Saturday, November 8, 2008

It's Official...No More Talking on Kinsella's Blog

Yep. True dat. Further to my post last night, feel free to squawk about whomever you wish right here at the "what do I know grit". If you read something you don't like on blogs with no comments allowed, you can leave your reference here and comment.

Yes commenters (not anonymous ones though) you have a home here...even if it is a comment against the Iggy team...or the Rae Team....or the Leblanc team.

28 comments:

MississaugaPeter said...

WK had to shut down his comments since when he starts to spin, he does not want anyone to counterspin or post factual contradictions to his spin.

The sad part is that in his new role he will lose the respect of many. And don't be surprised of the personal backlash he and those around him are going to endure (including Dalton).

Where was his commentary on the convention being moved to Ontario? If he wasn't tied to a candidate he would have been strongly against it.

Where was his commentary on the Quebec Liberal Party's biased suggestions re: leadership convention. If he wasn't tied to a candidate he would have been strongly against it.

If he supports Iggy, as it has been alluded to by his lack of criticism of the two aforementioned points, IF HE SUPPORTS IGGY, THE REINCARNATION OF 2003 MARTIN...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_convention,_2003

"Paul Martin spent the entire race as the unquestionable front runner, as his supporters had secured a lock on the party executives of the federal and most provincial sections of the party. They had made rules such as those regarding the sale of party memberships so onerous as to give Martin an unsurmountable advantage."

"Martin easily captured the leadership with 93.8% of the delegates, however the party would be plagued by significant infighting afterwards."

...WK will tarnish his reputation significantly.

WK can shut off comments on his blog. But he can't shut off comments on the blogosphere.

Dante said...

Kinsella is either an insider or he's out. Don't ever think he is grass roots.

A grass roots movement is exactly what the Liberal Party needs to rebuild its base. Populist policies that Kinsella advocates can only be afforded by parties with a strong base. Short term pain for long term gain.

S.K. said...

I don't think you have to be a supporter of Iggy to see that if 60% of delegates don't have to spend $800 on plane fare then there might be more money for the Party. And you don't have to be a supporter of Iggy to not want 11 leadership candidates with ridiculous debates and wasted money etc.

People should have to pay off their previous debt first. There should be a 100,000 non refundable entrance fee and the convention should be moved, or people should be able to vote from other satelite locations.

We have no money. Period. End of story. Anything that streamlines the process and saves us money or leaves more available, should be done.


Sometimes financial concerns trump everything else and this is one of those times. Do we really need hall Findlay, Volpe, Fry, or even Kennedy in this leadership race? No we don't. Not his time. And I would rather not see Iggs as leader of the Liberal Party. i assure you.

RuralSandi said...

S.K. - no kidding LOL -so it's all about Iggy with you - hate him, hate him, attack him, attack him.

Hey folks, we don't even know who's running yet other than Iggy, Rae and LeBlanc

whopitulia said...

If I was an Iggy supporter, I'd sure be praying Kinsella takes the gig because it'll be a JFJ rebranding MI as the Northern Obama.

RuralSandi said...

In Kinsella's latest - he says he doesn't believe anyone with an outstanding debt should run.

There's seems to be confusion as to whether Ignatieff has an outstanding debt (Paul Wells blog).

So, we know for sure Rae has no outstanding debt (who paid that off?) and LeBlanc didn't run last time - so no debt there. Kinsella said previously that the candidate should be able to balance a budget - that leaves out Rae.

Kinsella thinks the next leader should be a good orator. I hadn't noticed, but read in Wikipedia that LeBlanc is supposed to be a good orator.

I'm wondering if Kinsella is going to be working for LeBlanc - formerly a Chretienite and insider and back room boy.

Just wondering.

MississaugaPeter said...

As I feared, it's the Iggy and Rae folks. Divide and devour, and who ever is ahead will get the support of the other.

Such unabashed admiration, for one another, while working to divide and devour, is in play here:

WK 2:40 p.m. "I give the Notional Pest plenty of good-natured ribbing - because, one, their word is no good and, two, they deserve it - but, today, fair's fair. Publishing a smart guy like John Mraz is, well, smart."

