Ottawa Centre Candidates Debate, 2011

Political debates are dead, they say. Who says? Well, mostly politicians who don't like going to debates. The politicians bitch and moan. And that starts the media chattering. I heard a CBC radio voice ask, has social media eliminated the need for candidate debates?

I wanted to throw my radio out the window. YouTube and Twitter are not healthy alternatives to real life.

Most elections, I go to as many debates as I can. Not this time. Why? Because Damian Konstantinakos (Conservative) hasn't attended a lot of debates. What's the point in going to see a play if the villain never shows up?

Last election was the same thing -- Brian McGarry attended a few debates then disappeared. Same with Penny Collenette. More than once, I went to debates where only the Greens and the NDP made an appearance. It filled me with fury.

But why would Damian go to a debate on the environment? Or the arts? Or unions? A Conservative has nothing to contribute to those conversations. Those debates are clearly biased against the Conservative perspective -- or so Damian would tell you.

My take: if you can't address the issues that are important to Ottawa Centre, maybe you shouldn't run for office.

The one debate I attended this election was held Thursday, at St. Paul's University. The "bias" against Conservatives was pretty clear. Damian spoke, and the crowd quietly and politely snickered and moaned.

At one point Damian described globalization as good, and you could hear the crowd bristle. He defined everything in terms of the economy and efficient government, and the audience grew bored. He mentioned owning a "three pound Chihuahua", and the crowd was briefly on his side, much to his surprise. Damian suddenly seemed human. Sensing this, he mentioned his "three pound Chihuahua" a second time, at the end of the debate. And that's how he lost us again, because he was trying too hard.

It's not easy being a politician. This is particularly true at the debates. A complicated, intricate, nuanced question is put to you. You have ninety seconds to answer it.

"If you could build a nuclear weapon out of household goods, what goods would you use? Why would you build this nuclear bomb in the first place? If you absolutely had to use it against someone, who would you use it against? Why? And please give your response in the form of a sonnet."

Is it any wonder Green candidate Jen Hunter always keeps a copy of the Green Party platform in hand? Instead of giving us a quick, spontaneous summary, she looks at her iPad and quotes the page numbers where we can find all the answers to our questions. Sometimes she reads off passages.

This tactic has an unfortunate side-effect: it is painfully boring. The fifth time she did this, I heard people quietly groan to themselves.

A political debate isn't really about issues, so much as a chance to examine a politician's charm. Put on a show. Make us believe you're competent. Show us your teeth and your legs. Entertain us.

Personally, I love the theatre. I've had season tickets to the NAC English theatre for several years running. And these debates are a kind of theatre. Politics is performance. I genuinely enjoy politicians who can act, charm, spar with words.

Jen reading from her iPad? Not so entertaining.

Mind you, she did have a few theatrical moments that were perfect. Jen pointed out she was the only woman running. That got her applause. And at the end of the night, she quite spontaneously started to cry, seemingly frustrated that not all candidates got to speak at debates. (The fringe groups had to settle for two minutes each at the end of the night.)

Jen's crying struck me as a very genuine, powerful moment. It took the air out of the room. Everyone was shocked. But she recovered nicely.

Mid-tears, Jen blurted out with a laugh, "Women cry -- deal with it."

And that broke the tension and made everyone laugh.

Only later did I overhear someone involved in the Conservative campaign say he thought Jen faked it.

"There were no real tears in her eyes," he said, utterly convinced, sneering.

I found his cynicism extremely bizarre. Why would Jen fake it? What did it gain her? If anything, it made her seem vulnerable. Being convinced she faked it, for some political leverage, says far more about this Conservative than Jen Hunter.

***

This election is definitely a choice between Paul Dewar (NDP) and Scott Bradley (Liberal). No one else is quite ready for prime time.

I attended the debate, curious to see if Bradley stands a chance or not. I've seen a lot of his signs around, and he's very active on Twitter. Is he a viable candidate, I wondered?

Short answer: no. Scott tried to pick a fight with Dewar, it backfired, and Bradley ended up looking like a big, bullying child.

It went down like this:

The issue of Lebreton Flats came up. It's a bit of a disaster, with debris everywhere and development stalled. Scott took a swing at Paul, saying hey, you've been our candidate for the past five years and you've done nothing about it. Clearly you suck.

Dewar got upset. When he finally got a chance to respond, he said that phase 1 of Lebreton was carved in stone long before he got nominated for office, let alone before he was even elected. Who was in charge of Ottawa Centre when Lebreton Flats details were being hashed out? A Liberal.

