CanPol - The Sad Story of Stephane Dion

[Wezil]

VG- I take your position to be that of "too little, too late". I'm not sure a buildup of troop strength will solve the problem at this point. It may have several years ago but I get the impression everyone is just biding their time now. Even Karzai's gov partners (I suspect) will knife him at the first opportunity. The "hearts and minds" battle was lost.

Pushing the Taliban into the mountains wouldn't even have been a victory. They can wait. It is their home.

[Wezil]

Back on topic:

Sheila Copps says it is Iggy's doing...

Dion needs all Liberals under one tent

By SHEILA COPPS




The Liberal civil war has officially started. With party-inflicted land mines exploding in the face of leader Stephane Dion, history seems to be repeating itself.

The opening salvo came from former Outremont Member of Parliament and key Michael Ignatieff supporter, Jean Lapierre. Lapierre minced no words in blaming Dion and his entourage for all aspects of the defeat, including a haphazard local organization. Lapierre said when his own departure provoked the byelection, the riding bank account was full and more than 1,000 volunteers were ready to go.

Methinks he doth protest too much.

If Dion alone is to blame, why did Lapierre limp to such a tepid victory in the last general election? This time, Liberal star nominee Jocelyn Coulon, with 29% of the popular vote, was trounced while Lapierre eked out victory with 35%.

A better local organization could definitely have bridged a 6% gap. But that would have done nothing to send an Outremont Liberal to Parliament. The unforeseen change since the last election was the absolute collapse of the Bloc and the surge in New Democratic vote.



A precipitous 19-point drop in Bloc support went almost exclusively to the New Democratic Party, which trounced the Liberals by almost 20 points.

Good, bad or indifferent, the local organization would not have changed the outcome. Complaints about when the Grit candidate was nominated were similarly unfounded. When a candidate loses by such a large margin, knocking on doors for three more months won't make any difference.

So why would Lapierre, now a television journalist, even bother to wade into the Liberal war? Lapierre, an astute politician with a keen political nose, has been at the centre of almost every Quebec political battle since he entered politics in 1979. One of the youngest ministers named by former Prime Minister John Turner, Lapierre served only a few days before his leader launched the ill-fated 1984 election. An anti-Trudeau Grit, he aligned himself early with 1990 leadership aspirant Paul Martin and bolted the party to create the Bloc Quebecois when Jean Chretien won.

Martin's ultimate ascendance to the top job in 2003 lured Lapierre back into politics. He left a lucrative media sector career to become Martin's Quebec lieutenant, forcing out popular Outremont MP Martin Cauchon in the process. He hoped to ride the Martin wave to a majority in a relatively safe seat. But the riding fight, like Martin's own battle, was tough, and he ultimately scraped through. Promising to remain in Parliament whatever the outcome, Lapierre resigned less than two months after the Dion win.

Lapierre opposed Dion, as someone who was out of step with Quebec's nationalist aspirations. He was especially dismissive of Dion's Clarity Act, calling it "useless." Lapierre preferred the Ignatieff proposal for Quebec nationhood. It was that very resolution that plagued the Ignatieff campaign and paved the way for a surprise Dion victory. During the leadership campaign, a group of worried Quebec MPs under Lapierre's leadership threatened to resign en masse in the face of a Dion win, on the grounds he did not understand their province. In the end, some resigned, and others were defeated. Most Ignatieff Quebec backers never rallied to Dion.

Just like Martin, Ignatieff runs the risk of exacerbating Liberal troubles by claiming loyalty while privately getting others to do his dirty work. Such internecine warfare would also be deadly to his own leadership ambitions, consigning the Grits to opposition status in the foreseeable future.

STAUNCH THE BLEEDING

With a byelection bump for the New Democrats, Dion needs to move quickly before a trend line develops. He must first staunch the bleeding by gathering all good Liberals under one tent. Second, he needs bold moves on liberal policy initiatives. If he cannot out-green the left, he can certainly draw a line in the sand on Afghanistan. Dion foreign policy pronouncements this week were exactly the right approach.

During the rebuilding phase, Ignatieff needs to call off his dogs. Supporters should be told in no uncertain terms they need to get behind their current leader -- now.

If they don't, and more voices of criticism and dissent follow, Liberals will be digging their own graves. With the NDP surging on the left and the Tories steady on the right, the last thing the Liberals need is a frontal assault on their own.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Wezil
VG- I take your position to be that of "too little, too late". I'm not sure a buildup of troop strength will solve the problem at this point. It may have several years ago but I get the impression everyone is just biding their time now. Even Karzai's gov partners (I suspect) will knife him at the first opportunity. The "hearts and minds" battle was lost.

This may be quite true, I have not revised my position in quite some time. Then again it might not be, I have no idea what Afghanistan looks like.

Pushing the Taliban into the mountains wouldn't even have been a victory. They can wait. It is their home.

Pushing them there then doing some reconstruction would have been though. Or really anything that would get people used to the idea of not having a Taliban.

[- Groucho -]

Us liberals are in a world of hurt at the moment. Ignatieff lost the last convention, IMHO, because of the knee-jerk anti-american/leftist bias of a big chunk of the conventioneers. He lived in the US, is pro-military intervention (which is seen by many as being pro-US) and is known on the world stage (which offends many Canadian parochialists because if the rest of the world knows who you are somehow you're not trustworthy anymore). Therefore the idjit convetioneers had to find anyone but him. And they found Dion.

Dion won because his campaign manager was exceedingly good at taking advantage of the foregoing.

Dion did not win because of any perceived ability at running the party/country. He just wasn't Ignatieff and that was good enough.

