Tories pledge to take a stand on global religious freedom
Who says that Canadian political parties don't talk about foreign policy at election time?
Surely, they don't do it nearly enough. But sometimes, it happens. This was the case very recently, as the Conservative Party announced they would create an Office of Religious Freedom within the Department of Foreign Affairs.
"We think there's a need to put a particular focus on this," announced Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney. "This is something the United States did more than a decade ago through the creation of the Office for International Religious Freedom in the State Department."
"You'd be looking at things, in part, from a religious freedom prism," he continued. "As a champion of human rights around the world we should be entirely comfortable with focusing on the rights of vulnerable religious minorities."
For his own part, Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae was not convinced, and seemingly not amused. He accused the Tories of naked political opportunism.
"It has much more to do with Canadian domestic politics than it has to do with the necessity of having a coherent strategy for the promotion of democracy and human rights," Rae complained. "It's more a domestic strategy than a foreign affairs strategy."
In his own rush to find something in the policy to criticize, David McGuinty complained about separation of church and state. He also suggested that an office promoting religious freedom abroad is not necessary.
"We have a document in this country that does that, it's called the Charter of Rights," McGuinty mused.
In this, McGuinty has missed the point. In countries like Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, and (yes) Afghanistan there are no such documents. They have no such freedoms. Moreover, the office would also allow Canada to take a stronger stand against the Organization of the Islamic Conference, who annually introduce their anti-blasphemy resolutions at the UN.
Canadians believe religious freedom to be a global good. Canada would be remiss not to promote it abroad.
This is an idea that the Liberal Party should enthusiastically support. If anything, their greatest criticism of the Conservatives should be that they didn't create such an office years ago.
Their lack of enthusiasm about this idea indicates that the Liberal Party has taken a step away from Canadian values. In their assumption that they define Canadian values just by virtue of existing, the Liberal Party has lost touch.
Jason Kenney seems to have little time for those opposing this idea.
"Perhaps there are some rabid secularists out there who don't understand there are a lot of vulnerable religious minorities under attack around the world," Kenney remarked. "To those people who would challenge it because they are uncomfortable with religious faith, I would say, 'Get over it'. We're talking about fundamental rights here."
If this initiative wins more votes from ethnic Canadians, it will be for good reason: because they understand the importance of this issue, and they know that the Conservative Party shares that understanding.
Showing posts with label Bob Rae. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bob Rae. Show all posts
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Let Canadians Put Their Money Where the Opposition's Mouth Is
Liberals, NDP demand "emergency debate" on long form census
With all the fervour surrounding the Conservative Party's decision to transform Canada's mandatory long-form census into a voluntary long-form census, the opposition has decided that the matter is quite the emergency.
In fact, they're calling for an emergency debate in the House of Commons.
NDP leader Jack Layton accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of an ideological opposition to the kind of government action information from the long form census has supported.
"Mr Harper doesn't believe in government action so he would prefer not to see the facts about what's going on in Canada," Layton insisted. "I think that's the more sinister dimension of this pigheaded approach they're taking."
Liberal deputy leader Bob Rae echoed Layton's sentiments.
“When the fish rots, it rots from the head,” Rae remarked. “It’s very, very clear that this is a problem with Mr Harper. This is a problem with the way Mr Harper’s government conducts itself, it’s the way its staff conduct themselves. And it’s the way they talk to the Canadian people.”
Layton's solution to the issue seems to hinge on eliminating any jail time for anyone who declines to fill out the mandatory long-form census -- he considers this a compromise, one that the opposition is prepared to pass quickly.
Industry Minister Tony Clement has rejected this as a reasonable compromise. He doesn't believe that any sanction should be applied to those who decline to fill out the long-form census.
In the end, that is half of what this issue will ultimately be about.
The other half is about what Canadians think the role of the government should be, and how much information they think the government needs in order to fulfill that role.
In other words, this is about Canadians putting their money where the opposition's mouth is.
If Canadians agree that the government needs the information contained in the long-form census, they will fill out the forms. If Canadians don't think the government needs such information, they won't.
It really is that simple.
This particularly applies to efforts such as that by the Federation de Communautes Francophones et Acadiennes, a group suing the federal government over its decision to change the long-form census, as well as for the other minority groups declaring that information contained in the long-form census is especially important to them.
Perhaps the idea that giving Canadians this power to shape the size and role of government seems a little too democratic to the opposition. The FCFA have evidently decided that such democracy is equally inconvenient for them.
Of course, the elimination of government means to coerce Canadians into providing information they may think the government doesn't need may be seen as an emergency by the would-be social engineers in the Liberal Party and the NDP.
Other Canadians likely will not agree.
With all the fervour surrounding the Conservative Party's decision to transform Canada's mandatory long-form census into a voluntary long-form census, the opposition has decided that the matter is quite the emergency.
In fact, they're calling for an emergency debate in the House of Commons.
NDP leader Jack Layton accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of an ideological opposition to the kind of government action information from the long form census has supported.
"Mr Harper doesn't believe in government action so he would prefer not to see the facts about what's going on in Canada," Layton insisted. "I think that's the more sinister dimension of this pigheaded approach they're taking."
Liberal deputy leader Bob Rae echoed Layton's sentiments.
“When the fish rots, it rots from the head,” Rae remarked. “It’s very, very clear that this is a problem with Mr Harper. This is a problem with the way Mr Harper’s government conducts itself, it’s the way its staff conduct themselves. And it’s the way they talk to the Canadian people.”
Layton's solution to the issue seems to hinge on eliminating any jail time for anyone who declines to fill out the mandatory long-form census -- he considers this a compromise, one that the opposition is prepared to pass quickly.
Industry Minister Tony Clement has rejected this as a reasonable compromise. He doesn't believe that any sanction should be applied to those who decline to fill out the long-form census.
In the end, that is half of what this issue will ultimately be about.
The other half is about what Canadians think the role of the government should be, and how much information they think the government needs in order to fulfill that role.
In other words, this is about Canadians putting their money where the opposition's mouth is.
If Canadians agree that the government needs the information contained in the long-form census, they will fill out the forms. If Canadians don't think the government needs such information, they won't.
It really is that simple.
This particularly applies to efforts such as that by the Federation de Communautes Francophones et Acadiennes, a group suing the federal government over its decision to change the long-form census, as well as for the other minority groups declaring that information contained in the long-form census is especially important to them.
Perhaps the idea that giving Canadians this power to shape the size and role of government seems a little too democratic to the opposition. The FCFA have evidently decided that such democracy is equally inconvenient for them.
Of course, the elimination of government means to coerce Canadians into providing information they may think the government doesn't need may be seen as an emergency by the would-be social engineers in the Liberal Party and the NDP.
Other Canadians likely will not agree.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
A Libby-Sized Bump in the Coalition Road
NDP House leader questions Israel's right to exist
Regardless of however the Liberal Party and NDP want to play it, talk of a Liberal/NDP coalition is very much alive in Canada again.
If the Liberals were ever seriously considering such an option, a serious bump has just appeared in the road to such a coalition: notably, NDP House Leader Libby Davies and her stance on Israel.
Davies was asked whether she believed that Israel's "occupation" of Palestine began in 1948 or 1967.
"I'm not going to argue numbers, it's too long," Davies replied. "This is the longest occupation in the world. People are suffering."
Which would be a surprise to, say, the Kurds. In the 16th century, Kurdistan was divided between the Safavid and Ottoman Empires. Today, historical Kurdistan is split up amongst Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria.
NDP Leader Jack Layton and Deputy Leader Thomas Mulcair have both attempted to distance themselves from Davies' remarks. But their potential coalition partners -- the Liberal Party -- are having none of it.
Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae has called for Davies' resignation as Deputy Leader of the NDP.
"These are not the off-the-cuff ramblings of any ill-informed or biased person," Rae fumed. "Ms Davies is the deputy leader of a political party that aspires to reflect and represent the views of Canada on the international stage. In this role, fully cognizant of her responsibilities, she stated that Israel has been occupying territories since 1948, the year of its independence. The logical implication of these comments is that Israel has no right to exist."
"This is a position that is more than just 'unacceptable,'" Rae continued. "This rhetoric is responsible for more than 'confusion,' and an 'inadvertent error,' as Ms Davies now suggests. The appropriate decision, given her stature and responsibilities with the NDP, is for Mr Layton to ask for her resignation as deputy leader and for Ms Davies to issue an apology to all Canadians. Nothing short of that will do."
Her stance on Israel isn't the only position of Davies that is unacceptable. Her stance on human trafficking is also an atrocity, and a humiliation of her party and constituents.
It's unlikely that coalition or merget talks between the Liberals and NDP will progress very far with the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party calling for the resignation of a deputy leader of the NDP.
Particularly when the best that Bob Rae could offer such a coalition is a tie with the Conservative Party.
Then again, considering that this coalition would need to mortgage the Canadian government to separatists, Canadians should be rather thankful for that.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
"Gay and Right - Stephen Harper on Libby Davies"
Marginalized Action Dinosaur - "Someone Send Libby Davies a History Book! The Longest Occupation Ever?"
Regardless of however the Liberal Party and NDP want to play it, talk of a Liberal/NDP coalition is very much alive in Canada again.
If the Liberals were ever seriously considering such an option, a serious bump has just appeared in the road to such a coalition: notably, NDP House Leader Libby Davies and her stance on Israel.
Davies was asked whether she believed that Israel's "occupation" of Palestine began in 1948 or 1967.
"I'm not going to argue numbers, it's too long," Davies replied. "This is the longest occupation in the world. People are suffering."
Which would be a surprise to, say, the Kurds. In the 16th century, Kurdistan was divided between the Safavid and Ottoman Empires. Today, historical Kurdistan is split up amongst Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria.
NDP Leader Jack Layton and Deputy Leader Thomas Mulcair have both attempted to distance themselves from Davies' remarks. But their potential coalition partners -- the Liberal Party -- are having none of it.
Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae has called for Davies' resignation as Deputy Leader of the NDP.
"These are not the off-the-cuff ramblings of any ill-informed or biased person," Rae fumed. "Ms Davies is the deputy leader of a political party that aspires to reflect and represent the views of Canada on the international stage. In this role, fully cognizant of her responsibilities, she stated that Israel has been occupying territories since 1948, the year of its independence. The logical implication of these comments is that Israel has no right to exist."
