[ShonTron]

Actually, I was very carefully dancing around from calling you intellectually bankrupt -- it cannot be determined from one posting. BUT, I was stating my opnion that to me - not wanting to discuss/argue issues with people that do not agree with you - is a red flag.

I actually find discussion politics with people I agree with - quite boring.

Now if you find it describes you.... jab jab

Don't push it. I've got the nuclear option - the ban button! Muh ha ha ha!

 

[Observer Walt]

I'd be worried that Rae winning would energize the NDP faithful and would give plenty of ammo to the Conservatives. Running Rae when a recession looms would make Harper look good.

I think they need to look outside the crop of the current front runners.

I tend to agree. Rae carries baggage with a capital B, and has too many constituencies who would find him unappealing. He will fly in downtown Toronto, pardon the sarcasm, and perhaps it's not a coincidence that his riding is Toronto Centre. I'm not sure he would connect so well with the Bay Street crowd, even given that his brother is a top executive with Power Corp.

Manley? Probably yesterday's man by now, as already pointed out by others. He would also be perceived as being too right-wing by many (a "Conservative lite"?)

Martha Hall Findlay? She currently defines low profile, but given some time, might build a better image.

IMO, Dion did the party no favour by saying that he would stick around until the new leader is elected. He is forcing a relatively short process and fast decision. He would hae done better to step down immediately, let an interim leader step in for at least a year, maybe two, then have the convention. This would have given more people the time to come out of the woodwork and organize. As it is, I predict this will effectively be a two-man race (Rae and Ignatieff). Some others will probably run but will definitely be also-rans right from the beginning. The only exception to that would be if McKenna declared. All bets would be off in that case!

 

[ShonTron]

I tend to agree. Rae carries baggage with a capital B, and has too many constituencies who would find him unappealing. He will fly in downtown Toronto, pardon the sarcasm, and perhaps it's not a coincidence that his riding is Toronto Centre. I'm not sure he would connect so well with the Bay Street crowd, even given that his brother is a top executive with Power Corp.

I think Rae has been doing a lot better with the Bay Street Crowd - went he left the NDP, he left behind a lot of the ideology. Him and Don Drummond were chumming it up at the Rae Review. I'm not a Rae fan, mostly because of the Rae Review and post-NDP activity, but his politics are moderate.

If he ran with a credible centre-right "running mate" for finance - this might be something that Manley or McKenna or Ralph Goodale (all three who may not be interested, especially in McKenna's case or appealing as PM) could be useful for - he could take it.

 

[Brandon716]

For an NDP Premier, his policies were rather moderate. He cut pensions and budgets and people in government to try and handle a recession with the subsequent decrease in tax revenue.

I think his candidacy would have the opposite effect: he'd turn NDP'ers away in enough numbers and not energize the Liberal base where it needs to be energized.

But he's great as an individually elected MP.

 

[Hydrogen]

My point wasn't that Kennedy's heart is still in Manitoba, its that he understands the politics of the piraries having grown up there.

Can you support this point with actual evidence? If Kennedy supposedly understands the politics of the prairies of Manitoba, then he should should automatically understand the politics of the prairie portions of Alberta. But then, geography does not link directly to political understanding.

Kennedy has provincial parliamentary experience, was a minister who had a good record of success in a difficult ministry, but he remains a somewhat unknown quantity for the federal Liberal party. Martha Hall Findley is an unknown in many ways, but appears intelligent and capable.

If it comes down to politicians, between Ignatieff and Rae, Rae is the better politician (and I ain't using the word in a bad way). He also was a leader during bad times, so he knows about pain. He has been open and honest about his drift to centre, which is respectable. Ignatieff is clearly an intellectual, but it is not clear if he is a capable politician. The record of intellectuals being excellent politicians is not a rich one.

Manley has an extensive record in parliament, was well liked in Industry when there, has extensive international experience, is a solid technocrat, but comes off to many people as a cold fish.

McKenna has a positive legacy as a provincial premier, has considerable private business and international experience (even called the American government largely dysfunctional a while back - Brandon might like him a little just for that ).

Is there any way we can fuse together the good elements from all into one?

 

[kEiThZ]

Can you support this point with actual evidence? If Kennedy supposedly understands the politics of the prairies of Manitoba, then he should should automatically understand the politics of the prairie portions of Alberta. But then, geography does not link directly to political understanding.

Exactly. Saying Kennedy understands Manitoba because he is from there is like saying Harper understands Toronto and Dion gets Quebec. I see no evidence that Kennedy would be particularly popular west of the Ontario-Manitoba border. Nor for that matter, any other Liberal in particular. Ralph Goodale maybe and perhaps a non-Ontarian like McKenna.

Building the Liberal brand in the west is going to be a Herculean effort. For starters they are probably going to have apologize for the NEP....

