Always we approach these federal leader debates like Leafs fans, hoping this time it will be different. That there will perhaps be clarity where once there was brain fog. That somebody will actually debate, rather than see their opponent's talking point and raise them two of their own.
Or maybe, for the second time in 40 years, see a clear win?
Something like that the simple, authoritative, "You could have said no, sir!" that Brian Mulroney delivered to John Turner as he tried to excuse himself confirming senatorial appointments made by Trudeau père. With that, Mulroney collapsed Turner's hopes of forming government in 1984.
If that moment defines a win, we didn't see anything close on Wednesday in French, or on Thursday in English.
Admittedly, we did not expect to.
There were however, occasional moments of certainty. Together they amount to a win on points for Pierre Poilievre.
First however, the other three candidates.
Those who love Mr. Carney will say that he maintained a dignified presence, notwithstanding his vulnerability on points of detail, such as mixing up pipelines and still listing himself on his website as an economic adviser to Justin Trudeau. That was true, of course. But, it is also like your time as navigating officer on the Exxon Valdez. Some things are best left off the CV. Poilievre took a point off him for that.
The thing is, Mr. Carney has a flair for telling you what you want to hear, in words that can be explained later to mean something else. For example, we now know what he meant in Calgary last week, by making Canada an 'energy super power.' Tonight, we learned he meant a 'clean-energy superpower.' Which is what we thought all along. Unfortunately a lot of people who don't live in the West, won't see the difference.
Pipelines? Yes, if impossible conditions can be met. They won't get that, either.
The times were dire. The threat was existential,
The great enemy was President Trump.
Be afraid, very afraid. Trump, always Trump. Which may be true, but what was he going to do about it?
Words, empty words.
Nevertheless, realistically, it is hard to see how Carney's performance lost him votes tonight, while the very fact that he did his unilingual best in French last night may even have won him a sympathy vote.
What was a little strange was that never once did he actually look at Poilievre.
We're not sure if anybody loves Jagmeet Singh any more. His party is headed for political obliteration and him with it.
Indeed, it is hard to figure out what his strategy was this evening. He spent his time interrupting Pierre Poilievre and reciting NDP talking points. His answer on violent crime? More mental health programs, that sort of thing. He certainly didn't debate.
Frankly, he seemed tired and emotional. One comment on our feed compared him to a mosquito buzzing around Poilievre's head. In his circumstances, it's understandable. But our sympathy, limited in any case, is hardly sufficient to give him even as much as a participation trophy.
Which leaves Bloc Quebecois leader, Yves-François Blanchet, the one man on the stage who didn't have to pretend, and will never have to say he's sorry. He knows he has one job, which is to look after Quebec's interests. That means he doesn't have to say one thing out of one side of his mouth in one part of the country, and not say it out of the other in another part of the country. That is, he doesn't have to play mind games about what kind of pipelines he might favour, he just doesn't want any pipeline across Quebec if it's carrying Western oil.
He is also a humorist. If you're a Westerner, he's not your friend.
But you can't help liking the guy. His litmus test? If it's good for Quebec, he's for it and vice versa. Simple, ne c'est pas?
We should try that in Western Canada.
Which leaves Mr. Poilievre. He was on message, verbally nimble, able to insert himself into the discussion whether Mr. Carney — standing appropriately well to his left — looked at him or not.
And he did so effectively and often. For example, he has promised that a Conservative government would jail multiple murderers for literal life. "Multiple-murderers should only come out in a box," as he famously said.
Carney countered with the predictable Liberal bromide that this would infringe the Charter, which was there to ensure the rights of all Canadians. A+ for Civics, then. However, Poilievre quite properly responded that the people he wanted in jail had already limited the rights of the people they had killed.
He also effectively neutralized Mr. Carney's gun-grab line. He had suggested that you couldn't be 'serious about crime, unless you were serious about guns,' and boasted that the Liberal government had banned more than 2,000 types of long gun.
Of course, these aren't the problem guns. The ones that do the damage are the handguns smuggled in from the US.
Everybody knows that, but Carney keeps talking about long guns. He thereby set himself up to receive Mr. Poilievre's crack about hunters and turkeys.
Point (again) to Poilievre.
So, match to Poilievre on points. And, an honourable mention to debate moderator Steve Paikin who, if every debate must have a knock-out winner, gets my vote for being a steady hand in a difficult situation.