Pow! Bradley was knocked back and never seemed to recover from this. Scott threw a few more punches, but Dewar ignored him.

"It's tempting to fight," Dewar said, then didn't.

Which left Bradley swinging at nothing.

Scott struck me as an affable goon. He seemed like a slightly polished hockey commentator. Big and square, with long, free flying limbs, he was passionate and well-spoken, but felt artificial in that way Liberals often do. He felt soaked in strategy.

Scott knew he had to try to knock Paul down, to be taken seriously, and you could see Scott working to do it. But because you could see him trying so hard, it looked like a pose. It looked forced. Dewar is my enemy! Must crush Dewar! Almost like a cartoon wrestler.

And in the end, Bradley came across as all blustery posturing.

On the opposite end is Paul. Dewar comes across as a political nerd. A question gets asked, he gets excited about it, and provides details in his answer that show he understands what's going on. He seems to be obsessed with politics and working to get things done. He's always optimistic, always fighting.

It's not so much what he says as how he says it:

This is exciting! Let me tackle this issue. Here are some precise details on the matter, and how I've been working on it and thinking about it.

If Dewar is faking his attitude and insights, he deserves an Oscar. It comes across as utterly genuine. How can you fake the details that spring out of him as needed?

Okay, sure -- sometimes he can get a bit shrill, almost borderline preachy. And, in typical NDP fashion, he promises us the moon, the stars, and chocolate cake every day forever and ever.

But during his best moments, Dewar makes infinite chocolate cake seem possible.

***

Are these debates a waste of time? The hall at St. Paul’s was packed. People were interested and participating. And yet, from a politician’s perspective, maybe it was a waste of time.

At the beginning of the debate, Jen Hunter asked, “A show of hands – how many of you have already voted?”

(There have been advance polls where you can vote early and avoid the rush.)

Roughly half the crowd put their hands up. Seeing this, we all gasped and laughed at ourselves.

So what were we all doing there? I’m guessing we were there for the show. The theatre. The play of ideologies. The fun of it. We were all politically interested people. We were political nerds.

The politicians had to be asking themselves, what are we doing here? There are still undecided votes out there. We should be talking to them. We should be struggling to get more votes.

I get angry when I hear politicians focused on the small picture. Elections aren’t just about winning votes. They’re also about sharing ideas, engaging the populace, and putting on a show.

In my ideal world, Damian Konstaninakos would go to the arts-themed debate and explain to artists the Conservative perspective. Sure, they won’t like it. They might even boo him. They all want arts grants, and everyone knows the Conservatives are (typically) against funding for the arts.

It would be a tough thing for Damian, speaking his truth to those people. But that's why it would be worth it. We'd get to hear it -- his truth, the truth of his party, expressed clearly. No fooling around, no hiding.

Wouldn't it be great if Damian, and other politicians, were principled enough to say what they actually believe?

Instead, politicians focus on efficient use of their resources -- what can they do to get the most votes? Ironically, it's this vote chasing that gets them less votes. They come across as willing to do or say anything to get another point in the political video game. And that alienates the voters.

It's like a zen puzzle -- if you want the high score, you won't get it. If you don't want it, you will get it.

I think Paul Dewar has captured that feeling. When he speaks, he seems to be having fun. He's in his element. And that's why he should be the winner in Ottawa Centre.

Grand

Some mugshots don't need to be tampered with. They're awesome all on their own.

Tom

Tom has not yet been arrested for anything. He's a friend.

Refusal

Refusal to take breath test.

Prostitution

Oxycodone

Cocaine

D.U.I.

Charges:

1. DUI
2. DUI damage to property or person.
3. DUI personal injury.
4. DUI personal injury.
5. DUI personal injury.

"Eating Waffles"

I work in an office.

The graveyard shift cleaner is named Lefty. He leaves me cryptic notes on my keyboard.

I write back equally cryptic replies.

We’ve been exchanging notes like this for years now. I can’t remember how it started.

Today somehow feels different. Walking to work, I asked myself:

“What can I get away with today?”

It seems like a question I should ask myself more often.

On my desk, I found this note from Lefty:

“The sky was meant to help others fly after eating waffles in the lunchroom.”

I read the note several times. I memorized it.

I’m telling you this, because I’m going to go away.

If you’re looking for me, check “the lunchroom”. I might be in there “eating waffles”.

If I’m not there, look up in the sky.

Possession

Buzzing