"What they do in public doesn't bother me. It's the shit they do behind the scenes – which I may not know they're doing – that keeps me up at night,"
Ignatieff is pissed:
Stéphane Dion is resisting pressure to fire the Liberal party's national director who suggested that former leadership rivals may be plotting against the new boss.
Deputy leader Michael Ignatieff told Dion over the weekend that Jamie Carroll should be fired, sources say.
While he did not demand Carroll's head or issue any ultimatums on the matter, they say Ignatieff argued that Carroll can't remain ostensibly in charge of rebuilding and unifying the party after publicly casting aspersions on the loyalty of erstwhile leadership competitors.
"He was forceful that it was his view that (Carroll) should go," said one well-placed insider.
"I've made my views very clear to the leader and I think he's communicated that to Mr. Carroll, as far as I know," he said.
Still, Ignatieff attempted to downplay the controversy, declaring: "Look, I get up in the morning, I show up, I prepare for QP (question period), I do my job. We've united the party. All this stuff is kind of tired rehash gossip from a leadership campaign that's over."
But Montreal MP Denis Coderre, who co-chaired Ignatieff's leadership campaign, was clearly seething. He called Carroll's comments "totally misplaced" and "totally unacceptable."
"There is no clans and I will not accept that anybody from the party who's stating that there's some clans who are plotting right now because . . . it's not true," Coderre said.
Carroll probably should have kept his mouth shut, and there is a certain paranoia to his comments. Having said that, why I am reading about the reaction in the Toronto Star, from "well placed sources"? Coderre says there are no "clans", yet he reacts as though his tribe was attacked (of note, the article cites the "Ignatieff camp").
I don't think Carroll should resign, but I do think he should clarify and be more diplomatic when speaking with reporters. One big happy family :)
33 comments:
Hey Far,
While I agree with everything you write, Jamie is a dude, not a chick. Though I suppose it could be said that MI cut his balls off today...;)
Steve,
One big happy family :)
Keep telling yourself that... seriously though, Liberals are ambitious, and they're winners. If there leaders are proving otherwise, they're tossed from within, because the faithful expect to win, more so than any other federal party. The NDP, and the Conservatives, can deal with losers, because they're used to it and don't necessarily expect someone else can do better. Unless Dion can prove he's a winner amongst a party that ruthlessly demands such a result (one might even say, feels entitled to it), such things are only going to get worse.
I am so tired of this shit...Rae comes across as a bitter old man over the weekend and now Iggy comes across as a power hungry A-Hole. Dion and kennedy are the only ones who seem to have any sense in the party these days.
While Jamie shouldnt have made the comments, good on Stephane for standing behind him.
Hang on a second. Carroll made that statement 2 months ago and the party is reacting now?
This is BS imo, pumped up rhetoric that the media, for reasons unknown to me, seem to want to perpetuate.
Nary a newscast goes by, without someone saying, "the disunity in the Liberal party". I'm beginning to think that it's impossible to report on what is going well. Everything has to have an angle, an unnamed source, discordance, mutiny...it's nuts and I don't at this point think it's true.
Olaf: The NDP, and the Conservatives, can deal with losers
I think that might have been true once. With the con's now? Not a chance. They are all about the win.
As an aside, could someone shut Coderre the hell up. He has the guts to go on record, but he doesn't have the sense to know when to be anonymous.
KNB,
Nary a newscast goes by, without someone saying, "the disunity in the Liberal party". I'm beginning to think that it's impossible to report on what is going well. Everything has to have an angle, an unnamed source, discordance, mutiny...it's nuts and I don't at this point think it's true.
I find this odd... apparently the propensity to claim (or insinuate) media bias is as strong amongst Liberals as Conservatives. The story wasn't what Carroll said, but Ignatieff's reaction, as I read it, which was "over the weekend", not 2 months ago. I know it's fun to assume that Liberal party unity is at it's apex and any reports to the contrary were at least partly cooked by a bored and vindictive fourth estate, but I tend to believe the news reports that the party might be less then completely united behind Dion, even amongst close advisors and past rivals, if you can believe it.