"This is a position that is more than just 'unacceptable,'" Rae continued. "This rhetoric is responsible for more than 'confusion,' and an 'inadvertent error,' as Ms Davies now suggests. The appropriate decision, given her stature and responsibilities with the NDP, is for Mr Layton to ask for her resignation as deputy leader and for Ms Davies to issue an apology to all Canadians. Nothing short of that will do."
Her stance on Israel isn't the only position of Davies that is unacceptable. Her stance on human trafficking is also an atrocity, and a humiliation of her party and constituents.
It's unlikely that coalition or merget talks between the Liberals and NDP will progress very far with the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party calling for the resignation of a deputy leader of the NDP.
Particularly when the best that Bob Rae could offer such a coalition is a tie with the Conservative Party.
Then again, considering that this coalition would need to mortgage the Canadian government to separatists, Canadians should be rather thankful for that.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
"Gay and Right - Stephen Harper on Libby Davies"
Marginalized Action Dinosaur - "Someone Send Libby Davies a History Book! The Longest Occupation Ever?"
Monday, October 05, 2009
The Achilles Heel of the Liberal Paty?
Jean Chretien's backroom leadership games hobbling partyFollowers of Canadian politics as seasoned as Charles Lynch and Allan Fotheringham have long offered an interesting thesis explaining the tenure of the Liberal party as "Canada's natural governing party".
This thesis basically holds that longstanding tensions over the leadership of the Conservative party cost the party its key organizational impetus, allowing a united Liberal party to fill the void.
The machinations of Dalton Camp against John Diefenbaker, Brian Mulroney against Joe Clark, and practically everyone in the party against Richard Bennet is thus argued to continually undermine the party on a national basis -- and especially in terms of its organizational capabilities in Quebec.
This disunity resulted in decades-long periods in opposition for the party, with the Liberal party alternating between majority and minority governments.
Canadian history has now dawned on a new century, and the tables have essentially turned.
Writing in the Toronto Star, Angelo Persichilli suggests that the recent leadership woes of Michael Ignatieff -- particularly having to soothe bruised egos over the Martin Cauchon/Denis Coderre affair -- is actually the work of Jean Chretien, who is perpetually flexing his muscles behind the scenes.
Persichilli draws attention to what is actually a rather important fact: whatever unity the Liberal party has ever enjoyed has been a fragile one. Historically, there have been countless tensions at work within the party: young Liberals pitted against old Liberals and left-wing Liberals pitted against right-wing Liberals.
Over time, these competing dynamics settled into two camps that have quietly been at war within the party.
Persichilli's column suggests that the Liberal party hasn't been fully united since the 1980s when John Turner defeated Chretien for the Liberal leadership. The conflicts that have emerged since -- Chretien vs Martin, Dion vs Ignatieff, Ignatieff vs Rae -- have been reflections of the Turner vs Chretien divide.
This particular divide can actually be found to have deep roots in the Mitchell Sharp vs Walter Gordon rivalry of the 1960s and 70s.
Chretien's success in the 1990s may have led Liberals into the kind of false sense of security that kind precipitate this kind of inernecine tensions. After all, 11 years of uninterrupted majority government can be an extremely heady experience.
Perhaps they believe they've been in a strong enough position that they can afford to infight over leadership.
But Chretien also enjoyed the luxury of facing off against right-of-centre opposition that was divided and left-of-centre opposition that was vulnerable. The Liberal party no longer enjoys this position of comparative strength. The Conservative party is very much a united force (despite what those who choose to pimp reported tensions between Murloney and Stephen Harper would desire) and the NDP enjoys greater confidence and self-assurance than it has since Tommy Douglas retired.
It's in the face of these political conditions that the Liberal party needs to put its leadership question to bed for good.
But therein lies the problem. Michael Ignatieff came to the party leadership not as the result of a genuinely competitive leadership contest, but rather after his principal opponents, Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae, were pressured to jump behind Ignatieff.
It should be no great surprise that some Liberals may be covertly organizing their next leadership campaign.
That Jean Chretien would quietly work to undermine the party leadership, however, is and should be viewed as entirely inexcusable.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
We Know How to Crack the Sri Lankan Nut
Time for Canada to support Sri Lankan High Commissioner
In the wake of Sri Lanka's move to deport Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae, some Canadians may be unsure as to how to proceed with the matter.
They shouldn't. It's time to pack Sri Lankan High Commissioner Daya Perera on a plane and send him back where he came from.
Rae has been accused of supporting the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, also known as the Tamil Tigers. While Bob Rae had given speeches questioning Canada's lack of involvement in the humanitarian crisis that accompanied the escalation of hostilities between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE, to suggest that Rae supports the Tamil Tigers is precisely how he describes it:
Absurd.
"Basically, I was told when I got to the airport I was a security risk," Rae says. "To describe me as 'an LTTE supporter,' as an army spokesman has done today, is a lie, pure and simple. I have been a steady critic of the abuses of human rights that were part of the LTTE's tactics."
In fact, Bob Rae has always been a steadfast opponent of terrorism while favouring programs of reconciliation. Whether it was opposing Hezbollah terrorism while calling for a substantive peace process between Israel and the Palestinian government (as well as its neighbours), or opposing the extremist groups that perpetrated the Air India bombing -- an act that Rae speculates may have adversely affected his 2008 Liberal leadership bid -- Rae's bonafides vis a vis terrorism are as sound as anyone's.
Rae did write a blog post criticizing the Sri Lankan government's alleged lack of attempts to reconcile with the Tigers, writing:
Beyond Rae's treatment, the diplomatic impacts of the Sri Lankan government's behaviour are deep and profound. Rae isn't even the only Canadian Parliamentarian to be denied entry into Sri Lanka. Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai was told that the Sri Lankan government allegedly couldn't accommodate his visit.
Making matters infinitely worse is the recent attack on the Canadian High Commission in Colombo.
It's evident that the country of Sri Lanka has no intentions of continuing diplomatic relations with Canada in good faith. There is no reason in the world why we shouldn't oblige them.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
Dan Shields - "Go Away, Bob Rae"
Vijay Sappani - "Sri Lanka Deports Bob Rae. Did the Conservatives Plot It?
Russ Campbell - "Rae banned in Sri Lanka"
In the wake of Sri Lanka's move to deport Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae, some Canadians may be unsure as to how to proceed with the matter.
They shouldn't. It's time to pack Sri Lankan High Commissioner Daya Perera on a plane and send him back where he came from.
Rae has been accused of supporting the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, also known as the Tamil Tigers. While Bob Rae had given speeches questioning Canada's lack of involvement in the humanitarian crisis that accompanied the escalation of hostilities between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE, to suggest that Rae supports the Tamil Tigers is precisely how he describes it:
Absurd.
"Basically, I was told when I got to the airport I was a security risk," Rae says. "To describe me as 'an LTTE supporter,' as an army spokesman has done today, is a lie, pure and simple. I have been a steady critic of the abuses of human rights that were part of the LTTE's tactics."In fact, Bob Rae has always been a steadfast opponent of terrorism while favouring programs of reconciliation. Whether it was opposing Hezbollah terrorism while calling for a substantive peace process between Israel and the Palestinian government (as well as its neighbours), or opposing the extremist groups that perpetrated the Air India bombing -- an act that Rae speculates may have adversely affected his 2008 Liberal leadership bid -- Rae's bonafides vis a vis terrorism are as sound as anyone's.
Rae did write a blog post criticizing the Sri Lankan government's alleged lack of attempts to reconcile with the Tigers, writing:
"'The war is over,' the crowds will shout.That is a far cry from supporting the LTTE. The Sri Lankan government's slandering of any Canadian Parliamentarian cannot be tolerated.
But there is a difference between a war ended by agreement and a war ended by death and destruction.
If there is no magnanimity in victory there is no victory. I think of the possibilities of peace in the years after 2000 and I weep at the lost opportunity, the lost lives. So many dead now that were once alive, debating the possibilities of peace."
Beyond Rae's treatment, the diplomatic impacts of the Sri Lankan government's behaviour are deep and profound. Rae isn't even the only Canadian Parliamentarian to be denied entry into Sri Lanka. Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai was told that the Sri Lankan government allegedly couldn't accommodate his visit.
Making matters infinitely worse is the recent attack on the Canadian High Commission in Colombo.
It's evident that the country of Sri Lanka has no intentions of continuing diplomatic relations with Canada in good faith. There is no reason in the world why we shouldn't oblige them.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
Dan Shields - "Go Away, Bob Rae"
Vijay Sappani - "Sri Lanka Deports Bob Rae. Did the Conservatives Plot It?
Russ Campbell - "Rae banned in Sri Lanka"
Friday, April 17, 2009
Real News Has Issues With Reality
When the Conservative party won the 2008 federal election many opponents of the party were disheartened. Others, like Murray Dobbin, were militarized.
Within days Murray Dobbin was on the Real News suggesting that the formation of a coalition government was imminent. As it stood, his prediction was off by a couple of months.
In a recent interview with Liberal party foreign affairs critic Bob Rae, Paul Jay asks him about Michael Ignatieff's abandonment of the Liberal/NDP coalition proposal, noting that it "had quite a bit of support in Canada".
When one calls their network the Real News, one should accept that this level of pretension comes with an obligation that their coverage will closely resemble reality. On this particular occasion, Jay's commentary doesn't.
Polls taken shortly after the formation of the Liberal/NDP coalition, polls revealed that 60% of Canadians opposed the coalition, as opposed to a comparably mere 37% of Canadians that supported it.
Moreover, the Conservative party enjoyed a surge in support after the proposal. Some polls had the Tories polling close to the 50% range.
The consensus among Canadians was clear: if the governing Conservatives were to be defeated, Canadians wanted the opportunity to decide who would govern the country in an election, as opposed to allowing the Liberals and NDP to seize power with a coaltion government that then-leader Stephane Dion had already insisted would never happen.
As a supporter of the Coalition government, Bob Rae certainly cannot afford to admit the extent to which Canadians rejected the proposed coaliton. But deep down, even Rae knows this is true.
