|
Liberals to Find New Leader (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Um... what about Turner? |
that month and a half went really well, lol. |
|
|
| TO guy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Um... what about Turner? |
and McLelland
edit: I've got to pay more attention :( |
|
|
| soupastah |
| I'm voting for the guy who starts and ends the pride parade at vivid boy's home, boycotting the vote till this is on the agenda |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
that month and a half went really well, lol. |
The statement was that the Liberals hadn't had a non-Quebec born leader since Pearson... Turner was the leader and not born in Quebec. I'm not saying he was any good, just that he wasn't from Quebec. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The statement was that the Liberals hadn't had a non-Quebec born leader since Pearson... Turner was the leader and not born in Quebec. I'm not saying he was any good, just that he wasn't from Quebec. |
lol...yeah, I know.
I'm not sure how accurate/true this will be, but the Liberals seem to be taknig this leadership change seriously.
Rae and Ignatieff have apparently agreed to keep the race civil and keep the party's interests above individual ones (yeah, yeah...they both still want to win), but hopefully it's an indication that there will be less destructive infighting that almost destroyed the democrats chances in the upcoming U.S. election. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| All I have to say is, about fckin time. |
|
|
| TO guy |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I'm not sure how accurate/true this will be, but the Liberals seem to be taknig this leadership change seriously.
|
It almost seemed like the Libs knew they couldn't win this time around, so they sent Dion out to take the fall, rather than ruin Ignatieff or Rae's image. Next time around, could be a different story. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Um... what about Turner? |
Yeah, I don't really count Turner. I think the only reason they designated him was to take the fall after Trudeau resigned. I don't think he was ever a serious candidate.
Besides, that was 1984. Even if you ignore the gory details, it's still been 25 years.
| quote: | Originally posted by Ania_xox
Martin has admitted to regret his decision of stepping down and I think Dion is going to do the same. If he stopped drilling the carbon tax hobbyhorse and developed a bit more charisma, I think he would stand a solid chance next time around. |
The problem is, he didn't have any other platform. If he left the carbon tax alone, what would he have had left to campaign on?
That's why they lost seats. He was a one-trick pony. And as for Martin, he can regret it all he wants, but he had no choice, and he would not have performed any better than Dion. |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by TO guy
It almost seemed like the Libs knew they couldn't win this time around, so they sent Dion out to take the fall, rather than ruin Ignatieff or Rae's image. Next time around, could be a different story. |
the libs must have fortune tellers in their ranks because Dion's been a leader for what, at least 3 yrs? |
|
|
| musicsnob_NOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
Rae and Ignatieff have apparently agreed to keep the race civil and keep the party's interests above individual ones (yeah, yeah...they both still want to win), but hopefully it's an indication that there will be less destructive infighting that almost destroyed the democrats chances in the upcoming U.S. election. |
Wow, Rae and Ignatieff's infighting almost cost the Democrats the U.S. election...you learn somethng every day.
What else do you expect Rae and Ignatieff to say? We're going to trash and run a negative campaign? |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by musicsnob_NOT
Wow, Rae and Ignatieff's infighting almost cost the Democrats the U.S. election...you learn somethng every day.
What else do you expect Rae and Ignatieff to say? We're going to trash and run a negative campaign? |
f u...poor wording on my part. you know what I mean. :P
I think there's widespread concensus that the WAY too long, and sometimes negative, leadership campaigns of Clinton and Obama have severely damaged the Democrats' chances of winning the U.S. eleciton. A joint ticket would have been a guaranteed election win and otherwise choosing leader earlier would have put them in a much better position than they're in now.
Hillary waited WAY too long to endorse Obama. It was clear she would not be his running mate before he announced Biden (financials for her were not requested, as is the case for all those being considered), and she has since said that she wants no senior role in his gov't should he win.
That kind of bull is exactly what the Liberals need to avoid.
The *last* thing they need is a long, drawn out leadership contest that will fracture the party (again), perhaps resulting in another '3rd or 4th choice' squeaking through (again) and cost a fortune that the party does not have (they've talked about not even approaching the spending caps permitted, IIRC?)
That Ignatieff and Rae have (supposedly) met several times and (supposedly) agreed to avoid that scenario is hopefully an indication that they, and the party, realize that individual interests need to be secondary. Time will tell if that's bull posturing for the public and/or the party.
The Liberals need an expedient leadership race, with the entire party rallying around whomever is chosen. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
the libs must have fortune tellers in their ranks because Dion's been a leader for what, at least 3 yrs? |
Just under two. I wouldn't put it past the Libs; most the rank and file knew they'd need to spend a fairly significant time in opposition before they'd get another mandate. It's the same reason the PCs elected Campbell... you put someone expendable out and save your top candidate for a more favorable time. |
|
|
|
|
