Not three days ago news anchormen were marveling at Green Party leader Elizabeth May's ability to shoot from the hip sans teleprompter. Problem is, shots to the foot are just that, self-inflicted and hard to recover from.

"Sexism" and "back-room-deals" are what Elizabeth May today released as the reasons the network Consortium will not include the Green Party leader in the leaders' debates. Nonsense.

Sexism had nothing to do with the decision, and Elizabeth May knows this. Had Jim Harris, David Chernesheko, or Claude-William Genest been the at the helm when the quid-pro-quo decision was made with Liberal leader Stéphane Dion not to run candidates in each others ridings, they wouldn't be in the debates either.   

As for "back-room-deals" being a factor in the decision to exclude Elizabeth May from the leaders' debate, on that score, the soon to be embattled Green Party leader is absolutely right. But not the back-room-deal Ms. May would have us believe is at fault. That, was rather the effect.

The back-room-deal that delivered a death blow to Elizabeth May's revered aspirations for a spot at the podium was the one she negotiated to not have a Liberal candidate run against her in Central Nova in an effort to help shore-up the equally remarkable decision to run against Peter MacKay. Spin it however you like, but when you ad to the mix all of the other Dion-gushing and political hugs, Elizabeth May is, whether she wants to admit it or not, the default Liberal Candidate in Central Nova. 

Stephen Harper and Jack Layton didn't need to book a back-room to cook-up a response. It was handed to them on a silver - no make that a red-green - platter.

Truth be told, members of the Consortium are just as disappointed. Following a very convincing presentation to the Consortium in January 2007, the Consortium was privately cheering for May's inclusion, although waiting to time the announcement closer to the real election date, not the many false starts of the past 18 months. If nothing else, it would have meant a ratings bonanza. However, May took any remaining wiggle-room in the decision to allow her in, right out of the hands of the Consortiums the day she and Mr. Dion held each other's, and many times since.

Were Stephen Harper and Jack Layton worried about Elizabeth May and the political undoing she might have unleashed in a leaders' debate? Absolutely. But they needn't worry about that now thanks to Ms. May's own undoing. .

The Consortium had no other choice. Not even when another of Elizabeth May's back-room-deals, the one to manufacture an insta-Green MP out of Blair Wilson on the eve of the election call. As if sort of meeting the seat criteria, undoes the other deed. It doesn't. And making unfounded legal threats against a network Consortium whose party favour you still seek . . . yet another not-so-wise strategy.    

It's ironic, for the "none-of-the-above" and "politics not as usual" Party that denounces back-room-deals, it is back-room-deals that will lead to the end, for now, of an otherwise promising and prominent individual in the fight against the climate change crisis.

The impact of all of this? Expect the Green Party vote to recoil between now and October 14. The many months of predictions by this observer of the impact of vote-spitting among the non-Conservative parties will still occur, but it won't be as significant now that Elizabeth May has effectively served to take herself out. Still expect to see a Harper majority.  

Earlier today, Dr. David Suzuki issued a press release saying "... I can't wait until there's no Green Party, because as long as there's a Green Party, the implication is that the Greens somehow have a stranglehold on this issue - they're the ones that worry about the environment and the other parties can worry about other things ... I don't think it's a ghetto subject."

Dr. Suzuki may get his wish, albeit a little sooner than he expected.