Sorry this post is a .pdf file, but it’s a really interesting piece by Warren Kinsella comparing the different responses of each of the Liberal leadership candidates to Israel’s military actions in Lebanon. I won’t comment other than to say that it’s extremely interesting to see the way this distinguishes the candidates.
Where does the Liberal party stand?
I haven’t commented on this yet, but Belinda Stronach’s recommendations on how to renew the party deserve some mention. I think it’s good that she’s putting ideas out there and generating discussion, but I’m pretty cynical about her intentions. The recommendations that we drop membership fees to $1 a person and make leadership conventions one person, one vote would make it quite easy for someone with easy access to money to buy their way into the leadership of the party. I don’t even know what to think about recommendation to have cabinet elected by members of the caucus, but nothing that comes immediately to mind is good.
This seems more like an attempt to gain a little bit of press coverage for herself now that the leadership race has happily continued on without her.
Article: Stronach wants caucus to elect cabinet ministers
I didn’t notice this article until I started seeing it crop up on blogs (sorry I’ve forgotten where I saw it first, so no h/t). To be honest, Carolyn Bennet has not really impressed me at all during the race. I don’t have any particular reason to dislike her campaign thus far, I just haven’t seen anything from her that would make me want to vote for her.
However her article in the Globe and Mail over the weekend is a stand out piece. In it she savages Volpe for continuing to run for leadership of the party after tarnishing its name, and urges all candidates to abandon ‘old politics’ in favour of a form of politics that doesn’t alienate those who are still idealistic about what we can achieve. Luckily, other than the disgusting actions of Volpe, all the candidates seem to be following this advice and helping to rebuild the integrity of our party throughout the campaign.
Article: Liberal leadership race: There’s an elephant in the room
This is truly one of the funniest things I have ever seen. I’d never come across The Frog Lady before, but I’m going to be checking out her site quite a bit from now on!
This article in the Toronto Star today is certainly good news for the Kennedy camp, although I think the headline overstates the strength Kennedy has based on the text that follows. He’s doing quite well in B.C. and he’s tied in a couple of other provinces, but being so far in the back in Quebec is going to hurt him more than he gains by being ahead in B.C.
I was surprised that the news story claimed that: “It has been conventional wisdom in the party that MP Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke Lakeshore) has had a strong lead, followed by former Ontario premier Bob Rae.” By all accounts it seemed that so far it had been a Kennedy-Ignatieff race with Bob Rae behind them and Dion making strong gains after his debate performances. Perhaps the author’s surprise at Kennedy’s strength led her to over-emphasize Kennedy’s position.
Article: Kennedy a charm for new Liberals
I didn’t catch this news conference live, but it seems like it would have been a good one to catch. It’s actually somewhat reassuring that Harper seems to be taking a strong stance on border issues with the U.S., although I wouldn’t be surprised if this is more about posturing for the Canadian public than it is about resolving border issues with them.
But Bush calling Harper “Steve”? I’m not sure whether to be concerned or bemused.
Article: U.S. risks isolation, Harper warns
Today’s the last day to sign up for a Liberal membership if you want to have a chance to vote on delegates to the convention! Sign up at the party’s main page.
To honor the day, the Globe and Mail has a really good article describing the candidates’ drives to sign up new members for the party. It’s a pretty interesting account of the all organizing that goes on in the background and out of the spotlight.
Article: Mad dash to sell the Liberal line
It’s disappointing to hear that the leadership candidates are having trouble signing up new members, but it’s not all that surprising. As this article describes, a lot of people need a bit of a break from politics after an intense couple of years and aren’t all that inclined to get involved in a leadership battle that’s likely to form some personal animosities.
This could be a blessing in disguise though. Besides the obvious good that comes from reducing memberships by not having campaigns sign up “dead dogs” and people without their knowledge, having a smaller core of people as members during delegate selection could ensure that those making the decisions have the party’s interests in mind. Really, we don’t actually need big numbers right now. I’ll be more concerned if we can’t get the numbers we need before the next election.
Article: Liberals finding it hard to sell party memberships: Hall Findlay
Not a very positive article for us, but one that it’s hard to deny the truth of. Let’s face it, opposition sucks. However, it is a good time to better define ourselves and sharpen our debating skills. I’m sure by the end of the leadership race, when we have a leader to rally behind, we’ll be a much stronger opposition party and able to hold Harper to account.
Article: The Liberals’ Hundred Days of Solitude
Here’s a couple of articles describing last night’s leadership debate. I was impressed that the candidates are starting to more strongly define themselves and their ideas. Volpe’s introduction shocked me, but I sort of expected to be shocked by him, so that’s no surprise. I’m still not decided on who I’d like to support, although I’m becoming more certain who I’m not going to support (and no, Volpe’s already been long decided).
Volpe attack jolts Liberal race
Candidates gang up on Ignatieff
No, the debate wasn’t particularly interesting, but it did help me get a better sense of each of the candidates’ positions. I was looking for more of a clear right/left divide within the party than seemed apparent. Bevilacqua’s casting himself as the candidate of the ‘right’ side of the party, but he didn’t really seem to offer anything to substantiate that other than employing rhetoric in favour of jobs and a strong economy. But no one else objects to that, so what’s the point of his candidacy?
I wasn’t too surprised to see most of the candidates target Ignatieff, but I don’t think the strategy worked very well for them. Besides giving him the lead in the Globe and Mail article, with the absence of any clear debate victories against him, they only provided Ignatieff with the most attention and the greatest amount of time to get his ideas out there.
Article: Debate casts Ignatieff as front-runner
