Author
|
Topic: finally, somebody actually throws their hat in the Liberal ring
|
asterix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2419
|
posted 08 February 2006 10:35 PM
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X2ED62B9CMartha Hall Findlay declares her candidacy. It's hard to imagine it happening, somehow, but I secretly sort of like her (if only because of the whole Belinda affair.) Imagine how that first caucus meeting would go, eh? [ 08 February 2006: Message edited by: asterix ]
From: deep inside the caverns of my mind | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maxx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4819
|
posted 08 February 2006 10:47 PM
From Findlay's Website: quote: So what's next? My goal is to run again, but in the meantime, we Liberals have an opportunity now to rebuild and renew the Liberal Party. We are a land of promise and opportunity; we have so much to be proud of, and so much to look forward to. But a strong future requires good stewardship, good policies, and strong decision-making. I want a Liberal Party that people want to vote for. Not because we’re less ‘scary’ than the alternative, but because we offer the most progressive mix of sound fiscal policies and comprehensive social programs—because we offer the best future for Canada.We, the Liberal Party, have bridges to build, policies to develop, ideals to affirm. I look forward to being part of that process and to helping in whatever way I can.
Link
From: Don't blame me... I voted Liberal. | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 09 February 2006 07:31 AM
quote: Originally posted by Doug: I was kind of hoping for Madonna-Megara Holloway again.
I don't. I hate that metallic squeaking sound made when a tin-foil hat is thrown into a ring. JeffWells: We know who the major candidates are. Brison. Stronach. Ignatieff. Maybe Dion. Maybe Cauchon. I don't think any of them are going to declare until there's an actual convention set and rules in place. There's talk of a large entry fee, anywhere from half a million to 3 million, and the financial rules keep Stronach from financing her own campaign this time.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 09 February 2006 10:56 AM
That is on the assumption that Iggy turns out to be an able Commons performer. If he's not, then he'd be better served by a shorter campaign that doesn't give people too much of a chance to guage the candidates performance against Harper.However, I think the Liberals are wrong to wait until Winter 2007 because of the risk of the government falling. Once a year has past the Cons are more likely to trigger an election to catch a new leader off guard.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
peterjcassidy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 372
|
posted 09 February 2006 12:09 PM
I believe there is a freeze on new members five months before the leadership convention, whatever date might be set. I also think there is a combination of One Member One Vote and delegates elected by the membership at riding meetings, as well as ex officio delgaes, in selecting a new leader. So leadership candidates have to do a lot of organizing, spend a lot of money, to have a chance to win and generally know how they are doing by memberships sold and delegates captured within five o six months of the convention.So if say the convention is in November, and by July you have signed up half the membership of a rival candidate who is suported by mich of the establishment (MPs, national executive, etc.) you know you have lost. This is what happened to Sheila, who knew months before the convention Paul Martin had won and even though Manley,McKenna and others had accepted the ineveitable and withdrawn, she stayed in. That is one reason Paul Martin and Valeri set out to destroy her,she stayed in the race against him instead of allowing a coronation. The dovnetnin dte is suppsoed to be set by the National Executie in March. Supposedly an early convention, in November, whould allow, a frontruner a coronation or limit the chances otusiders with limited resources being able to compete. A later covnetion, say in spring of 2007, would allow unkowns time to try to sign up new members and capture delegtes, and at least give the sense of a race. Does anyone have a clearer anlayis of the rules and how the candidates are positioned to win? Who has got the money the organizers and the establishment? [ 09 February 2006: Message edited by: peterjcassidy ]
From: Screaming in language no-one understands.. | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tommie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8455
|
posted 09 February 2006 01:15 PM
quote: Might be worth looking at candidates from that perspective again.
Two leading leftist Liberals, Gerard Kennedy and Brian Tobin, have already announced they won't be running (which is a huge disappointment to me.) John Godfrey is the only notable left-Liberal still considering a leadership run. I would support him. Also, Calgary Grit is a left-Liberal blog, so whoever it supports tends to be progressive.
From: Canada? | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 09 February 2006 08:16 PM
quote: Originally posted by Nanabush: Martha was a loyal supporter of Paul Martin .
