;;
"Stick a fork in the Liberals, they're done" by one of most prominent Liberals in Canada
Mon, 2012-03-19 23:41
#1
"Stick a fork in the Liberals, they're done" by one of most prominent Liberals in Canada
Mon, 2012-03-19 23:54
#2
I could not agree more.
Bob Rae is doing it to one political party now, was almost able to do it to two political parties, what no leader should ever do, to any political party.
When I say almost, the "almost" part, is about the NDP.
Timing is everything in politics, and Kinsella could not have picked a more devastating time for the Rae Liberals to release this column.
Stick fork in Grits, they’re done
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/19/stick-fork-in-grits-theyre-done
But the Raelians ask a fair question: Why isn’t Stephen Harper’s evil empire attacking the NDP, too?
Because they don’t have a leader yet, that’s why. In a few days, they will.
Darth Harper and his imperial guard will point their death star at the Dippers and fire away. It won’t be pretty.
Fine, say the Raelians. But why go after the third-place party? It doesn’t make any political sense, they’ll say.
Perhaps. It does, however, if you accept that wars are always easier to fight on one front, not two. It does if you accept that Stephen Harper is in the final phase of doing what he always coveted most: He wants to be remembered by history as the guy who wiped out the Liberal Party of Canada.
Bob Rae is going to help Harper do precisely that. His arrogance and hubris are so immense, he cannot accept — not even for a moment — that his appalling record in Ontario will destroy what little credibility the Liberal Party has left. It’ll slip beneath the waves of history, for good.
Without an arrangement with the NDP, and with Bob Rae as leader, the Liberals are heading towards gritterdamerung. The end times.
The ads that started Tuesday, therefore, aren’t original or even a surprise. They will, however, do what they are intended to do. Kill off the Liberal Party of Canada.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/19/stick-fork-in-grits-theyre-done
Tue, 2012-03-20 00:13
#3
Raelians? Oh! I get it now.
I doubt that Stephen Harper will be able to kill off the Liberals by himself, but right now, I think it much less likely that Bob Rae will stay on as Liberal leader.
I think that a small Liberal party (some calling it a "boutique" Liberal Party, might actually be advantageous to the NDP's electoral possibilities, both under PR and FPTP electoral systems.
I doubt that Harper's ads will "kill off" the Liberals - as they also attack the NDP. I think it is just a "two for one" opportunity.
Surely the Conservatives will be shifting attention to the NDP after a leader is chosen on Saturday.
It is true though that Rae probably blundered by making himself so prominent in the by-election advertising as it makes it look like it is also a Bob Rae defeat in Toronto Danforth (rather than just preservation of the status quo by the NDP).
Tue, 2012-03-20 00:14
#4
Kinsella likes to be provocative. I still don't think we can say anything for sure until 2015. Any polling situation at present will be *very* soft, and will break quickly with pressure.
Tue, 2012-03-20 00:45
#5
I think Kinsella's reasoning is sound. When you annoint someone as leader as opposed to having a fair and real leadership race your leader does not have a following. It's pretty rough, maybe impossible, in the tough times, to be without support.
Tue, 2012-03-20 01:08
#6
Rae's not really going to be able to make much of a case for getting the permanent LPC leadership after tonight's result. He didn't even get the party back to its 2008 level of support.
Tue, 2012-03-20 01:37
#7
well, we'll have to wait a few months and give rae more time. i think it may happen that there simply aren't enough people with the bucks to make crediblel runs at the leadership of the lpc - there may be some who'll want it, but rae could well seem indomitable. if noone of quality decides to run, i don't see how he goes anywhere, which is probably good for us.
Tue, 2012-03-20 02:01
#8
I think Kinsella's argument cuts both ways when it comes to Rae. Maybe Rae's current interim leadership might make it unfair for him to run for leader. But if he's forced out and not allowed to run, it might smell of more insider politics, and his replacement would have the same stigma.
It's too soon to make any predictions. As New Democrats, we shouldn't just be waiting on the sidelines. We should be conversing with people and getting our message out. Talking about our new leader, whoever we pick, would be a good starting point.
Tue, 2012-03-20 11:32
#9
I hope so. I'm worried enough about this that I'm ready to take it into my own hands. Even if I only influence 12 people...
