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?
I don't get hives about Bob as leader; he's made fairly clear he doesn't want the job. I get hives at revisionist history and distortion of events for political reasons.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the rules weren't written to specifically exclude Bob. It was asked that whoever wanted to stand for interim leader make a choice: interim, or permanent. And there are 1000 good reasons why asking for such a promise makes good sense. I know Bob's people thought so when Ignatieff foolishly grabbed the interim spot in 2008.
When Bob decided to accept these conditions, to echo Mulroney, he had a choice. And he made it. And if he wants to change his mind, he's free to do so.
Where I develop hives is when Copps seems determined to lead a draft Rae movement, stirring up leadership drama two years early, instead of focusing on party management and reform, and when she tries to rewrite history to give Rae political cover should he want to change his mind.
It's not mere semantics. A promise and a rule are very different. Words matter.
If its Bob vs. crap, why should the LPoC force itself to default to crap?
ReplyDeleteIf those are the choices, than it would make sense to pick Rae.
Things will get pretty interesting if the Liberals under Rae end up polling better than the NDP with its new leader (whomever he or she ends up being). A hypothetical, but something to consider.
If the choices are Bob Rae or crap, then the Liberal party is already dead.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it's pretty clear to me that those are not the only two choices. I have to assume that anyone who says they are has an agenda to force Rae on the party. And I think that would be a total disaster for the Liberals.
You cannot regain the trust of Canadians if you start by selecting a leader whose word is proven useless by his running for permanent leadership in the first place. It's just that simple.
My only agenda is that the next Lib PM offers me a Senate appointment.
ReplyDelete