I think that might have been true once. With the con's now? Not a chance. They are all about the win.
Perhaps, it's hard to know (despite how convinced you are). I have the feeling that the Conservatives might be better able to tolerate another Harper minority (or even a loss to a minority), and stick with him, although this is again just my impression, bolstered in part by the fact (auxiliary to general party temperament) that the CPC as of now has no Ignatieffs or Raes waiting in the wings.
Interestingly, your implication (that the CPC members are now as power hungry as Liberals ever were) was touched on indirectly at RTs recently (which I won't link to, lest it take away from an interesting discussion developing here), a thread that you may have been involved in. From my observation (in RTs thread that I mention and elsewhere), there definitely does seem to be a tendency for CPC supporters to care less for conservative principles as the opportunistic pursuit of power, which would lead to a situation where Harper (and future CPC leaders) turned out to be only as good as they were successful, quite similar to Liberals (and less similar to NDP leaders, for example).
anon
Oops :)
To be honest Olaf, my comment about media wasn't meant to insinuate bias, but boredom. There seems to be a need to report politics in the same way as ET or something. "Here's what's coming up after the break..." Usually a tabloid-like line to keep you watching. I'm simply weary and leary of all of it.
but I tend to believe the news reports
That surprises me. What you specifically speak of within that context, of course you are entitled to believe. I tend to think that this party wants very much to move forward. The Coderre's and the Rodriguez's, indeed seem to lack the maturity to go on, but I'm not so sure about the rest. I sense a mutual desire, goal, there.
Re' the CPC desire for power, yes to me it is palpable. So many principles being thrown overboard, just for the shot at getting a majority. It's bizarre and frankly I did not see that coming.
I would disagree though. If Harper lost to another minority, he's gone. Perhaps not because of his supporters, but I don't think his ego could stand it. He's been many things in my mind, but the arrogance that he has shown, surpassed even my view of him. Remember, this was a scrawny little geek in High School, who has risen to the highest power in the land. Put those two things together and they either equate to humility or hubris. I think we know what road Harper chose.
I wrote the Liberal party tonight and gave them my view. Mr.Carroll has to go.
I would point to my comments from Steve's post regarding Ms. Diebel's book for my reaction to the media's ongoing efforts to portray the Liberal Party as disunited.
The simple fact is the different personalities in the party do not have to like or even respect each other. They just have to learn to work together.
Jean Chretien and Paul Martin managed to do so for over a decade and they thoroughly disliked each other.
There is no animosity between the top four in the Liberal Party, although there is probably ambition. So, I would expect Mr. Dion's rivals, and a few others, to be angling to replace him if things do not work out. Expecting anything else is naive. Depicting it as disunity, as Ms. Diebel likes to do, is willfully misleading.
As Olaf points out the Liberals like to win. They have chosen Mr. Dion as leader and they will unite around him because the alternative means defeat.
litz
Care to elaborate, out of curiousity?
ottlib
Maybe the real issue here isn't everyone in complete unision, but the fact that people seem to air everything in public. I don't understand why someone would go on record and discuss this stuff, unless of course they are purposefully mischevious, or worse, sowing division. It happens far too often, and someone needs to clampdown. If everyone is working together, as people project, then why the constant leaks?
KNB,
The Coderre's and the Rodriguez's, indeed seem to lack the maturity to go on, but I'm not so sure about the rest. I sense a mutual desire, goal, there.
Well, I'm sure there is a common goal to a degree. It's what the degree is. If the media is just "bored", why don't they find similar incidents within the CPC caucus, if it's not more particular to the Liberals? I'm sure that by now the "Liberals divided" story is a bit dated, so if such stories are so easy to come by regardless of party, why not run a front page story saying "Party members not confident in Harper"? I assume, because there is not nearly as much material, as there is for a "Liberals divided" story. You see my point, surely.
As much as many Liberals want to move on, many more want to move on, but under a different leader. Harper doesn't have that problem, because there is no one who seems capable or willing or ambitious enough to take his place. It's a different situation that does not benefit Dion relatively speaking, but I think it's more a function of party dynamics than media boredom.