Oddly enough, Paul Jay doesn't. This is rather unfortunate from someone who pretends to present the "real" news.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
An Ill-Concieved Coronation
With only one candidate left, the Liberal party dismisses the prospect of renewal
In the midst of what has already been a historical two weeks in Canadian politics, the Liberal party has decided to set just a little more.
With Bob Rae and Dominic Leblanc both having dropped out of the Liberal leadership race, only one candidate currently remains -- Michael Ignatieff. The expectation now is that Ignatieff will be coronated as the leader of the Liberal party.
Never before in modern history has the Liberal party decided its leader by having all the other candidates simply fold their campaigns.
"I am not a candidate for the interim leadership, nor shall I pursue my candidacy for the party leadership at the Vancouver convention," Rae announced today. "I believe that the Liberal Party of Canada requires a new leader to be in place before Parliament returns at the end of January."
Rae's intent is clearly to keep the Coalition alive long enough to try and defeat the government on January 27th. The Liberals certainly do stand a better chance of doing this with a full-time leader in place rather than simply an interim leader.
But just as many Liberals are beginning to question whether or not the Coalition itself is a good idea, a great many Liberals should question if simply choosing a leader in such a clearly ad-hoc fashion is good for the party.
Many rank and file Liberals are undertaking an extensive process renewal process at the grassroots level. But in order for this renewal process to truly penetrate the upper echelons of the Liberal elite the selection of the new Liberal leader needs to be conducted in concert with that process of renewal. The leader selected needs to be one accepting the results of that renewal process.
Instead, the best they can now hope for is to conduct their renewal process around the selection of the new leader. Instead of choosing a leader who reflects the principles and values established by that renewal, they'll be attempting to adapt that renewal to a leader essentially chosen by default.
Perhaps that's the reason why Ignatieff himself should invite new candidates into the race and insist that it continue -- a leader chosen by default, at the head of a party that has already proven itself willing to sacrifice its principles vis a vis national unity, will find his credibility with the Canadian people to be very short.
Figures as near and dear to the Liberal elite as former President of the Liberal Party Stephen LeDrew have recognized the folly of an Ignatieff coronation.
Unsurprisingly, LeDrew blames Dion:
For the Liberal party's own good they simply cannot afford to rush to coronate a leader, and certainly not under circumstances as dubious as these.
Other bloggers writing on this topic:
"The" Scott Ross - "Ignatieff and Arrogance"
My Politicophobia - "Screw You Bob Rae"
Dysfunctional Parrot - "Bob Rae Gets Out of Dodge City"
Pearce Richards - "Hey Liberals, Chill the Fuck Out. You Did This to Yourselves."
In the midst of what has already been a historical two weeks in Canadian politics, the Liberal party has decided to set just a little more.
With Bob Rae and Dominic Leblanc both having dropped out of the Liberal leadership race, only one candidate currently remains -- Michael Ignatieff. The expectation now is that Ignatieff will be coronated as the leader of the Liberal party.
Never before in modern history has the Liberal party decided its leader by having all the other candidates simply fold their campaigns.
"I am not a candidate for the interim leadership, nor shall I pursue my candidacy for the party leadership at the Vancouver convention," Rae announced today. "I believe that the Liberal Party of Canada requires a new leader to be in place before Parliament returns at the end of January."Rae's intent is clearly to keep the Coalition alive long enough to try and defeat the government on January 27th. The Liberals certainly do stand a better chance of doing this with a full-time leader in place rather than simply an interim leader.
But just as many Liberals are beginning to question whether or not the Coalition itself is a good idea, a great many Liberals should question if simply choosing a leader in such a clearly ad-hoc fashion is good for the party.
Many rank and file Liberals are undertaking an extensive process renewal process at the grassroots level. But in order for this renewal process to truly penetrate the upper echelons of the Liberal elite the selection of the new Liberal leader needs to be conducted in concert with that process of renewal. The leader selected needs to be one accepting the results of that renewal process.
Instead, the best they can now hope for is to conduct their renewal process around the selection of the new leader. Instead of choosing a leader who reflects the principles and values established by that renewal, they'll be attempting to adapt that renewal to a leader essentially chosen by default.
Perhaps that's the reason why Ignatieff himself should invite new candidates into the race and insist that it continue -- a leader chosen by default, at the head of a party that has already proven itself willing to sacrifice its principles vis a vis national unity, will find his credibility with the Canadian people to be very short.Figures as near and dear to the Liberal elite as former President of the Liberal Party Stephen LeDrew have recognized the folly of an Ignatieff coronation.
Unsurprisingly, LeDrew blames Dion:
"Even in taking his leave, Stephane Dion can't get it straight. By stating that the party needs a leader before the Commons resumes at the end of January, he is effectively rejecting the benefits of a considered leadership debate, while robbing tens of thousands of Liberals of their voice in choosing their own leader."Hopefully, Ignatieff sees the folly in all of this as well.
For the Liberal party's own good they simply cannot afford to rush to coronate a leader, and certainly not under circumstances as dubious as these.
Other bloggers writing on this topic:
"The" Scott Ross - "Ignatieff and Arrogance"
My Politicophobia - "Screw You Bob Rae"
Dysfunctional Parrot - "Bob Rae Gets Out of Dodge City"
Pearce Richards - "Hey Liberals, Chill the Fuck Out. You Did This to Yourselves."
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Ding Dong the Green Shift's Dead
Ignatieff, Rae, LeBlanc abandon Green Shift for good
In the aftermath on an election in which Stephane Dion staked his party's fortunes on his Green Shift plan and lost, it was only a matter of time before the Liberal party left it in the pages of history's footnotes.
As such, it's back to the drawing board for the Liberal party.
"You go back to the drawing board on how do you get to where we want to get to in a way that's going to be eminently practical and a way that's going to raise the interest and the passion of Canadians," Rae said. "It's not like cod liver oil. You've got to make sure that what we're providing for people is something that they actually want."
"The voters have told us to come back and think again about how to reconcile environmental sustainability and economic progress," added Ignatieff.
For Ignatieff, his casual abandonment of the Green Shift could become more ammunition for his opponents to use against him. After all, in 2006 he ran for the Liberal leadership on the strength of a carbon tax plan. Stephane Dion adopted a carbon tax and suffered one of the worst losses in the Liberal party's history.
Many Liberals will likely be forgiven if they come to suspect that Ignatieff's next big idea will be a comparably bad one.
Dominic LeBlanc has also confirmed that the Green Shift won't be part of his platform.
Bob Rae, at the very least, seems to have learned a lesson from the entire Green Shift debacle.
"You don't start with a theory," Rae said. "You start with the hard bedrock of the experience of Canadians in all walks of life. If you lose sight of that you can have an interesting life, but it won't be a successful political one."
Now, the only question that remains is thus: will the three candidates in the Liberal leadership race approach Liberals -- and, later, Canadians -- with a pragmatic -- even if ambitious -- program for running the country, or will they resort back to Liberal hallmark gimmickry?
Only time will tell.
In the aftermath on an election in which Stephane Dion staked his party's fortunes on his Green Shift plan and lost, it was only a matter of time before the Liberal party left it in the pages of history's footnotes.
As such, it's back to the drawing board for the Liberal party.
"You go back to the drawing board on how do you get to where we want to get to in a way that's going to be eminently practical and a way that's going to raise the interest and the passion of Canadians," Rae said. "It's not like cod liver oil. You've got to make sure that what we're providing for people is something that they actually want."
"The voters have told us to come back and think again about how to reconcile environmental sustainability and economic progress," added Ignatieff.
For Ignatieff, his casual abandonment of the Green Shift could become more ammunition for his opponents to use against him. After all, in 2006 he ran for the Liberal leadership on the strength of a carbon tax plan. Stephane Dion adopted a carbon tax and suffered one of the worst losses in the Liberal party's history.
Many Liberals will likely be forgiven if they come to suspect that Ignatieff's next big idea will be a comparably bad one.
Dominic LeBlanc has also confirmed that the Green Shift won't be part of his platform.
Bob Rae, at the very least, seems to have learned a lesson from the entire Green Shift debacle.
"You don't start with a theory," Rae said. "You start with the hard bedrock of the experience of Canadians in all walks of life. If you lose sight of that you can have an interesting life, but it won't be a successful political one."
Now, the only question that remains is thus: will the three candidates in the Liberal leadership race approach Liberals -- and, later, Canadians -- with a pragmatic -- even if ambitious -- program for running the country, or will they resort back to Liberal hallmark gimmickry?
Only time will tell.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Media Out, Gloves Off
Liberal leadership forum turns ugly
Before officially embarking on their Liberal leadership campaigns, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae promised to keep their campaign civil.
"We've talked about the importance of civility, talked about the importance of people working together, talked about the importance of how we build the party, talked about the importance of how we make sure that we can defeat the Conservatives," Rae previously said.
Ignatieff has even mused that he's more interested in running his campaign against the governing Conservative party than against his fellow leaders.
Now, with news of the unpleasantness ensuing at the first forum of the leadership campaign, a great many Liberals should be asking themselves what happened.
It seems the first problem arose with some confusion over whether or not the media would be allowed access to the debate.
Bob Rae insisted that he wouldn't attend under those grounds.
"It sends an awful signal to have a debate that is closed to the media, closed to Canadians," Rae insisted. "I am calling for open debates, and I think we have to start right now, this weekend."
Furthermore, the news release accused Michael Ignatieff's campaign of barring media presence from the debate, something that Ignatieff himself claims to know little about. Instead, he insists it's the Liberal party behind the move.
"I don't make the rules. The party makes the rules. I show up and do what the party tells me to do," Ignatieff insisted. "The party wants to have a family discussion and that's what we're going to do this afternoon."
Ignatieff further insisted that all three campaigns had agreed to the rule. Rae clearly disagrees. "What we agreed to is that we would come. The idea that it would be closed is news to me," he insisted. "You can't have a town hall without a town."
On that note, Rae has clearly drawn first blood in this campaign. After all, Liberals from across the country will be sending delegates to vote in Vancouver for the next Liberal leader. Thus, it isn't at all unreasonable to insist that Liberals across the country have a right to know what's being discussed in each and every leadership forum, and have a right to know about the positions being taken by each and every candidate (all three of them to date).
