Harper managed not to look scary or sarcastic but failed to break his image as a somewhat detached and over-rational type."Besides the usual pro-Liberal rhetoric of the Globe, what you have here is a bunch of media elites trying to fit into the shoes of a so-called "average Canadian." Further, their comments are so feeling-based. Call me rational here, but what about the actual content of what they are saying? The only time the editorial board is vigilant about substance is reiterating the same-sex marriage debate. People, Harper and Martin have said nothing new over the past year. Let it go. Honestly. Do we need any more stories like this?
"Mr. Harper was too bland."
"Mr. Harper has made civility look boring."
"Paul Martin is coming alive in this debate -- and it is working."
"Martin's words were ringing. I only heard a quick clang from Harper."
"Harper is looking rather wan in contrast to Martin's passion in the last few questions -- he's SO cool and rational that he often seems robotic."
"Martin gives a great, passionate response to the unity question -- his best minute yet."
But back to the average Canadian ideal that these elites try to stick their shoes into. Harper "failed to break his image" and "Harper is too bland" really go to the root of their quest: to speak for the average Canadian.
I say, speak for themselves. They are smart and education. Talk about the damn content. Who is making better points? Who is lying? The most obvious omission is Paul Martin saying he never wanted to send troops to Iraq. Well, we are already in Iraq. Maybe his right arm doesn't know what his left arm is doing.
Paul Martin: "I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible," (North Bay Nugget, April 30, 2003)".
Yet, even this issue is just an issue of veracity: it is still not about the best ideas. Who is making better arguments about children, etc.