WTF Liberal Party?!
You're seriously going to accept Michael Ignatieff as your leader? Pro-torture (oh, but only as an intellectual exercise), pro-war-in-Iraq (but only so he wouldn't lose cred. with the Hawks at Harvard?) pro-business, Republicrat Michael Ignatieff?
After you threw Stéphane Dion to the wolves?
After you all (except for one) signed onto the coalition, signed your names on that letter to Michaëlle Jean?
I'm with Robert Silver on this one:
On Thursday, hours before the Prime Minister was to go and visit the GG, a petition was circulated for all Liberal MPs to sign expressing their support for the defeat of the government AND the coalition. Again - this was Thursday morning, after the video disaster. Every single one of the MPs in caucus (save one) signed the petition. Did you mean it when you signed? If you didn't mean it - if you signed the petition only because it was the path of least resistance - how can you remain as a Member of Parliament? Seriously, if you are willing to sign a petition to the Governor-General asking her to change governments, and it was only because you were "chicken" to say no or didn't want to rock the boat, then you should resign as a Member of Parliament because you have proven yourself unworthy of serving as a representative of your community and as a law-maker. Otherwise, I think it is fair to assume that your signature was meaningful and your support for the coalition was sincere; by your signature, you wanted the GG to act upon the petition.
So either:
(a) The Liberal caucus was UNANIMOUS in supporting both the coalition and Dion as leader until May; or
(b) There are a bunch of MPs in the Liberal caucus who are both cowardly and whose word means little (or whose opinions change with the wind).
Really, this is a binary situation - make your choice.
I hope you're proud of yourselves. I sincerely hope you're aware of just what you've wrought:
Canadians, across Canada, were galvanized at the prospect of a coalition that would represent their needs and desires in Parliament. At the prospect of cooperation, consensus, goodwill, of the work of government continuing. At the prospect of our elected representatives finally standing up to Stephen Harper's ideologically driven, destructive minority government, and demanding better government for all Canadians.
Canadians across Canada were prepared to accept M. Dion as a interim leader, to acknowledge that while he's no superstar, he shines when it comes to compromise and policy, and that he might be able to steer a coalition until the Liberal party could democratically choose a new leader.
The coalition had the support of Canadians. All it needed was the support of our elected representatives.
Instead you two gentlemen undermined it, with your hubris, and your proud, stubborn insistence that you, you alone, could lead the party better than M. Dion, and that matters had to be settled now!
Has either of you ever stopped to seriously consider your own weaknesses as a prospective leader? Has either of you ever stopped to consider why Liberal delegates were prepared to accept M. Dion over either of you, even as they were prepared to abandon him when he did not prove to be (as he had never promised to be) a superstar?
You, Mr. Rae. You messed things up but good in Ontario. Yes, I know, you inherited a right mess, and you didn't have the support from your own party to form a government in Ontario. But in the public's memory, you're responsible for killing the Eglinton Ave. subway, for Rae days and loss of income for public servants, for somehow both knuckling under to and betraying the unions (nice trick that), and for recommending increased tuition for university students. You've managed to become demonized by at least two, possibly three, generations of progressives, from both the Liberal and the NDP base. You can't recover from that, politically. Even trying to lead the national Liberal party is folly.
You, Mr. Ignatieff. As an Ontarian, you're about the only person I can think of who would be less palatable than Mr. Rae to the progressive base of Liberal party supporters. Whether or not you meant it when you went on record supporting torture (even only a little bit of torture) and the war in Iraq, you must have known that those positions were incompatible with being viewed as a civlized human being. Canadians, except for certain supporters of the Conservative party, pride themselves on electing civilized representatives. It's only the Senate and the Conservative party that are reputed to be populated by ogres and trolls. Were you thinking they'd hold their noses and vote for a party that accepted you as its leader, if only to avoid a Harper majority? Was your platform going to be "Vote for me! I'm not as mean as the other torture-loving pseudo-intellectual war-monger!"?
Nice.
If either of you had any interest at all in actually, you know, getting on with the business of representing Canadians in government, you'd have thrown your support behind M. Dion, acknowledged your unsuitability as party leaders, and gotten on with the important business of building up your party's strengths, finding smart, young, ideologically palatable leadership candidates, who might actually have given your party members something to vote for, rather than against.
But no. You're too wrapped up in your own entitlement, your own belief that, after being forced to accept the leadership of a mild-mannered nerd who actually appears to have developed policies based on something other than his own ego and business interests, you should be the ones to show Canadians how to beat the Conservatives.
Instead, sirs, you'll destroy your own party, squander the trust and enthusiasm that Canadians had for a coalition government, and consign us either to even more ideology-driven Harper policies or to another election the country can't afford and no actual government, no economic policy, and a fractured, fragmented opposition.