The last thing the liberal party needs in more Martinites. They need to fumigate.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
up
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9143
|
posted 10 February 2006 03:38 PM
I think some big names will come forward after the first couple of weeks that the House sits.QP and the scrums that follow are not going to go well fo rthe Cons, at least not at first, so that should re-energize some of the older, big names that are interested in being PM, but not all that interested in re-building the party. Not saying this is good or bad, just sayin'. and for a little thread drift until someone else declares, I predict someone will throw water (not pies) on Harper and we will discover that he is in fact a robot built by Texas Instruments. [ 10 February 2006: Message edited by: up ]
From: other | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 10 February 2006 04:00 PM
Edited because you figured out how to post it.[ 10 February 2006: Message edited by: RealityBites ]
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 10 February 2006 05:16 PM
Iggy bows out......of speaking engagement. quote: Ignatieff had been scheduled to speak at the annual meeting of the Conference of Defence Associations this month, but he cancelled the date this week.Alain Pellerin, executive director of the association, said Ignatieff told the group "he could no longer honour his commitment for various political reasons." Pellerin said he thought Ignatieff had confirmed his attendance after the election, but a spokesman for the new MP said the date was never solid. "It was tentative," said Jim Maclean. "Now that he is an MP, one who has not yet been assigned a critic responsibility, he decided it wouldn't be appropriate to speak."
http://tinyurl.com/b6nb4
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256
|
posted 10 February 2006 05:33 PM
Indeed, the CDA was highly critical of the Martin decision to pull out of BMD, which is no surprise: quote: The Government has lost control of the ballistic missile defence (BMD) issue and hence the initiative. For a long time, Canada's participation in BMD seemed like a done deal. The stars were aligned in this direction: a May 2003 statement of Canada's interest in negotiating an agreement; a Prime Minister whose campaign platform included the urgent need to repair Canada-US relations; positive comments from the past three defence ministers; and an amendment made to NORAD last August. It is disappointing that the Prime Minister has raised the red herrings of cost, deployment and technological effectiveness. These are really American issues, which are being addressed by the US government and will be pursued by the US whether Canada joins or not. The PM is also concerned about the "weaponization" of space. The current plans are for a land and sea-based system. The only way to influence the future direction of the program is to join it.
Cough. Sputter. Yes, and I have a bridge to sell... However the tone of the CDA changed enormously over the following year. Reading back through the CDA's media archive, the organization clearly had improved its tone with regards to the Martin government, welcoming indeed the appointment of Hillier as Chief of Defense Staff, and praising the new Martin-initiated defence policy introduced last April, calling it "a breath of fresh air". So we can see why Iggy would accept; now that he's facing a leadership run, no doubt as a faux lefty, he's reconsidered.
From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
tommie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8455
|
posted 11 February 2006 12:47 PM
quote: Originally posted by Robert James:
I think your shades are blocking out more than sunlight.
Are you saying my information regarding the fact that Kennedy is not out of the race is not informed, or my opinion that he is Layton's nightmare is as such? Also remember Trudeau was also not very well known when he was elected leader.
From: Canada? | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 11 February 2006 01:35 PM
Originally posted by tommie: or my opinion that he is Layton's nightmare is as such?Where are you getting this? I never heard of Kennedy until I saw your post and did a google. He doesn't have a federal seat yet, does he? Also remember Trudeau was also not very well known when he was elected leader. Absolute nonsense. Trudeau was already known before running for the Liberal leadership for his famous expression "the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." When he was Minister of Justice he introduced legislation that would reform divorce laws and liberalize laws on abortion and homosexuality - trust me, he was well known after that. [ 11 February 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357
|
posted 12 February 2006 01:58 PM
I also find the phrase "Bollywood Belinda" offensive.Re: Dhalla, it's unfortunate (if predictable) that the media keeps mentioning her Bollywoood connection. I don't know much about her other than she's a chiropractor and former model/actor. One paper yesterday actually said she brings "glamour" to the race. I'll be interested to hear what she has to say.
