1) Young voters and new citizens won't remember Rae's tenure as premier, so Tories won't be able to use his record against him as effectively as they think. Interesting, and contra the "secret" memo leaked by Doug Finley. Whether Hugh is right or not is the million $ question. It will be a storm of negative press from the Post and Sun chain, versus Bob's amiable television presence.
2) Rae is the most "accomplished political operator". He knows how to bring down governments, and is the most likely of the eight Lib candidates to force an early election. Apparently (news to me), Bob Rae was the man who, as NDP MP, moved the motion that toppled Joe Clark.
3) On the other hand, Segal would love to face Iggy:
"I think it's likely to take some time . . . until he understands the kind of measurement necessary and the kind of restraint which a leader of a party has to show,'' said Segal. "And I'd like that learning experience to take place on national TV during a campaign.''
FWIW, Segal insists that he is not playing a game of "reverse psychology", trying to get the Libs to elect the contender Tories secretly believe would be easiest to defeat:
"Spare me ... I've seen Bob Rae campaign. I've seen him in Ontario. I've seen what he can do and I'd rather be up against Ignatieff. It's just that simple.''
Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau reiterates the now common complaint against Iggy: that while he may be a great thinker, he lacks the wisdom to be party leader. Justin also has a few choice words for Bob Rae, claiming that the ex-NDP Premier of Ontario "lacks a grand vision" for the party. Instead, he suggests that Libs should look past the two front runners to Stephane Dion or Gerard Kennedy.
Finally, a quick word on Bob Rae's "visionlessness". He has taken a lot of flak for claiming that "ideas are not so important" in a leader. However, I interpret this as meaning not that he doesn't have ideas, but that he is not as attached to his own particular ideas as he is to the ideas of the Liberal Party. So, choose him and you get a generic mainstream Liberal. Indeed, if you look at his actual statements on let's say the Environment, its all fairly generic Liberal stuff that could have come from most of the other campaigns. Nor is this a bad thing, if you are inclined in that general direction yourself. Besides, what leader's personal agenda survives past the first three months in office?
9 comments:
It that wasn't blatant "campaigning" instead of honest discussion, then I'm the only stupid person in Canada.
Most of Segal's "campaigning" discussion was Liberal bashing - sound familiar???
Did he have to get approval of Harp too?
Segal was the IRPP President until recently when Rae was (and still is) on the board of directors, so...he was Hugh Segal's boss in effect. Bob Rae endorsed by his own employee!
BCL:
I know you are smarter than to fall for Segal's ploy.
One of the lead Conservative strategists appears on national television and says 'boy, I sure hope we don't have to face Bob Rae in the next election. He's just too tough.' And you believe him?
If it is anything like the Finlay memo, his intention is the same: just get Liberals focused on what Conservatives want instead of what Liberals want, stir the shit a bit and get them fighting each other even more.
Rove pulled the same trick in December 2003. A memo from him was accidentally "leaked" in which he wrote that Kerry would be the most difficult candidate for Bush and Dean would be "Bush's dream". The Kerry campaign trumpetted the memo saying it was a real leak and showed where the Republicans were worried. The Dean team said it was a plant and was either reverse psychology or maybe even written by the Kerry campaign itself! Kerry's team countered that maybe it was the Dean team that wrote it just so they could accuse the Kerry team of making it up. Seriously, I'm not making this up. It went on for weeks.
After the Bush win, Rove revealed in an interview that it was indeed a deliberate leak and that it reflected his real beliefs, i.e. that Kerry was the tougher candidate for Bush. But he revealed the true intent of the memo: to stir the shit with Dems, get them sniping at each other and to help refocus the debate on who matched up against Bush the best instead of who was the best for the Dems. And indeed, the biggest reason Kerry was chosen was because of a feeling that his strengths matched Bush's weaknesses and strengths the best.
The lesson? If you pick a leader based on what the other guy says or what the other guy's agenda is, you've already conceded the agenda to him so you are already behind.
I did say for what its worth, Ted. But its hard to figure out what the Tories want from this, as far as I can tell. Iggy, because contrary to what Segal asserts, he is such a polished performer? Best comment I found on this today was at Stageleft. Its a parody from that famous scene in The Princess Bride:
Liberal Delegate: All right. What do the Tories REALLY think? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when we select a leader and go to the polls, and then we find out who is right… and who is dead.
Segal: But it’s so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of delegate who would elect a leader according to their principles, or according to their electability? Now, a clever delegate would vote on electability, because he would know that only a great fool would choose a candidate that couldn’t win. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not suggest to you that you choose such a candidate. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not recommend a candidate you expect me not to not recommend.
Liberal Delegate (hesitantly): You’ve made your recommendation, then?
Segal: Not remotely! Because Ignatieff comes from Harvard, as everyone knows, and Harvard is entirely peopled with academics, and academics are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not refrain from recommending a candidate you don’t expect me NOT to not recommend.
Liberal Delegate: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Segal: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?
…and so on.
Oh BCLSB, you are so it! Now you've got the great seer of navels, TdHuh? taking another chop at you. Seems his twaddle about Iggyman undefeatable is into its pre-post-mortem stage... But so in luv with the anti-Rae drug! Sweeeet, sweeet precious! You are a blowhard in his eyes, even tho you just essentially rolled out the possibilities that a) Segal is a lying Tory telling the truth; or b) Segal is a lying tory telling a fib.
Despite the fact that he bought line and sinker the Finley leak, which remember was timed just before DSM, therefore giving an impression that Harpor's worse nightmare would be to stare up at our Herman in a debate and ask him what does he lose sleep over?...
I'm 100% behind bob but i'm not about to pretend that my candidate - nor anyone elses -- is the perfect match against Cons' capricious plots. Right now they are planting fears of Big Terror! and Criminals Unleashed! for the general public. That's going to be their mantra come the next election. We will make our choice based on a lot of factors, including electability and liberal values. At this stage, I enjoy Segal's candor, false or not. Its interesting, whot!
By the way, who appointed Segal to the grand retirement palace, anyways?
Look, why don't we just void the whole thing, have a revolution, behead them all and start all over? Frankly, we're now up to at least ten levels of meta-politics and I'm pretty sure that's not very democratic.
If Segal's statement is a clever ploy designed to trick Liberals (who obviously can be easily influenced by even old political hacks like him), then this is the most intelligent thing that the Harper Keystone Cops "new" government has managed to implement in the past month!
So far, this gang have shown a total commitment to not shooting straight ...
Dude, were you born yesterday? Rae is the preferred opponent of the Conservative Party. Of course they are going to chat him up.
Post a Comment