Leader's debate recap

Although we felt that "liveblogging" probably wouldn't be necessary given the abundance of it from our better-read counterparts (even Rod Love was liveblogging in his own smarmy way), the AGRDT team all watched the debate last night. We were hoping to see the same thing other Albertan progressives -- and probably some PCs of the "I'm supportin' Morton" stripe -- were hoping to see: an Ed Stelmach meltdown.

Although he resorted to invoking the "socialism" boogeyman, the "Eastern Liberals want our money" boogeyman, and flagrantly dodged the most direct question of the night, collapse he did not, and this is probably the big story of last night's debate.

A quick aside: as an Albertan that every day laments the sorry state of democracy in our province, I think that this is pretty sad (not that Stelmach didn't collapse, but that him not collapsing was the salient theme of the debate). When the main development of a leader's debate is someone simply not failing, when the platform of the dominant party essentially boils down to "we actually have a plan now," and when the most compelling reason that the opposition parties can seem to find to remove the government from power (out of the stunning array available to them) is that "37 years is too long," you know that something is rotten in Wild Rose Country.

But enough pontification: time for the ubiquitous blog debate recap.

It's hard to pick winners or losers because there weren't really any of either. As I mentioned above, the most remarkable thing that happened was that Stelmach didn't completely embarrass himself. Adding to this nebulousness is the truly staggering array of opinions I've heard from various pundits and citizens in the various media outlets. That being said, we at AGRDT were able to piece together what we thought would be a ranking of the leaders in terms of performance.

1. Brian Mason

Although Albertans at large seem to disagree with us on this one, we thought that Mason was able to project the most principled stance of all of the leaders, and was also able to most effectively articulate his ideas. He was able to take some excellent jabs at the Premier, the most notable being him making the Premier look like a bit of a fool calling a 10 year plan to end homelessness in the one of the richest districts on earth "ambitious."

Mason loses points for his continued fondness for attacking the Liberals. This has many (but certainly not all) NDP supporters that we know banging their heads against the wall, some to the extent that they're switching votes to the Liberals. As a progressive, I have to say that I find this truly frustrating. In the big picture, what's the biggest obstacle to the NDP furthering its objectives in this province: the Alberta Liberal Party, which hasn't held office since 1921, or the PCs which have created and then exacerbated all of the problems that the NDP is trying to fix? Principles are good, but we think Mason needs to inject a little more pragmatism into his strategy.

Memorable moment: managing to get a bee into Taft's bonnet about emissions caps, inciting a fracas that resembled a family political debate at Christmas after a few too many eggnogs.

2. Kevin Taft

This was a toughy. We thought Stelmach and Taft were pretty close performance-wise, but ultimately had to give the edge to Taft because simply not-shitting-the-bed wasn't a good reason, in our minds, to put Stelmach in second.

If Taft had one thing he wanted to accomplish, it was to not come off looking like a shrill, academic egghead. For the first two questions, Taft looked precisely like a shrill academic egghead, but once we warmed up he started to tone down the polemical attacks and make some good, more reasoned criticisms of the Premier's record. Although it wasn't the inspiring performance that many Liberals were hoping for, it was certainly solid.

Taft loses points for getting lured into a bickering match with Mason over emissions caps of all things -- something the PCs have an absolutely dismal record on, and one of the areas that Taft had a real chance to embarrass the Premier about. This was a general theme of Taft's performance; he tended, in our eyes, to focus his attacks in areas where the Premier wasn't as vulnerable, like healthcare, while missing an opportunity to pound him on issues like growth management and climate change where the PCs have truly bumbled.

Memorable moments: "PEOPLE ARE DYING, PREMIER STELMACH!" and "Charisma doesn't win elections. Charisma doesn't get hospitals build. Charisma doesn't get schools built."

3. Ed Stelmach

As I said numerous times above, Stelmach surprised a lot of people by holding his own pretty well in an area (public speaking) that is clearly one of his weaker. The benefits of professional communications coaching, courtesy of the PC's massive war chest, were clearly showing last night. He was able to quote a lot of stats to backup of his arguments, and actually managed to make a few witty digs at his adversaries (particularly Taft and Mason) who, with a few exceptions, were attacking him all night.

Stelmach loses points -- many points -- for completely dodging the most direct and pertinent question posed by the panel during the debate. Kim Trynacity asked Stelmach directly (sorry, this isn't verbatim): "you have said that implementing hard emissions caps would result in the losses of 300 000 oil-related jobs in Alberta; where did you get these figures?" In response, Stelmach mumbled out a few talking points about his government taking a leadership position on climate change (HA!) and how his party's goals were real and achievable -- in other words, complete nonsense (which is probably because he well knows that his wildly exaggerated claims of job losses are rubbish).