Tue, 2012-03-20 11:46
#10
Arthur Cramer
SD:
I think you can count on three things:
No one is going to take this win for granted
The NDP will be out talking to people and spreading the message
Whoever is our leader, the NDP isn't going to allow the Tories to frame who they are
Tue, 2012-03-20 11:48
#11
Arthur Cramer
SD:
Give it time and give it a chance. The NDP is already talking about an ad camgaign introducing the leader on TV. I can tell you from having spoke to Tom Mulcair, he understands this as near as I can tell from my encounter at a town hall, and I would guess the other candidates do as well.
Tue, 2012-03-20 11:59
#12
I don't take anything Kinsella says at face value. Everything he writes is in service of his vision for the Liberal revival and his own election. (I don't think he's taken back his vow to run in Beaches-East York.) Still, I do like his use of "Raelian" and I hope it sticks.
Tue, 2012-03-20 12:00
#13
I don't take anything Kinsella says at face value. Everything he writes is in service of his vision for a Liberal revival and his own election. (I don't think he's taken back his vow to run in Beaches-East York.) Still, I do like his use of "Raelian" and I hope it sticks.
Tue, 2012-03-20 12:05
#14
Yeah, what Kinsella is really trying to do is three things: (1) challenge Liberals to prove the party isn't done, (2) point out how much he hates Bob Rae, (3) challenge Liberals to demand Bob Rae step down and/or not run.
Tue, 2012-03-20 12:27
#15
The NDP just got back the money they get back for 2008, even with the vote subsidy winding down the larger vote share means millions more dollars for the NDP, the NDP has yet to recieve thier rebate for 2011 campaign, and the NDP is far more fincially effient then the corrupt Liberals, which means the NDP has the money to spare for an ad campaign.
Tue, 2012-03-20 12:29
#16
FWIW, at least last heard, Rae is one of the few Liberal luminaries that Kinsella doesnt have it out for.
His thing is that he thinks there is no strategy that makes any sense besides merger with the NDP. I think he is realistic about the chances of that, and he's going to piss on it all from outside the tent as long as that is true. He's with Chretien 100%, but finished with "being constructive". And realistically: the old man has all sorts of capital and gets nowhere in the party, so why should Kinsella bother? Not to mention his holding his tongue was always relative.
Tue, 2012-03-20 21:09
#17
Is Kinsella grandiose enough to see himself as the potential leader-saviour of the LPC?
Tue, 2012-03-20 21:58
#18
Nah, I think Warren is a pretty smart guy. I think he's a Liberal loyalist and will do anything to restore them to greatness, including angering the rank-and-file. I don't think he necessarily wants to do the heavy lifting or get all the credit. He's more involved at the Ontario level these days anyway.
Tue, 2012-03-20 23:06
#19
Any theory as to his preferred LPC leader might be?
Chretien's too old(and would never want to lead a third-place party). PET's too dead. Lil' Justin's too Lil' Justin.
Who does that leave?
Tue, 2012-03-20 23:11
#20
Elizabeth May! To the rescue!
You can do it Elizabeth!!!
Wed, 2012-03-21 00:00
#21
I think they mention a few token Quebec MPs, Prince Justin, and David McGuinty. I honestly think they could do a lot worse than Bob Rae, unless they want to stop pretending and make a play for the center-right.
Wed, 2012-03-21 00:22
#22
The not yet run Liberal leadership race is just so much a lose-lose situation.
Wed, 2012-03-21 00:49
#23
There was a recent fundraising report which showed that the Liberals had taken in slightly more money than the NDP (the Conservatives took in far more than either). Given that the NDP have been in the middle of a leadership race, I was surprised by that report. So, I think it's a bit premature to write off the Liberals.
Wed, 2012-03-21 00:57
#24
The Liberals are wounded and not dead.
Even under Rae they are not dead.
They are there with enough history to make a comeback if the NDP falters. That's why this NDP leadership is so important. A bad choice this week and the situation changes radically.
One reason I support Mulcair is I think he leaves no opening for the Liberals and keeps the NDP at least as the second party with a reasonable chance at winning. Some of the others could rapidly put the NDP back to third place.
Wed, 2012-03-21 01:46
#25
It the Liberals are smart they will pick Trudeau, but they are just greedy, not smart, so they will let Rae get his way and Rae will, as Kinsella suggests, destroy the party once and for all. Go Bob Go!
Wed, 2012-03-21 02:22
#26
Since when does anyone listen to anything Kinsella says?
This article is about one thing and one thing only: Kinsella is not a Rae supporter. I don't know who he supports but at a certain level it is "anybody but Rae."
Look back a few months and you will find a Kinsella column about Rae purging the ranks of Liberal staffers and such, to make sure they were his loyalists.