Nicely done, sirs. Way to serve.
After you threw Stéphane Dion to the wolves?
After you all (except for one) signed onto the coalition, signed your names on that letter to Michaëlle Jean?
I'm with Robert Silver on this one:
On Thursday, hours before the Prime Minister was to go and visit the GG, a petition was circulated for all Liberal MPs to sign expressing their support for the defeat of the government AND the coalition. Again - this was Thursday morning, after the video disaster. Every single one of the MPs in caucus (save one) signed the petition. Did you mean it when you signed? If you didn't mean it - if you signed the petition only because it was the path of least resistance - how can you remain as a Member of Parliament? Seriously, if you are willing to sign a petition to the Governor-General asking her to change governments, and it was only because you were "chicken" to say no or didn't want to rock the boat, then you should resign as a Member of Parliament because you have proven yourself unworthy of serving as a representative of your community and as a law-maker. Otherwise, I think it is fair to assume that your signature was meaningful and your support for the coalition was sincere; by your signature, you wanted the GG to act upon the petition.
So either:
(a) The Liberal caucus was UNANIMOUS in supporting both the coalition and Dion as leader until May; or
(b) There are a bunch of MPs in the Liberal caucus who are both cowardly and whose word means little (or whose opinions change with the wind).
Really, this is a binary situation - make your choice.
I hope you're proud of yourselves. I sincerely hope you're aware of just what you've wrought:
Canadians, across Canada, were galvanized at the prospect of a coalition that would represent their needs and desires in Parliament. At the prospect of cooperation, consensus, goodwill, of the work of government continuing. At the prospect of our elected representatives finally standing up to Stephen Harper's ideologically driven, destructive minority government, and demanding better government for all Canadians.
Canadians across Canada were prepared to accept M. Dion as a interim leader, to acknowledge that while he's no superstar, he shines when it comes to compromise and policy, and that he might be able to steer a coalition until the Liberal party could democratically choose a new leader.
The coalition had the support of Canadians. All it needed was the support of our elected representatives.
Instead you two gentlemen undermined it, with your hubris, and your proud, stubborn insistence that you, you alone, could lead the party better than M. Dion, and that matters had to be settled now!
Has either of you ever stopped to seriously consider your own weaknesses as a prospective leader? Has either of you ever stopped to consider why Liberal delegates were prepared to accept M. Dion over either of you, even as they were prepared to abandon him when he did not prove to be (as he had never promised to be) a superstar?
You, Mr. Rae. You messed things up but good in Ontario. Yes, I know, you inherited a right mess, and you didn't have the support from your own party to form a government in Ontario. But in the public's memory, you're responsible for killing the Eglinton Ave. subway, for Rae days and loss of income for public servants, for somehow both knuckling under to and betraying the unions (nice trick that), and for recommending increased tuition for university students. You've managed to become demonized by at least two, possibly three, generations of progressives, from both the Liberal and the NDP base. You can't recover from that, politically. Even trying to lead the national Liberal party is folly.
You, Mr. Ignatieff. As an Ontarian, you're about the only person I can think of who would be less palatable than Mr. Rae to the progressive base of Liberal party supporters. Whether or not you meant it when you went on record supporting torture (even only a little bit of torture) and the war in Iraq, you must have known that those positions were incompatible with being viewed as a civlized human being. Canadians, except for certain supporters of the Conservative party, pride themselves on electing civilized representatives. It's only the Senate and the Conservative party that are reputed to be populated by ogres and trolls. Were you thinking they'd hold their noses and vote for a party that accepted you as its leader, if only to avoid a Harper majority? Was your platform going to be "Vote for me! I'm not as mean as the other torture-loving pseudo-intellectual war-monger!"?
Nice.
If either of you had any interest at all in actually, you know, getting on with the business of representing Canadians in government, you'd have thrown your support behind M. Dion, acknowledged your unsuitability as party leaders, and gotten on with the important business of building up your party's strengths, finding smart, young, ideologically palatable leadership candidates, who might actually have given your party members something to vote for, rather than against.
But no. You're too wrapped up in your own entitlement, your own belief that, after being forced to accept the leadership of a mild-mannered nerd who actually appears to have developed policies based on something other than his own ego and business interests, you should be the ones to show Canadians how to beat the Conservatives.
Instead, sirs, you'll destroy your own party, squander the trust and enthusiasm that Canadians had for a coalition government, and consign us either to even more ideology-driven Harper policies or to another election the country can't afford and no actual government, no economic policy, and a fractured, fragmented opposition.
Nicely done, sirs. Way to serve.