[Solaris]

Toronto Star - Rae abandons Liberal bid

woopie .........

***********

Ignatieff to be crowned next Liberal leader after rival bows out of leadership race

Dec 09, 2008 11:14 AM

Bruce Campion-Smith
Ottawa Bureau Chief

OTTAWA–Bob Rae is dropping out of the race to be Liberal leader.

The surprise move, to be announced at a 1 p.m. press conference today, means that Michael Ignatieff will be crowned leader, likely tomorrow.

On Monday, Rae, the former NDP premier of Ontario, had argued strongly against a "coronation" and refused to bow to growing pressure to drop out of the race, like Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc did.

"I don't think coronations are generally very successful in political parties . . . most people believe it's better to have a contest, it's better to have a choice," a defiant Rae said on Monday.

"I think it's appropriate for both of us to be running," he said.

That's why party members were shocked to hear the news today that Rae was abandoning his bid for the leadership.

"It's a surprise to us all," one Liberal said this morning.

"I think Bob concluded that the support in the party was not there. I think it's that simple," he said.

The Liberals are in a rush to have a new leader in place by the end of January, when a key budget vote could see the minority Conservatives defeated, sparking a new election or paving the way for a Liberal-led coalition to take power.

Rae's move to step aside helps the Liberals avoid a nasty confrontation in the short-term. But it also means the party won't have the benefit of a vigorous leadership campaign to revive its membership and its finances.

Rae's decision also comes after the federal Liberals decided on a "consultative" process to pick an interim leader to replace Stephane Dion.

After an Monday evening meeting, the party's national executive announced early this morning that it would consult "broadly" with elements of the party, including caucus, candidates defeated in the last election, council of presidents and commission club presidents.

"At this critical time in our country's history, the National Executive, in consultation with caucus, is now tasked by our party's constitution with selecting an interim leader who will preside over a very volatile minority Parliament, and a possible general election," Doug Ferguson, Liberal party president, said in a statement.

 

[cacruden]

A dark day for democracy within the Liberal party. No convention, just backroom politicians installing a new <interim> leader. Goodale (or someone not running for the leadership), should have been selected for interim leader....

 

[Admiral Beez]

Well, that's the end of the Dion/Rae/Layton/Duceppe coalition.

 

[lordmandeep]

I hate the backroom deals but in those infamous words "its for the greater good"...

I hate using that term, but IMO sense and stability has returned to the Liberal Party till at least the end of January. Rae is not the man, and if the Liberals do not want to be sent to abyss, they had to bring sanity back to that place and if Iggy sort of have to whip his party around I am all for it. The Liberals going that other path, were clearly heading for implosion.

Iggy will be very good at attacking Harper, because if anyone watches Question Period, Iggy gets under the PM nevers unlike anyone else. The PM usually gives a very heated response easily showing his anger and distaste to Iggy's questions.

Ignatieff on his own will not get NDP votes based on his past positions about Iraq and Torture. As part of the coalition to remove Harper he will get the left's support, not without it.

I agree with Keith he can steal away some Conservartive votes, but his conservative views are why he won't get NDP votes without the coalition.

True but that is the true leftist vote, the NDP in recent years have taken a lot of Former Liberals due to the fact Jack Layton is a stronger leader (a Moron ), compared to Dion. If these people see a better leader and a man who can really oppose Harper, I see a lot jumping ship.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Exactly. Who gives a rat's ass about the NDP votes? Look at the seat distribution outside urban centres. Most of the battles are CPC-LPC. The exceptions are Quebec (where the Bloc remains dominant) and some western ridings where the NDP has some historical traction. Otherwise, it's clear...the main battle for the Liberals should be with the Conservatives. That's why this coalition although offering tactical advantage is a major strategic error. It legitimizes the Bloc in Quebec and the NDP in the rest of Canada. Although the prospect of power helped mature the NDP a little (notice...no talk about pulling out of Afghanistan all of a sudden), it would have pushed the Liberals further to the left. If it comes to pass, and Canadians wake up to the most left wing government in Canadian history, propped up by separatists, the Liberals will have to deal with the wrath of voters. I like the coalition idea because it keeps Harper in check. However, I think it's plain to see that the LPC is the loser in this threesome.

Iggy is exactly the leader the Liberals need who can take Harper to task. He can beat Harper on the files that Conservatives dominate. He has the credentials to challenge Harper on the economy, foreign and defence policy, tax policy, etc. You don't win elections shilling for health care any more. A leftist leader who will crib about the environment will not deliver the keys to 24 Sussex. Iggy has the best chance of the lot.

 

[lordmandeep]

issues in Canada are more moderate based issues now.

If Harper enjoys the support of the right and has the middle to himself, he will not be defeated by the combination of the left even from a peaceful coup.

The coalition is a flop, even if they come to power, Harper would win a commanding majority as centrists and conservatives which represent a majority of Canadians would be up in the air in anger, of the bloc and NDP being in power.

Liberals need to go back to being the old school liberals.


Imo the left may be wary of Iggy, but centrists who were with Harper are mostly praising this choice and that where the Liberals need to win.

 

[adma]

And how many "soft NDP" voters are so hung up over Iggy's positioning on human rights as to refuse to vote for a viable Liberal party, anyhow?

 

[kEiThZ]

And how many "soft NDP" voters are so hung up over Iggy's positioning on human rights as to refuse to vote for a viable Liberal party, anyhow?

Yet, how many of these voters constitute a serious threat to a winning Liberal seat count under Iggy?

I have yet to see anyone show me a map that says shifting to the left will help the Liberals help more seats. Perhaps a few urban ridings....but that'll come at the cost of the few rural and western ridings they have. All in all, I think the Liberal path to victory may well involve throwing the rabid left under the bus....