The aforementioned John Mraz in the National Post today: "...I stood next to a veteran Liberal activist who supports Michael Ignatieff. We were united in our awe. Let this contest be inspired by those principles. Let the forum of ideas begin."

Yes, as long as we divide and conquer. The BS spewing about "forum of ideas" would probably make the other cow pie admirer impressed.

MississaugaPeter said...

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.

S.K. said...

No Rural Sandi, It's not all about Iggy. That was my point. Some of the ideas from his supporters are the right ideas, regardless of who brought them forward, or at least can be modified to be the right way to proceed. I was saying that I don't support Iggy but I support these initiatives in principle with modifications. 150,000 is too high, 100,000 non refundable is better. No one needs to be banned from running. That's draconian, but they can be made to pay their outstanding debt off first with anything collected. If they can do that and pay the entrance fee then they can run.

I don't think we need or want 11 candidates this time. 5 is more than enough.

RuralSandi said...

So far, as stated by the media - Ignatieff, Rae, LeBlanc.

Possible as well - Dhalla, Cauchon (friend of Kinsella's I believe) and Coderre - that makes 6

RuralSandi said...

Whoops - forgot McGuinty - so that makes a possible 7 candidates.

James Curran said...

Ruby and Coderre would be puppets for one of the main contenders. For you I won't name a name Sandi.

David was seriously considering running, and still is. Gerard is rumoured to be at 75% now. many of his youth are lost to Leblanc already, like Leblanc.

James Curran said...

And, Sandi, Warren is supporting Ignatieff.

Mala Fides said...

Hey Miss Pete,

I can understand Warren taking down his comment section on his blog because of his work on one of the leadership campaigns.

It takes a lot of time to moderate all of the traffic on Canada's most popular political blog and with all of his hard won Conservative new BFFs who will be brutally disappointed that his political rebirth did not land him on the Harper band wagon, he would have to do double time purging all of the hate mail.

We all love Warren here and it would show an incredible level of insecurity if he took Jim's blog off of his Blogroll.

We're all big kids here and we recognize that over the course of a leadership campaign there are going to be differences of opinion.

If we can't discuss issues passionately (and that does NOT mean questioning someone's patriotism and citizenship) then what the hell are people doing in politics?

Here's to some brutally honest blogging!!!

James Curran said...

Hear! HEAR!

MississaugaPeter said...

mala fides,

How come the G&M and The Star are capable of accepting comments but WK can't? How come our good buddy Jim can accept comments but WK can't? Do you work for Daisy and/or Iggy?

I smell BS, and I am not a cow pie admirer.

MississaugaPeter said...

S.K.

Is that short for __ Kinsella? You wrote: "People should have to pay off their previous debt first."

WK on his website wrote: "anyone with 2006 Liberal leadership personal debt simply won't be credible as a leader-to-be"

If an election is called tomorrow, should the Liberal Party of Canada be disqualified from fielding candidates because it still has not paid off its debts from the last election?

I say, how about "anyone who has lived in Canada less than six years (20%) in the past thirty years won't be credible as a leader-to-be"

RuralSandi said...

I'm surprised that you seem to think WK is supporting Ignatieff - do you know this for sure?

I wonder why Kinsella isn't saying?

Ignatieff is a "BORN" in Canada Canadian citizen who had opportunities elsewhere - big deal. This is a petty argument at this point.

When an actor or comedian or journalist goes to the US, for example, and live there forever - why do Canadians claim them when they win some big Nobel, Emmy, etc?

Hmmm.....

RuralSandi said...

Meant to add - isn't Ignatieff considered to be one of the Martinite side?

Mala Fides said...

Miss Pete,

If you've read any of my comments, I think it is quite clear that I do not support Michael Ignatieff.

And no, I don't work for Daisy either.

The fact is that some long-time Liberals, for whatever reasons, have decided to support Ignatieff. They are going to have a more and more difficult time defending all of the positions Michael has taken over the years.

Let me ask you, if you ran the most widely read Liberal blog in Canada and were on a campaign team and had posted a bunch of negative posts about your now candidate, don't you think you would be pulling your comments section down and purging your archives?