This is just the latest instalment in a Kinsella "political thriller" series. Goal? Demonstrate his dislike for Bob Rae.
Wed, 2012-03-21 03:02
#27
Go Bob Go!!!
Attack ads may force Rae's hand
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Attack+force+hand/6333665/story.html
Wed, 2012-03-21 04:55
#28
The Liberals are wounded and not dead.
Even under Rae they are not dead.
They are there with enough history to make a comeback if the NDP falters. That's why this NDP leadership is so important. A bad choice this week and the situation changes radically.
One reason I support Mulcair is I think he leaves no opening for the Liberals and keeps the NDP at least as the second party with a reasonable chance at winning. Some of the others could rapidly put the NDP back to third place.
I agree completely, and the relative health of the Liberals in Britain show that often such parties do not fade gently away, but persist, and in a FPTP electoral system can be major factors in the results....
Wed, 2012-03-21 06:59
#29
Nobody is writing off the Liberals. Does that need to come up EVERY time somebody says something about their troubles?
Again, this leadership race is a lose-lose for them on many dimensions.
There was a recent fundraising report which showed that the Liberals had taken in slightly more money than the NDP (the Conservatives took in far more than either). Given that the NDP have been in the middle of a leadership race, I was surprised by that report. So, I think it's a bit premature to write off the Liberals.
The Liberals did not have a good fundraising quarter. Thats spin. They had a treading water quarter- as they are heading into the really rough waters of drastically reduced revenues, with the same old bloated, expensive non-performing administrative structure they cannot agree on how to reduce. [Which the lose-lose leadership race will further impact.]
There is no comparing to the NDP. The parties have different fundraising patterns. And the NDP, as always, produced a substantial operating surplus on the quarter, while the Liberals barely managed to tread water as they head into waters where at best [only] that is not possible.
Wed, 2012-03-21 07:33
#30
Since when does anyone listen to anything Kinsella says?
This article is about one thing and one thing only: Kinsella is not a Rae supporter. I don't know who he supports but at a certain level it is "anybody but Rae."
Look back a few months and you will find a Kinsella column about Rae purging the ranks of Liberal staffers and such, to make sure they were his loyalists.
This is just the latest instalment in a Kinsella "political thriller" series. Goal? Demonstrate his dislike for Bob Rae.
That's just what I thought. We can expect to see plenty more of the same as the race gears up. Rae won't kill the Liberals but Kinsella might.
Wed, 2012-03-21 07:33
#31
Arthur Cramer
I'll say it again. I don't think anyone is writing off the Liberals. The NDP will have to work, and needs to get things "right" on many fronts. We aren't the Libs; no one here thinks the NDP is "Canada's only "natural" governing party".
Wed, 2012-03-21 08:38
#32
There is a reason the Conservative Party launched an attack ad against Bob Rae on the same week as the NDP leadership convention.
The Conservatives are convinced Mr. Rae will lead the Liberal Party into the next election–an increasingly safe assumption. And they fear him more than they fear whomever the New Democrats choose on Saturday. So while the Tories wait to learn who will lead the official opposition, they’re getting their licks in against what they see as the greater threat.
[/quote]
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/bob-rae-attac...
Wed, 2012-03-21 08:43
#33
And Kinsella doesnt think that Rae will kill the Liberals either. That isnt his point.
The barbs at 'Raelians' are because they aren't going to fix or improve anything. Does anyone disagree?
I'm sure that Kinsella would be quick to agree that no new Leader can fix what ails the Liberals. Which is why he wants the merger.
He has SAID that the terms the Liberals can get from merger went WAY down with the election, and continue to go down. But he [and Chretien] still harp that is the only viable route. Right or not, says a lot.
Wed, 2012-03-21 09:06
#34
Arthur Cramer
You know, the other thing I think this shows is just how much people are convinced that nothing has changed. I maintain that this is the NDP's to either screw up or succeed, but I am astounded at how quickly the MSM and so called "pundits", are so quick to dismiss the NDP under a new leader. For example, I do not believe that Quebec will go back to voting as it has in the past. I believe that voting patterns have undergone a "sea-change". The other things, I believe the Libs are done on the Pariries and not likely to rebound much in BC ever either.
Thoughts on this anyone?
Wed, 2012-03-21 09:19
#35
And rest assured- wherever NDP critics want to go with making their points- the Cons do not see the Libs as their primary opponent.
What they see is two distinct opponents, both of which they want to get/keep off balance. So they stir the pot constantly.
