Steve and Jeff are upset with Shelia Copps remarks yesterday re democracy in the LPoC and the possible permanent leadership aspirations of currently interim leader Bob Rae. They get hives at the very thought of Rae as permanent head, I suppose; I get hives, on the other hand, at how the rules were specifically designed to exclude him from running for the post, which basically amounts to the party exploiting their best Pol and then casting him aside when convenient. The notion that it isn't a rule which prevents Bob Rae from competing, but a promise he made, strikes me as mere semantics. He was told to promise, or he wouldn't get the job. Whether Sheila is suggesting that she will unwrite a rule, or release Bob from his promise, is not a matter of substance.
Not that I would easily support Bob. He's just too damned old; the LPoC has to find someone that can commit past 2015 should they not form government next election. And I suspect some of the animus against Rae, and perhaps Ms. Copps, stems from an inchoate longing for generational change rather than anything in particular that was said yesterday. But Teenage Jesus hasn't shown up as yet, and in a year or so the party will have to choose from among what has been offered. If its Bob vs. crap, why should the LPoC force itself to default to crap?
And as for Sheila's celebrity status "sucking all the air from the room" and so forth, if not for her speech the story of the day yesterday would have Mike Crawley and Ron Hartling fighting over who lost Ontario. How would that have been better?