Perhaps the big winner is Dominic LeBlanc. While Rae and Ignatieff trade shots over who's making the rules and how, LeBlanc is choosing to try to stand above the entire mass.
"The game hasn't even started and they're at each other's throats," LeBlanc said.
But at the same time, such comments may undermine LeBlanc's standing as a serious contender. LeBlanc's apparent disinterest in the nature of the rules betrays a recognition that they may mean very little to his campaign: one way or the other, either Miachel Ignatieff or Bob Rae will lead the Liberals into a future election, and LeBlanc will be a kingmaker at best.
For his own part, LeBlanc echoes Ignatieff's narrative that each candidate's opponent in this campaign should be Stephen Harper. "I believe that for the sake of the Liberal Party this leadership process should proceed in a civil way where the opponent is Stephen Harper, and the opponents aren't other Liberals," LeBlanc insisted.
But once again, many Liberals will likely choose to take issue with the notion that external policy differences are more important than internal ones when discucssing the Liberal leadership -- particularly in a party with as stark a left/right divide as the Liberals.
With no media access to the debates, accusations flying over who's making the rules and why, and suggestions by two candidates that internal policy differences are largely off-limits, many Liberals may be questioning whether this leadership campaign will turn out any more favourably than the last.
Before officially embarking on their Liberal leadership campaigns, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae promised to keep their campaign civil.
"We've talked about the importance of civility, talked about the importance of people working together, talked about the importance of how we build the party, talked about the importance of how we make sure that we can defeat the Conservatives," Rae previously said.Ignatieff has even mused that he's more interested in running his campaign against the governing Conservative party than against his fellow leaders.
Now, with news of the unpleasantness ensuing at the first forum of the leadership campaign, a great many Liberals should be asking themselves what happened.
It seems the first problem arose with some confusion over whether or not the media would be allowed access to the debate.
Bob Rae insisted that he wouldn't attend under those grounds.
"It sends an awful signal to have a debate that is closed to the media, closed to Canadians," Rae insisted. "I am calling for open debates, and I think we have to start right now, this weekend."
Furthermore, the news release accused Michael Ignatieff's campaign of barring media presence from the debate, something that Ignatieff himself claims to know little about. Instead, he insists it's the Liberal party behind the move.
"I don't make the rules. The party makes the rules. I show up and do what the party tells me to do," Ignatieff insisted. "The party wants to have a family discussion and that's what we're going to do this afternoon."Ignatieff further insisted that all three campaigns had agreed to the rule. Rae clearly disagrees. "What we agreed to is that we would come. The idea that it would be closed is news to me," he insisted. "You can't have a town hall without a town."
On that note, Rae has clearly drawn first blood in this campaign. After all, Liberals from across the country will be sending delegates to vote in Vancouver for the next Liberal leader. Thus, it isn't at all unreasonable to insist that Liberals across the country have a right to know what's being discussed in each and every leadership forum, and have a right to know about the positions being taken by each and every candidate (all three of them to date).
Perhaps the big winner is Dominic LeBlanc. While Rae and Ignatieff trade shots over who's making the rules and how, LeBlanc is choosing to try to stand above the entire mass.
"The game hasn't even started and they're at each other's throats," LeBlanc said.
But at the same time, such comments may undermine LeBlanc's standing as a serious contender. LeBlanc's apparent disinterest in the nature of the rules betrays a recognition that they may mean very little to his campaign: one way or the other, either Miachel Ignatieff or Bob Rae will lead the Liberals into a future election, and LeBlanc will be a kingmaker at best.
For his own part, LeBlanc echoes Ignatieff's narrative that each candidate's opponent in this campaign should be Stephen Harper. "I believe that for the sake of the Liberal Party this leadership process should proceed in a civil way where the opponent is Stephen Harper, and the opponents aren't other Liberals," LeBlanc insisted.But once again, many Liberals will likely choose to take issue with the notion that external policy differences are more important than internal ones when discucssing the Liberal leadership -- particularly in a party with as stark a left/right divide as the Liberals.
With no media access to the debates, accusations flying over who's making the rules and why, and suggestions by two candidates that internal policy differences are largely off-limits, many Liberals may be questioning whether this leadership campaign will turn out any more favourably than the last.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Michael Ignatieff Formally Joins the Fray
Liberal leadership campaign shaping up to be Ignatieff/Rae rematch
After nearly three weeks of waiting, it seems that the Liberal party finally has a leadership contest on its hands.
Michael Ignatieff -- long expected to join the leadership fray -- finally formally declared his candidacy yesterday. Now, the real business of choosing a Liberal leader can begin.
Ignatieff has an interesting strategy for becoming Liberal leader: instead of running against his opponents, he'll simply run against Stephen Harper.
"Now I'm going to be in competition with some fine fellow Liberals but I'm not running against any of them, I'm running against Stephen Harper and the Conservative government," Ignatieff insisted. "My target is not my friends and my Liberal colleagues, it is the disappointing record of the Harper government."
Of course, Harper won't actually be running for the leadership of the Liberal party, but one digresses.
Not to mention that when Ignatieff last had the opportunity to run against Harper and the Conservatives, he instead spent the better part of the 2008 federal election being largely invisible.
Ignatieff has his vision for the renewal of the Liberal party. Namely, "throwing open the doors of this party to the next generation, to the best and brightest our society has to offer."
Not that Ignatieff, 61, is feeling his age. "The youngest ideas aren't always from the youngest candidates. I think age is not a biological fact. It's a habit of spirit and mind."
This comes in response to Dominic LeBlanc's insistence that the party needs a generational shift. Which it very well might, but LeBlanc, 41, may not be the best individual to rally the youth wing of the party. Justin Trudeau (who, once again, isn't running for the Liberal leadership) would be much better.
Ignatiefff's candidacy certainly must relieve some deep worries at Liberal HQ, as they finally have two solid leadership candidates for Liberals to choose between.
The Liberal leadership campaign is finally on.
After nearly three weeks of waiting, it seems that the Liberal party finally has a leadership contest on its hands.
Michael Ignatieff -- long expected to join the leadership fray -- finally formally declared his candidacy yesterday. Now, the real business of choosing a Liberal leader can begin.
Ignatieff has an interesting strategy for becoming Liberal leader: instead of running against his opponents, he'll simply run against Stephen Harper.
"Now I'm going to be in competition with some fine fellow Liberals but I'm not running against any of them, I'm running against Stephen Harper and the Conservative government," Ignatieff insisted. "My target is not my friends and my Liberal colleagues, it is the disappointing record of the Harper government."Of course, Harper won't actually be running for the leadership of the Liberal party, but one digresses.
Not to mention that when Ignatieff last had the opportunity to run against Harper and the Conservatives, he instead spent the better part of the 2008 federal election being largely invisible.
Ignatieff has his vision for the renewal of the Liberal party. Namely, "throwing open the doors of this party to the next generation, to the best and brightest our society has to offer."
Not that Ignatieff, 61, is feeling his age. "The youngest ideas aren't always from the youngest candidates. I think age is not a biological fact. It's a habit of spirit and mind."
This comes in response to Dominic LeBlanc's insistence that the party needs a generational shift. Which it very well might, but LeBlanc, 41, may not be the best individual to rally the youth wing of the party. Justin Trudeau (who, once again, isn't running for the Liberal leadership) would be much better.
Ignatiefff's candidacy certainly must relieve some deep worries at Liberal HQ, as they finally have two solid leadership candidates for Liberals to choose between.
The Liberal leadership campaign is finally on.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Glass Ceiling Breakage Deferred
No women in Liberal leadership race as Martha Hall Findlay demurs
In what's emerging as the latest in an amusing trend that should be very distressing to many Liberals, yet another potential contender has bowed out of the impending Liberal leadership campaign, set to conclude in April.
Martha Hall Findlay will not run to replace Stephane Dion, making it more likely that there may be no women in the Liberal leadership race.
Ironically, it was Dion himself who had pledged to improve the prominence of women in the party by nominating more of them for elected office. In his wake, however, it seems that women are no more prominent within the party than before. Considered it merely yet another one of Dion's unaccomplished goals.
The party has clearly not come very far since the days when Sheila Copps stayed in the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin leadership contest just for the sake of keeping a woman in the race.
While Ruby Dhalla may still run, one has to consider that the hiked entry fee for the contest -- up to $90,000 from $50,000 in 2006 -- may keep dark horse candidates such as Dhalla out.
While the lack of women in the race will almost certainly prove to be distressing to many Liberals, the lack of candidates in general should only more so. So far, Justin Trudeau, Frank McKenna and John Manley have all decided not to seek the leadership.
While Michael Ignatieff will almost certainly do so again, only two candidates -- Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae -- have formally declared. One has to imagine that many Liberals are becoming concerned with the lack of real options that will be open to them come April.
Update - Gerard Kennedy has officially announced that he won't be seeking the Liberal leadership. Nor will Denis Coderre.
javascript:void(0)
That now places the tally at two confirmed candidates, and six declining candidates.
Things must be getting very tense at Liberal Party HQ.
In what's emerging as the latest in an amusing trend that should be very distressing to many Liberals, yet another potential contender has bowed out of the impending Liberal leadership campaign, set to conclude in April.
Martha Hall Findlay will not run to replace Stephane Dion, making it more likely that there may be no women in the Liberal leadership race.Ironically, it was Dion himself who had pledged to improve the prominence of women in the party by nominating more of them for elected office. In his wake, however, it seems that women are no more prominent within the party than before. Considered it merely yet another one of Dion's unaccomplished goals.
The party has clearly not come very far since the days when Sheila Copps stayed in the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin leadership contest just for the sake of keeping a woman in the race.
While Ruby Dhalla may still run, one has to consider that the hiked entry fee for the contest -- up to $90,000 from $50,000 in 2006 -- may keep dark horse candidates such as Dhalla out.
While the lack of women in the race will almost certainly prove to be distressing to many Liberals, the lack of candidates in general should only more so. So far, Justin Trudeau, Frank McKenna and John Manley have all decided not to seek the leadership.
While Michael Ignatieff will almost certainly do so again, only two candidates -- Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae -- have formally declared. One has to imagine that many Liberals are becoming concerned with the lack of real options that will be open to them come April.
