Monday, November 17, 2008

And Kinsella Continues his Open Assault...

...on the smartest, most politically savvy candidate running for the right to live at Stornoway on weekdays. Wonder why.

Being the only candidate that doesn't want media at events certainly doesn't make one the media darling. Especially to the delegates that live outside the Liberal Party of Toronto.

Me? Personally I look forward to the real debates. I'm betting one candidate wants less of them then the other two.

16 comments:

Demosthenes said...

I'm not the man's biggest fan. Something like the opposite, actually. But even I had my breath taken away with how quickly he started the attacks, and how vicious they are.

Considering Bob's almost certainly going to be the standard-bearer for progressives within the party--those who aren't necessarily comfortable with racing to the right in the vain hope that playing Harper-lite will somehow pass for a philosophy--I'd figure that the attacks would be veiled, at least at first.

No such luck.

Francesco said...

You know Mr Curran your take on events this weekend leaves me wondering about the state of affairs of people and candidates who want to tear the party apart and instead of renewing and rebuilding it.

why do i reach such a conclusion above.....Firstly, Bob's "Publicity Stunt" will and has hurt him him and possibly the Liberal party. Firstly, as Mike Crowley stated the venue was an informal discussion to ask tough and frank questions to the candidates on the state of the Liberal party, the results of the past election, policy questions, and really what needs to be done to revitalize the party. As Mr Crowley stated the rules were laid out a few weeks ago and all three candidates accepted the format. It was great to see liberals asking off-the-cuff questions to the candidates, and receiving frank non-filtered answers - no grandstanding (such as what mr rae did yesterday) no b.s. just simple substantive answers - discourse is the word I will use.

Now I saw, heard and listened to Mr Rae and his media scrum.....and I firstly must state that his behaviour was a publicity stunt and does nothing for the party. It was immmature. The rules were known by all three candidates ahead of time. Secondly, Mr Rae taking his toys and candy home was really not the behaviour I would expect for any of the candidates.

As for the Sunday's event myself and my better half, enjoyed it. We thought it was nice to have the candidates talk realistically about the party without having cheering sections or booing. It was a chance I wish all liberals should and could have gone to. We will all have the chance for the formal debates as the leadership race is long and sometimes nasty, but yesterday's events were something that could have been avoided with a little maturity.

Regards,
Francesco

RuralSandi said...

So, what's Rae going to do next to get attention - hold his breath under water and try to break the record - media attendance? Oh, he could play the piano on top of an iceberg - media attendance.

I suggest a pacifier.

WK - "vicious attack" - are you kidding me?

Winners - Harper and LeBlanc. Well done Boob.

Scott Tribe said...

Does that complimentary praise and description of Rae mean you're formally endorsing him of the 3 candidates, Jim?

James Curran said...

You know Francesco, I didn't like yor koolaid drinking diatribe (no offense Scott) last leadership. I haven't changed my opinion of you this time.

And, frankly, Sandi you're sense of rationale is really becoming nothing but a love in for Iggy.

Members of this party deserve to hear what is going on INSIDE the party. Those outside of the GTA have not been included in most of the decisions thus far. The media should be invited and should report on it so the fine folks outside of the island of Toronto can get a feel for what is really going on.

Dominic and Bob get that. Ignatieff's people however are already beginning to celebrate the coronation and would like their candidate to say as little as possible until Vancouver. That is a fact.

Scott, I'll be announcing my intentions by Wednesday. Somebody on this weirdoblogospear should try to even up the odds is what I'm thinking.

ch said...

winner - Harper.

Not so sure LeBlanc won on the Rae boycott. I was a bit taken aback by LeBlanc's media scrum where he clearly painted both Ignatieff and Rae negatively. Seems to me he could have gained more by simply taking the high road and emphasizing his own position, which was solid.

Anyway, I am willing to keep an open mind at this point on all three. I do feel Rae sent a very unfortunate message to many people who attended the event - that they didn't matter. That message was sent so strongly (by him even showing up, but only to talk to the media, not the attendees) that it has really left me wondering. While I believe in openness, the burning question is why wasn't this sorted out two weeks ago? And the boycott just seemed like a slap in the face to the Ontario executive and organizers of the event. Is there something we are not being told about why this all had to blow up during the 2 day meeting rather than before?

James Curran said...

