CDN Politics - Liberal Leadership race

[Wezil]

The Liberal party picks its new leader this weekend. Who do you predict will win (not necessarily who you want to win)?

I've only named the top four candidates. If you think one of the other candidates will win pick 'Other' (there are no bananas in Canada) and post your prediction.

My thoughts:

Kennedy - Probably a decent Liberal choice in the future but not now. His lack of French is critical.

Dion - Would have trouble in and outside Quebec.

Rae - Up until 6 months ago I thought the Liberals would be insane to select a candidiate incapable of winning in Ontario. In view of our current PM's record over the past six months I am no longer so sure we wouldn't vote Rae over Harper. I think this would be the best candidate to consolidate the left and defeat Harper but I doubt the Liberal party establishment will tolerate an outsider like Rae.

Ignatieff - I suspect Iggy will be the choice. Harper will fare well in a general election against Ignatieff (he is too far 'right' to offer a clear alternative) and by bailing him out over the whole 'nation' debate, Harper has made the selection of Ignatieff much more likely.

[SlowwHand]

"Kennedy - Probably a decent Liberal choice in the future but not now. His lack of French is critical."

He gets my vote.


"Dion - Would have trouble in and outside Quebec."

What does that leave?

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
"Kennedy - Probably a decent Liberal choice in the future but not now. His lack of French is critical."

He gets my vote.

Because he is a progressive(a kind of left wing democrat) or he is not able to speak french?

I think Ignatieff or Rae will win. My vote goes for Ignatieff...

[Wezil]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
"Kennedy - Probably a decent Liberal choice in the future but not now. His lack of French is critical."

He gets my vote.

I know it couldn't be b/c of the name. It must be b/c of the lack of French.

"Dion - Would have trouble in and outside Quebec."

What does that leave?

Not much obviously. Dion is generally considered a smart man but comes off as the goofy professor type (which he actually was before politics). His credentials are fine but his general election campaign would be a disaster.

[SlowwHand]

Thanks.
Much better than cronos, answering a question I didn't ask .

[Asher]

Dion Phaneuf for PM.

BAM!

Dion.
Iggy!

[Kontiki]

Re: CDN Politics - Liberal Leadership race

Originally posted by Wezil
Ignatieff - I suspect Iggy will be the choice. Harper will fare well in a general election against Ignatieff (he is too far 'right' to offer a clear alternative) and by bailing him out over the whole 'nation' debate, Harper has made the selection of Ignatieff much more likely.

Did he bail him out or cut him off at the knees? Sure, it takes some of the heat off Ignatieff during the Liberal debates, but it also steals some of his thunder and what would have been a key platform position for him. The Conservatives are most worried about Ignatieff winning because they've always felt (understandably) that he represents their greatest threat. All-in-all, I'd say a good piece of politicking by Harper, despite what you might think of the proposal itself.

[CrONoS]

@Wezil
What kind of guy is Kennedy? Center Left, Center Right?

Do you know what are his opinion on Afghanistan?

[CrONoS]

On Gerard Kennedy

http://www.gerardkennedy.ca/page_e.aspx?id=116

Gerard on Peace in the Middle East
All of the civilian casualties in the latest escalation of conflict are tragic and highly regrettable. Canada should always be a voice for restraint in the Middle East because we have to be as concerned about the consequences of actions as their justification.

I have previously called for a cease-fire and maximum restraint in the right to protect and defend. I support Israel's right to exist with secure borders, and its right to defend its citizens from terrorist attacks, in accordance with standards of international law and human rights. I also support the creation of a Palestinian state, and oppose the establishment of settlements in the territories, unilateral moves by Israel to annex East Jerusalem and the construction of the security fence inside the West Bank and East Jerusalem. I will support any resolution at the United Nations that is consistent with this position.

I deplore the fact that extremists have once again hijacked the agenda in the Middle East. Israel and the Palestinian's right to self-defense has to be exercised in such a way that extremism is not fueled by the response itself.