Update - Gerard Kennedy has officially announced that he won't be seeking the Liberal leadership. Nor will Denis Coderre.
javascript:void(0)
That now places the tally at two confirmed candidates, and six declining candidates.
Things must be getting very tense at Liberal Party HQ.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
And Then There Were Two
Bob Rae declares candidacy for Liberal leadership
Liberal (interim) leader Stephane Dion is searching for a new Foreign Affairs critic today, as Bob Rae has resigned that post in order to pursue the Liberal leadership.
Although he and principal rival Michael Ignatieff had to settle on Dion as the compromise candidate in the 2006 Liberal leadership contest, this time around Rae intends to win.
"Our campaign will be stronger, better organized than it was last time, and we're going to win. I'm looking forward to it very much," Rae announced.
Of course, Rae will face the same questions regarding his dismal record as the NDP Premier of Ontario. "People say, 'well, Bob Rae has a history,' and I just say 'you're damn right I have a history,'" Rae admitted. "I've worked very hard in public life in this country for 30 years."
If Rae can take ownership of the Liberal left wing and find sufficient support from the soft middle, he can very much be a contender in this leadership contest. However, he may still have to contend with Ujjal Dosanjh, who was the former NDP Premier of British Columbia.
Dosanjh seemingly has yet to make a final decision about whether or not he'll make an attempt at the Liberal leadership. One has to imagine that the big factor standing in the way of that decision is the recounts he continues to face in his riding of Vancouver-South.
If Dosanjh -- whose margin of victory shrank to a mere 22 votes in a recount involving only 18 of 184 ballot boxes and rejected ballots -- loses his riding, it will be hard for his campaign to gain any traction. The prospects of the Liberal party electing a leader who would have to seek a Parliamentary seat in a by-election -- one in which the Conservative party and NDP may choose not to extend leader's courtesy in a tete a tete retaliation for Stephane Dion's ill-fated electoral deal with Elizabeth May -- should be considered especially dim for an individual who just lost his seat in a general election.
For Dominic LeBlanc, the pressure will now be on. With two candidates already in the race, more candidates can be expected to declare soon. It will only get harder for LeBlanc to draw attention to his campaign from here on out. If he doesn't act boldly, and soon, his time in the spotlight could be considered all but finished.
For now, there are only two candidates in the race. Both candidates have an opportunity to build some momentum, but each man will have to work for it.
Liberal (interim) leader Stephane Dion is searching for a new Foreign Affairs critic today, as Bob Rae has resigned that post in order to pursue the Liberal leadership.
Although he and principal rival Michael Ignatieff had to settle on Dion as the compromise candidate in the 2006 Liberal leadership contest, this time around Rae intends to win.
"Our campaign will be stronger, better organized than it was last time, and we're going to win. I'm looking forward to it very much," Rae announced.
Of course, Rae will face the same questions regarding his dismal record as the NDP Premier of Ontario. "People say, 'well, Bob Rae has a history,' and I just say 'you're damn right I have a history,'" Rae admitted. "I've worked very hard in public life in this country for 30 years."
If Rae can take ownership of the Liberal left wing and find sufficient support from the soft middle, he can very much be a contender in this leadership contest. However, he may still have to contend with Ujjal Dosanjh, who was the former NDP Premier of British Columbia.
Dosanjh seemingly has yet to make a final decision about whether or not he'll make an attempt at the Liberal leadership. One has to imagine that the big factor standing in the way of that decision is the recounts he continues to face in his riding of Vancouver-South.
If Dosanjh -- whose margin of victory shrank to a mere 22 votes in a recount involving only 18 of 184 ballot boxes and rejected ballots -- loses his riding, it will be hard for his campaign to gain any traction. The prospects of the Liberal party electing a leader who would have to seek a Parliamentary seat in a by-election -- one in which the Conservative party and NDP may choose not to extend leader's courtesy in a tete a tete retaliation for Stephane Dion's ill-fated electoral deal with Elizabeth May -- should be considered especially dim for an individual who just lost his seat in a general election.
For Dominic LeBlanc, the pressure will now be on. With two candidates already in the race, more candidates can be expected to declare soon. It will only get harder for LeBlanc to draw attention to his campaign from here on out. If he doesn't act boldly, and soon, his time in the spotlight could be considered all but finished.
For now, there are only two candidates in the race. Both candidates have an opportunity to build some momentum, but each man will have to work for it.
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Man Who Would Be King
Ujjal Dosanjh wants to be Liberal leader
In the wake of the Liberal party's defeat in the 2008 federal election, one thing is almost certain: the Grits will be searching for a new leader.
And contenders are already lining up to -- in Jack Layton's parlance -- apply for that particular job.
Former Premier of New Brunswick and Ambassador to the United States Frank McKenna has already expressed some interest.
Now, so has Ujjal Dosanjh, the former NDP premier of British Columbia, and the man currently embroiled in a recount in his fiercely-contested riding of Vancouver South.
"I rule out nothing,” Dosanjh replied when asked if he was considering making a run at the Liberal leadership.
In political parlance, that usually means he probably will.
More interestingly still, Dosanjh wants to do so despite speaking no French.
"While I have the utmost respect for the Québécois, people of Quebec, I think that those of us that are immigrants, first-generation immigrants, are already saddled with the burden of having to learn one official language,” Dosanjh noted. “Maybe they can make an exception.”
If Dosanjh were successful in his bid he would be the first unilingual Liberal leader since Lester Pearson.
Dosanjh throwing his hat into the ring would also muddy the waters between the two individuals considered most likely to be the next Liberal leader -- Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae.
Rae, like Dosanjh, a former NDP Premier, would not only face new competition for the party's left-wing base, but would also be deprived of a key supporter. Dosanjh supported Rae, who was formerly the Premier of Ontario, for the Liberal leadership in 2006.
But the Liberal party would face more challenges with Dosanjh as a leader than merely having a non-French speaking leader. They would also have a leader unable to grasp the reasons for the Liberal party's successive electoral defeats, instead contenting himself to blame it all on his former compatriots in the NDP.
"(The) NDP's irrelevant insofar as the federal scene is concerned except insofar as they have the ability by splitting the vote to effectively elect a Conservative government, which they've done twice," Dosanjh wined to CTV.
Seemingly, Dosanjh believes that the Liberal party's failures to convince Canadians they're best suited to govern and their known corruption issues didn't play into the decision at all. This theory that there's nothing wrong with the Liberal party and instead something wrong with everyone else doesn't serve the party well. It prevents it from addressing the internal problems that are making it largely unelectable right now.
Ujjal Dosanjh's leadership would be as much a boon to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives as Dion's continuing leadership.
He can barely win his own riding. One wonders what makes him think he can win the whole country.
In the wake of the Liberal party's defeat in the 2008 federal election, one thing is almost certain: the Grits will be searching for a new leader.
And contenders are already lining up to -- in Jack Layton's parlance -- apply for that particular job.
Former Premier of New Brunswick and Ambassador to the United States Frank McKenna has already expressed some interest.
Now, so has Ujjal Dosanjh, the former NDP premier of British Columbia, and the man currently embroiled in a recount in his fiercely-contested riding of Vancouver South.
"I rule out nothing,” Dosanjh replied when asked if he was considering making a run at the Liberal leadership.In political parlance, that usually means he probably will.
More interestingly still, Dosanjh wants to do so despite speaking no French.
"While I have the utmost respect for the Québécois, people of Quebec, I think that those of us that are immigrants, first-generation immigrants, are already saddled with the burden of having to learn one official language,” Dosanjh noted. “Maybe they can make an exception.”
If Dosanjh were successful in his bid he would be the first unilingual Liberal leader since Lester Pearson.
Dosanjh throwing his hat into the ring would also muddy the waters between the two individuals considered most likely to be the next Liberal leader -- Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae.
Rae, like Dosanjh, a former NDP Premier, would not only face new competition for the party's left-wing base, but would also be deprived of a key supporter. Dosanjh supported Rae, who was formerly the Premier of Ontario, for the Liberal leadership in 2006.
But the Liberal party would face more challenges with Dosanjh as a leader than merely having a non-French speaking leader. They would also have a leader unable to grasp the reasons for the Liberal party's successive electoral defeats, instead contenting himself to blame it all on his former compatriots in the NDP.
"(The) NDP's irrelevant insofar as the federal scene is concerned except insofar as they have the ability by splitting the vote to effectively elect a Conservative government, which they've done twice," Dosanjh wined to CTV.
Seemingly, Dosanjh believes that the Liberal party's failures to convince Canadians they're best suited to govern and their known corruption issues didn't play into the decision at all. This theory that there's nothing wrong with the Liberal party and instead something wrong with everyone else doesn't serve the party well. It prevents it from addressing the internal problems that are making it largely unelectable right now.
Ujjal Dosanjh's leadership would be as much a boon to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives as Dion's continuing leadership.
He can barely win his own riding. One wonders what makes him think he can win the whole country.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
The Toronto Star Plays the Blame Game
Liberals have no one to blame but themselves, says Star
Ever since their defeat in the 2005/06 federal election, the Liberals have spent a good deal of their time blaming the NDP for their defeat at the hands of now-Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
"The Stephen Harper government is the House that Jack built," Bob Rae recently remarked, following the recent Liberal tradition of blaming Jack Layton for the Liberals' defeat.
It was Layton, they reason, that helped the Conservatives defeat Paul Martin's Liberal government.
But as the Star asserts, it really is the Liberals themselves who are to blame for their current predicament. Adscam and the ill-fated and ill-conceived Green Shift policy may be the least of their blunders:
But few people realize the extent to which those cuts strained the unity of the Liberal party membership. In the time in which the cuts were made the party was split between three major priorities: Social Service Minister Lloyd Axworthy's social services review and the reform package he wanted to implement, Martin's deficit-fighting agenda, and Jean Chretien's focus on the upcoming 1995 Quebec sovereignty referendum.
With little perceived importance of the budget issues to the referendum, and seeking to alleviate pressure being exerted by Preston Manning and the Reform Party, Chretien wound up effectively taking Martin's side in the dispute.
Martin, for his own part, had once believed he could effectively juggle his deficit-fighting agenda with Axworthy's social program reforms until writers such as Andrew Coyne lambasted him in the press.
