Was my idea "insane"? In many respects, unequivocally yes, which is why I referenced the opinion with "jumping off the deep end". Tactically, practically, logically, plenty of downside, with a heavy dose of rashness. If you conclude A, Dion can't win, then you search for an out B, which lead me to Ignatieff, warts and all. Plenty of people have opined on that potential disaster, and there is a soundness to the rebuttals. In retrospect, I should probably have left Ignatieff out of the equation, but then again it still left an open question with no alternative. Which leads me to the only realistic conclusion, we have to keep Dion and make the best of it.
I stand by my perceptions on our chances, the challenges and the problems. I guess the epiphany is that the reality is irrelevant, because the train has left the station, for better or worse. I know that, which is why I suppressed these feelings for a period of time. All that can be done now is put lipstick on the pig, or better yet leave it in the barn and work the margins. I'm not going to stop criticizing the mistakes, digesting the errors, demanding more and acting the cranky Liberal, who can't seem to reconcile the disconnect between partisanship and honest discourse.
8 comments:
Thats good. The drugs are wearing off. Get a good nights sleep and then go out tomorrow and buy yourself a new jacket or something. You'll feel better.
''I should probably have left Ignatieff out of the equation''
Dion should have left Iggy out of the equation.
Maybe he will rectify that now.
This doom and gloom about Liberal prospects is similar to what was said about Chretien in the early 90's.
The difference this time is that the NDP is surging not fading and the conservative vote is united not fractured.
The Liberals won 27 of their seats in the last election by slim margins. They will likely win less than 80 seats in the next elction.
Then they will have to select a leader who is under 50.
Ignatieff is out of the question.
yes, I think the Libs need to stick with Dion for reasons many have already mentioned, but keep being the "cranky Liberal." That helps us avoid the other side's rhetoric of "Finally! A leader we can be proud of!" regardless of who it is or what she/he does. Self-examination is good, and forces us to look at the strength and weakness or our own reasoning.
Nah, the thoughts that are going through your head are very common within the party these days. Props though for going public and encouraging good debate on the issue.
Dion will get his one shot. Unfortunately, it’s going to cost our party $18,000,000 dollars of new debt financing from a couple major banks. That means that our party will be swimming in major debt for at least the next decade should we decide to spend all that.
Dion has two major failings that were always going to be handicaps when he was the compromise choice for leadership. He had little or no caucus support. In fact, Rae Kennedy and Ignatieff, all virtually new to the national political scene, were able to get more support from the caucus then the most "experienced" candidate. That should have activated alarm bells. MP's are rational decision makers, and the primary question they ask themselves is "who will aid me the most in staying in power".
Therefore, Quebec caucus dissension should have not been a surprise to anyone, honestly.
More importantly, the man cannot bring new money to the party. I’ve seen it in person how excruciating it is to get former loyal liberals who are known to historically donate vast sums to come out for Dion’s leader dinners. Ignatieff, on the other hand, appeals to large swatch of the political and academic class, many who are Red Tories and would never normally vote Liberal, but still find the energy to donate to the cap. That’s the upside for being perceived as “an ivory tower” candidate; you get access to all that money. Both Martin and Chrétien did the same, remember Power Corp anyone?
Anyways, my point is, a lot of the failings we are seeing now were easily predictable by most Liberal stalwarts prior to convention.
With that being said, even if another candidate had won, it would be hard to fight history.
The Liberals are overdue to spend time in the political wilderness. Its about time. That is when the best ideas are created. However, as my non-political friends describe it the best, Dion “has no balls”.
The Liberals are overdue to spend time in the political wilderness. Its about time. That is when the best ideas are created. However, as my non-political friends describe it the best, Dion “has no balls”.
Tory Operative Alert!!!
Give it up, slick. You're not fooling anyone with this amateurish charade. The only way the Liberals will "spend time in the wilderness" is for the Harper Party to become Liberal. I'm sure Prime Minister Steve is thinking along those lines, but that talentless, humourless, evangelical dullard will *never* be a Liberal.
Steve, I don't vote Liberal because I'm Liberal; I actually understand political liberalism.
If we, as a people, persist in viewing politics as if we're politicians, in the sense that campaigning, public perception, sound bites and superficiality are key elements, then we'll end up getting Ronald Reagan and George Bush II as prime ministers.
You'll get the government you deserve.
''I'm sure Prime Minister Steve is thinking along those lines, but that talentless, humourless, evangelical dullard will *never* be a Liberal.''
But PMSH was a Liberal TG, until Trudeau flipped the bird at the West.
So what does it mean to be a Liberal these days?
Human/womens rights- Libs want special interest groups funded by taxpayers, but an end to a mission they once said
''was the right thing to do'' re:human/womens rights.
The Martin mission in Afghan has not changed, our troops are just better equipped to carry it out.
Every Canadian treated equally and given the same opportunities -unless you are a farmer in Western Canada.
Libs do not treat people nor business equally, they pic favorites.
Champions of the environment - sign an international afreement that even the Democrats in the US wouldn't ratify,
and then insist it is the Conservatives who failed Canada (ignoring their successive majority gov'ts with NDP/Bloc 100% support).
Libs had ''campaigning, public perception, sound bites and superficiality'' down pat.
It (plus a divided right and a NDP unsure if it could make it alone)kept them in government for a long stretch.
Like the 'successfull' boss who presents as his own, ideas that his employees give him, yah get found out eventually, and the 'idea people' replace you.
"Like the 'successfull' boss who presents as his own, ideas that his employees give him, yah get found out eventually, and the 'idea people' replace you."
You mean those people who ran out of a gas after only a year, ended parliament early so they could find some new policy, sent out an email asking for advice from party members, despite having 13 years to ponder what they would do? The 'idea people", please. We're not the Liberals is hardly an idea.
Post a Comment