I am concerned that too many general assembly resolutions on the Middle East are divisive and lack in balance in that they condemn Israeli violence but play down attacks against Israeli civilians. I will ensure that under my leadership that balance is pushed for at the United Nations and in other international forums.

[Wezil]

Cronos - Generally considered 'left' (ran a food bank). I don't know his opinion on Afghanistan but the link below might say.

For those interested in the candidates/race:

http://www.liberal.ca/leadership2006_e.aspx

[CrONoS]

On Afghanistan:

Gerard on Afghanistan
I call for a new strategy in Afghanistan.

Supporting our armed forces means giving them a winning strategy. A mandate to succeed that that furthers stability, serves international security, helps the Afghan people, and that is driven by Canadian principles.

On the one hand, we have Jack Layton saying leave and damn the consequences. And on the other, we have Stephen Harper saying stay, and damn the consequences. I think that is a dereliction of duty in both cases.

In August, I called for a re-evaluation of what amounts to a long term losing strategy in Afghanistan, changing into one that would be a proper mandate for our armed services, the Afghani people and Canadian principles. If NATO fails to change the strategy, Canada should pull out of the war in Afghanistan.

It is now clear, Afghanistan faces three interlinked crises: an opium crisis, a development crisis and a security crisis. The international community and the Afghani people must deal with the opium and development crises before lasting security can become reality.

Last year's crop was worth $2.7 billion at export, or 52 per cent of the GDP, representing a 20 per cent increase in poppy planting and a record for the biggest crop in Afghanistan's history, according to the United Nations.
Revenues from opium crops fund the Taliban's operations against international forces. Additionally, without economic alternatives the allegiance of local populations shifts support away from the international community and towards Taliban insurgent factions that capitalize on growing economic desperation.
The biggest failure in Afghanistan to date has been the way the international community has alienated the Afghani people. We cannot win the hearts and minds unless we are helping to fill stomachs and creating a sense of trust in future stability.

Little has been achieved to relieve the extreme poverty of the majority of the rural population, even where there is no insurgent threat. The substantial efforts and vast amounts of funds provided for the stability and security of the country have not been matched by comparable measures in terms of development.
Despite being the world's main front in the war against terrorism, Afghanistan has so far received less per capita reconstruction and security assistance than all other recent post-conflict countries. Only $75 per capita has been pledged for this year, and this figure will slide down to $42 per capita for the next five years.
In the past five years, our troops have undeniably contributed to the short term security of the afgan peo-ple and the developing government. We have done this tour of duty however, and the further cost and risk can only be justified if there are clear indications that we are building a civil society alongside the afghani people, not simply occupying a troublesome part of the world.
By focusing solely on military objectives in Afghanistan, Prime Minister Harper is making the same mis-takes that the Bush administration made in Iraq and it will lead to similar long-term failure.

The only way we can justify staying in Afghanistan is if we can create a mandate for real success.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Wezil
Cronos - Generally considered 'left' (ran a food bank). I don'y know his opinion on Afghanistan but the link below might say.

For those interested in the candidates/race:

http://www.liberal.ca/leadership2006_e.aspx

thanks Wezil!

[CrONoS]

Ignatieff
On Afghanistan

I`m proud to have the support of a great Canadian soldier, Romeo Dallaire, who is here today. But let`s remember what happened when we sent him to Rwanda in 1994. Traditional Canadian peace-keeping met its Waterloo in Rwanda. For weeks, brave Canadians had to watch helplessly as 800,000 people were senselessly killed. Dallaire wanted to stop it: but he lacked the equipment, the armament and the rules of engagement to do so. The Liberal government, indeed all Canadians, vowed we would never allow this to happen again. We are in Afghanistan to keep that promise.

