Thoughts on the Liberal Convention
I have read a couple of articles on the Liberal convention in Montreal.
THOUGHT 1:
Looks like Ignatieff is going to have a tough time finishing this up--will almost certainly go to a third ballot--and the more ballots it takes, the better the chance of Bob Rae winning, so far as I can tell.
There are two sweet ironies here:
1. One slogan of the Liberals is "Don't let Stephen Harper do to Canada what Mike Harris did to Ontario." And who put Ontario in the place that it needed financial rescue? Bob Rae, my bet on the next Liberal leader.
2. The Libs are always griping about Harper being "Bush-lite." And who is the leader after the first ballot? The candidate who most resembles Stephen Harper.
3. The Libs are saying that Harper is not progressive enough. Agree or disagree with him, what is more progressive than calling a group of people a nation in a united country? Again, agree or disagree, it seems to me that going back to one nation, plain and simple, is the regressive act, no?
4. In a candidacy fraught with "realism"--"Who can defeat the big bad wolf, Stephen Harper?"--the Libs are poised to elect the candidate who has the least chance of beating Harper. I suppose this is what it means to be part of the visionless Liberals right now: You either elect a candidate who supported the Iraq war, but can likely defeat Stephen Harper, or you support a candidate who didn't support the war but whose claims to victory and resume bragging come after his most recent venture in actual governance....
THOUGHT 2:
One thing I have wondered about is where Canadians get this "We're-not-the-USA" identity. Now I know: The Liberals. How do I know this? A prominent sign at the Liberal convention reads: "Defeat Harper." Well done! Let your opponent dictate the game and you've already lost! Bravo! Ironic that most Canadians voted in the Conservatives because they didn't like the Liberals, not because they liked the Conservatives....
THOUGHT 3:
Also, I love Jean Chretien as former Prime Minister. He of the dubious reputation of "the proof is a proof when it's proven" and Shawinigate is now starting to speak a little more candidly. When asked about Paul Martin's last run as PM, Chretien said, "He didn't win; I would have preferred if he had." Yes. Classic words.
THOUGHT 1:
Looks like Ignatieff is going to have a tough time finishing this up--will almost certainly go to a third ballot--and the more ballots it takes, the better the chance of Bob Rae winning, so far as I can tell.
There are two sweet ironies here:
1. One slogan of the Liberals is "Don't let Stephen Harper do to Canada what Mike Harris did to Ontario." And who put Ontario in the place that it needed financial rescue? Bob Rae, my bet on the next Liberal leader.
2. The Libs are always griping about Harper being "Bush-lite." And who is the leader after the first ballot? The candidate who most resembles Stephen Harper.
3. The Libs are saying that Harper is not progressive enough. Agree or disagree with him, what is more progressive than calling a group of people a nation in a united country? Again, agree or disagree, it seems to me that going back to one nation, plain and simple, is the regressive act, no?
4. In a candidacy fraught with "realism"--"Who can defeat the big bad wolf, Stephen Harper?"--the Libs are poised to elect the candidate who has the least chance of beating Harper. I suppose this is what it means to be part of the visionless Liberals right now: You either elect a candidate who supported the Iraq war, but can likely defeat Stephen Harper, or you support a candidate who didn't support the war but whose claims to victory and resume bragging come after his most recent venture in actual governance....
THOUGHT 2:
One thing I have wondered about is where Canadians get this "We're-not-the-USA" identity. Now I know: The Liberals. How do I know this? A prominent sign at the Liberal convention reads: "Defeat Harper." Well done! Let your opponent dictate the game and you've already lost! Bravo! Ironic that most Canadians voted in the Conservatives because they didn't like the Liberals, not because they liked the Conservatives....
THOUGHT 3:
Also, I love Jean Chretien as former Prime Minister. He of the dubious reputation of "the proof is a proof when it's proven" and Shawinigate is now starting to speak a little more candidly. When asked about Paul Martin's last run as PM, Chretien said, "He didn't win; I would have preferred if he had." Yes. Classic words.
posted by Aaron Perry at
8:11 AM
5 Comments:
Hey AP, I ask this question out of ignorance. In Harper's statement about the Quebecois being a nation within a United Canada, is he envisioning something like the native american 'nations' within the United States. If not, how would it be different? Do you know? Just curious.
Aaron I like your thoughts althought I was uncomfortable when you used the word "LIBS" very Limbaugh-esque... Just don't start popping pills or making fun of Michael J. Fox. :)
I agree with Dwayne. We agreed to use either the term Lieberals or the more accurate butt wipes.
hey matt: no idea. sorry.
well, my thoughts were wrong. bob rae didn't win, although ignatieff couldn't garner much more support. stephane dion is the new leader...we'll see how good an opposition he can form, b/c i don't see the Liberals taking the next election.
This is a comment just to say I continue to regularly read this blog, though I comment less, as I have no leftover brain cells this time of year for critically thinking enough to make a comment.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home