Every party has its James Currans, those so determined to be internally partisan that they'd rather see the whole party brought down than have to support someone not of their liking.
Jimmy, get a grip. I don't care for Michael Ignatieff much more than you do (He still has to earn my sincere support) but I know he's our only chance of rebuilding the party right now. Be honest, James, if you truly had your way we'd be shackled to Stephane Dion until we drowned in irrelevance.
Our adversary, Canada's adversary, parliamentary democracy's adversary isn't Michael Ignatieff, it's Stephen Joseph Harper. I like Bob Rae but he can't do the job, end of story. He had the onus of showing that he could carry Ontario and he hasn't done that.
This isn't the 60's of the 70's, it's 2008. Canada is on the verge of economic and political meltdown. We must grab the strongest, most stable hand that's outstretched to us. We've got a number of quality people and yet we're at each other's throats over which will hold the top job. Obama showed you take the best of all and then allow that person to employ the others to their, and their party's and their nation's best advantage.
James, your man Stephane Dion has done nothing for our party. He's dragged it down and you simply cannot blind yourself to that in inter-party bloodletting. This is one of those unfortunate moments when events and circumstances compel us to put Canada and party first. Lord knows Harper won't.
Even if some of us have to hold our noses, let's rally behind the obvious leader, Michael Ignatieff. Let's put Canada first.
21 comments:
Well said. There was an agreement to play fair and all the Rae supporters have done is trash and attack.
A coalition on "one" province, that failed in the end is quite different than a coalition for the whole country - provinces with different needs, etc.
I didn't see any Ignatieff people attack Rae visiously or LeBlanc.
Time is running out and Harper is probably scheming as we speak.
I think the point that people are making is that the process is being run stealthily, without transparency nor fairness. If all that is true & Ignatieff becomes the leader, what about legitimacy? And doesn't it bode badly for the future of the party, not to say the country should he ever become its PM? It's all so passé, isn't it, his way of doing politics, I mean? Maybe he's still in the larval stage; the butterfly has yet to come out. We'll see in the weeks ahead.
There was never any chance that the coalition would actually work.
There's too many egos, too many big attention seeking personalities, too many ideologies and ideopathies, too many self centered fools to accommodate, too many members of whichever party with tiny bones to pick, too many narrow constituencies that think their tiny slice of thought is the linchpin of the totality of global reality, too many grifters who think that if they don't get their tribute the world will have to be brought to an end.
It was never going to work.
Much as I would have liked it to.
I would love to believe that there are currently a number of federally elected MPs who are driven by principle, by passionate love of Canada, by unwavering commitment to the welfare of Canadian citizens and residents, by an obsessive determination that Canada will not fail itself.
I would love to believe that.
I just have no fucking idea who they are.
Please understand that I carry no brief for Michael Ignatief. At this point all I care about is my country. I very much respect Bob Rae and hope he will contribute his experience and skills to rebuilding the Liberal Party. Anon 8:53 is right, we do need to become obsessed - about Canada. This internicine nonsense serves neither the LPC nor the country.
Yet we have to start over again somewhere. We have to gather about some rallying point. For all his apparent flaws that's Michael Ignatieff. Am I happy with that? No, not at all. I am, however, willing to endorse him hoping he can prove worthy of that.
What choice do we have? A Harper majority be default of any worthy opposition?
Maybe it is time to call upon my friend Troy, and retreat to the hinterland.
Ignatieff it will be which is not such a bad thing. And Bob Rae said that he would be around working for the Liberal party. Rae would be good but he is also the easiest to be demonized by Harper whereas with Ignatieff it will not be so easy. The guy bites back and Harper knows this. Body language in the House can be telling. Ignatieff is not adverse to a coalition but will not commit right now cause he doesn't know what will be there on Jan 26. It my well be a very Liberal budget and how then can a coalition defeat that without seeming to be just opportunist??? Harper is definitely scheming. I met him in person when he was running against Stockwell Day and believe me he is going to try and get his revenge one way or another. That is why he has put on his Trudeau voice when he gives his speeches. Don't believe that he will ever change. He is cold and vengeful. Everybody better stay united because you have no idea what Harper will come at you with.
Interesting viewpoints but we all have to decide who, in short order, can coalesce the Canadian public to support a Liberal plan. It really makes my skin crawl to see that effort diverted to petty (and I mean petty) squabbles between A or B.
Our country is in real peril. We haven't got time for Curran's this guy v. that guy shit.
