LPC: Get Ads Ready NOW For When Harper Pussies Out of 1:1 Debate

It has always been my belief, restated often, that the achilles heel for Harper in particular, and pretty much all conservatives, everywhere, is that they are pussies. It's precisely because they're so insecure, especially the guys, that they overcompensate and make a big show of their testosterone, and their images and language all speak to the need to convey an over-the-top masculinity. Real men don't make a show of it, they just on with things. But Cons are always bellowing, flexing their pecs, waving their cocks around. Ponces. That's not how your Dad, or brothers, or husbands, or cousins or friends behave, is it? That's because they're secure well-adjusted men, looking after family and friends, trying to do some good in the world. Because they're not poncey conservatives, in the political sense, whatever their stance on issues. Remember the Del Mastro-Dykstra fist bump...while voting on non-confidence motion??!! Typical. Poncey twits. All hat, no cattle.

So Harper couldn't help himself pretending he wanted a one-on-one debate with Ignatieff. He's loath to concede his potemkin masculinity, carefully created through years of messaging and imagery. But he will. Because he's a pussy. Mr. "I can take a punch" has given ample demonstration, through the years, that he can't, and not just that, he can't even handle questions, argument, debate ("The PM will no longer talk about the 308 candidates and their staff we're asking Canadians to elect." What a loser.)

The media and the country will put immense pressure on Harper to follow through. But he won't, he'll claim some jesuitical justification for avoiding a one-on-one debate (GPC & CPC have a lot in common, though one is being jesuitical to try to get in a debate for which they have no legitimate claim, which they know very well, having admitted the logic in 2008  and since, by their actions, and the other will use the same approach to avoid a debate. Peas in a pod, really, CPC-GPC).

So the LPC should be preparing ads TONIGHT, ready to go when Harper chickens out. It's the one thing the CPC fears most, having their leader and themselves exposed as the girly-men they are (I mean no slight on any man who thinks of himself, consciously, as a girly man. By definition, such self-honesty is a lot more manly than CPC self-evasion).

The ads I imagine will contrast the LPC-Ignatieff serious, fatherly platform, and his readiness to debate it with Harper, with Harper's cowardice in fleeing the debate, because he knows that he can't win a real debate on the issues. Something like Ignatieff saying to camera "Stephen Harper claimed he was willing to debate me, Michael Ignatieff, leader of the Liberal Party, one on one. When I said "anytime, anywhere", he made excuses and ducked out. That's because the Harper Conservatives, mired in scandal, are out of ideas and running scared. Had enough of Harper? Only the Liberal Party can replace the Harper Conservatives, and we're full of ideas and energy, with hope for the future. We have a plan to help families with their kids' tuition, with their healthcare, with training for jobs, with seniors' pensions and looking after loved ones in their later years. Vote Liberal for a better today, and a better tomorrow."

I'm sure the LPC people, old pros that they are, already have something cooked up. But just in case, I thought I should warn them not to miss this golden opportunity: it`s good enough it needs ads to capitalise. Make Harper and CPC eat it. Can't decide which is better, a real debate, or the consequences for Harper and the CPC when it becomes clear he's backing down, as he surely will.

PS. Though not directly relevant to the May Greens jesuitical disgrace, I should also note that no English commentator has as yet remarked on the almost incomprehensibly bad French May inflicts on francophones. If people are going to make an argument not on reason, not without setting out any clear logic and criteria for debate inclusion and format, but based simply on feelings cause they feel bad for poor widdle May, the poor "girl" (does anyone think they would be so exercised if the GPC leader were male?), then they should also take into account of francophones, for whom May's speech is profoundly insulting in its incomprehensibility. Such ineptitude in one of the official languages in one who is supposedly a national leader expresses the full contempt for that linguistic community held by the GPC & May, perhaps unconsciously. Was there simultaneous translation at their conference in Toronto? How much of the proceedings were in French, I wonder.

What Are #GPC Debate Criteria? Public Financing=2%..so KKK?

Elizabeth May and the Greens call the Consortium's decision "arbitrary". Fine, so what are their criteria? If not at least one MP, as was the case for the Bloc & Reform in 1993, and Progressive Conservatives in 1997, AND WHICH THE GREENS ACCEPTED IN 2008, what are their concrete criteria, devoid of self-interest? Public financing? That's 2% of vote. 2%. The KKK and the far-right could get 2%. So the KKK should be allowed into debates if they get 2% of the vote?

And the Greens are claiming 6.8% = 1 in 10 voters. Ha! If their math is so bad, just think how bad their whole argument is.

What a bunch of cynical lying hypocrites. Just like all the rest. Very sad.

Elizabeth May Should DEFINITELY Not Be In Debates, By Her Own Logic

La Presse has a story that the other parties will leave it up to the TV consortium to decide if Elizabeth May gets to be in the TV debates. Back in 2008, I took a principled position in favour of May's inclusion. And now, on the basis of those same principles, I ABSOLUTELY CATEGORICALLY OPPOSE MAY'S INCLUSION, AS THINGS STAND, IE. NO GREEN MP IN HOUSE OF COMMONS. If she can get some MP, Guergis?, Arthur?, to declare her or himself a Green, then fine. But our system, as May has gone on about at great length, herself, many times, is a parliamentary democracy: it's all about MPs. MPs are the source of all legitimacy (hence her switch to Saanich). And if you have not at least one MP in the House of Commons, by May's own logic, you do not deserve to be given a seat at the table of the political leaders debating the future of the country. The criteria were already minimalist, some measure of popular support (5%?)  and at least one MP. But no MP, no debate. Otherwise, why 5%? Why not 4.5, or 4, or 3.5, or 3, or..and the Natural Law Party will be in the debates then. All these Greens, all these people, who have spoken so frequently and passionately about our democracy, parliamentary democracy, have to be coherent. If parliamentary democracy and our institutions are so important, then that logic dictates one must have AT LEAST one MP to be able to participate in the debates. That should be the Greens' own position, if they are indeed the principled party they claim, and given how they trumpeted former Liberal MP Blair Wilson's switch to them in 2008 to justify their inclusion in debates, that is the position they have already maintained in fact. Anything else makes a mockery of their own logic, of our parliamentary democracy, and of the debates themselves, which are already overloaded with debaters, for legitimate reasons, but still, overloaded.

Every bit of my logic from 2008 now argues against May being in the 2011 debates. One must have principles, and be coherent:

British parliamentary democracy being what it is, it's about citizens in given riding(s) choosing MP(s). ... Since in our tradition it's all about the MPs, could require only parties with official party status in parliament to debate - but NDP & PC were in debates in 1997, quite apart from Bloc & Reform in 1993. Instinctively feels wrong to ban party with support like NDP or PC, percentage of vote in previous election similar to regional parties Reform & Bloc, and with MPs, but no official status. So, at end of day, most restrictive possibility is 5% minimum and MP elected under party banner. ... Conclusion: need at least one MP (since official party status deemed too strict in past). And need to be more than fringe - have some sense party represents genuinely significant portion of public. I'd support 5% in last election & at least 1 MP. ... Anyway, given Canadian precedent, no reason to keep Greens out of debates this time. And if do, should be on basis of 5% and possibly "elected under banner" criteria, and should make that explicit new rule. But since that's unlikely, Greens should be in.

And by that very logic, since they have not a single MP, this time, the Greens should be out. And the Greens themselves should be the first to say so, by their own logic.