Wed, 2012-03-21 09:23
#36
Arthur Cramer
I think you make a good point Ken. Especially with the leadership convention this weekend. I think this is the Tories trying to keep everyone off balance. They may even be trying to move attention from the leadership convention as well.
Talk about "look, over there!", politics.
Wed, 2012-03-21 09:26
#37
Yes, that wouldnt hurt as a by-product. And they could reasonably expect some distraction effect- certainly versus doing nothing exciting.
And they know they going straight at the NDP right now, like running a series of attack ads, would backfire.
Wed, 2012-03-21 09:27
#38
The only time the Libs have any chance of starting a recovery in the Praries and BC, is after they actually recover- not just talk/spin about it- in Quebec and Ontario. [recovery there means win back a whack of seats, or at least run consistently high in the polls for a year plus, not little blips that set the hopeful chattering classes going]
So while the Tories wait to learn who will lead the official opposition, they’re getting their licks in against what they see as the greater threat.
If this is true, then how does it make sense that they would be launching the ads as political attention- even for those who pay little or no attention- turns totally to the NDP choice of leader this weekend?
Or does it make more sense what I suggested: that the Cons are getting their licks in now as the period ends where because of a media attention vacuum, Rae has got most of the attention?
IE, that soon focus on attacking Rae is going to look bordering on odd.
Wed, 2012-03-21 11:51
#39
I suspect the Conservatives prepared this ad a few months ago. Now realizing that it might not be relevant a year from now, they're putting it out now.
Wed, 2012-03-21 14:55
#40
- from Toronto Star
Liberal results in Toronto-Danforth
The Liberals pulled out all the stops for the by-election in Jack Layton's old riding, but came up well short. This would appear to be an ominous sign for Bob Rae's party, but we should also be careful about how much we read into the result.
Wed, 2012-03-21 15:00
#41
Arthur Cramer
What the hell did the Star mean? What a bunch of gobbeldy-gook. It might be bad for the Liberals, or not? What??????
Wed, 2012-03-21 15:23
#42
Journalism isn't what it used to be. "Some people said this, other people said that. One might be right, or the other might be right. There's some truth to both, but to some degree neither are right."
Wed, 2012-03-21 15:27
#43
What with all their constant attacks on the NDP and the Cons over the years, where will the Toronto Star go now politically with basically no more LPC to support?
Wed, 2012-03-21 17:06
#44
The Toronto Star has shown at least moderate interest in supporting the NDP. They endorsed us.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/983376--toronto-star-e...
The endorsement is even a fair representation of what the NDP *is*, not what the newspaper wishes it to be.
The fact that they praised the NDP for promising to balance the budget, and not proposing any tax increases... that can be read two ways. One is as a matter of fact, that the NDP had moderated its platform, and has in fact scaled back some of its more "contraversial" reforms. The other is as a matter of principle, that the Star would only support NDP if it were a low tax, pseudo-liberal party, that drastically watered down its commitment to equality.
Probably a bit of both, depending on who you talk to at the star. There are probably enough blue Liberals who hate the Conservatives, see the writing on the wall, but want the NDP to fundamentally change to earn their vote. Then there's probably a lot of Trudeau Libreals who look at the NDP, already like what we have to offer, and think that even something like a tax increase could be a decent idea if it's calculated right. (Just that it wasn't proposed in 2011, and it wasn't part of the conversation at the time.)
Thu, 2012-03-22 04:52
#45
It the Liberals are smart they will pick Trudeau, but they are just greedy, not smart, so they will let Rae get his way and Rae will, as Kinsella suggests, destroy the party once and for all. Go Bob Go!
Picking Trudeau would be stupid, not smart. He's barely out of diapers compared to everyone else and he has very little experience in government. He also has a nasty habit of sticking his foot in his mouth and speaking before he thinks. He was just recently promoting the KONY 2012 video before he knew anything about it, for example.
Thu, 2012-03-22 11:42
#46
Yeah, Trudeau would be a HORRIBLE choice. Cement the death of the Liberal party. The media conventional wisdom is so dimwitted. The party of entitlement, the party that feels they're the "natural governing party", and that leadership contests are always going to pick the next prime minister... they're going to go with someone because they have the last name Trudeau? Party of entitlement indeed.
Thu, 2012-03-22 23:48
#47
Actually, if they just want somebody named Trudeau...they might as well draft Margaret. She probably has some free time these days.
Fri, 2012-03-23 00:16
#48
I think those who think the Liberals are dead under Rae are gravely mistaking.