But make no mistake. When I supported the renewal of the Afghan mission I did not give the Harper government a blank cheque. The Conservatives must remain consistent with the Liberal mission and the mission must continue to serve Canadian objectives. We are nobody else’s auxiliaries. As I said in the House of Commons, if Harper changes course and the mission loses sight of its humanitarian goals, I will hold the Harper government to account."

on Iraq

Why did I care about this? Because I had been there: I had spent three weeks in northern Iraq in 1992 and I had been to Halabja, where Saddam dropped poison gas on the Kurds; I had toured the Kurdish villages he had dynamited; I had interviewed the widows of the men he had taken away and tortured to death. So I was certain of one thing: Saddam had to go.

People said to me there are lots of genocidal tyrants, and beside, this one had a green light from the Reagan and Bush administrations to wage war on the Iranians and they turned a blind eye to genocidal massacre. To which I replied: Yes there are a lot of tyrants out there, and yes, this one had American support for years, but what is that supposed to prove? That we do nothing today, because we were guilty yesterday? My view then-and now-is that if you want to defend human rights, and you'd rather wait until your hands are clean, you'll wait for ever. Of course, the Americans have been complicit in tyranny and genocide. So have a lot of regimes. Waiting for pure motives and clean hands just means preferring the moral luxury of being right to the moral burden of getting the job done.

But then people said to me: this isn't about waiting for perfect moral agents-and George Bush certainly is never going to be a perfect moral agent-this is a matter of judging whether he cares enough about human rights to protect them once he has invaded the country. If he really doesn't care about human rights, you can't trust him to manage the human rights consequences.

And the human rights consequences have been dire. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, most at the hands of a vicious insurgency.

I didn't expect much from this Administration, but I did expect competence. I did expect a plan. I did expect the soldiers would fan out and protect public buildings after they reached Baghdad. I didn't think they'd let the looters take over. I did think the Administration would have a plan for civilian administration and a rapid handover to the Iraqis. I was wrong.

I was also wrong about the weapons of mass destruction. I thought they would turn up, because the UN inspectors in the 1990's had found and destroyed a genuinely frightening arsenal. But I was fooled: the UN inspectors had actually destroyed what was there. He didn't have anything else.
I made these two mistakes-and they've taught me prudence for the future… If I stand back from my stance over Iraq, the following is clear: I made mistakes, but I know why I took the position I did: because I had been there, because I cared about Iraqis, because I knew that they wanted an escape from tyranny, and because the only way that was going to happen in anyone's lifetime was through an exercise of American force."

[Wezil]

Re: Re: CDN Politics - Liberal Leadership race

Originally posted by Kontiki


Did he bail him out or cut him off at the knees? Sure, it takes some of the heat off Ignatieff during the Liberal debates, but it also steals some of his thunder and what would have been a key platform position for him. The Conservatives are most worried about Ignatieff winning because they've always felt (understandably) that he represents their greatest threat. All-in-all, I'd say a good piece of politicking by Harper, despite what you might think of the proposal itself.

Bailed him out. The debate over 'nation' threatened to plunge the Liberals back into a constitutional morass that divides the party (3 of the Liberal candidates voted against the "nation" resolution as you may know). Harpers motion took the issue off the convention agenda. Until Harper gave him out I would have guessed Rae to be the Liberal pick. Now they will go with Ignatieff (IMHO).

I don't think the Conservatives see Iggy as the biggest threat. His prolonged absence from the country, his 'right wing' views on foreign conflicts (Iraq and Afghanistan), and his lack of political common sense (see the "nation" proposal) will make him a very easy target for Conservatives.

Rae on the other hand has serious political experience and is a formidable debater with an ability to reach the 'common man'. Additionally he has the ability to garner votes from the NDP which the Libs will need to upset Harper. Ignatieff would have to try to steal Conservative votes (the Dippers hate him) which is a much tougher prospect.

Much is made of Rae's time as premier of Ontario. I lived through the era and can attest he was an unmitigated disaster. Remember however, Rae was elected premier by default - we detested the alternatives. I see history repeating itself.

[Flubber]

I believe that Rae as leader would be the greatest gift the Liberals could give to the Conservatives. His record in Ontario as an NDP premier should hurt him badly in Ontario and won't change a thing in the West