backing their leadership claims...
And just which party do you think Chandler ought to be the leader of? Because he slunk off to the corner to lick his wounds we should gift him with a miraculous leadership seat of... what, the Wild Alliance?
Sorry, but in this case, Craig remains a "party of one"... and as such ought to be relegated to the seat at the counter of the diner, even though he mistakenly thinks that he ought to be seated at the head of the banquet table in the five star restaurant.
Chandler makes a lot of claims - and one of them is that he will "represent the views of his constituents unlike others..." Sorry, Craig. I don't buy that line for a minute. What happens the first time that you disagree with my views? Will you present them at the table and fight for them? Bah! If elected (highly unlikely in my honest opinion) you would abuse your position to grandstand about your own supposed position of radical christianity, opression of human rights and moral superiority... that is if your past actions are anything to go by.
Post a Comment