 

[adma]

Exactly. Saying Kennedy understands Manitoba because he is from there is like saying Harper understands Toronto and Dion gets Quebec.

Not to mention Layton getting Quebec (remember his father, remember his roots)

 

[Brandon716]

Yet I was the first person to say that geographics is a secondary issue, while everyone else was so focused on it. That's why I brought up points about Kennedy maybe having a stronger understanding of whats wanted in the eastern piraries and said that Alberta is a lost cause regardless. It was a response to what was being said about geographics from other forumers.

 

[Brandon716]

This isn't really a debate in my opinion, Liberals can win seats in Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, and several other potential ridings in the eastern piraries. I think Kennedy would be as attractive as any candidate in those ridings while really helping with the Liberal base in Ontario where its needed the most.

Kennedy still stands out IMO as the brightest, most youthful, most personality driven Liberal to create a new vision.

 

[cacruden]

It is not as simple as that ... now I don't know which provinces this relates to but I have run into a number of people that if they were "easterners" - would probably fit into the Liberal ilk.... but have a visceral disdain for the Liberal party/brand. In a number of these provinces, the NDP occupies the left of center position in the spectrum (i.e. more right of the "national" NDP center).

The beginning of this fallout I believe started during the Trudeau era.... and his "Trudeau salute" (flipping the bird - which Trudeau often did). While he was travelling through the west - he flipped it once too many times and a lot of westerners took it as Trudeau's true opinion of westerners. The Liberal party has never really rebuilt themselves since this time, they have never really had too since they often had won after Ontario votes were counted. There is a good 30+ years of history since that point -- including NEP, the lack of understanding that what is important in major cities - is often just government games for rural areas (long gun registration, etc.).

 

[Brandon716]

I'm aware the Sask and Manitoba NDP setup is slightly to the right of the national NDP in Sask and Manitoba on a few issues.

And I'm very aware many of you have a disdain for the Liberal party on here, or either have a disdain for what you perceive is the current version of it. Its why most the things I've said have been not been taken seriously by many of you.

But at the same time, Dion is very right about his circumstance. Its been a long time since I've seen a politician be so honest, so direct, and so to the point about his status and his future. He came right out and laid everything on the line, explained his Green Shift was used as a political tool to label him an extremist and a tax raiser and that his party didn't have the resources to fight against a two year campaign that Harper has waged.

Harper truly started campaigning in spring of 2006 for this race, he just triggered the election when he thought his chances were best. The anti-Dion ads have been flying for some time...

And he honorably said he would step aside for the greater good of his party, and I admire Dion greatly. He's right, he was demonized by the Cons so greatly that he had no chance. They mocked his accent, they mocked his hard hearing, they made his policy something it wasn't in a collective, organized 2 year campaign.

The Liberals have more than redeemed themselves from any scandal they have had in the past, and in my opinion have been the most open party about their scandal. Martin didn't have to open up sponsorship, but he did. Dion doesn't have to be so direct and honest, but he is.

Jack Layton is a better campaigner, but the Liberals have been redeemed in my eyes and its time the centre-left and left start unifying and come behind a new leader in the Liberal party.

I just happen to think Kennedy is the freshest, best face for that new Liberal party. Dion wasn't.

I'm not ignorant of Canadian politics, I understand the dynamics of western Canada politically more than an average Canadian citizen, and I openly say the weakest point in my political knowledge background is Quebec. I've yet to fully study and understand the history of Quebec politics.

You can disagree with my opinions, but if someone resorts to other tactics like have been done, I'll just re-state my beliefs and back them up with the evidence I have.

I still believe Rae and Ignatieff are divisive and have too many negatives to even be remotely considered. Kennedy is my first choice, but there are many other well qualified candidates in the party that are far better than Rae or Ignatieff.

Evidence? Well its already been spoken of: Rae has his NDP and tulmultuous history in Ontario, Ignatieff has been outside of Canada as long as he's been in lately.. And he's on record for supporting things like the Iraq war. That's a lot of negatives to have to defend and clear up, especially when running against a unified right. Ignatieff would define an out of touch Liberal who doesn't have the concerns of everyday Canadians.

When your very need is to reconnect with the average Canadian, the last person that you need is an aloof Ignatieff. He's no Jean Chretien.

If it has to be a choice between Ignatieff or Rae, I'd vote Rae 10 times over Ignatieff. Rae is at least real. I like Rae as an individual Liberal, he's fine in my book. A matter of fact, Ignatieff is fine as an individual Liberal representing a singular riding. But after viewing the demise of the Liberal party over the past 5 years, remembering the fun and humor of the Chretien days, I think its time to get very serious about this.

We can't afford another election where an overwhelming number of Canadians choose policies diametrically opposed to the Harper government, yet are afraid to vote Liberal because the party is seen as aloof or out of touch.