From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
adma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11856
|
posted 12 February 2006 02:12 PM
Not "bigotry" per se--after all, Ruby's background is in Bollywood. And given the 2004-election controversy over Dhalla's parachuting and political credentials, it was a label begging to be made by someone.You might as well suggest that all cheap "undercredentialled dumb blonde turncoat" barbs and low humour directed at Belinda Stronach be banned, period--and not just from Babble. That is, we should whitewash it away, pretend it doesn't exist--or, where it does exist, render it automatically "evil", ironic/satirical/reflexive intent be darned. Even though it's already part of the "Belinda myth", to the point where a Rick Mercer or whomever can have a yok at it. So, there was a bit of a (semi-proto-)Belindaesque cast about the Dhalla controversy in 2004. And Dhalla is a veteran of Bollywood. 1 + 1 = 2. There's such a thing as having too thin a skin t/w "racism", "sexism", "bigotry" et al, y'know...
From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357
|
posted 12 February 2006 02:46 PM
By using the term "Bollywood Belinda" you reduce her to an intellectually lightweight woman of colour. You define her by nothing more than her race and sex. If you want to criticize her on the basis of her positions/public speeches/debates in the HOC/voting record, that's one thing, but the shorthand you've adopted here goes too far. Do you actually have substantive criticisms of this woman? You mentioned, for example, that she was "parachuted" into the nomination. I don't recall a big scandal at the time, and I note she has now won two elections in the same riding. [ 12 February 2006: Message edited by: pookie ]
From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 12 February 2006 08:51 PM
quote: Originally posted by Makwa: Just wondering why everyone is avoiding the title she uses: 'Dr.'?
Perhaps because the vast majority of the time Chiropractic is quackery, not medicine. I gotta say, a background in the field is about as far from a recommendation as I could imagine.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
adma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11856
|
posted 12 February 2006 09:45 PM
Well, there you have it: a debatable label becomes (reflexively, perhaps) something to constructively reflect upon. And BTW I *don't* disagree that Dhalla's got hurdles to jump in order to overcome the climate that leads to labels like that. (So would Belinda. So would Rona. Such is the dilemma of our sexist society--not that white males like Martin, Harper, Layton aren't prone to being bullseyes for similar cheap-shotting.) Think of it as more of a "preemptive strike"--better to see it coming around the corner, than to deny it may be coming at all. (Or to utter a banal shame! shame! shame! when--surprise!--it arrives.)So, apologies for crossing the Babble protocol line at that moment--but please, in general, re the big bad world out there, watch how stiflingly jumpy (I was going to say "hysterical", but even that's etymologically incorrect) you get. We, the "insulters", may well be more on your side than it appears. Kind of like Dylan "going electric" at Newport in 1965. More seriously re Dhalla, any leadership pretensions on her part render her an interesting one to watch. Maybe it's not to win (at least now), but to position herself for a future cabinet, etc. And better someone young and fresh and promising (or at least "promising") like her or Navdeep Bains (another class-of-04 Peel Region Grit who's been cited as having future leadership potential) than usual-suspect GTA stalwart ethno-Liberal hacks like Volpe, Bevilacqua, et al...
From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 12 February 2006 11:10 PM
The Liberals may be moving up their convention. They're starting to feel the Cons may not survive in office. quote: Only three weeks after suffering a humiliating defeat, Liberals are musing openly about whether Harper's shaky minority government can survive the year.And Liberal officials are being urged to hasten the selection of a new leader so that the party can be ready as soon as possible for an election. That's the shortest honeymoon of any government in Canadian history," chortled former deputy prime minister John Manley. "David Emerson really is a great Liberal. In one move, he united the Liberals and divided the Tories." Manley joked that "every once in a while we have to let the Tories take over so that Canadians remember just how good a Liberal government is." "You can certainly say there are those who are urging us to act with as much haste as possible," said national director Steven MacKinnon, adding that "certainly there are more people saying that this week than last week."
I REALLY would like to see Harper tossed out on his ass more quickly than Clark was. Something tells me Clark would enjoy that too. http://tinyurl.com/8lxag [ 12 February 2006: Message edited by: RealityBites ]
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 12 February 2006 11:40 PM
quote: Originally posted by RealityBites:
Something tells me Clark would enjoy that too.
Ha! I dare say you're correct.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|