I would rather spend my time pumping out the message instead of having to respond to attacks against my candidate (especially when those attacks are coming from my cached archive of blog posts).

That's all I am saying.

At the end of the day though, this isn't about Warren. It IS about Michael Ignatieff and how intellectually inconsistent he's been over the last few years and how some of his people have placed winning the leadership in front of the long-term interests of the Party and the country.

The similarities between the way Paul Martin's crew ran their leadership in 2003 and today's team Iggy are striking.

Kool Aid anyone!!!

In_The_Centre said...

The similarities between the way Paul Martin's crew ran their leadership in 2003 and today's team Iggy are striking

…yet here were have Warren, one of the most ardent Chr├ętienites who got back stabbed by most of Martin's team, who lambasted Michael for certain policy positions, supposedly coming on board and burying the hatchet.

If MI, the most polarizing figure in 2006, can supposedly get Warren on board the team, then damn, he is already half way there to getting this thing done.

We may see uniform consensus forming among long time liberals on a candidate, something that was missing in 2006


-ITC

Mala Fides said...

Wishful thinking.

James Curran said...

Unfortunately it won't be seen that way ItC. Martinite Littler and Martinite Murphy are lined up behind Rae and Leblanc. It will be perceived there is still a rift.

In addition, WK will have to retract many criticisms of MI he has written in 2006 and 2007. Oh well, as Mala said, wishful thinking.

In_The_Centre said...

The fact is that some long-time Liberals, for whatever reasons, have decided to support Ignatieff.

And many of these insiders were vehemently against Ignatieff in 2006. As the G & M said when McGuinty’s and Charest’s main men decided to back MI, there is a tectonic shift underway in the LPC organization, one that I believe benefits MI above all else, especially in Ontario.

My point was, if MI can land a few high profile endorsements from those that spoke out against him, a perception will be established that MI has improved as a candidate. Time will tell though!

-ITC

In_The_Centre said...

The fact is that some long-time Liberals, for whatever reasons, have decided to support Ignatieff.

I would propose that the reasons would be

1)$$$$
2)A motivated organization and base of supporters that MI can absorb into the party apparatus should he be the victor
3)Perception that he is the quickest path to victory. In these troubled economic times that are for certain going to lead to deficit and damage the CPC. Election 2010 anyone?

After all, party insiders all think the same way, "who can bring us back into government so I can get a good job"

Mala Fides said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mala Fides said...

You have just argued the exact point that I have been making for the last three weeks.

Ignatieff and his endless leadership campaign can gobble up all of the "high profile" power brokers that he wants.

He did this during the last leadership race.

The Ignatieff campaign was extremely top heavy. Loads of MPs, cabinet ministers, money, high end business people, all of the party brass . . .

BUT!!!! he did not gain the support of the grassroots and he did not expand his portion of the delegation after the first ballot.

So go on and have your wild power orgy as the grassroots becomes more and more disgusted and alienated from the party.

Keep on telling us that Michael has this Senator or that former cabinet member or this consultant and that pundit backing him.

Go on and run roughshod over the grassroots.

You just don't get it.

If you haven't noticed, tens of thousands of Liberal-minded voters stayed home this last election and you cannot blame that on Mr. Dion alone.

Ignatieff and his people have made the last two years all about Michael.

You can call it a foundational shift. But I call it political operatives worming their way into positions of power to benefit one candidate at the expense of rebuilding the Party.

Just take for example all of the proposals put forward by the Ignatieff-controlled Quebec wing of the Party.

Tactical Rifle said...

Well, I thought I'd see if I could post here or not, so here goes ...

I have to admit I am somewhat peeved with WK at the moment, for a variety of reasons. It feels a bit odd for me to be quite in agreement with Mississauga Pete over this, but so it goes. Mala Fides makes some interesting points, I wonder who he/she is? A pen name that means 'bad faith' gives one pause.

Anyways, yes its Warren's blog to do with as he wishes however at this time I believe he wasn't entirely honest about the reasons behind his decision to close down the comments section. That does annoy me, as it was an interesting community that had developed there, despite (or because of? ;) ) the occasional sharp exchange.

Whatever ...

Dave in Maple Ridge