 

[cacruden]

And I'm very aware many of you have a disdain for the Liberal party on here, or either have a disdain for what you perceive is the current version of it. It why most the things I've said have been not taken seriously.

Your making a big assumption there. Yes, I was unable to vote Liberal this time -- in fact the first time I voted Conservative was in 1988 -- because I am a firm supporter of free trade - and Canada's ability to compete in the world when we put our mind to it.

I am more Conservative now than I was then - but it is more towards the Libertarian - Conservative quadrant. Could I vote Liberal, yes, but not if it lurches too far left - if I believe the Liberal is closer to the center. Basically, I don't vote for people that have my political viewpoint - because I would be hard pressed to find a party that represents it. I vote for who I think is the best person to lead the country (even if I am not as close politically).

Could I vote for Dion - No, could I vote for Rae - yes, could I vote for Manley - yes, could I vote for McKenna - yes, could I vote for Kennedy - No, could I vote for Iggy - gut reaction - No, Scott Brison - easily - yes. I was actually open to voting for another party other than the Conservatives because of my anger with Jim Prentice - but there was no alternative. I looked at the Green party - but they were more anti-free trade than I could accept. I almost stayed home from voting (which would have been a first) - but I was urged NOT to do that by my mother - even if I did not follow her political viewpoints (my mother is Liberal).

Basically, I am not a Liberal, but I do not disdain the party either. It is funny but on both the left and the right there are many people that tend to reject building a bigger tent (more inclusive) because the end result does not match there viewpoints completely. It is this closed-minded behaviour that leads parties into defeat.

 

[kEiThZ]

The beginning of this fallout I believe started during the Trudeau era.... and his "Trudeau salute" (flipping the bird - which Trudeau often did). While he was travelling through the west - he flipped it once too many times and a lot of westerners took it as Trudeau's true opinion of westerners. The Liberal party has never really rebuilt themselves since this time, they have never really had too since they often had won after Ontario votes were counted. There is a good 30+ years of history since that point -- including NEP, the lack of understanding that what is important in major cities - is often just government games for rural areas (long gun registration, etc.).

+1

That's what I have said all along. I want the Liberal Party of Canada restored but as a national party not as an urban party for TMV only. IMHO that's not healthy for the country. Forget leadership, they are going to have to make some hard choices on policy (like long gun registration....).

As for leaders...chickens are coming home to roost. It was all good as long as they could win with just Ontario. And how they pulled that one off while ignoring Ontario for a decade and a half is beyond me....but hey even I supported them back then. Now they are going to have find someone who does more than win over Ontarians. The united right has succeeded where it matters the most: in the 905 and rural areas where the Liberals only won by taking advantage of a divided right. To counter this, they will need to re-generate themselves as a national party. In the end that can only be good for Canada.

 

[Brandon716]

Your making a big assumption there. Yes, I was unable to vote Liberal this time -- in fact the first time I voted Conservative was in 1988 -- because I am a firm supporter of free trade - and Canada's ability to compete in the world when we put our mind to it.

I am more Conservative now than I was then - but it is more towards the Libertarian - Conservative quadrant. Could I vote Liberal, yes, but not if it lurches too far left - if I believe the Liberal is closer to the center. Basically, I don't vote for people that have my political viewpoint - because I would be hard pressed to find a party that represents it. I vote for who I think is the best person to lead the country (even if I am not as close politically).

Could I vote for Dion - No, could I vote for Rae - yes, could I vote for Manley - yes, could I vote for McKenna - yes, could I vote for Kennedy - No, could I vote for Iggy - gut reaction - No, Scott Brison - easily - yes. I was actually open to voting for another party other than the Conservatives because of my anger with Jim Prentice - but there was no alternative. I looked at the Green party - but they were more anti-free trade than I could accept. I almost stayed home from voting (which would have been a first) - but I was urged NOT to do that by my mother - even if I did not follow her political viewpoints (my mother is Liberal).

Basically, I am not a Liberal, but I do not disdain the party either. It is funny but on both the left and the right there are many people that tend to reject building a bigger tent (more inclusive) because the end result does not match there viewpoints completely. It is this closed-minded behaviour that leads parties into defeat.

Kennedy is someone I believe can reach out beyond the base, but also attract the base very strongly. This is key to why I'm supporting him for the new leadership convention.

Rae has already announced his intentions to run by standing up the day after Dion's announcement and stating "we need to get on" with the leadership convention.

I'm waiting for the other power players to make their voices known in the coming days and weeks.

BTW, my comment was to other people on this forum, not you about ignoring my beliefs and just lashing out.

 

[cacruden]

OK, who voted for Justin "Pretty Boy" Trudeau?

Talk about a light weight running on his name and looks