In the end, Martin's desperation to be a popular leader became his -- and perhaps even his party's -- undoing.
The obvious missing piece of the once-dominant Big Red Machine of the 1990s? Warren Kinsella, who has made his dismay with the current state of the Liberal party known on many different occasions.
He's also holding a grudge for the party's attempts -- under Martin -- to lay the bulk of the blame for the Sponsorship Scandal on Jean Chretien.
To be fair, however, Chretien and Martin shouldn't be made to wear the entire blame for the feud that has diminished the Liberal party and its effectiveness. The Martin/Chretien feud finds its roots in various previous internal conflicts within the party: conflicts between Trudeau and Pearson supporters (although Pearson was welcoming to Trudeau, many of his supporters felt he never should have been allowed into the party, even at the cost of losing the opportunity to recruit Jean Marchand), liberal and conservative wings of the party, Walter Gordon-styled nationalists and Mitchell Sharp-styled neo-liberals.
The very real tensions within the party -- and the failures to resolve them -- derive from many different interrelated conflicts. Many of these conflicts will only continue to intensify as the party attracts dissident conservatives such as David Orchard and as individuals such as Bob Rae continue to rise in prominence within the party.
Tom Axworthy has long been considered the godfather of the left wing of the Liberal party. Any renewal commission acting under Axworthy's direction would inevitably find itself pushed toward left-wing policies (such as, per se, the Green Shift) that would alienate conservative Liberals.
Not only was the necessary renewal of the party never really taken seriously, but it was doomed from the get-go.http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=9149446
Dion believed he was going to be key to Liberal political fortunes from the moment he entered the leadership campaign. As it turns out he has been, but not in the way he imagined.
It's said that its darkest before the dawn.
With the Liberals continuing to sink in the polls, it's becoming obvious that the dawn still has yet to break.
Things will get darker still for the Liberals.
Ever since their defeat in the 2005/06 federal election, the Liberals have spent a good deal of their time blaming the NDP for their defeat at the hands of now-Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
"The Stephen Harper government is the House that Jack built," Bob Rae recently remarked, following the recent Liberal tradition of blaming Jack Layton for the Liberals' defeat.
It was Layton, they reason, that helped the Conservatives defeat Paul Martin's Liberal government.
But as the Star asserts, it really is the Liberals themselves who are to blame for their current predicament. Adscam and the ill-fated and ill-conceived Green Shift policy may be the least of their blunders:
"Paul Martin must assume a good deal of responsibility.Indeed, Martin's budget cuts have made for good ammunition for both the NDP and the Conservative party.
When he was finance minister in the 1990s, he ruined a good part of the Liberal's left-wing legacy by slashing federal social programs, right down to reversing promises made by Jean Chrétien in his 1993 campaign Red Book.
Martin, the leader of the socially conservative wing of the party, pushed the party away from its liberal social agenda roots by cutting spending on initiatives such as affordable housing and health care. These moves made many progressive Liberals wonder why they continued to back the party."
But few people realize the extent to which those cuts strained the unity of the Liberal party membership. In the time in which the cuts were made the party was split between three major priorities: Social Service Minister Lloyd Axworthy's social services review and the reform package he wanted to implement, Martin's deficit-fighting agenda, and Jean Chretien's focus on the upcoming 1995 Quebec sovereignty referendum.
With little perceived importance of the budget issues to the referendum, and seeking to alleviate pressure being exerted by Preston Manning and the Reform Party, Chretien wound up effectively taking Martin's side in the dispute.
Martin, for his own part, had once believed he could effectively juggle his deficit-fighting agenda with Axworthy's social program reforms until writers such as Andrew Coyne lambasted him in the press.
In the end, Martin's desperation to be a popular leader became his -- and perhaps even his party's -- undoing.
"The Chrétien-Martin wars took their toll. For years, Martin and his cronies actively worked to discredit Chrétien, even though Chrétien won three majority governments for the party. The feud still bitterly splits the party, including its rank and file."That Chretien-Martin war has also cost the Liberal party the services of some of its best election personnel.
The obvious missing piece of the once-dominant Big Red Machine of the 1990s? Warren Kinsella, who has made his dismay with the current state of the Liberal party known on many different occasions.
He's also holding a grudge for the party's attempts -- under Martin -- to lay the bulk of the blame for the Sponsorship Scandal on Jean Chretien.
To be fair, however, Chretien and Martin shouldn't be made to wear the entire blame for the feud that has diminished the Liberal party and its effectiveness. The Martin/Chretien feud finds its roots in various previous internal conflicts within the party: conflicts between Trudeau and Pearson supporters (although Pearson was welcoming to Trudeau, many of his supporters felt he never should have been allowed into the party, even at the cost of losing the opportunity to recruit Jean Marchand), liberal and conservative wings of the party, Walter Gordon-styled nationalists and Mitchell Sharp-styled neo-liberals.
The very real tensions within the party -- and the failures to resolve them -- derive from many different interrelated conflicts. Many of these conflicts will only continue to intensify as the party attracts dissident conservatives such as David Orchard and as individuals such as Bob Rae continue to rise in prominence within the party.
"The party failed to undergo a desperately needed renewal after being defeated in 2006 by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.Not only did Axworthy's commission become an afterthought, but it was ill-conceived in the first place.
Martin quit as party leader right after the election, launching a 10-month search for a successor.
Before the race officially started though, the party selected Tom Axworthy, a long-time Liberal policy adviser, to co-chair a Liberal Party Renewal Commission, with two dozen task forces to bring fresh perspectives to "policies and structure," from youth involvement to Canada's role in the world.
But once the leadership race began in earnest, Axworthy's commission was virtually shunted aside and ignored. It published several reports, but few Liberals read them and none of them have had any real impact on the party."
Tom Axworthy has long been considered the godfather of the left wing of the Liberal party. Any renewal commission acting under Axworthy's direction would inevitably find itself pushed toward left-wing policies (such as, per se, the Green Shift) that would alienate conservative Liberals.
Not only was the necessary renewal of the party never really taken seriously, but it was doomed from the get-go.http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=9149446
"The 5,000 delegates at the Liberal leadership convention in December 2006 made a fatal mistake when they elected Dion as party leader over Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae, both of whom have proven more effective campaigners on the election trail. Their strong performances in this election have only further highlighted Dion's weaknesses.Dion clearly failed to grasp the importance of the grassroots to the Liberal party. Instead, he spent a good deal of the time spent reorganizing the party at a fundamental level meeting and greeting Al Gore and striking electoral deals with marginal political figures (read: Elizabeth May).
In addition to his obvious shortcomings as a campaigner, Dion has also failed in his 22 months as leader to rebuild grassroots membership, undertake a major policy review open to all Liberals, get the depleted finances back in shape and prepare for the election."
Dion believed he was going to be key to Liberal political fortunes from the moment he entered the leadership campaign. As it turns out he has been, but not in the way he imagined.
"The ongoing feud between Ignatieff and Rae, while often overly hyped by political pundits, still divides the party internally."Which is perhaps nothing less than what Canadians should have expected. This is also something that is going to get much worse before it gets better. After all, with Dion set to be put out to pasture following a potentially humiliating electoral defeat, the leadership question is only going to intensify over the coming months.
It's said that its darkest before the dawn.
With the Liberals continuing to sink in the polls, it's becoming obvious that the dawn still has yet to break.
Things will get darker still for the Liberals.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Delicious Irony, Bob Rae Style
Does Bob Rae really seem to be the appropriate guy to carry an anti-NDP message?
It's been said that a leopard never changes his spots -- an adage that could take some fascinating twists around Liberal leader Stephane Dion's right-hand man, Bob Rae.
Rae, it's been constantly noted, used to be the NDP Premier of Ontario. Now, he's running for the Liberal party.
Rae spent today touring British Columbia, one of the NDP's traditional bastions of strength, claiming that only the Liberal party could prevent a Stephen Harper majority.
"I have no hesitation in saying that Jack Layton's NDP -- as it's now called -- really has taken some very bizarre positions," Rae announced. He pointed the finger squarely at NDP leader Jack Layton for helping defeat Paul Martin's minority government, leading to the election that ended up with Stephen Harper emerging victorious.
"That's why I describe the Harper government as the house that Jack built," Rae said.
Unsurprisingly, Rae clearly overlooks the rampang corruption of the 13-year Liberal government which culiminated in (but certainly was not limited to) the Sponsorship Scandal. Martin's too-little-too-late efforts to clean up the mess notwithstanding, allowing a government that had so clearly devestated the public trust would actually have been inrresponsible.
In fact, Layton's decision to pull the plug on Martin was actually the repsonsible thing to do for his own party. The NDP improved its seat total to 29 -- a ten-seat improvement from 19. Layton accomplished this task at the direct expense of the Liberal party.
Apparently, Jack Layton never recieved Rae's memo professing his obvious belief that the #1 priority of the NDP is to keep the Liberal party in power. Apparently.
Rae's finger-pointing in BC really point back to two things: first, a Liberal inability to accept responsibility for their own defeat. Secondly, as Michael Byers points out, it seems to suggest some desperation on Rae and Dion's part.
"I find it strange that Bob Rae, who is not yet the leader of the Liberal party, has come all the way to British Columbia to help Stephane Dion out here," Byers announced. "It's a reflection of just how badly Mr. Dion is doing in communicating his policy. I think it's an act of desperation."
In the end, Rae's desparation seems to have him dabbling in sheer irony.
After all, Bob Rae didn't decline to defeat then-Ontario Premier David Petersen in the 1990 Ontario election.
Out, damn spot.
It's been said that a leopard never changes his spots -- an adage that could take some fascinating twists around Liberal leader Stephane Dion's right-hand man, Bob Rae.
Rae, it's been constantly noted, used to be the NDP Premier of Ontario. Now, he's running for the Liberal party.
Rae spent today touring British Columbia, one of the NDP's traditional bastions of strength, claiming that only the Liberal party could prevent a Stephen Harper majority.
"I have no hesitation in saying that Jack Layton's NDP -- as it's now called -- really has taken some very bizarre positions," Rae announced. He pointed the finger squarely at NDP leader Jack Layton for helping defeat Paul Martin's minority government, leading to the election that ended up with Stephen Harper emerging victorious.
