It has always been my belief, restated often, that the achilles heel for Harper in particular, and pretty much all conservatives, everywhere, is that they are pussies. It's precisely because they're so insecure, especially the guys, that they overcompensate and make a big show of their testosterone, and their images and language all speak to the need to convey an over-the-top masculinity. Real men don't make a show of it, they just on with things. But Cons are always bellowing, flexing their pecs, waving their cocks around. Ponces. That's not how your Dad, or brothers, or husbands, or cousins or friends behave, is it? That's because they're secure well-adjusted men, looking after family and friends, trying to do some good in the world. Because they're not poncey conservatives, in the political sense, whatever their stance on issues. Remember the Del Mastro-Dykstra fist bump...while voting on non-confidence motion??!! Typical. Poncey twits. All hat, no cattle.
So Harper couldn't help himself pretending he wanted a one-on-one debate with Ignatieff. He's loath to concede his potemkin masculinity, carefully created through years of messaging and imagery. But he will. Because he's a pussy. Mr. "I can take a punch" has given ample demonstration, through the years, that he can't, and not just that, he can't even handle questions, argument, debate ("The PM will no longer talk about the 308 candidates and their staff we're asking Canadians to elect." What a loser.)
The media and the country will put immense pressure on Harper to follow through. But he won't, he'll claim some jesuitical justification for avoiding a one-on-one debate (GPC & CPC have a lot in common, though one is being jesuitical to try to get in a debate for which they have no legitimate claim, which they know very well, having admitted the logic in 2008 and since, by their actions, and the other will use the same approach to avoid a debate. Peas in a pod, really, CPC-GPC).
So the LPC should be preparing ads TONIGHT, ready to go when Harper chickens out. It's the one thing the CPC fears most, having their leader and themselves exposed as the girly-men they are (I mean no slight on any man who thinks of himself, consciously, as a girly man. By definition, such self-honesty is a lot more manly than CPC self-evasion).
The ads I imagine will contrast the LPC-Ignatieff serious, fatherly platform, and his readiness to debate it with Harper, with Harper's cowardice in fleeing the debate, because he knows that he can't win a real debate on the issues. Something like Ignatieff saying to camera "Stephen Harper claimed he was willing to debate me, Michael Ignatieff, leader of the Liberal Party, one on one. When I said "anytime, anywhere", he made excuses and ducked out. That's because the Harper Conservatives, mired in scandal, are out of ideas and running scared. Had enough of Harper? Only the Liberal Party can replace the Harper Conservatives, and we're full of ideas and energy, with hope for the future. We have a plan to help families with their kids' tuition, with their healthcare, with training for jobs, with seniors' pensions and looking after loved ones in their later years. Vote Liberal for a better today, and a better tomorrow."
I'm sure the LPC people, old pros that they are, already have something cooked up. But just in case, I thought I should warn them not to miss this golden opportunity: it`s good enough it needs ads to capitalise. Make Harper and CPC eat it. Can't decide which is better, a real debate, or the consequences for Harper and the CPC when it becomes clear he's backing down, as he surely will.
PS. Though not directly relevant to the May Greens jesuitical disgrace, I should also note that no English commentator has as yet remarked on the almost incomprehensibly bad French May inflicts on francophones. If people are going to make an argument not on reason, not without setting out any clear logic and criteria for debate inclusion and format, but based simply on feelings cause they feel bad for poor widdle May, the poor "girl" (does anyone think they would be so exercised if the GPC leader were male?), then they should also take into account of francophones, for whom May's speech is profoundly insulting in its incomprehensibility. Such ineptitude in one of the official languages in one who is supposedly a national leader expresses the full contempt for that linguistic community held by the GPC & May, perhaps unconsciously. Was there simultaneous translation at their conference in Toronto? How much of the proceedings were in French, I wonder.