Video from the Harper campaign


Here’s some video I shot while covering the Harper campaign. On Wednesday he was outside Toronto. On Thursday he was in Halifax. Both times he delivered a strong economic message to a handpicked Conservative party audience. And on the first day he issued a challenge to Michael Ignatieff he would soon regret.


Video from the Harper campaign

  1. Good strong message coming from Harper.

    (Wells, you have the time to record the video, and ask everyone within the audience if they were handpicked. Man, you are a multi tasker supreme! Glad to hear it.)

  2. Paul says: "And on the first day he issued a challenge to Michael Ignatieff he would soon regret."

    How so? What has been regretted?

    Wells, if you would put in a media plea to be in favour of seeing a one-on-one debate over some silly 4 on 1 debates, put your money where your mouth is and put some pressure on the media's decision as to what debate to call for.

    Harper has made his choice. What's yours?

  3. Paul knows math better than you do and knows that a federal election can have more than one!

  4. It's not a math problem, John; it is a matter of choice.

    Harper has decided to not do four debates.

    The media conglomerate which makes up the rules for the debates has chickened out. They are the ones who would not go for the one-on-one debates.

    It should not be up to you or Wells to decide what Harper has to say for himself. He has clearly said that he wants the one-on-one debates instead of the silly four-on-ones. Is Harper no longer allowed to make his choice clear?

    Does something always have to be invented to draw Harper into a corner, like saying that math has anything to do with this???

    But keep trying.

  5. A gong show? Harper probably has difficulty imagining a government where the MPs are not muzzled, the press is not shunned, adversaries are not enemies. He seems to have a very limited imagination. He also comes across as unusually crude for someone in his position.

  6. Lady, we were on a wharf half a linear mile from any road in Halifax, through a series of roadblocks staffed by people wearing Conservative party ID. The scene was utterly barren until a bus came out and disgorged the crowd. Harper introduced half of them by name: Conservative MPs, senators, candidates and provincial pols. They stood and clapped in unison and then left in the same bus. Ooooh, a mystery. Where's Encyclopedia Brown when you need him?

  7. And is such a warf not usually blocke off, any day of the year??? There were no regular warf staff working at the gate site? That would be hard to believe. But if you say the 'let in' was that controlled, it would have been something spectacular for your handheld camera to capture. THAT would have made some headlines.

  8. No. You would have asked why I was filming that instead of Things That Really Matter To Canadians. Look at the actual video, Francine. The empty chairs. Then they're full. Then the PM miraculously knows who's sitting where. Then the guy stands up and waves. Then there's a standing O. So I did film it and you're too stubborn to see it.

  9. Hey, that's hilarious.

    But, do they really need life bodies? It'd be easier packing and unpacking mannequins and a clapping soundtrack.

  10. Sigh….Harper issued a challenge to Ignatieff to do a one-on-one debate.

    Ignatieff said sure, anytime, anyplace

    Harper then changed his mind

    THAT is what's being referred to.

  11. Also, "wharf" has an 'h' in it.

  12. That was one humongous flag behind Mr. Harper. Wonder who's hiding behind it. Terry Milewski?

  13. Questions, questions,questions … any video of the stonewalling uncomfortable silence ?

  14. But access to any warf is alwayd controlled. And since when could the general public just walk in and attend Harper's address – to flood the scene, so to speak? That would be the same as reporting on an Ignatieff event later on when he visits a factory somewhere and only the factory workers would be there. Would you then also write "Ignatieff addressed a handpicked audience"? That's where I have my doubts.

    I mean, come on, SOMETHING positive could be reported on Harper. It seems difficult for the members of the media to do these days.

    Harper's first choice of debates chould be entirely up to him. Why not report accurately and let the reader know that Harper is fully prepared to do the one-on-one debates, in fact he suggested it, and then just add that Harper is not prepared to do FOUR debates. Give the reader the choice whether to think Harper had regretted things indeed or if such was merely your conclusion.

    That's all I'm asking for. I am asking for the reporting to be a little bit more evenhanded.

  15. Also, "wharf" has an 'h' in it.

    It becomes pretty boring on the campaign trail, does it?

  16. Well, at least he didn't hold it in Toronto, necessitating the arrest of a thousand innocent bystanders in the area. On the other hand, did anyone check to see if any Haligonians were jailed for being too close?