Actually, he sent a message to the rest of the Liberals in Canada that they should all hear what all of them have to say.

What was a slap in the face was that if any other candidate comes forward this week, they weren't afforded this opportunity to lobby the 320 ex-officios from Ontario. Say for instance, a Martin Cauchon.

None of this forum should have even occured since none of them have even filed their papers to run. How do you like them apples.

ch said...

Yes, it is possible the Ontario executive made a mistake in planning this event. If so, it would have been better to point that out to them in advance of the event. Still, from the few reports I heard/read, those in attendance felt the weekend, including the forum, was useful and wish the controversy covered by the media could have been avoided.

James Curran said...

My guess is that the media will be covering all the events from here on in. And so they should.

RuralSandi said...

LOL - as opposed to your Ignatieff hate-fest?

To you this whole thing is a war - not a campaign.

In_The_Centre said...

Rae's desire to change the rules last minute reminds of the whole Hillary crusade that Florida and Michigan delegates should have been fully seated even though she agreed to them being stripped prior to the start of primaries, because that was the only chance she had of victory.

Change the rules last minute to suit your own interests. The only fact that matters is the three candidates agreed to the format. One had a last minute change of heart.

Rae is making the same fatal mistake that Ignatieff made in 2006, that is, trying to create a populist message that appeals to general Canadians when clearly, leadership is decided by the party members. How the heck can Rae win now if he pretty much has sacrificed all of Ontario in terms of delegates?

-ITC

Bill Templeman said...

Sandi & Francesco: You are right and you are wrong. Big picture: Ignatieff is more electable as a Liberal leader and therefore potential Prime Minister. But Bob Rae would be a far more effective prime minister once in office. At the risk of sounding tedious and bitter, what is Ignatieff's leadership experience. Sorry to re-cycle old lines, but what organizations has Ignatieff run as leader? Maybe Warren Kinsella knows. Perhaps WK will tell us. Rae, for all his faults, ran Canada largest province in tough times. Tough call, James. We await your announcement.

Bill Templeman

Bill Templeman said...

James, I should have added in my last post that Kinsella's slash and stab campaign against Rae shows the power of effective spin. Sadly it is maneuvers like this that drive parties into waring factions. Kinsella should save his impressive bile for Harper, not a potential Lib cabinet minister or PM. It is stunning to me that Kinsella is playing so dirty so soon, when he, of all people should know what it feels like on the receiving end of a vicious check. It is pointless sentiment on my part to lament the passing of the days when candidates/parties were chosen on the merit of their policies, not on the cheap stick work and slashing of their spin-meisters. c'est la vie, je regret...

Bill Templeman

liberazzi said...

WK is an interesting character and an interesting read, but I am not too comfortable with having him "around" again especially in this race. He is like those coaches that come back for one more chance at glory, but end up tarnishing their reputation. Maybe, Iggy should have been more flexible, maybe Rae should have been less childish, I dont know. If WK wants to start using his "War Room" antics then he is not going to very welcomed at the convention. Not really the forum to be using that stuff. Save it for Harper. I'm still undecided, but if Iggy and his crew are going to start playing games like before, then that is just going to turn me off again. Play fair boys.

MississaugaPeter said...

I wrote at:

http://whatdoiknowgrit.blogspot.com/2008/11/its-officialno-more-talking-on.html

“BTW James,

If you do not have an attitude adjustment, I think the over/under on you staying on WK's blogroll is 7 days.”

Nov 8, 2008 4:09:00 PM

You made it OVER, but not by much.

You are a good guy, and I would suggest you make amends with Iggy and WK, and follow the advice I posted at:

http://whatdoiknowgrit.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-do-i-know-grit-set-to-announce.html

“James,

Why is it necessary to announce?

It would be better that you do not declare and stay neutral. Declaring will end up with you expending energy defending your choice.

Would it not be better to expend that energy working at the grassroots level to build Liberalism in the remaining 231?”

Nov 14, 2008 11:11:00 AM

It is better to STAY POSITIVE and DO GOOD, then to TURN NEGATIVE and NOT BE ASSURED YOU ARE DOING GOOD.

James Curran said...

I simply state the facts. If prople are offended by the truth about their candidate, then I guess you can't win for losing anyway.

Attitude adjustments are for people that don't believe in a higher cause and cow to someone else's opinion of right or wrong.

I think you know me better than that.