Right now Iggy's the guy to take the reins - until he can prove himself or we can find someone better.
I know I don't like that but, then again, I'd like a world that I new in the 60's - Beach Boys and the Stones. But I don't get my fantasy, neither does James and neither do you.
I have to agree with Gene. I also would like to point out to anonymous 8:53 that it's people like Ignatieff that make you doubt that the coalition effort would work. He is an example of the types you described who are more self-serving than committed to the welfare of Canadians.
I really like this site and respect your opinion on many matters Mound of Sound but I disagree with you whole heartedly on this. Much of Dion's undoing was Harper's exceptionally effective smear campaign combined with LPC whisper campaigns to render him ineffective as a leader. He is not the most charismatic leader on the face of the earth but nor is Harper. As for language skills, it is disingenuous for the rank and file to attack him on his English when Harper's French is nothing to praise.
The fact remains that the damage done to Dion cannot be surmounted. That is unfortunate because it really was completely undeserved. But Ignatieff is a dud and untrustworthy. Unless you want to see a right-far right coalition govern us for the next four years, I cannot see any point in supporting Ignatieff.
I have no belief in Ignatieff being able to stave off the worst of Harper's tendencies. I think Harper will have fun playing with the LPC under the leadership of Ignatieff much to Canada's detriment.
Kitt said....
"Harper is definitely scheming. I met him in person when he was running against Stockwell Day and believe me he is going to try and get his revenge one way or another. That is why he has put on his Trudeau voice when he gives his speeches. Don't believe that he will ever change. He is cold and vengeful. Everybody better stay united because you have no idea what Harper will come at you with."
I agree, Harper is paying back for all the demonizing/hidden agenda/women hating/soldiers in the streets (like Trudea right?)etc $hit that was barraged on him for years...........with interest.
The interest being........phucking the liberal party of toronto. Pun intended. Lots of fun intended as well.
BY, I am flattered and very pleased to note that your appreciation of my opinions, even where we differ, is gratefully appreciated.
My reservations about MI are nowhere nearly as strong as ours. Tell me, please, who you would suggest?
On the other hand ... in reply to my comment above & to Beijing York's.
At this point, if you go ahead with trying to put forth a permanent leader, you should give all Liberal members a say in the proceedings and give Bob Rae a chance. At least he has shown a dedication to the concept of a coalition to bring Harper down. And for that, I endorse him over Ignatieff who has seemingly undermined the movement by failing to endorse the movement.
If that isn't constitutionally possible, then the interim leader should not be a leadership candidate and for the sake of keeping a potential coalition alive, an MP from the west. I personally think that Scott Brison has been an excellent speaker but he is from the east unfortunately.
To borrow from Harper, "Let me be clear"... I want the current PM toppled at the earliest possible moment.
I have your point, BY. You haven't addressed the immediacey of this crisis. How do we respond to this? Harper has plainly shown that he won't accede to any meaningful solutions unless his miserable political hide is at stake.
Despite it being unfair, I know that Dion cannot lead the LPC or coalition into this next session. His failure has been successfully secured. But I do think the coalition approach could work if the focus was on their content for a better economic stimulus plan and if they would take time to rebut the misconceptions and lies put out by the Harper CPC.
The coalition has to come up with rebuttal talking points for every exaggerated if not completely dishonest talking point put out by Harper.
Here is a partial list of concepts to work from:
1. Harper very much supported and worked with the Howard coalition in Australia. Did he consider that government illegal?
2. Harper has not problem with the Bloc when it votes in favour of his legislation in the House. In fact, a deal was penned with the Bloc and NDP to bring down a Liberal minority government in the recent past.
3. The Bloc MPs have been acting as responsible parliamentarians for nearly two decades and have supported legislation and brought forward motions that benefit all Canadians (e.g. employment insurance, support for cultural industries, etc).
4. Not once has the CPC announced that it would remove the offensive attack on pay equity that was included in Flaherty’s economic update. This is clearly an attack on women.
5. The opposition parties are willing to support the CPC on sound policies, especially an effective economic stimulus package that serves the needs of all Canadians. Obviously, this is not a priority for PM Harper since he feels it’s better to shut down Parliament than to work with all parties to help Canadians facing economic hardships.
6. Further to the point above, the opposition parties were enthusiastic to work with the CPC and a humbled PM Harper at the start of the session. However, PM Harper chose to attack the opposition parties rather than work with them, even with an impending economic crisis.