We also had to ding Stelmach for repeatedly and baselessly calling the Liberals and New Democrats "socialists," and somehow attempting to link the comments of Jean Chrétien on a recent visit to Edmonton about Alberta sharing its wealth to the Alberta Liberal Party.

Memorable moment: the first free debate session, in which Stelmach semi-coherently stumbled through an anecdote about being married to his wife for 35 years and her not wanting a change while the other leaders yelled simultaneously.

Also Ran: Paul Hinman

Although Hinman presented himself pretty well and was able to sensibly communicate his ideas, he was really a non-factor in the debate. The other leaders didn't address his comments, and more or less acted like he wasn't there. Casual observers (like the less politically involved friends who joined the AGRDT team for the debate) probably left horrified at Hinman's unrelenting bleeding heart for big oil corporations and thinly veiled social conservatism. That said, he may well have attracted a few voters on the rightward-fringes of the PCs with his consistent advocacy for lower taxes and less government.

Memorable moments: chastising Stelmach for listening to his heart when he should have been listening to industry and suggesting that that the best way to solve Alberta's childcare crisis is to have parents (read Moms) stay home with their children.

Thanks for reading the AGRDT post-debate recap. You can find reactions from other bloggers here: Calgary Grit, Joel Kom, Archie McLean, Albertatory, and Ken Chapman, Aaron Braaten and Daveberta via CBC's YouCast.

Comments

[LV]

To the disadvantage of the Alberta party leaders last night, the Texas Democratic debate between Obama and Clinton was on. What a stark difference between the two debates.

Perhaps Taft is correct in saying that charisma doesn't build hospitals or schools, but it does inspire hope and confidence in leadership, and by extension, the future of the state. Given that last night's lackluster performance, I have very little hope for the future of alberta--but then again, my hope barometer hasn't been very high recently anyways.

Can I just ask what kind of message did Taft's "please be my friend" final statement try to convey? The sense of desperation of the provincial liberal party, perhaps. He seems like a sincerely nice man, but these niceties do not translate onto the macro political stage.

While most political pundits seem to agree that Ed didn't drown, I actually thought his treading water was painful to watch.
WHO WAS HE LOOKING AT?! His eyeline was always slightly below the camera and would sometimes flick up to look at the camera. Hardly ever would he engage in eye contact with the other leaders. Political tactic, or
nervous tick brought on by his lack of comfort on the public stage? My over-analyzing and semiotics-obsessed brain thinks it symbolizes the lack of transparency and accountability of the PC government and party.

Overall, I thought it was boring, and I agree with you all at agrdt, the right issues weren't pressed, and the right people weren't challenged on these issues.

[Fort Redneck]

I have to admit that I thought you'd be giddier than a skinny kid watching the schoolyard bully get a beat down after watching last night's debate but I do have to agree with most of your assessment other than to say that I was most impressed by Taft versus my previous opinion of him. I also think that Stelmach deserves more credit simply because I wonder how any of the rest of them would have held up under that barrage. Also, I think almost as many people tuned out Mason as Hinman.

[jk]

Fort Redneck:

It's heartening to know that someone who chooses a name with "Redneck" in it was impressed by Taft, it seems the Liberals have some chance yet.

I think that your statement about Mason is probably accurate, given most of the other opinions I've seen about the debate so far. I think we, as fringe lefties, seem to overestimate the amount of stock that most people put into his arguments. Really, though, I don't think any of the leaders directly addressed Hinman throughout the debate, while both Taft and Stelmach bothered to pay at least some attention to Mason.

[ch]

LV - I didn't think you would put so much stalk in charisma. Especially because it's a holy characteristic not usually bestowed on female politicians. Maybe inspiring "hope and confidence in leadership" doesn't always mean we'll necessary get it, Klein had charisma and look where that got us!

[One Alberta Voter]

A lot of commentators are giving Stelmach poor debating marks for his failure to answer the question about the loss of jobs from emissions caps. I have to take the situation much more seriously. Climate change is a very serious problem which requires all of us to think creatively and ambitiously to find a solution. The Tories have come up with a laughably timid plan which strive to reduce carbon emissions by 14 percent over 42 years! Stelmach has taken to using apparently groundless figures in an attempt to discredit those who would challenge his government's weakness on this file. So it's not that he didn't answer a question - he seems to be fabricating "facts" on one of the gravest and most difficult issues of our time. Any confidence I had in him and his much-touted integrity has been severely shaken.

[eh]

One Alberta Voter: Very well said.