Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Back To The Future

First off, I've always liked and respected Sheila Copps. Also, in a open and democratic party obviously anyone who wants to, can and should, put their name forward for positions within the Liberal Party. With these disclaimers out of the way, I think it sheer madness to even entertain the possibility of Sheila Copps as next Liberal Party President.

Reading the article on Copps' potential run, I'm struck by, "I’ve been approached". One can only wonder who has done the approaching, and frankly what motives are behind such suggestion. Naturally, the mind drifts back to the OLD battles, the OLD alliances, the OLD divisions, because fair or not, Sheila Copps is part of that unseemly history. I can't possibly IMAGINE a less productive development than introducing a candidacy which reopens those wounds, encourages some, alienates others, just the same old BULLSHIT that has brought us to this point. Again, I like Copps in an isolated sense, but that's a fairytale reality, she represents the past, brings little to the idea of forward thinking reform, not to mention a changing of the bloody guard which is JOB ONE here.

I'm hearing lots of talk about reform, but the trouble is much of it coming from institutionalized Liberals. We need new voices, fresh perspectives, NO BAGGAGE, no past bias or thoughts of reclaiming long gone influences. The Liberal Party isn't dead, but the Liberal Party as we knew it sure as shit is, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

It's fantastic that Sheila Copps wants to pitch in, nobody is naive enough to believe we can't benefit from the wisdom that only experience provides. However, I'm quite certain that the Liberal Party will become a historical artificat if it puts the past center stage, if it relies on old faces and past glories to reinvent itself. The renewal process simply doesn't work if people see the same old same old, we need fresh blood, a new generation, this realization is vital and sober. Frankly, the people that are suggesting Copps, I question their grasp of reality, which makes me curious as to true motivations. And, I'm sure I'm not alone in that curiousity, which makes the prospects even more unattractive. The last thing the Liberals need is one second wasted on past divisions, nor a candidacy which puts off anyone, sidelines a camp, encourages another, unproductive and really, really unnecessary.

The optics here are dreadful, no matter how much anyone admires or respects Copps. Someone needs to punch the rearview mirror from this wreck once and for all.


bigcitylib said...

"We need new voices, fresh perspectives..."

And yada yada yada. Not many of these seem on offer. What's your opinion of her as pres if none of these pretty young things show up?

Steve V said...

Then, the party really is dead and it's as simple as that. Yada, yada.

Canadians don't owe the Liberal Party anything.

CK said...

Sheila Copps? Bad idea. Isn't it time to stop trotting out these old relics? Nothing against her, but she is a relic.

Plus wasn't there a rumour that Alexandra Mendes was running?

CK said...

Then, the party really is dead and it's as simple as that.

Oh goody! Between that and a very shaky future for the NDP, we may well be looking at a one party show for the future--Harpercon. Now there's a comforting thought.

Steve V said...

Under normal circumstances, I'd buy into this experience argument, but when the optics attach imagery of a failed brand, it's a net negative, right out of the gate. As well, judging by the old "camp" reactions, I'd say this post has been instantly validated.

Seriously though, if all a party can argue is bringing in old warriors, isn't that a testament that it's already spent? Honestly, if we can't find new people, we're dying anyways, so let's just get it over with and move on somewhere else.

A Eliz. said...

How about Martha Hall Findlay.

Steve V said...

Now we've getting somewhere. Her name was floated on CBC, and someone else mentioned Coady.

CK said...

Yep, I was right, Alexandra Mendes does appear to be considering running, as does Siobhan Coady and Mark Holland and of course, Sheila Copps. The latter, whom I think, is a terrible idea.

Dan F said...

How about Steve V?

Steve V said...

The checkered past.

sharonapple88 said...

How about Martha Hall Findlay

Yay. Martha Hall Findlay, bilingual and a hardworker. She gave an incredibly classy interview on the CBC the day after she lost her seat.

If Gerard Kennedy's not going for the leadership, why not the presidency of the party?

Ron Hartley's interesting -- increased membership and won the riding.

Beyond people's names, it'll be interesting to see what the candidates gameplans are. Everyone needs to have one at this point for the party.

Adrian Ludwin said...

Sharon - you can read about Ron and his platform here: (the story got his name wrong).

I have to say, I'm obviously supporting another candidate but I've been taken aback by the vehement response to Copps joining the race. Maybe I just haven't been in the party long enough (only three years) but I don't think it's a ridiculous idea to *consider* Copps, Coady, Mendes or anyone else. This is turning into a real race, which means we'll have a real debate about the future of the party.

Obviously I hope the best candidate will win, but there's no need for this race to get nasty. And if someone other than my preferred candidate wins, I'll happily work with them so long as I think they're going in a reasonable direction.

Steve V said...

" I've been taken aback by the vehement response to Copps joining the race"

Which is exactly why her run is counter productive. People can say what they want, but Copps is a lightning rod and it's about the last thing we need right now.

sharonapple88 said...

Sharon - you can read about Ron and his platform here: (the story got his name wrong).

Interesting guy. He seems to be someone who'd be able to hit the ground running if he became president. I think I'm going to donate.