"That's why I describe the Harper government as the house that Jack built," Rae said.
Unsurprisingly, Rae clearly overlooks the rampang corruption of the 13-year Liberal government which culiminated in (but certainly was not limited to) the Sponsorship Scandal. Martin's too-little-too-late efforts to clean up the mess notwithstanding, allowing a government that had so clearly devestated the public trust would actually have been inrresponsible.
In fact, Layton's decision to pull the plug on Martin was actually the repsonsible thing to do for his own party. The NDP improved its seat total to 29 -- a ten-seat improvement from 19. Layton accomplished this task at the direct expense of the Liberal party.
Apparently, Jack Layton never recieved Rae's memo professing his obvious belief that the #1 priority of the NDP is to keep the Liberal party in power. Apparently.
Rae's finger-pointing in BC really point back to two things: first, a Liberal inability to accept responsibility for their own defeat. Secondly, as Michael Byers points out, it seems to suggest some desperation on Rae and Dion's part.
"I find it strange that Bob Rae, who is not yet the leader of the Liberal party, has come all the way to British Columbia to help Stephane Dion out here," Byers announced. "It's a reflection of just how badly Mr. Dion is doing in communicating his policy. I think it's an act of desperation."
In the end, Rae's desparation seems to have him dabbling in sheer irony.
After all, Bob Rae didn't decline to defeat then-Ontario Premier David Petersen in the 1990 Ontario election.
Out, damn spot.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Dion's Problem With the the Economy
Stephane Dion's 'plan b' is still 'plan a'
With the Liberal campaign continuing to sag (yet somehow the Toronto Star figures it's "firing on all cylinders" -- Quelle surprise!), the common wisdom seems to be that Stephane Dion needs to stop talking about the Green Shift plan.
Because most Canadians are clearly more concerned about the economy, they argue, Dion should instead be talking about that.
Unfortunately for Dion, Dion's plan for the environment -- the Green Shift -- is also his plan for the economy.
And it only gets worse from there. As Conservative strategist Tim Powers points out in today's Globe and Mail, Bob Rae carries all kind of economic baggage with him from his days as the Premier of Ontario. Rae also managed to almost entirely alienate his former NDP followers -- the same followers the Liberal party will need to woo in order to stave off a third-place finish in this election, let alone win.
But Stephane Dion's environmental problem has become his campaign problem. And with little else of substance to campaign on, Dion may have no way out of this one -- and little hope of even holding on to the keys of Stornoway, let alone upgrading to 24 Sussex Drive.
With the Liberal campaign continuing to sag (yet somehow the Toronto Star figures it's "firing on all cylinders" -- Quelle surprise!), the common wisdom seems to be that Stephane Dion needs to stop talking about the Green Shift plan.
Because most Canadians are clearly more concerned about the economy, they argue, Dion should instead be talking about that.
Unfortunately for Dion, Dion's plan for the environment -- the Green Shift -- is also his plan for the economy.
But Stephane Dion's environmental problem has become his campaign problem. And with little else of substance to campaign on, Dion may have no way out of this one -- and little hope of even holding on to the keys of Stornoway, let alone upgrading to 24 Sussex Drive.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Liberals Win Big, But Not Big Enough
Controversial Saskatchewan riding falls to Conservatives
In a set of by-elections in which Liberal leader Stephane Dion was looking for some redemption, he found it -- sort of.
Liberals Bob Rae, Martha Hall-Findley and Joyce Murray emerged victorious in the ridings of Toronto Centre, Willowdale, and Vancouver Quadra respectively.
However, the controversial riding of Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River, Conservative candidate (and now MP) Rob Clarke claimed 49% of the vote while Dion's handpicked alternative to disgruntled Progressive Conservative blowhard David Orchard tallied 32%.
"It's a great day for the Liberals," Stephane Dion announced at Rae's celebratory rally.
Certainly, Dion can now crow about winning three of four by-elections conducted yesterday. However, Liberals can't be comfortable with the fact that the race Stephane Dion had the most direct involvement in -- appointing Beatty and denying Orchard an opportunity to run for the nomination.
And while Dion may have finally managed to get two of his inner circle into the House of Parliament, he may also want to take into account the fact that the Liberals are a seat poorer -- and the Conservatives a seat stronger -- in Parliament after today. Cast in that light, maybe this wasn't such a great day for the Liberals after all.
It probably could have been an even better day for the Conservatives if they didn't have their own controversial candidate-swap to defend. In an equally controversial move, Conservative party brass disqualified Mark Warner, a candidate elected by the party's Toronto Centre riding association in favour of Don Meredith, an individual who turned out to be so stupid he deserved to lose the riding.
(How stupid, you ask? This bloody stupid -- an individual who doesn't seem to know it's Afghanistan Canada is involved in, not Iraq.)
If Stephen Harper and the Conservative party brass had reined in their heavy-handed tendencies they could have given Bob Rae a run for his money. They probably wouldn't have won -- theory has it that voters in Toronto Centre would elect Victor Von Doom if he ran as a Liberal -- but at least they could have done better than 15% of the vote.
All the same, the day was fairly good for the governing Conservatives -- they managed to claim a Parliamentary seat that they didn't have before.
But a "great day" for the Liberals? Not on a day when you come out of a round of by-elections weaker than you went into them. It's a big win for the Liberals, but just not big enough.
In a set of by-elections in which Liberal leader Stephane Dion was looking for some redemption, he found it -- sort of.
Liberals Bob Rae, Martha Hall-Findley and Joyce Murray emerged victorious in the ridings of Toronto Centre, Willowdale, and Vancouver Quadra respectively.
However, the controversial riding of Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River, Conservative candidate (and now MP) Rob Clarke claimed 49% of the vote while Dion's handpicked alternative to disgruntled Progressive Conservative blowhard David Orchard tallied 32%.
"It's a great day for the Liberals," Stephane Dion announced at Rae's celebratory rally.
Certainly, Dion can now crow about winning three of four by-elections conducted yesterday. However, Liberals can't be comfortable with the fact that the race Stephane Dion had the most direct involvement in -- appointing Beatty and denying Orchard an opportunity to run for the nomination.
And while Dion may have finally managed to get two of his inner circle into the House of Parliament, he may also want to take into account the fact that the Liberals are a seat poorer -- and the Conservatives a seat stronger -- in Parliament after today. Cast in that light, maybe this wasn't such a great day for the Liberals after all.
It probably could have been an even better day for the Conservatives if they didn't have their own controversial candidate-swap to defend. In an equally controversial move, Conservative party brass disqualified Mark Warner, a candidate elected by the party's Toronto Centre riding association in favour of Don Meredith, an individual who turned out to be so stupid he deserved to lose the riding.
(How stupid, you ask? This bloody stupid -- an individual who doesn't seem to know it's Afghanistan Canada is involved in, not Iraq.)
If Stephen Harper and the Conservative party brass had reined in their heavy-handed tendencies they could have given Bob Rae a run for his money. They probably wouldn't have won -- theory has it that voters in Toronto Centre would elect Victor Von Doom if he ran as a Liberal -- but at least they could have done better than 15% of the vote.
All the same, the day was fairly good for the governing Conservatives -- they managed to claim a Parliamentary seat that they didn't have before.
But a "great day" for the Liberals? Not on a day when you come out of a round of by-elections weaker than you went into them. It's a big win for the Liberals, but just not big enough.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Bob Rae Needs a Lesson in "Realism"
Liberal foreign affairs critic continues to peddle non-combat fantasies
The Liberal party's unelected foreign policy critic sounded off on Afghanistan today, demonsrating that even when it comes down to basic concepts of foreign policy, he simply doesn't get it.
"What we want to do is change the focus so the focus is really on training, so the focus is really on the reconstruction of the country, and it has to be on realism," Rae said.
"I think our position has been very consistent and that is to say we believe Canada's overall engagement in Afghanistan has to stay," Rae insisted. "We have to remain committed to the Afghan compact which goes to 2011, but we think the focus on counterinsurgency for Canada as the focus to stay there, is wrong."
While the Liberal party's suggestion that a set rotation be established for who assumes front-line duties and when actually remains perfectly reasonable, the idea that a shift toward the northern regions of the country will forego any combat during that time is, frankly, a fantasy.
Most of all, however, Rae's analysis of the mission fails to embody one key word: realism.
Realism requires that foreign policy creators recognize the harsh realities at work in various areas, and formulate a policy that measures and balances the various competing interests at play.
In Afghanistan's case -- and one wonders if Rae is entirely clear on this -- it's in Canada's best interests to ensure the Taliban does not return to power. It's in the Kabul government's best interests to ensure that the Taliban does not maintain a foothold in Kandahar and Helmand provinces.
Of course, it's in the Taliban's interests to gain control of the southern region of the country so they have a secure foothold from which they can launch attacks on the rest of the country, and eventually gain control of it. Considering that this is entirely adverse to the interests of Canada and our allies in Afghanistan, realism demands that Canada do everything it can to prevent that.
While Bob Rae spreads the fantasy that Canadian troops wouldn't face risks or have to occasionally engage the enemy while serving in the northern region of the country -- or even send reinforcements into the south in emergency situations, or for major offensives -- the sad fact of the matter is that all too many Canadians may not know any better.
As Michael Ignatieff (ironically, the top foreign policy expert in today's Liberal party somehow is not the foreign affairs critic) himself notes, Canadians still cling to the Pearsonian model of peacekeeping -- a model that has never been applied successfully in a failed state (or, in Afghanistan's case, non-state) scenario. As Ignatieff himself recently noted, modern peacekeeping missions are combat missions.
The idea that Canada can somehow practice traditional peacekeeping if we can somehow just get out of Kandahar is, sadly, an utter farce. While the Pearsonian peacekeeping model is proud Canadian tradition, the rest of the world rarely goes out of its way to adhere to Canadian traditions. We must be able to adapt, or watch our foreign policy flounder.
Rae clearly is not adaptable enough to recognize this reality.
As Defense Minister Peter MacKay notes, it is indeed irresponsible for Bob Rae to disseminate this fantasy policy, especially under the guise of "realism". And while some of the key concepts of the Liberal Afghanistan policy are indeed sound (once again, the aforementioned "rotation" policy), the lack of solid details (for example, when would Canada return to front-line duty? If ever?) make it less a coherent, realistic policy, and more a series of platitudes thrown together in the name of idealism.
