shortly thereafter. Is anybody going to dispute that? Well maybe some will try and make light of it.
It would appear that the coalition has turned into a question of the Liberal leadership. One guy is going coast to coast to sell it to the other 38% of Canadians that are against it. The other isn't. I wouldn't want to be the guy that isn't, come May 2nd in Vancouver.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Doing the right thing is almost always the right thing to do, whatever the analytical frame. You should highlght this: "And what's happening as a result of this is bigger than Stephane Dion, bigger than me, Michael Ignatieff or Dominic Leblanc."
So, winning the Liberal leadership, and, in effect, alienating everyone else, is Rae's endgame? What about the country in which, according the Globe, about 60% of people are opposed to this scheme?
This plan quite clearly legitimizes the NDP, the Greens, and - ahem - the Bloc, solely at the Liberals' expense.
I'm with Ignatieff and trying to actually win the country.
One guy is telling Dion what the Liberal party can, and cannot accept, and the other guy isn't.
I sure wouldn't want to be a self proclaimed Dionista and be stuck supporting that first guy.
James, it will only turn into a question of Liberal leadership if we Liberals want to turn it into one. Do we really want to? I'd rather not.
Bob is onboard. Michael is onboard. Dominic is onboard. The Conservatives would like us to believe otherwise, but anyone who claims differently is LYING. They want us to ignore the repeated public comments of all three, and believe that there is division, because it gets us fighting each other, instead of them.
I don't know about you, but when the Conservatives want me to do something, I generally prefer not to do it. And I don't think using this as a leadership wedge will help anyone. Rather the opposite, in fact.
2 late Jeff. Ignatieff super blogger has chosen to make it a wedge issue.
Polls are all over the place, and I TOTALLY support the idea of a coalition, but anyone who thinks only 38% of the country is opposed to the idea is on CRACK.
I'm not sure I believe the polls that say 60% of the country is anti-coalition, but it sure isn't as low as 38%.
That's not to say it might not be worth trying to sell the idea to those that are opposed to it, but one has to approach that from the reality that probably more than half of Canadians are opposed to it right now.
I agree, James. Support of the coalition is a wedge issue for the leader candidates, like it or not. Yesterday I received a fund raising letter from MI. Now I agree with Warren Kinsella that whoever gets the leadership job had to be to be a primo fund raiser, and where better to demo that skill than in your own leadership campaign, but somehow the timing was inappropriate for me. Am naive enough to think that the potential leaders should be spending more time on campaigning for the coalition rather than raising bucks for their own campaigns. What are MI's priorities?
Cripes, James, cripes. If Ignatieff were genuinely footdragging there might be no way to avoid it being a leadership issue but doing this as a preemptive strike is shitty for the coalition and shitty for the party.
I'm 100% for the coalition; no deals with Stephen Harper no matter what he offers, he can't be trusted to remain in government or cabinet much less as PM under any circumstances.
Oh and I support Ignatieff. Nice to be painted as a sellout along with the guy I support so that you guys can score some points.
Look, I applaud Bob for planning a coalition blitz. But please don't play Harper and the media's game by honking a half second after the green light on Ignatieff.
Just on the question of how regular Canadians (as opposed to, say, progressive bloggers) feel about the coalition (and I support the coalition) I might point out the difference in support showing up on Facebook (by no means scientific, but wait...).
I was sure the Facebook groups would skew in favour of the coalition (skewing younger as one would presume they do). Well?
The largest pro-coalition group (sofar as I can tell) is Canadians for a Progressive Coalition. Current membership: 19,146 members.
The largest anti-coalition group (again, as far as I've seen) is Canadians Against a Liberal/NDP Coalition Gov't. Current membership: 120,752 members.
(Someone please let me know if I'm missing a big pro group... I'd love to join!)
Again, not at all scientific, but I was SHOCKED at the discrepancy in the numbers.
The elephant in the room is being against the coalition at this point is pretty much equivalent to saying they are against Dion being PM.
Once you get beyond that, it is much murkier. Canadians as a whole are not real happy with Harper at the moment either, but with Dion as the alternative, they aren't going to be persuaded.
What am I, chopped liver? :)
No, but seriously, if WK jumped off a bridge, would you James?
When it comes to what candidates believe, I prefer to believe what they actually say themselves, rather than questionably newspaper reports or cryptic statements by bloggers, super or mortal.
"When it comes to what candidates believe, I prefer to believe what they actually say themselves, rather than questionably newspaper reports or cryptic statements by bloggers, super or mortal".
That makes total sense BCer, however it's a bit of a problem when basically everyone in the country is saying, loudly and everywhere you turn, "Candidate X thinks Y", and from Candidate X we basically get "[crickets]".
So, Bob Rae's "overwhelming majority" resulted from garnering 37% of the popular vote?
I guess that just completely overwhelms Stephen Harper's 38%.
Just saying.
Well, Rae was successful at the provincial coalition - but the disaster that followed hurt his NDP party for many, many years.
So, are we Liberals or are we NDP?
I see you got the WK/MI talking ponis Sandi. Perhaps if you watch the Duffy interview from today, you'll get a feeling where Team (spelled with to I's in it) MI are on this coalition thing.
"Do we really want to?"
Not that we want to, but we have to.
Might as well make a further concession to Layton, Bob. A Bob Rae premiership means Canadian troops leave Afghanistan by the end of 2009. Also no further corporate tax cuts until 2011.
"Candidate X thinks Y", and from Candidate X we basically get "[crickets]".
Actually, Ignatieff has been very vocal in his support for the coalition. His statements after caucus yesterday were loud and clear in support. He was on Duffy and Newman tonight, loud and clear in support. Last Sunday he did the CBC and CTV morning shows, lenghtly interviews in favour of both the coalition and Dion.
So it's completely false to say it's been crickets. I think there have been Conservative operatives trying to plant stories that it's been crickets. But that's just not true, and anyone who has been paying attention knows that.
The Conservatives are trying to divide us here. And anyone who tries to piggyback Conservative talking-points in support of a leadership bid is only hurting their party and their candidate.
Well played Bob, you ol' rascal.
It was hilarious watching Tim Powers praise Ignatieff on Mike Duffy with Warren Kinsella. When uber-partisan Tiny Tory Tim says well played Liberal MI, you got to wonder (maybe what you are saying BCer). The Coalition scared the living daylights out of the Prime Minister, hence the Scorched Earth policy that followed. I'm not sure what Ignatieff's (who I think his a highly accomplished individual I might add) view on the coalition is. But I hope it isn't, Hi I'm Michael Ignatieff Leader of the LPC, I was for the coalition before I was against it.
James, you need a rest. You read everything you perceive is negative about Iggy and then hyperventilate. Have a drink, slow down a little LOL
Hmmmm.....LeBlanc has said virtually nothing and you aren't complaining. Funny, isn't it?
This analogy is either fundamentally wrong or projects a chilling vision of what's to come. Last time Bob Rae became the cheerleader for a coalition, his party lost seats in the next election. I have to assume you're taking the long view, because in the following election he won a resounding majority. But he wasn't the leader of the party which led the coalition and provided its premier. He was the leader of a perennial also-ran which hadn't been anywhere near government since 1943. The party that led the coalition was relegated to opposition for the next 13 years. So what lesson are we to draw, out of curiosity?
The conclusion would be that Rae took a party he led that wasn't in government and supported a coalition that toppled another and then gained a majority government with his party when the coalition collapsed. Simple really.
Again, when the coalition collapsed his party lost seats. The other coalition-member won a majority gov't. So not that simple.
Post a Comment