73 Replies to “Breaking News”

  1. In my opinion, any party that runs candidates in a majority of the ridings should be invited into the leaders’ debates.
    Forget the number of seats won in 2008; that was the LAST election. Now we’re on THIS election.

  2. We don’t need May in the debate, her whole platform is let’s pay more taxes and see if it gets colder. Well it already did get colder, so listen, your plan was a success, just retire on your laurels and enjoy old age.

  3. Hey, nv53, when your slate of candidates running in a majority of the ridings looks like the cast of the movie Reality Bites and are just there to garnish their resumes featuring a liberal arts degree instead of running coffee for the paid staffers at some NGO I’ll be a bit more inclined to take your argument seriously.
    In the meantime, let’s be pragmatic. Her performance at the Munk debates underscored that she knows nothing of the civility she so laughingly champions in this election campaign.
    The consortium rightly concluded that she has neither the standing nor the civility required to participate.
    And it’s all the more justified when she’s invoked the sexist old boy’s club bogeyman as her first response. Because it’s all about her.
    If the Green party were serious they would realize what damage she’s doing to their cause and set her up in exile on an island off the coast, any coast.
    Kinda like what the French finally did with Napoleon.

  4. john at March 29, 2011 8:28 PM
    They have to say “That’s trillion, with a ‘T'”. Sorry, is there another way to spell it? I really HATE it when journalists say that.

  5. Don’t worry Miss Piggy will get a seat at the debate, the shrieky leftards won’t stop snotting and bawling until we do as they fatwah.

  7. Obviously it is in the interest of the ‘left’ that the Greens do not participate. The less publicity they get the fewer vote splitting from the Libels and NDP. In the last election Harper was able to sit back as the left chewed on one another trying to retain their core.
    So this development is most definitely not a positive turn for the CPC.

  8. This is only the opening skirmish. Ellie-May has hired a lawyer and like last time the networks will yield. Otherwise they will blame the CPC for not wanting her in. Judged by 2008, she can make a case for inclusion; she never should have been allowed to debate last time. So be prepared for that fish-woman’s voice one more time.

  10. In a perfect world there would be no $1.95 per candidate, only parties that achieved 15% or more in the previous election, or fielded candidates in 90% of the federal ridings would have official party status and could participate in the debates. Also the moderator would be Davis Meneses and he would have a kill switch to ensure nowbody rambles on and nobody cuts in. Then the debates would probably achieve a higher viewer rating.

  11. If nothing else, her disgusting behaviour at the last debate should disqualify her from participating. However, I have no dog in this fight, because I will never again watch the travesty that this leaders’ debate has become.

  13. They’re bringing in May and the Greens to supposedly be more “inclusive”. But the opposite is happening: May is the only representative of the “little Parties” that is being allowed to debate. It’s entitlement — not inclusion — because I don’t see May lobbying for the other little parties to be heard in the debate. That’s because the Greens are a Liberal/Left front party — designed to divert votes (using multiple front Parties is a very old Commie tactic employed by one-party despots in the Third World to corrupt the process and divert votes away from their opponents for voters who may be “borderline”. I have seen as many as 11 different Front Parties used in this way and it successfully got the despots back into power).
    If May is sincerely “inclusive” then why isn’t she lobbying for the other little Parties to participate in the debate? E.g.: Marijuana Party, Christian Heritage, Communist Party, Libertarian Party, etc. All of the above usually run Federal candidates — why should only May and the Greens be allowed in?

  15. “Voting for the Grits is voting for the BQ; and voting the CPC is a vote against them.”
    Very true andyc.
    The message we should be repeating IMO in every political discussion is: A vote for the Liberals IS a vote for Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe.
    If we can beat this one into the heads of voters, WE WIN!

  17. Here’s my take, but I’m not certain my premise is accurate.
    It’s my estimation that the “Federal Debate” is nothing more than a ‘TV Special’ that’s being aired by a few TV stations. That said, I don’t see any legal or moral angle to this story. A similar example, but not exactly, was FOXNews’ decision not to air one of TOTUS’ addresses to the nation. FOXNews made a business decision based on their own criteria. Because of that choice they earned my business that evening.
    I’ve stated for over a year now that I “will not” be watching the Federal Debate because of last year’s fiasco which I attribute to Lizzie May. The fact that the stations are considering not having her in the debate has swayed me a bit; to which I say, “good job”.
    I agree that Lizzie in the debate is good for the CPC. If there is a concerted effort by the Left to diminish the Green Party’s visibility in this election I’d be very interested to know Lizzie’s feelings on this. IMO she is just a Liberal plant whose job it is to woo voters who won’t vote Liberal from the NDP; therefore, she won’t address such an issue to preserve the “big picture”. The Greens have a big loser at the helm, but I’m finding is difficult to muster any sympathy for the green-tards.

  18. And I ask again:
    If the Greens are allowed in the debate, then why aren’t other small parties like the Marijuana Party, the Christian Heritage, the Communists, and the Libertarians?
    This isn’t “inclusiveness” it’s exclusive entitlement for May and the Greens.

  19. When the Reform party first had members elected to Parliament, was Preston Manning invited to the leaders’ debate for the next election.
    I sure can’t remember him being on the stage then.
    If the leader of a party with members elected as MPs wasn’t allowed, why then should the Green Party get a free pass when they have failed to get anyone elected.
    If there was a leader of a ultra-right wing party clamoring for a spot in the debate, what do you think the wording would be on the CBC poll for that?

  20. If Lizzard May is allowed into the debates then every party that is running in Canada should also be allowed in, they are just as relevant as “The Lizzard”.

  21. The only reason the broadcasters changed their mind and allowed May to take part in the last debate was because she bullied her way in – she ranted and raved and caused such a fuss that they gave in. It’ll be interesting if it works this time around.

  22. Just came from CBC poll on whether Lizzy should be in debates. 85% think she should be, that’s quite high, then I noticed that I could vote as many times as I wanted, Hmmmm do you think a few greens might have sore fingers. Maybe we should go and adjust it for her!

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation