Liberal leadership race

Darksider have more fun, just saying :p

I think entering the race my end up as the only way to pay back the debt for Martha.

And changing the rules in the middle of the race was wrong, I hate Libs as much or more then anyone else, but changing the rules mid race is wrong and I'd allow the remaining Liberal candiates to funraise based on the previous rules that were in place at the beginning if I was the judge. Anything else is allowing Tories to cheat.

...please dont remind us if trudeau join the liberal leadership because he'd win in next election just like Mexico Enrique PRI!!!!

canadian cant vote who is handsome looks good!

Brachina wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Agreed, Martha represents the true face of the Liberal party, socially moderate, fiscal right. Plus if Martha leads the Libs she'd divide the right instead of left, opening up the way for majority government for the NDP. I'm thinking of voting for Martha and I encourage all over dippers to do so as well.

First, if you want an NDP government, vote for your NDP candidate.

Second, it's far from clear who will win the Liberal leadership.

Third, if Hall-Findlay wins the leadership, progressive Liberals (if there are any...) will be so thoroughly turned off by the prospect of her leadership that they'll go  NDP instead.

I plan on voting NDP in the next election, I just plan to vote to for Martha in the liberal leadership race, because those idiots made it,easy to screw with them. It'll be my revenge for the disgraceful 90's. Not that it will matter, the conbots will all vote for Justin Trudeau and the lead now types will vote for the merger candiate, its not even a contest for anyone else. The Tories will see to it Trudeau wins, because of this nobody else except maybe a merger candiate will have a chance and even that is doubtful. I just don't know how the Liberals don't think the Tories will decide this race for them the minute they came up with it. We're talking about the party of Robocalls, the party that messed with leadership fincancing rules during the last liberal leadership race, they will not hesitate to pick the liberal leader for the grits.

So why are some of you on this board sounding just as despicable as the Conservatives?  Some of you here are bragging that you are going to deliberately try to sabotage the next Liberal leadership by voting for the weakest candidate etc.  Many of you sound very hateful, and as I've said before, I don't understand why you hate the Liberals so much.  The Liberals have done a lot of good things for this country and are better than the Conservatives.  Sure they are corrupt in some ways, as all political parties are.

If this is who composes the new NDP, does it not say something about your ethical code as well?  Do you not relinquish your right to claim the moral high ground over the Liberals and Conservatives when you do that?

Understandable.

But can the members in the NDP transcend the frailties, temptations and imperfections of the human condition and rise above all corruption, malice and lust for power?

All political parties become victim to it over time, and if the NDP tries to set itself on a different plane of existence, it could come crashing down just like the Conservatives and Liberals.

(A bit of a melodramatic & Shakespearean philosophical rant on my part, I realize, but nevertheless I hope you see my point!)

Debater wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Agreed, Martha represents the true face of the Liberal party, socially moderate, fiscal right. Plus if Martha leads the Libs she'd divide the right instead of left, opening up the way for majority government for the NDP. I'm thinking of voting for Martha and I encourage all over dippers to do so as well.

First, if you want an NDP government, vote for your NDP candidate.

Second, it's far from clear who will win the Liberal leadership.

Third, if Hall-Findlay wins the leadership, progressive Liberals (if there are any...) will be so thoroughly turned off by the prospect of her leadership that they'll go  NDP instead.

I plan on voting NDP in the next election, I just plan to vote to for Martha in the liberal leadership race, because those idiots made it,easy to screw with them. It'll be my revenge for the disgraceful 90's. Not that it will matter, the conbots will all vote for Justin Trudeau and the lead now types will vote for the merger candiate, its not even a contest for anyone else. The Tories will see to it Trudeau wins, because of this nobody else except maybe a merger candiate will have a chance and even that is doubtful. I just don't know how the Liberals don't think the Tories will decide this race for them the minute they came up with it. We're talking about the party of Robocalls, the party that messed with leadership fincancing rules during the last liberal leadership race, they will not hesitate to pick the liberal leader for the grits.

So why are some of you on this board sounding just as despicable as the Conservatives?  Some of you here are bragging that you are going to deliberately try to sabotage the next Liberal leadership by voting for the weakest candidate etc.  Many of you sound very hateful, and as I've said before, I don't understand why you hate the Liberals so much.  The Liberals have done a lot of good things for this country and are better than the Conservatives.  Sure they are corrupt in some ways, as all political parties are.

If this is who composes the new NDP, does it not say something about your ethical code as well?  Do you not relinquish your right to claim the moral high ground over the Liberals and Conservatives when you do that?

I already said I won't.

As for why I hate liberal party, that's a long,story. Maybe I tell you why later, I'm going to a party right now.

I will leave you with this for now. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/search/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpos...

From the various media reports on Trudeau at the Calgary Stampede, I feel it's a safe bet that he is going to enter the race.  There was no mention of any other Liberal candidates being there, including Coyne who, I believe, is the only candidate who's officially in the race now (or who has officially declared that she will be).

Regardless, I don't think it really matters.  The Libs have a bit of sway still in Ontario, but generally in Canada they're seen as a spent force.

As attractive as it might be to vote in a leadership race for an opposing party to promote the worst candidate that's immoral. It is lying because you have to claim to be a supporter.

Voting for Liberal leader will actually help them as it will be promoted as support-- they will point to the number of electors so adding to that total is not a good thing if you are not a Liberal supporter.

Liberals have been adept at choosing the weakest candidate themselves for the last two outings-- why not trust them to screw themselves up on their own?

It is possible that the Liberals are not too much of a threat anyway-- if they grow smaller that could advantage the Cons as much as the NDP at this point. I'm not sure that there is a benefit in going after them now. If they manage to break the 20% range in the polls then they might deserve some attention but I'm ok to leave them alone as long as they poll in the teens as they have this last year.

[later edit] Didn't realize this had previously been posted in the concurrent forum "How the Liberals might save Canada, along with their own sorry butts". Sorry for the needless repeat.

I understand your feelings, but I honestly believe Mulcair will eat Justin alive, assuming,Justin doesn't implode instead.

Look at how pathetic and out of touch the Liberals attacks against Mulcair have been from Justin. Grumpy Old Man, the flip side of the Harper coin, just ridiculas. To try and forge a position of thier own on the Oilsands they had to completely misrepersent the NDP position because thier is no room left for them in the debate on this and countless other issues.

Mulcair just has to keep marganalizing the Liberals.

Well, I really appreciate everyone's reply.

My fear is that the MSM will help the LPC sell this as JT picking up the mantel of his father to continue the movment toward "the great society", you know, the one that never did happen, and he never intended to attain. In actauality the Manley/Martin wing will be pulling the stings and the NDP will get co-opted on the left as everyone votes LPC to "save Canada". You know, JT knows, follow him. The LPC is the only party that can save Canada, JT is the only one who can stop Harper, blah, blah, blah.

I mean we are so close to electing a real left wing government. I would hate to see JT and his ilk co opt it again, smug in their assurance that Canadians will fall for all of the tired old saws. But worse yet, my bigger fear is that JT and the LPC will sell more privitization as good for Canadians and fiscally sound, after all the LPC balanced the budget the last time so they must know what they are talking about. And so the LPC will do even more damage this time around, as the "progressive LPC" as if that actually even exists, is pushed off to the corner in the name of fiscal soundness.

It'll be over before people know it and everyone will ask what happened? I know this sounds extreme, but there is no question that JT has strong Corporatist tendancies, and giving him the "keys to the car" would be a real disaster.

What do the rest of you think? I mean, I can really see this happening. I don't trust the LPC, and I certainly don't trust JT. He is starting to believe his own propaganda, and I think he is finding the urge to satisfy his ego is becoming just to large to ignore. He probably is beginning to think it is up to him to save Canada, the question is, which one is it going to be?

Thanks love is free. But see, I don't get this. I haven't seen anything that makes me think he is a clown. What am I missing here? When people talk about this guy, its like he's the Messiah or something. What am I missing here? I just really don't get how it is that most of you aren't worried about him. I guess I don't know what the hell I am talking about.

What you're missing is just how desperate Liberal supporters are, including many media pundits. Great expectations are not a good thing all the time. Martin and Ignatieff both suffered huge downfalls because they were touted as superstars. All you have to do is underperform slightly and it reflects much worse than it normally would.

My worry is that he will be more Clinton than Lula, but I hope I am wrong.

 

I have heard that the main reason Deborah Coyne is running is because she detests the first born son of the father of her daughter and her whole campaign will be about damaging him as much as possible.

They seem pretty civil so far Coyne and Justin I mean, but I'd love it if it was true about her plans.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/07/20/lawrence-martin-trudeaus-team-takes-shape/

I tell you he is running and will be leader. I can't help but feel this is bad news for the NDP. I am simply not convinced that the media won't help recreate Trudeaumania again.

 This sucks. If anyone can prove I am wrong, I'd welcome it, but this has me really, really worried. This is not good news.

Are there significant differences in Trudeau's policy leanings from Mulcair's policy leanings?

mark_alfred wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/07/20/lawrence-martin-trudeaus-team-takes-shape/

I tell you he is running and will be leader. I can't help but feel this is bad news for the NDP. I am simply not convinced that the media won't help recreate Trudeaumania again.

 This sucks. If anyone can prove I am wrong, I'd welcome it, but this has me really, really worried. This is not good news.

Are there significant differences in Trudeau's policy leanings from Mulcair's policy leanings?

Justin has no policy leanings, he's a liberal. He pretends to lean left, but we've seen that before.

By that standard referring to the fact that Hillary Clinton is being married to Bill Clinton and that they have a child in common is "defining her by her sexual history".

There is clearly a quasi-familial relationship between Deborah Coyne and Justin Trudeau - there is no simple way to describe it. He's not her step-son, but her daughter is his half sister. She has obviously seen him in personal contexts that go beyond just being in the same political party and apparently she doesn't like what she sees.