 

[Mot]

Yet, how many of these voters constitute a serious threat to a winning Liberal seat count under Iggy?

I have yet to see anyone show me a map that says shifting to the left will help the Liberals help more seats. Perhaps a few urban ridings....but that'll come at the cost of the few rural and western ridings they have. All in all, I think the Liberal path to victory may well involve throwing the rabid left under the bus....

When did not wanting human beings tortured and being against endless unwinnable wars where innocent civilians are slaughtered become the definition of rabid? With each senseless death and another year without any real progress, Afghanistan is losing the popular support.

In fact being for war, torture and killing looks much more like rabid than not.

Don't underestimate the power of the left. Just as we don't underestimate the power of the right.

 

[lordmandeep]

I think the right showed their power in the last election, the NDP did not gain anywhere as many seats as they wanted and could of gotten. The Tories according to the polls in the end did better then expected.

Imo that was their best choice to really move on to the same level as the liberals.

NDP support is weak imo, its mostly former liberals.

 

[kEiThZ]

When did not wanting human beings tortured and being against endless unwinnable wars where innocent civilians are slaughtered become the definition of rabid? With each senseless death and another year without any real progress, Afghanistan is losing the popular support.

In fact being for war, torture and killing looks much more like rabid than not.

Don't underestimate the power of the left. Just as we don't underestimate the power of the right.

Yet is Afghanistan that much of a defining election issue for anybody but the hard left? Anybdoy who is against the war absolutely will be NDP to the core. The Liberals would never win them over anyway regardless of what policies they offered. Why try? Instead offer to balance the books, give a moderate income tax cut over time, throw money into health care, etc and voila you have a Liberal majority. That's what I mean by moderate. When was the last time, the NDP backed a tax cut for anybody that made more than 30k a year?

On a side note, I have always suspected that the NDP's views were based on the fact that they would not have to govern. It's easy to be anti-war when you aren't the one who has to meet NATO obligations, think strategically about preventing terrorist attacks, deliver aid to Afghanistan, etc. It's easy to be all about Darfur when you don't have to be one to send troops there and accept a body count worse than Kandahar. But look how silent they were about Afghanistan as soon as the prospect of power became realistic. I note similar behaviour on their views on tax cuts. The 500 point drop in the TSX Composite on the announcement of the coalition must have sobered their views a little.

 

[Mot]

Yet is Afghanistan that much of a defining election issue for anybody but the hard left? Anybdoy who is against the war absolutely will be NDP to the core. The Liberals would never win them over anyway regardless of what policies they offered. Why try? Instead offer to balance the books, give a moderate income tax cut over time, throw money into health care, etc and voila you have a Liberal majority. That's what I mean by moderate. When was the last time, the NDP backed a tax cut for anybody that made more than 30k a year?

On a side note, I have always suspected that the NDP's views were based on the fact that they would not have to govern. It's easy to be anti-war when you aren't the one who has to meet NATO obligations, think strategically about preventing terrorist attacks, deliver aid to Afghanistan, etc. It's easy to be all about Darfur when you don't have to be one to send troops there and accept a body count worse than Kandahar. But look how silent they were about Afghanistan as soon as the prospect of power became realistic. I note similar behaviour on their views on tax cuts. The 500 point drop in the TSX Composite on the announcement of the coalition must have sobered their views a little.

You get much more fair tax plans from the left affecting more people than you will ever get from the right.

As the father of a dead Canadian soldier said last night on The National, Canada has already fulfilled it's obligation and far more than other than NATO nations. It's time to bring them home.

The US has been unable to make any ground there , the Taliban is in control after 7 years of war. When can we call it Vietnam and get the hell out? Not when the military industrial complex has a say in the matter.

 

[adma]

NDP support is weak imo, its mostly former liberals.

Then again, in the Chretien years, a lot of that liberal support was from former Dippers; so there's a little prodigal-son element there...

 

[afransen]

Yet is Afghanistan that much of a defining election issue for anybody but the hard left? Anybdoy who is against the war absolutely will be NDP to the core. The Liberals would never win them over anyway regardless of what policies they offered. Why try? Instead offer to balance the books, give a moderate income tax cut over time, throw money into health care, etc and voila you have a Liberal majority. That's what I mean by moderate. When was the last time, the NDP backed a tax cut for anybody that made more than 30k a year?

On a side note, I have always suspected that the NDP's views were based on the fact that they would not have to govern. It's easy to be anti-war when you aren't the one who has to meet NATO obligations, think strategically about preventing terrorist attacks, deliver aid to Afghanistan, etc. It's easy to be all about Darfur when you don't have to be one to send troops there and accept a body count worse than Kandahar. But look how silent they were about Afghanistan as soon as the prospect of power became realistic. I note similar behaviour on their views on tax cuts. The 500 point drop in the TSX Composite on the announcement of the coalition must have sobered their views a little.

Indeed. The coalition was deemed so dangerous by world markets that the S&P 500 and Nasdaq suffered similar decllines.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Yet is Afghanistan that much of a defining election issue for anybody but the hard left?

I can't help thinking that if Canada and the West had stayed out of Afghanistan, that we'd be facing demands to intervene, similar to demands that we get involved militarily in Darfur.

The Bush'ite reasons were went notwithstanding, IMO we're doing good work in Afghanistan. As a father of young girls, I'm proud that with our military's help, Afghan girls can go to school (risking acid attacks, unfortunately) and a sense of normalcy is starting to take hold.

Rest assured, if the Afghan people did not want Canada or the West there, all of our troops would be dead or injured by now, and fleeing for home. No need to ask the Soviets, for our shared history in the British Empire demonstrates enough disasters in Afghanistan, such as massacre of the 44th East Essex Regiment under General Elphinstone at Gandamak.