These rules are the Rae contract, and I hope he accepts the terms, because under these conditions he may well be the best choice. All the intangibles are there, an incredible effective and thoughtful orator, almost an elder statesman respect, what's not to like? Baggage abounds, but for interim, as a bridge builder, not as much of a concern. I'm also heartened that these new rules reflect exactly the concerns I've heard articulated over the last few days, head office got the message, from all quarters apparently.
The way I see it, Rae has two choices. Accept these stipulations and become interim leader or reject them and never become leader. Blunt yes, but perhaps a blue sky perspective, because certain moments have now passed, old ambitions are just that and the party requires seismic changes. I never see Rae as that transformational figure, but I do see him helping us get there. Take the gig Mr. Rae, it looks like a "as good as it gets" proposition from this outpost.
14 comments:
Hell, maybe an old non-partisan like me will join just to see if I can't help keep the party on the democracy side of the equation: no more corporatist right wing.
Or tell the pathetic rump of the LPoC to blow it out its nose, and either cross the floor to a more appreciative bunch or retire. I hope someone in the Liberal "brain" trust is considering that option.
And that would prove to everyone it really was all about ME.
It's important to remember how we got to this place. Maybe if people weren't on the horn immediately angling for the job, when most of us were still in shock, then resistance would have been more muted. Maybe openly musing immediately about a merger was a red flag for many Liberals. I love Bob Rae, but he played this very badly, and that explains the blowback.
It's all very raw still, people need to slow the f down.
Rae is not old age-wise. Pierre Trudeau was old when he became PM again in 1980 after a brief absence in the job. Rae is old in that he won't be an effective fundraiser for the party just like Ignatieff and Dion weren't.
The Liberal Party needs a youngish leader who will be able to help create a new vision that will attract Canadians to the party. The party also needs an effective fundraiser.
I think Bob Rae will leave active politics in less than four years. He may accept an international position by being appointed by some Conservative.
Steve, I'm not sure I approve of changing the rules for one candidate. Especially if the rumours about the reasons for it are true.
And I can't believe that we're at each other's throats with regards to an interim leader. This is the interim leader. What is this party going to be like when there's a real leadership race?
First off, that's a media report, so let's see what is what first, lots of rumors around.
If people are at each other's throats, maybe it's because big Jean was selling Rae, etc. Like I said earlier, if everyone would have just slowed the f down, none of this would be happening. I'm not sensing a top down edict here, I'm sensing a response to resistance from all quarters. It looks to me like the "brass" is responding to the hinterlands, but I could be way off.
If there is a "stop Rae" movement, maybe it has to do with "full steam ahead Rae" plays, lets remember the sequence here, instead of just looking at the results we now see. Just a thought.
Skinny
I'm with you, we need to reinvigorate the brand in almost unprecedented fashion. Anyone with "past" anything, it's not "on" for me, with the greatest respect.
Why don't we let the members of the party decide, for the first time in the party's history? And without any contortions of our constitution?
Or don't the party brass plotting those machinations referred to by the media trust the people?
Like I said earlier, if everyone would have just slowed the f down, none of this would be happening.
Five months is too quick to pick a leader at this stage.
We need to know what the candidates plans are before we move forward.
Why don't we let the members of the party decide, for the first time in the party's history? And without any contortions of our constitution?
I'm for a general leadership vote. If you can't get the general Liberal members to get excited about your campaign, how can you get the public interested?
I don't see these rules as anti-Rae at all.
They are "anti" using the interim leadership to give yourself a big leg up on becoming leader but other than that there is nothing that stops Rae from running for and winning the leadership in these rules.
These are rules for interim, there is nothing stopping Rae from running for the leaderhip, no caveats, no rules, no hinderances, so yes, you're right Kirk.
It seems to me those who insist on these rules don't have any confidence in the membership... does big daddy Jean have that much pull these days? If Bob rae is the best candidate to serve as interim leader while we pick up the pieces (and i've heard at least 2-to-1 agree with this), it would be in our best interest to hire him. If he wants to at a later date, throw his hat in the ring for the permanent position (and then stepping down as interim leader) what is the purpose of saying 'sorry, you can't.'? I was a rae delegate in 2006 and was considering supporting him in 2009... but i'm like most everyone else here, there's a void and need that calls out for a generational change. As CC said, why put up road blocks to piss off one of our few capable statesmen in the house? At some point he'd see the writing -- too many people are in reactive mode, shaking and fermenting over all these gossipmongering spiels from various sources -- some not Liberal friendly, i might add. Let membership have a free hand to choose... afterall, they can't another dion, can we?
"It seems to me those who insist on these rules don't have any confidence in the membership... does big daddy Jean have that much pull these days? "
Ummm, let's remember our chronology here, there were no membership inclusion until AFTER Papa Jean started making the calls. At that point, it looked like a bunch of elites would do what they wanted, so I'm not sure where "confidence in the membership" fits, given they were entirely excluded.
Let's not forget why and how we got here.
Post a Comment