I watched the Ontario leaders' debate with a good deal of interest tonight. I'll declare my biases first off, and then try to be as objective as possible (not likely, but I will try) in the rest of the comment. I try to vote for governments that reduce the size of government, taxes, debt, and are reasonably socially liberal. The Ontario PC party is pretty close to this (although I disagree with a couple of their current election promises, such as getting rid of property taxes for seniors, and I'm perpetually undecided on the issue of private school tax credits) and I will be voting that way in a week. I used to identify with the proverbial "right-wing", but not any more since I'm not in favour of big right-wing governments like the current U.S. Republicans, and I'm not a social conservative as many traditional right-wingers are. Therefore, I identify as a libertarian, but I'm enough of a pragmatist to not vote for the Libertarian party and cast my vote for a party that actually has a chance of winning something.
I haven't seen any of the commentary, so this is untainted by seeing the Wednesday newspapers. On to the debate, between Ernie Eves (PC), Dalton McGuinty (Liberal) and Howard Hampton (NDP):
Hampton had the most passion of the three leaders, actually looking like he was having fun and wanted to be there. McGuinty got passing marks here. Eves scored very low in this category, although he warmed up a bit during the three-way debates. McGuinty definitely had the most problem staying on topic, although Hampton dodged a lot of the material at the start too. Eves stuck to the posed questions the best, although he did kind of dodge the "What will you sell?" question, which probably scored some points (although it is kind of a bogus question). They all had their share of talking over the others, which comes across as a negative if done too much.
Miscellaneous comments:
What I really want to know, is if anyone (other than his perpetually-mentioned family) actually thinks Dalton McGuinty is a good politician? I understand that some (many?) people don't like the Conservatives. I understand that to many he may be the lesser of a few evils. I understand some people want change. I really do try to be objective as much as possible with politics, and I keep trying to reset my opinion of him, to give him a fair chance, but he just always strikes me as cheesy and ill-informed. He seems to go on auto-pilot on every question, to a different question than the one that was asked, and he's brutal extemporaneously. I always get the feeling that his sentences have been crafted by his handlers, and then he just kind of regurgitates what they told him to say.
I haven't given all that much attention to Eves. I thought he did pretty well, on the whole. He could have been more enthusiastic, but I think he looked the most like a premier (cliched as that description is) and stood up well to the debate and the questioning. I give him the win, with a B- grade. Hampton I give a C+ and McGuinty a D.
Quick summary in which my biases resurface:
I have to get some sleep. This was a lot longer than intended, and it's all going to be moot by October 2. Oh well. Don't forget to vote!
No Comments for this post yet...
Comments are closed for this post.
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| << < | > >> | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||