If Sheila Copps isn’t a stalking horse for Bob Rae, she sure came off sounding like one.
Last July, when Copps first mentioned running for Liberal Party President, she said "she’s already spoken with Liberal leader Bob Rae about her possible candidacy." Perhaps an innocent comment, but the inference was there from the get go: Bob Rae approved of such a run. Fast forward to Copps eventually putting her hat into the ring, she begins her campaign with this bizarre pronouncement that Bob Rae is free to run for permanent leader. Obviously true- as Jeff Jedras explores- but still a curious start to a campaign and one that raises legitimate red flags.
Yesterday, I wrote the party and asked that they cancel my Victory Fund contributions. A decision I've pondered for awhile now- a complete whatever in the grand scheme- but I don't feel like robo donating anymore, I want to see real evidence of renewal before I pony up anymore cash. That's my prerogative, I feel at ease with the decision, and I think it symbolic of a notion that actions speak louder than hollow words, or platitudes as the case may be here. I know many Liberals who have shared a common concern: the upcoming party apparatus races will be used by heavyweights to put friendly figures in place, with ultimate goals that betray stated intentions. Put more bluntly, a lingering fear that the fix is in and people are getting their ducks in a row.
In one sense, I depart from some other commentary. While there is no rule precluding a permanent run from Mr. Rae- and Copps has no practical say one way or the other- a word is a bond that must be respected. Yes, Liberals can decide at the time how they regard a change of mind, but the problem is that in the intermediate unfair advantage have been exploited, in many respects the damage of insider manipulations manifested, so that blow back is offset by built in power levers. In addition, I wonder how broad potential downside, if one has spent considerable time ensuring the ground is fertile for such a change of mind.
One thing is clear, Liberals don't need this kind of intrigue moving forward, everything should be up front and easily ascertained. Naive perhaps, but the grassroots should be afforded some comfort that we aren't being taken for fools, for granted, that people have agendas beyond what has been stated. Unfortunately, Copps has provided more mystery with her statements yesterday, unnecessary but perhaps very enlightening to how January is shaping up.
It's getting really old fast....
UPDATE
Worth a read
5 comments:
Steve, I understand how you feel and your concerns. I hope it doesn't go down like this. Hey, Copps may not win the presidency. There's no guarantee that will happen.
I'm not alone in thinking that either :) Hope I'm wrong.
Sheila Copps!? Why don't we just ask Joe Clark to help us out?
Hope I'm wrong.
Me too. If you're not, I'll get drunk and very profane at a rally. Failing that I'll get drunk and very profane at a riding association meeting. Either way I plan to do some drunken swearing at some party official. ;)
I think you're overreacting a bit. It's your perogative and I understand it. However, I agree that old habits appear to be in action within the party's major office -- no urgency for fundraising, letting Harper script his decentralization (ie. "i can't believe our imported items cost so much more - Shocked!' sez Flaherty, preparing to lay the groundwork for systematic tax cutting that will gut our federal gov't ability to provide services) without as so much as a whimper... If people are waiting for an 'Obama' they will be on the sidelines a long time... American had to have its GWB first; and Harper while mean and cold, is no imbecile.
Copps? Show me a realistic, good plan to reinvigorate the party and reach out to the people and I'll vote for that person, no matter who or what they supported in the past.
Post a Comment