In many ways Justin Trudeau is also a candidate who can be defined by a sexual history. Its common knowledge that the one and only reason he is being talked about as a candidate for the Liberal leadership is that once upon a time a sperm belonging to Pierre Elliott Trudeau met and fertilized  egg belonging to Margaret Sinclair - presumably as a result of carnal knowledge (I will presume they didn't use a turkey baster) and so Justin was born on Christmas Day nine months later. There is absolutely NOTHING about JT that would lead anyone to think he was remotely qualified to be a political leader in Canada - other than the fact that he is the product of Pierre Trudeau and his wife Margaret having sex. Does anyone seriously think we would be considering a university drop-out who had previously worked as a substitute drama teacher as a national political leader if his parents were John and Mary Smith?

Stockholm wrote:

Does anyone seriously think we would be considering a university drop-out who had previously worked as a substitute drama teacher as a national political leader if his parents were John and Mary Smith?

I didn't know he dropped out of university - how did he get to be a teacher because it usually requires a degree and one year of teacher's college?

Also, he was only a substitute?

janfromthebruce wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Does anyone seriously think we would be considering a university drop-out who had previously worked as a substitute drama teacher as a national political leader if his parents were John and Mary Smith?

I didn't know he dropped out of university - how did he get to be a teacher because it usually requires a degree and one year of teacher's college?

Wikipedia reports he has a BA in literature and a B.Ed.  He then was pursuing an MA in environmental geography, but dropped out to run for office.  So, technically, yes, he is a dropout.

Stockholm wrote:

By that standard referring to the fact that Hillary Clinton is being married to Bill Clinton and that they have a child in common is "defining her by her sexual history".

There is clearly a quasi-familial relationship between Deborah Coyne and Justin Trudeau - there is no simple way to describe it. He's not her step-son, but her daughter is his half sister. She has obviously seen him in personal contexts that go beyond just being in the same political party and apparently she doesn't like what she sees.

In many ways Justin Trudeau is also a candidate who can be defined by a sexual history. Its common knowledge that the one and only reason he is being talked about as a candidate for the Liberal leadership is that once upon a time a sperm belonging to Pierre Elliott Trudeau met and fertilized  egg belonging to Margaret Sinclair - presumably as a result of carnal knowledge (I will presume they didn't use a turkey baster) and so Justin was born on Christmas Day nine months later. There is absolutely NOTHING about JT that would lead anyone to think he was remotely qualified to be a political leader in Canada - other than the fact that he is the product of Pierre Trudeau and his wife Margaret having sex. Does anyone seriously think we would be considering a university drop-out who had previously worked as a substitute drama teacher as a national political leader if his parents were John and Mary Smith?

Nice try, Stockholm. 

Newsflash: when we talk about defining someone by "sexual history" we mean his or her own. Only extreme sophistry could explain your "comparison" above. 

 

Your snide comments about Coyne (who btw is not a university drop-out if that's now an important qualification) is clearly trading on her "link" to JT because of her liaison with his father. It trades on lots and lots of offensive tropes, notably the "woman scorned" who has nothing better to do than take a dislike to the offspring of her paramour via another woman (rival).  

 

Stockholm reported a rumour he/she had heard.  I don't see the big deal.  If Mike Layton were a media darling, and were contemplating running for the leadership of the NDP, and suddenly Olivia Chow decided to jump in the race, I might find that a bit odd, and it may lead to some brewing speculation in my own head.  In this case, it's a couple of Liberals (Trudeau and Coyne) so I really don't care.

actually, funny story, i was a ta at mcgill and invigilated trudeau at exams.  he was like 10 years olders than everyone else in the program, argued with the prof so frequently as to dominate entire courses (and to be told, at various points, to cool it, true story), made absolutely no friends that i could tell, and just generally seemed like a joker.  i suspected he dropped out, but i didn't know.

i don't want to harp too much on the point, but people who are actually fearing a trudeau-led liberal party should just listen to him speak.  it's this transparently false aspect, everything he says sounds flamboyantly un-genuine.  there's a really obvious comparison to andré boisclair's leadership of the pq and the astonishing collapse that it brought, but obviously the parallels run only so long: boisclair actually finished his vanity degree.

without question, i'm the last person to want to offer the liberals useful advice, but given that off-island quebec is completely closed to them for a while to come, i'd have to expect that the logical choice would be someone to restore the suburban ontario power-base.  a shame for them that mcguinty and his crew have been around for so long and become so unpopular, because one expects that a minister from that government would be among the more reasonable choices to make.

I heard a rumour that Mulcair was a pedophile. Should we air that without even saying where the rumour came from?  Don't worry I don't agree with the rumour I only heard it and passed it on.

Actually what's even more scandalous about Deborah Coyne is that she was the chief "constitutional advisor" to that francophobic bigot Clyde Wells who brought the whole country to the brink of destruction when the Meech Lake Accord collapsed in 1990. Caveat emptor...Then again she was also once married to Michael Valpy who ran for the NDP in Trinity-Spadina in 2000.

Of course we could look at it the other way around. Maybe Coyne sees herself as a serious candidate for the leadership and Justin wasn't going to run at all at first...but now maybe he will run because there has always been friction with her he wants to stop the Liberal leadership contest from turning into a Deborah Coyne coronation! (at this stage if Justin doesn't run, Deborah Coyne may end being - by default - the most formidable person running - or at least the most formidable of seven dwarfs)