So many principles being thrown overboard, just for the shot at getting a majority. It's bizarre and frankly I did not see that coming.
Well, Harper's support isn't where it was following his election as PM, so perhaps there's more to come. I don't see any resurgent Martin-style party in the cards, although the hard core Reformers are looking for a possible comeback outside the CPC (as opposed to the result of an internal coup). Conservatives, I think, are more used to revolt from the outside, where as Liberals are Liberals - who figure there is nothing wrong with the brand (which is easy to maintain, since it is infinitely mercurial), just the leader.
If Harper lost to another minority, he's gone. Perhaps not because of his supporters, but I don't think his ego could stand it.
Perhaps, but that's not what we're talking about. My point was that Liberals are (slightly) more likely to devour their own due to their failure to achieve electoral success, and they will be ousted regardless of their own personal ambitions. Whether or not Harper is unwilling to be defeated is irrelevant to this point.
Remember, this was a scrawny little geek in High School, who has risen to the highest power in the land.
Imagine the embarrassment of being a scrawny little geek still? :)
olaf
Just a quick point on the Conservatives, and the appearance of unity. I'm not suggesting an equality here, but there could be something to how the varying parties operate. Harper demands tight control and I truly believe there is a fear factor involved, which may preclude outright disagreement. We hear whispers, but they never amount to the scope of the Liberal fights. For example, the Newfoundland caucus is reportedly upset, but that is all we hear, we never get the real dirt, the heated debates, the juice. If that were the Liberals, you would get blow by blow accounts.
Does anyone really believe that Conservatives aren't thinking about Harper's successor? The general consensus, he has one more election, no majority, the revolt begins. I'm sure people like MacKay are positioning themselves, it's just more private. Conservative might just be better at keep things close to the vest, whereas Liberals are messy and loose.
Ottlib,
I find these kind of comments perplexing:
There is no animosity between the top four in the Liberal Party, although there is probably ambition.
As if you have any clue who holds animosity to whom. It's wishful thinking at it's worst: stated as a fact. Sure, there could possibly be no animosity between the former leadership candidates, but unless you have some intimate knowledge the rest of us don't, you're in no better place to suggest so than anyone. And yet, for you, it's unequivocal - "no animosity", and anyone who implies otherwise is wrong.
Hilariously, you mention Paul Martin and Jean Chretien right before your impressive clairvoyance. If you had said "regardless of any animosity that may exist amongst the top four - I personally don't know - they can still work together", you might have had a point (although 4 egos are twice as volatile as 2). But when you make such ridiculous statements (again, you said "there is no animosity"), you sound like a party spokesman, without the benefit of actually knowing the situation.
Sorry to dwell, but again, you say:
There is no animosity between the top four in the Liberal Party, although there is probably ambition. So, I would expect Mr. Dion's rivals, and a few others, to be angling to replace him if things do not work out. Expecting anything else is naive. Depicting it as disunity, as Ms. Diebel likes to do, is willfully misleading.
"Willfully misleading", as in her suggesting that there is animosity - not outright rebellion or sabotage, but animosity? This is "willfully misleading"? You talk, not as if you were merely close personal friends of each of the "top four", but as if you could read their personal thoughts, and could declare that despite the findings of a professional reporter (who, you'll excuse me for suggesting, but might be better informed than even you), are "willfully misleading". She could be wrong, but for you to declare that she is willfully misleading, you would actually have to establish a contrary fact (that there is no animosity), and then, even more difficult, establish that she knew such a fact before hand. I look forward to your book on Dion.
Sometimes you're reasonable. Other times you're stunning.
I wonder if there is animosity that lingers. Now, I realize I am playing the rumor game, but I've read several comments around the blogs that Rae has been cool to Kennedy to this day, which I actually tend to believe, given the "I waz robbed" tone.
Steve,
I agree, the mirage of complete party unity behind Harper is just that - no party leader is ever unopposed on everything.
If that were the Liberals, you would get blow by blow accounts.