In other words, typical Liberal foreign policy.
Which, as anyone who's paid attention over the past 13 years knows, is far from realistic.
Someone please tell Bob Rae.
The Liberal party's unelected foreign policy critic sounded off on Afghanistan today, demonsrating that even when it comes down to basic concepts of foreign policy, he simply doesn't get it.
"What we want to do is change the focus so the focus is really on training, so the focus is really on the reconstruction of the country, and it has to be on realism," Rae said.
"I think our position has been very consistent and that is to say we believe Canada's overall engagement in Afghanistan has to stay," Rae insisted. "We have to remain committed to the Afghan compact which goes to 2011, but we think the focus on counterinsurgency for Canada as the focus to stay there, is wrong."
While the Liberal party's suggestion that a set rotation be established for who assumes front-line duties and when actually remains perfectly reasonable, the idea that a shift toward the northern regions of the country will forego any combat during that time is, frankly, a fantasy.
Most of all, however, Rae's analysis of the mission fails to embody one key word: realism.
Realism requires that foreign policy creators recognize the harsh realities at work in various areas, and formulate a policy that measures and balances the various competing interests at play.
In Afghanistan's case -- and one wonders if Rae is entirely clear on this -- it's in Canada's best interests to ensure the Taliban does not return to power. It's in the Kabul government's best interests to ensure that the Taliban does not maintain a foothold in Kandahar and Helmand provinces.
Of course, it's in the Taliban's interests to gain control of the southern region of the country so they have a secure foothold from which they can launch attacks on the rest of the country, and eventually gain control of it. Considering that this is entirely adverse to the interests of Canada and our allies in Afghanistan, realism demands that Canada do everything it can to prevent that.
While Bob Rae spreads the fantasy that Canadian troops wouldn't face risks or have to occasionally engage the enemy while serving in the northern region of the country -- or even send reinforcements into the south in emergency situations, or for major offensives -- the sad fact of the matter is that all too many Canadians may not know any better.
As Michael Ignatieff (ironically, the top foreign policy expert in today's Liberal party somehow is not the foreign affairs critic) himself notes, Canadians still cling to the Pearsonian model of peacekeeping -- a model that has never been applied successfully in a failed state (or, in Afghanistan's case, non-state) scenario. As Ignatieff himself recently noted, modern peacekeeping missions are combat missions.
The idea that Canada can somehow practice traditional peacekeeping if we can somehow just get out of Kandahar is, sadly, an utter farce. While the Pearsonian peacekeeping model is proud Canadian tradition, the rest of the world rarely goes out of its way to adhere to Canadian traditions. We must be able to adapt, or watch our foreign policy flounder.
Rae clearly is not adaptable enough to recognize this reality.
As Defense Minister Peter MacKay notes, it is indeed irresponsible for Bob Rae to disseminate this fantasy policy, especially under the guise of "realism". And while some of the key concepts of the Liberal Afghanistan policy are indeed sound (once again, the aforementioned "rotation" policy), the lack of solid details (for example, when would Canada return to front-line duty? If ever?) make it less a coherent, realistic policy, and more a series of platitudes thrown together in the name of idealism.
In other words, typical Liberal foreign policy.
Which, as anyone who's paid attention over the past 13 years knows, is far from realistic.
Someone please tell Bob Rae.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
CBC Highlights Potential Darkside of Dion Leadership Win
Rex Murphy shines spotlight on Liberal leadership controversy
On 28 June, 2007, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation featured a segment by Terry Milewski that underscored the discomforting relationship between Canadian politicians and extremist (often terrorist) groups.
Members of all three of Canada's political parties have been known to have their brushes with these extremist groups (the NDP's El-Farouk Khaki marched in a pro-Hezbollah demonstration, Jean Chretien was once photographed with child soldiers at a Tamil Tigers fuction, and Conservative MP Jason Kenney once addressed a rally in support of an Iranian terrorist group).
Milewski's segment underlined, in particular, a recent controversy surrounding the Liberal party, and one of its MPs seeming links to Sikh separatist groups, possibly including those responsible for the Air India bombing.
At the 2006 leadership convention, when Bob Rae gave a speech mentioning the Air India bombing, a word-of-mouth campaign was seemingly organized against him by Sikh delegates at the convention. "My wife was approached by a delegate who happened to be a Sikh, not supporting Bob Rae and not knowing who my wife was," Dosanjh explained. "He said 'well, you shouldn't vote for Bob', because Bob expressed the issue of violence about Air India in his speech."
Rae's report on Air India identified Sikh separatists as being responsible for the bombing.
"It baffles me that you have delegates on the floor of a major political party (to which I belong) who do not want a reference to Air India in a candidate's speech," Dosanjh added.
When Gerard Kennedy lent his support to Stephane Dion, many analysts credited Mississauga-Brampton South MP Navdeep Singh Bains for putting the new Dion/Kennedy coalition over the top with the 250 Sikh delegates he had under his influence.
When Dion lead the Liberals in opposition to renewing the anti-terror act, this raised serious questions about Bains' father in law, Darshan Singh Saini, who was a potential witness to be called before a judicial investigative hearing being sheduled by the RCMP.
When the Liberals led the opposition parties in defeat of the anti-terror act provisions that allowed for such hearings, RCMP deputy commissioner Gary Bass announced, "while I do not dispute that the vote on this critical issue involved perhaps valid considerations beyond the Air India investigation, without a doubt, it represents a serious and damaging blow to the interests of the families in this case."
"The interests of the families in this case" being finding important answers regarding the bombing.
The Liberals insisted that Prime Minister Stephen Harper was "smearing" Bains. Stephane Dion insisted that his actions hadn't damaged the investigation at all. Yet, his actions also allow Darshan Singh Saini -- a former spokesman for Babba Khalsa Panthak, a Sikh terrorist group -- to refuse to testify at any Air India inquiry.
In fairness, it should be considered that Saini -- and Bains -- might have nothing at all to hide. Yet, Canadians are still waiting for definitive answers more than 22 years after the most deadly terror attack in Canada's history.
The opposition of Dion -- who won the Liberal leadership with significant support from Bains -- to the anti-terror act (which protects Saini, Bains' father-in-law) may be entirely coincidental. Unfortunately, because Saini cannot be compelled to testify at any type of hearing, and seems unlikely to testify voluntarily, Canadians can never truly be certain.
And while all of Canada's political parties have, from time to time, cozied up to extremist groups in exchange for political support (one has to especially wonder about support for Sikh separatists despite most of Canada's opposition to Quebecois separatists), the controversy circling Stephane Dion, Navdeep Singh Bains, Darshan Singh Saini and the anti-terror act stand as one of the few examples where such relationships have impacted public policy.
Without such answers, this controversy could be relegated to being one of the unsolved mysteries of Canadian politics.
On 28 June, 2007, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation featured a segment by Terry Milewski that underscored the discomforting relationship between Canadian politicians and extremist (often terrorist) groups.
Members of all three of Canada's political parties have been known to have their brushes with these extremist groups (the NDP's El-Farouk Khaki marched in a pro-Hezbollah demonstration, Jean Chretien was once photographed with child soldiers at a Tamil Tigers fuction, and Conservative MP Jason Kenney once addressed a rally in support of an Iranian terrorist group).
Milewski's segment underlined, in particular, a recent controversy surrounding the Liberal party, and one of its MPs seeming links to Sikh separatist groups, possibly including those responsible for the Air India bombing.
At the 2006 leadership convention, when Bob Rae gave a speech mentioning the Air India bombing, a word-of-mouth campaign was seemingly organized against him by Sikh delegates at the convention. "My wife was approached by a delegate who happened to be a Sikh, not supporting Bob Rae and not knowing who my wife was," Dosanjh explained. "He said 'well, you shouldn't vote for Bob', because Bob expressed the issue of violence about Air India in his speech."
Rae's report on Air India identified Sikh separatists as being responsible for the bombing.
"It baffles me that you have delegates on the floor of a major political party (to which I belong) who do not want a reference to Air India in a candidate's speech," Dosanjh added.
When Gerard Kennedy lent his support to Stephane Dion, many analysts credited Mississauga-Brampton South MP Navdeep Singh Bains for putting the new Dion/Kennedy coalition over the top with the 250 Sikh delegates he had under his influence.
When Dion lead the Liberals in opposition to renewing the anti-terror act, this raised serious questions about Bains' father in law, Darshan Singh Saini, who was a potential witness to be called before a judicial investigative hearing being sheduled by the RCMP.
When the Liberals led the opposition parties in defeat of the anti-terror act provisions that allowed for such hearings, RCMP deputy commissioner Gary Bass announced, "while I do not dispute that the vote on this critical issue involved perhaps valid considerations beyond the Air India investigation, without a doubt, it represents a serious and damaging blow to the interests of the families in this case."
"The interests of the families in this case" being finding important answers regarding the bombing.
The Liberals insisted that Prime Minister Stephen Harper was "smearing" Bains. Stephane Dion insisted that his actions hadn't damaged the investigation at all. Yet, his actions also allow Darshan Singh Saini -- a former spokesman for Babba Khalsa Panthak, a Sikh terrorist group -- to refuse to testify at any Air India inquiry.
In fairness, it should be considered that Saini -- and Bains -- might have nothing at all to hide. Yet, Canadians are still waiting for definitive answers more than 22 years after the most deadly terror attack in Canada's history.
The opposition of Dion -- who won the Liberal leadership with significant support from Bains -- to the anti-terror act (which protects Saini, Bains' father-in-law) may be entirely coincidental. Unfortunately, because Saini cannot be compelled to testify at any type of hearing, and seems unlikely to testify voluntarily, Canadians can never truly be certain.
And while all of Canada's political parties have, from time to time, cozied up to extremist groups in exchange for political support (one has to especially wonder about support for Sikh separatists despite most of Canada's opposition to Quebecois separatists), the controversy circling Stephane Dion, Navdeep Singh Bains, Darshan Singh Saini and the anti-terror act stand as one of the few examples where such relationships have impacted public policy.
Without such answers, this controversy could be relegated to being one of the unsolved mysteries of Canadian politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)