First, Rae is an excellent politician, he has consistantly outmaneuvered the NDP and focused media attention on him with his work as opposition leader. He has even been chosen by his peers as the best parliamentarian, which, considering how few Liberals there are, is quite a feat.
Second, his supposed weakness in Ontario is way overblown. Polls reveal he is more popular in Ontario than in the rest of the country and he has seemingly brought back the party to a tie in the lead in Ontario. It is true that many Ontarians hate him, but you know who these people are? Die hard Conservatives and die hard Dippers. In other words, exactly the kind of people who would never vote for the Liberals anyway. He seems instead to be rather liked by the voters more in the middle, which is exactly where the Liberals have to be to get votes. Harper has proven that you don't need to be liked by the other parties' supporters to win elections, all that matters is getting a strong core of supporters who will stick with you no matter what.
Third, the Conservatives fear him. They've feared him since he first ran for the leadership, leaking false memos to pretend they thought he was weak sauce, but in fact they breathed a sigh of relief when he got bumped off in the race.
See http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/QPeriod/20061202/liberals_tories_061202/
Fourth, Warren Kinsella is saying he would suck as leader... considering HIS track record on predicting the success or failure of Liberal party leaders (saying that we shouldn't count Dion out in 2008 and saying that Ignatieff was wildly underestimated by Harper in 2011, and that he was becoming a better politician all the time), one should assume that the opposite of what he says is true.
Fri, 2012-03-23 05:46
#49
I think those who think the Liberals are dead under Rae are gravely mistaking.
Almost no one says that. And it probably has not been said in this thread.
Fourth, Warren Kinsella is saying he would suck as leader... considering HIS track record on predicting the success or failure of Liberal party leaders (saying that we shouldn't count Dion out in 2008 and saying that Ignatieff was wildly underestimated by Harper in 2011, and that he was becoming a better politician all the time), one should assume that the opposite of what he says is true.
And Kinsella isnt saying that, and I dont remember that he ever has. His issue is the Liberal PARTY.
Fri, 2012-03-23 07:57
#50
Arthur Cramer
I think those who think the Liberals are dead under Rae are gravely mistaking.
First, Rae is an excellent politician, he has consistantly outmaneuvered the NDP and focused media attention on him with his work as opposition leader. He has even been chosen by his peers as the best parliamentarian, which, considering how few Liberals there are, is quite a feat.
You know, I am really tired of being told about how Rae "consistently outmanouvered the NDP...". In actual fact, all that really happened is the MSM did what it ususally does. It ignored the NDP because it choose to; pure and simple, that is ALL that happened. And, by the way, he ISN'T nor ever was, the "Opposition Leader". Look, the MSM meme even makes it onto Rabble!
ETA: And 1 other thing. Where are the Libs in the polls? I don't see them tied with the Tories, or even running second, or even really coming back great guns in Qubec. Outside of Ontario, at least at the moment, they have their problems. I guess Nycole Turmel did pretty well after all if after all this time, we seemed to have held onto most of our support. I have to admit some glee about their Prarire numbers, by the way. It gives me hope we'll finally be able to get rid once and for all of that scum bag Kevin Lamoureux and it won't be too soon!
Nope, this is a big weekend and as I posted somewhere else, "the times they are a-changin'"!
Fri, 2012-03-23 14:04
#51
I think those who think the Liberals are dead under Rae are gravely mistaking.
Almost no one says that. And it probably has not been said in this thread.
Fourth, Warren Kinsella is saying he would suck as leader... considering HIS track record on predicting the success or failure of Liberal party leaders (saying that we shouldn't count Dion out in 2008 and saying that Ignatieff was wildly underestimated by Harper in 2011, and that he was becoming a better politician all the time), one should assume that the opposite of what he says is true.
And Kinsella isnt saying that, and I dont remember that he ever has. His issue is the Liberal PARTY.
I'm sorry, but did you even read the article this thread is based on? I'm going to quote it:
"Stephen Harper... wants to be remembered by history as the guy who wiped out the Liberal Party of Canada.
Bob Rae is going to help Harper do precisely that. His arrogance and hubris are so immense, he cannot accept - not even for a moment - that his appalling record in Ontario will destroy what little credibility the Liberal Party has left. It'll slip beneath the waves of history, for good."
How can you read this article, saying that Bob Rae would destroy all the credibility the party has left and help Harper achieve his dream of destroying, then claim that no one is saying that Bob Rae would destroy the party?