Why though, is the question. Why are Liberals more inclined to speak out? Because they have less faith in the future of their leader, and might even get rewarded by a future leader for opposing him? Because there are no repercussions (although there supposedly are for voting against the party line) for doing so? It's a question I'm not sure that us "outsiders" can settle, but I get the impression that there is more dissension with Dion than Harper with the respective parties.
Olaf: You see my point, surely.
No, sorry, I don't. The reason? There is no accessibility by media to the CPC. They walk away from questions in scrums, saying "I can't comment", meaning I am not allowed to have a point of view, etc.
There is plenty being reported on what the con's are doing, not much insider stuff, because that's how Harper likes it. It's going to bite him though, mark my words. When Weston is calling him Steve in Wonderland, you know it's gone bad.
As much as many Liberals want to move on, many more want to move on, but under a different leader.
Please. That is a hopeful comment on your part, with no more proof than the lies Van Loan spews in QP.
Your devouring comment I think was true. I'm not convinced that it is true now however.
Imagine the embarrassment of being a scrawny little geek still? :)
Good come back! Though, you make my point my friend. Dion chose humility.
"but I get the impression that there is more dissension with Dion than Harper with the respective parties."
At this point, there is no disputing that. I did say there wasn't "equality", which was my clumsy way of saying what you did above.
Steve,
Does anyone really believe that Conservatives aren't thinking about Harper's successor? The general consensus, he has one more election, no majority, the revolt begins. I'm sure people like MacKay are positioning themselves, it's just more private. Conservative might just be better at keep things close to the vest, whereas Liberals are messy and loose.
Again, this is an odd piece of speculation? You assume that immediately, after years of power, the entire Liberal establishment has turned into political neophytes. I think there might be more too is than one party being miraculously "messy and loose", although perhaps I'm just falling for it...
"Again, this is an odd piece of speculation?"
Well what do I know, I thought the National Director was a woman ;)
Olaf: Why are Liberals more inclined to speak out?
Oh come on. You know the tight reins that are held by the PM. They all spew the same lines, verbatim, day after day. They are spoon fed and if they deviate, frankly I don't know what the reprecussions are, but they must be onerous.
Voting against the party line...reprecussions, ha, you do know how silly that comment is. Have you ever seen a con stand against the party on a vote? Hmmm, Chong, who dissented, where is he now? In the Siberia seats the last I checked. Oh, yeah, then there is Turner.
Seriously though, do you think there are malcontents in that party? I do, on both sides. Far right and former PC's must be reassessing for different reasons. I'm not sure they will jump, I just suspect it's true.
Steve, you must have a woman in your life named Jamie.
That kind of mistake and assumption, I think is a good thing and shows from where you come, no bias in that area. Good on you, :).
KNB,
No, sorry, I don't. The reason? There is no accessibility by media to the CPC. They walk away from questions in scrums, saying "I can't comment", meaning I am not allowed to have a point of view, etc.
This is a common technique used by the Liberal supporters, as if Chretien, Martin and Dion even, actively promoted those with a different viewpoint. Are you saying that although it's so damaging to his electoral prospects to present a divided party, Dion chooses to promote those MPs that speak against him? C'mon.
Just to clarify my point:
There is plenty being reported on what the con's are doing, not much insider stuff, because that's how Harper likes it.
I'm sure that Dion prefers it that insider stuff (like the Carroll comment in question) wasn't reported. I'm sure that it wasn't screened by him, to which he responded "well, this is going to hurt politically, but yea, go ahead". The question is, why are Liberals more keen on openly criticizing their leader? Rather, why are they so much more keen on it now, then they were under Chretian, or Martin? Were the Liberal PMs Harper-style authoritarians, or did they command more respect and allegiance from their caucus? I don't know, but I imagine there is more too it than just Dion and Harper's respective management style...
Please. That is a hopeful comment on your part, with no more proof than the lies Van Loan spews in QP.
You're right, I don't have proof of it, I just get my information from popular media stories, unlike everyone else here, who seems to have a direct line to the Liberal HQs. :)
Good come back! Though, you make my point my friend. Dion chose humility.