7. Finally, the opposition parties recognize that the CPC have enough seats to form a minority party and are willing to support that government if Harper is replaced as leader. Our loss of confidence is not with the CPC MPs elected by Canadians but with their leader who refuses to cooperate and has shown an inability to work for all Canadians.
Babyhlonian 777, I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and check you out to discover what you believed in general. Surprise, surprise - you're a douchebag sniper! You have no page, you put no opinion forward, nothing to advance or defend. My beagle, when he lifts his leg, Baby, matches your intellectual prowess - in full.
So, we're supposed to trust the caucus on the coalition issue, but not for leader?
Did any supporteres get asked if they would approve entering into a coalition if necessary?
Can't have it both ways - either you trust the caucus to make urgent decisions or you don't.
So basically if I understand your argument--Michael Ignatieff should become leader by caucus vote because YOU think hes the better candidate?
Okay, then a coalition by caucus just because you believe Bob Rae?
Give me a break.
I wonder if Rae knows the LPC constitution doesn't support one person one vote.
If he doesn't know why does he think he should lead?
If he knows why does he think it's acceptable to circumvent the constitution?
"Great Balls of
Fire"!!!....Ignatieff...the leader of the Liberals...what are you thinking? Yes, the party has to be re-built but it cannot be done over night and certainly not with Ignatieff. Just his body language alone is enough to turn a person off. Put him in power and we'll have another Harpter...plain and simple. It is going to take years to rebuild...using a bandaid won't fix anything. A. Morris
Where is Clyde Wells when he is needed? A. Morris
I did not write this but enjoy passing it on ingram simple math....
To all those who support the Coalition, and specifically those who are using the so called logic that "62% of Canada didn't vote for Stephen Harper" as the reason why this group should be supported, let's walk through a little math.
From the Elections Canada results of the 40th General Election held on October 14th, 2008 the popular votes are as follows:
Green Party 6.8%
Bloc Quebecois 10%
NDP 18.2%
Liberal 26.2%
Conservative 37.6%
Using the rational that 62.4% of the voters didn't vote for Stephen Harper, 93.2% didn't vote for Elizabeth May, 90% didn't vote for Gilles Duceppe, 81.8% didn't vote for Jack Layton, and 73.8% didn't vote for Stephane Dion.
Of course the argument is that collectively the Liberals, NDP, and the Bloc had 54.4% of the popular vote, superficially looking like they trumped the Conservatives by having greater than 50% plus one of the popular vote. However, I think it's safe to say that no voter in the provinces and territories outside of Quebec put an "X" beside a Bloc candidate, so the Bloc votes should not be lumped in as representing the wishes of Canadian voters. That brings the "real" coalition support amongst "Canadians" down to 44.4%.
Now, I know you die-hard coalition supporters are going to crow about how 44.4% still beats the Conservatives 37.6%, but keep in mind that individually the Libs and NDP were still well behind the Conservatives. If they wanted to pool their winnings to go on a money spending junket with our taxpayers dollars they should have merged the two parties together before the election. Admittedly, Dion has tilted the Libs so far to the left maybe the two parties really have become one and the same (although my die-hard Liberal friends vehemently deny it when that topic comes up). Also, let's not forget that Mr. Dion led his party to its poorest showing since Confederation - SINCE CONFEDERATION! - hardly a ringing endorsement to be leading anything in this country.
The reality is, with five parties splitting the votes in this country (and it doesn't look like any of them are planning to go away soon, and it looks like the Greens will continue to gain ground) the chances of forming a majority government for any party have diminished. Certainly, the chances of any party winning a majority with a majority in the popular vote are becoming statistically very slim.
We as Canadians may have to get used to minority governments (remember, this our third in a row). Yes, coalitions have been in place in the past. If my memory is correct, the last one was under Borden during WW I. Although I wasn't around then, I'm assuming WW I was probably an even more dramatic circumstance than our current economic woes and perhaps the reasons for a coalition at that time was very valid. I'm not convinced it is now.
So please, followers of the three wise men of the Coalition, come up with some arguments other than "62% of the country didn't vote for Stephen Harper". Critique the Conservatives policies. Offer your own ideas and recommendations. Debate with some substance. But don't through that flimsy mathmatical argument around. It makes me feel even less convinced that your crew is the right crew to put their hand(s) on the rudder of our country as we steer through the current economic waters.
signed,
Joe the grade 12 math graduate
Post a Comment