Friday, October 03, 2008

Some Hockey Analogies on the Debate

Warren Kinsella had a cool hockey analysis on the debate, so I decided to call him on that with my own hockey analogies. I think comparing hockey to politics is cool.

I thought Elizabeth May was the one all over the ice, I thought she gave Harper a good elbow in the crease, and Steve Paikin just totally let it go on a number of occasions. Much like hockey officiating late in the playoffs. May played like she had nothing to lose, total fire wagon debating in my mind. Her knowledge of issues in the Atlantic provinces show she is serious and well read and would represent Central Nova Riding very well.

Layton didn't really do anything for me. He seemed more like a small agitator playing looking for the captaincy of the team. For some reason I have trouble taking this man seriously as a player, being his seriously weak bench, and seriously wild promises which make no sense. Totally reminds me of Darcy Tucker, last season for the Maple Leafs.

Dion didn't overwhelm or underwhelm, I'd say he was a solid stay at home defenceman who had a couple of blasts from the point. Dion got his message across, and communicated the Green Shift very well. He was clear and concise, and impressed me with his passion. He was poised and didn't panic and his english was nowhere near as bad as some pundits put it out to be. But he was not the MVP as Cherniak seems to think.

Harper was the goalie, under siege on a PK the whole game. But seemed fairly calm, and gave some good excuses when the puck was in the back of the net. But like most goalies he had a strained look during those times where it was just an attack on his platform. It was like Harper was running on his record, in my mind a very mediocre record. I think he needs a new goalie coach. He did get one really good hack right on the back of Layton's legs, on the private health care comment. So much for being a proletariat Jack!

Duceppe to me played like one of those floater type forwards, only in it for offence, not backchecking, only taking easy rushes and 2 line passes to get a breakaway on Harper. He had some good chances but it was a half hearted effort as Duceppe had put in his A-game last night.

thats my take

Disclaimer: Jamie Callingham is a big Toronto Maple Leaf fan.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

My take, from the very far left:

1. Harper was pummeled mercilessly for two hours, and looked really bad at a few moments, including the discussions on Iraq, literacy, arts and culture, the non-existent CP platform, and green house gas 'intensity' targets. There is no way he 'won', as that questionable online poll suggests...

2. Layton has a big problem advertising his message in a debate format. All too often he starts off with a lot of fluff and then falls short on providing policy details. He was at his best on Afghanistan, and at challenging the Liberal record in the 1990s, and at attacking Harper on every issue -- but his arguments often lacked substance. Yet, many people (but not me) think he won the debate.

3. Dion did OK, and that's the best adjective I can find for his performance. He attacked the Conservative record and presented himself as an old-school progressive Liberal who is honest and trustworthy. He did not catapult himself to stardom, but he probably rekindled nostalgia for the good'ol days of Liberal rule. For this reason, I expect the Libs to make some ground in Ontario, Quebec, and even BC, not because of Dion but because Harper is so dangerous.

However, Dion often acted like a whiny little boy crying about his lost puppydog -- for example, in his frequent use of: "that's a lie", "that's not true", and "don't believe him [Harper]".

When Dion resorts to these debating techniques, he just seems weak, as opposed to Duceppe who blasted right back at Harper in very convincing terms.

4. Elizabeth May was my favourite, even though I find her position on Afghanistan terrible and of touch with the total failure of the mission.

She was funny, intelligent, focused, organized, and incisive. She rebutted many of Harper's shibboleths and stuck to principles. She even raised the issue of proportional representation, which is must for Canadian democracy in the future. She also did a good job of explaining whatever the heck Dion was trying to say at a few moments in the debate.

5. Duceppe was calm and cool as usual. His best moment was when he hammered Harper for his idiotic support for the war in Iraq when that was a major cause of the spiral in Afghanistan -- a brilliant point.

6. I predict a real rise for the NDP and the Liberals over the next two weeks, as the Anyone But Harper movement grows. Harper will win a similar minority as last time, afterwhich there will be a groundswell of pressure within the NDP and LPC to form a coalition after the full brunt of the recession hits.

7. Best scenario: a Liberal-NDP-Green coalition in a year's time, which draws Canada out of Afghanistan, initiates childcare and pharmacare, tackles greenhouse gas emissions, offers some kind of industrial strategy with Quebec, revives the Kelowna Accord, and begins a discussion on proportional representation.