Haha... at what point does it go from "choosing humility" to "accepting unpopularity?" I mean, you don't see many nerds in high school, who you admire and say "well, clearly, they're not actually unappealing nerds, but rather, they have no interest in being liked or impressive, they've just chosen unpopularity... those noble philosopher kings!".
Just to followup on knb's point about:
"Oh come on. You know the tight reins that are held by the PM. They all spew the same lines, verbatim, day after day. They are spoon fed and if they deviate, frankly I don't know what the reprecussions are, but they must be onerous"
Remember this nugget from last spring:
"Ministers in the new Conservative government have been warned they could be banned from travelling, publicly humiliated or even fired for verbal gaffes.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is determined not to have his agenda derailed and his ministers have been made aware they will face punishment for loose-lipped indiscretions.
Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, has given colleagues in ministers' offices stark warnings about sanctions for cabinet members who either embarrass or contradict the government in public, sources say.
The worst of those penalties — being dumped from cabinet, shuffled to another portfolio, or barred from official trips — have not been imposed yet."
KNB,
Oh come on. You know the tight reins that are held by the PM. They all spew the same lines, verbatim, day after day. They are spoon fed and if they deviate, frankly I don't know what the reprecussions are, but they must be onerous.
Basically, what you know about Harper's party discipline (or lack there of), is what I know about the Liberal parties unity (or lack thereof) - from media reports. So how can you explicitly reject my understanding as media driven, and yet wholeheartedly support yours as objectively factual?
I mean, with your logic, I could point out that the failure of people like Michael Chong to vote against the Liberal party is a result of Dions far more clearly articulated repercussions. For example, the anti-terror provisions, where Dion "vowed to punish" recalcitrant MPs. We didn't even learn what punishment they would receive. Perhaps death? Even Harper wouldn't sentence an MP to death without due process...
Just saying that your impression of Harper's ruthless party discipline is as equally the result of media reports (especially as influenced by the objective fact that few MPs have crossed him publicly), as mine is of Dion not exactly leading a unified party (again, as the result of influences by the objective fact that a few MPs have crossed him publicly).
Whether the chicken came before the egg, it's hard to say from here, but it's ridiculous for either of us to suggest that the other is obviously wrong.
Oh olaf, I wish I knew how to fence. I imagine we would be good opponents.
This is a common technique used by the Liberal supporters, as if Chretien, Martin and Dion even, actively promoted those with a different viewpoint.
Come on, I know you see the difference and of course they don't promote a "speak out against" culture. To be sure, Chretien had his thing about the media, but seriously, no one has done what Harper has and I believe he's going to pay for it. Weston, Wells, Coyne, Martin, all of them slagging him. Not good. His only defenders are the "Sun" hacks and people like Levant. That's like having Limbaugh, Coulter and Fox New's behind you, not good.
As to inside sources, I presume you were speaking of ottlib. Bite your tongue Olaf, he was an insider and was there.
at what point does it go from "choosing humility" to "accepting unpopularity?"
When it includes principle.
Whether the chicken came before the egg
Actually, the egg came first, that was proven. You do believe in science, yes?
KNB,
Weston, Wells, Coyne, Martin, all of them slagging him. Not good. His only defenders are the "Sun" hacks and people like Levant. That's like having Limbaugh, Coulter and Fox New's behind you, not good.
So basically, if a gang of pundits were slagging Dion (like, I don't know, a month ago, when everyone was), surely you'd switch your allegiance to Harper, yes? So if basically ever editorial board (the Globe, Star, Post, Sun Media) along with reputable columnists (Coyne, Simpson, Martin, Weston - wait, you don't mind if I quote a few of your experts, do you?) suggest that Dion and the Liberals were egregiously disingenuous in suggesting that we could meet our Kyoto targets, and their entire environmental stand was a transparent political ploy, you'd have immediately changed your opinion, which you apparently expect of me? Weird... I just dont remember you coming out so strongly against Kyoto and those who would suggest that after 10 years of inaction, we could meet the targets in three (was that a parry, or a thrust?)