  17. If I were you I'd stop digging about now

  18. Wells at least write good.

  19. Why is an opinion in objection to a reporter's view always a bad thing, as in "one should stop digging now?"

    As readers we should just be docile and stay quiet on how the media plays its role within this federal election campaign? I believe in freedom of expression. I have not been rude to anyone. I state my concern forcefully, but so does Mr.Wells. I don't consider it digging when one wants to make a valid point.

    Why should the reader not be told that Harper has made a choice on the debates, and why did Wells decide no to report Harper's decision accurately? And why should we not question Wells on that?

  20. I would think he's kept in the pen with the rest of the overly curious journalists.

  21. Did you even notice that Mr. Harper said he and Mr. Ignantieff could ALSO debate? He did not say that it would be instead of any other debate.

    Mr. Harper is off to a poor start in this campaign.

  22. The key word here is valid.

  23. Again, what choice did Mr. Harper make? He said he could also debate Mr. Ignatieff one on one. That sounds like an offer for an additional debate to me.

  24. Wells writes well?

  25. That's an alliteration — not allowed in a parliamentary democracy.

  26. Why do you care that this was a staged media event? Did you think campaign tours were about spontaneous rallies or something? No they are not.

    The leaders tour is about giving the reporters on the tour and the local media clips for the nightly news. Meanwhile the reporters all want a special "scoop". That's why they are kind of mad about so few questions etc. Understandable but I mean the two jobs kind of conflict a little here. Politicians needs good clip or two on news and journalist needs bad gotcha for articles/news stories.

    Newsflash: Every party does these staged events!!! OH THE HORROR!!!!

  27. Yeah, John, I know how that works. I am not that naive.

    But my concern was not that it was a staged event. If you read my original post, you will read that I express my concern about the fact that "the handpicked audience" had to be highlighted and furthermore that Mr.Wells did not give a discription of what Harper had said further about the debates but instead Wells tells us about what he thinks Harper was regretting about the debates. How does Wells know that Harper has regretted anything about the debates? And if Wells is merely speculating, then he is not covering the events but he is creating news. That, in my mind, is the "horror' expressed on my part, for I believe reporters could just try and be more objective.

    Wells could have said: "Since the Lower Churchill announcement took place at a wharf, only invited guest were in attendence."

  28. Oh, don't be so hard on Edmund. He writes exceptionally well for a five-year-old.

  29. Aha.. I think that's the problem. You think FV is speaking of a dock.

    It's become apparent that what's really being talked about is a klingon first officer.

    "usually blocked off, any day of the year." "access to always controlled", etc.

  30. Oh God, we have been joined by a Blogging Torie. Watch out for flying cliches.

  31. You have approached this in a calm, rational demeanor. I think sometimes our emotions and partisan jabs behind our screens gets the better of us. Your observations are interesting and well stated; however, Harper's rejection of a one-on-one is hard to twist in your direction – he offered the duel with no clauses attached; the duel was accepted and then harper put up a clause that wasn't going to work.
    We're just waiting for him to say 'coalition' one more time and see his head explode, really. Then Wells and the media will be glad that they were held back 12 metres behind a fence.

  32. Edmund Onward James' fourth birthday party will commence April 12 at the local Chucky Cheez; anyone with questions as to how to get their can just get lost.

  33. I find your post quite amusing. First you give me credit for approaching this in a calm, rational demeanor, to then slam my interesting observations in a most unreasonable manner. Why do you think you need to resort to sheer none sense when countering my argument? Could it be that your own argument does not stand up when reasonably put forth?

    Harper's statements must now be twisted out of whack one more time? Harper has indicated that the consortium has choices to make. Harper's choice was to have a one-on-one debates rather than have the four-on-one debates. The consortium chose the latter and Harper will have no choice than to live with that, and sadly enough, so do the Canadian voters. It is indeed the lack of courage on the part of the consortium members, who could not stand up firmly enough to say that yes, perhaps the choice of a one-on-one debate over the four-on-one debates would have served the publice better. But alas, we will await the consortium's courage for another election.

    I think a much more creative suggestion would be as I have indicated in a posting on Coyne's #3 Debate blog. Perhaps you have read it.

  34. When Wells writes, Wells writes well. When Wells writes well, Wells writes on wells. Writing on wells will make Wells write well. And so on and so forth.

  35. I did get the irony when the PM was talking about job creation, the video was of ROBOTS making stuff! Touché!. Also interesting was the barrier for the press, presumably to keep you away from the Hand Picked Ones.

Sign in to comment.