Believe me, I have my differences with Harper, which grow by the day (again, I source RTs thread). They're well documented on my blog and other sites. That doesn't mean I have to accept all criticisms against him, nor do I have to defer to his detractors, who claim on the one hand that reports of Liberal disunity are flawed or exaggerated, but that claim that media reports of ruthlessly disciplined party unity in the CPC are somehow impeccable.
As to inside sources, I presume you were speaking of ottlib. Bite your tongue Olaf, he was an insider and was there.
Was he... which role did he play? If he's an insider, I'd peg him in the Turner gang - maybe Martin's. Seriously, I've had so many run ins with "Ottlib", some of his arguments are impressive, and some which are embarrassingly partisan (eg. his hilarious 'Kyoto was signed in good faith' line, which only fools Chretien when he's drunk himself), that I don't know what to think.
KNB,
Actually, the egg came first, that was proven. You do believe in science, yes?
Generally, although it depends on whose science we're trusting. I'm not sure if this was a common evolutionary joke on your part, but I'll assume it wasn't, and proceed. Likewise, you'll assume (rightly) that I have no prior knowledge of such a proven scientific fact (that the egg came before the chicken), and you'll have to indulge my ignorance if such a fact exists.
Regarding my rather sparing knowledge of evolutionary theory, it would seem to me that the chicken (or at least, an ancestor thereof), would have come before the egg. I mean, if all species are derived from the one before it, surely, prior to the egg existing, there was a chicken like creature, who was subjected to an evolutionary advantageous genetic mutation, which allowed it to produce eggs (or something similar), thus giving it an evolutionary advantage against chickens (or an ancestor thereof), which didn't produce its young externally within a protective shell.
I don't quite see how in any evolutionary reading, one could have deduced that the egg came before the chicken (or an ancestor thereof).
If I'm disastrously misread on the scientific proofs of ancient philosophical mysteries, feel free to point it out. I'm not shy in the face of my own ignorance.
I have perplexed Olaf so I guess my job is done.
Although, I think he is less perplexed by my statements than the implications of them.
I find Olaf to be one of the more reasonable Conservatives in the blogsphere but he is still a Conservative so I am certain he would just love it if the Liberal Party imploded.
Well, it is not going to happen.
I remember the leadership convention that put Jean Chretien into Stornaway. I remember the animosity that existed between him and Mr. Martin. I remember the atmonsphere in the Liberal Party after that convention and I can say with absolute certainty that the atmonsphere is completely different this time around.
Although I am not saying these folks have become life-long friends I can say that they do not dislike each other either. So if two men who really disliked and mistrusted each other can find a way to work together this group should have no problems.
I think the reason that the Liberals get more "dramatic" coverage is because they are more interesting than the Conservatives or the NDP. Also, there is more interest in them from the Canadian public. There are more stories about the Liberals than the Conservatives or the NDP for the same reasons that there are more stories about celebrities and sports stars than there are about accountants and trainspotters.
ottlib, methinks olaf did destroy your assertion. unless you know all of the top leadership contenders, you cannot make that assertion. while i don't know them all personnally, i know one of them who holds extremely intense personal animosity to a few leadership rivals. which should not come as a surprise at all. like you said, people do not have to enjoy each others company to work together and get the job done.
i agree with the commenters who stated that it was foolish on the iggy camps behalf to publicly respond to this article by diebel. indeed, the statement made was not worhty of a response...particularly because it was merely rehashing a sentiment held by (probably) most liberals.
dennis coderre proved once again that he needs to be fired asap...what a buffoon!
The point I am trying to make is talk of Liberal disunity is bunk. The atmosphere of the Liberal Party after this convention is certainly much more congenial than it was after the 1990 convention. So if Chretien and Martin were able to work together in that kind of atmonsphere then these folks should have no problems, which seems to be the case.
As well, any time the media begins to harp about "Liberal disunity" take it with a truckload of salt. They took great relish in hyping it up under Chretien even though I never saw any evidence of it down in the trenches.
Post a Comment