(Disclosure - I was pro-Ignatieff during the convention and am a member of the party, in case you haven't guessed)

Flash forward from convention to now and we've got Dion sucking at running the party and Ignatieff too wounded from the convention massacre to ever achieve anything more than a grudging shot at leadership (the knives would be out) and Sheila Copps (?!?!) writing op-ed pieces that pour gas on the flames of party divisiveness.

I think the libs won't be voting down the throne speech for the simple reason that we know we can't mount an effective campaign for months still and we would be idiots to try.

Aside - When I saw Bob Rae being touted as a serious candidate for the Liberal leadership, I couldn't choose between laughing or crying. The man isn't a Liberal!

[- Groucho -]

On the Afghanistan question:

I'm not in favour of withdrawal in 2009. And I think the reason for staying is self-obvious. You can't tell the world you're going to sort out the mess Afghanistan had become, invade, kick out its leaders, trigger a massive refugee crisis, destroy much of the infrastructure they had left after decades of strife and then say, Ooops, this is harder than I thought - we're going home.

That would be completely immoral. Granted, Afghanistan was a mess before we got there, but it is our mess now.

[Wezil]

Thanks for posting Groucho. Your perspective from inside the party was lacking.

Originally posted by - Groucho -
Us liberals are in a world of hurt at the moment. Ignatieff lost the last convention, IMHO, because of the knee-jerk anti-american/leftist bias of a big chunk of the conventioneers. He lived in the US, is pro-military intervention (which is seen by many as being pro-US) and is known on the world stage (which offends many Canadian parochialists because if the rest of the world knows who you are somehow you're not trustworthy anymore). Therefore the idjit convetioneers had to find anyone but him. And they found Dion.

I think this mattered more if you were from Quebec than Ontario. Where do you live if I may ask?

Dion won because his campaign manager was exceedingly good at taking advantage of the foregoing.

Dion did not win because of any perceived ability at running the party/country. He just wasn't Ignatieff and that was good enough.

What about the percieved need to "heal" the party (whatever that really means) inside Quebec after Adscam? Was Dion not seen as the best to do that?

(Disclosure - I was pro-Ignatieff during the convention and am a member of the party, in case you haven't guessed)

That's okay, I'm obviously not. This is OT. You may take some heat from some non-Libs though.

Flash forward from convention to now and we've got Dion sucking at running the party and Ignatieff too wounded from the convention massacre to ever achieve anything more than a grudging shot at leadership (the knives would be out) and Sheila Copps (?!?!) writing op-ed pieces that pour gas on the flames of party divisiveness.

They are in a world of hurt. Dion can't beat a vulnerable Harper and the old wounds will not go away. Copps is obviously not the most unbiased source but on some topics I take her more seriously than others. When she starts to air Liberal dirty laundry I listen. She knows what closets the skeletons are in, she knows how the Liberal machine works, and to some extent, I think she still has a score to settle (your above mentioned gas). As a non-Lib it makes great reading.

I think the libs won't be voting down the throne speech for the simple reason that we know we can't mount an effective campaign for months still and we would be idiots to try.

That appears to be the consensus view. Somehow, someway, enough Liberals will vote in favour to avoid an election. I don't personally think they will get killed in a General Election, but they obviously wouldn't make any ground.

Aside - When I saw Bob Rae being touted as a serious candidate for the Liberal leadership, I couldn't choose between laughing or crying. The man isn't a Liberal!

Again, I am curious what province you are from. I lived through the Rae Regime in Ontario. I still wake up in sweats.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by - Groucho -
On the Afghanistan question:

I'm not in favour of withdrawal in 2009. And I think the reason for staying is self-obvious. You can't tell the world you're going to sort out the mess Afghanistan had become, invade, kick out its leaders, trigger a massive refugee crisis, destroy much of the infrastructure they had left after decades of strife and then say, Ooops, this is harder than I thought - we're going home.

That would be completely immoral. Granted, Afghanistan was a mess before we got there, but it is our mess now.

Appreciated. NYE has a similar view as you probably noticed.

I feel no responsibility in any way to a nation that attacked us. Anything done for their benefit would be charity and if we are about doing good, I think there are many far more worthy recipients. In addition, they don't want us. I'm sure somebody, somewhere is asking for our humanitarian help.

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by Wezil
I feel no responsibility in any way to a nation that attacked us.

But Afghanistan didn't attack us. The Taliban gave aid and succour (isn't that how it is usually described?) to an entity that attacked our ally. The Afghani people != the Taliban. As you'll recall, the Taliban had to invade the North and Central parts of Afghanistan to bring them under their rule by force. Those people have just been the punching bags in all of this and we've, for better or worse, taken responsibility for them.

Originally posted by Wezil
... and if we are about doing good, I think there are many far more worthy recipients. In addition, they don't want us. I'm sure somebody, somewhere is asking for our humanitarian help.

But a lot of them do want us. Or at least they want the bullets to stop flying around and if we can help with that they want us to do so. The polling in Afghanistan is obviously not done under the best circumstances, but even on its face it isn't clear that the Afghanis want us to leave. They just want their kids to go to school, to be able to have a wedding without it getting shot up, be able to drive to the next town without getting blown up etc. etc. When they are asked if they want foreigners to leave, the majority says yes, but a big chunk of that majority are Taliban sympathisers - do they count when their goal in getting NATO to leave is so they can start cutting off smokers' fingers etc. again? And does the question ask, "Do you want them to leave even if the consequence is the Taliban back in power?"

As for whether there are more deserving candidates for aid elsewhere, I'm sure there are arguments to say so. But we're in Afghanistan and we have a moral obligation not to just leave and let slip the hounds of war. Darfur is an awful mess. But we've already made a commitment. If we dropped Afghanistan for Darfur on a "relative need" argument, does that mean that we would also drop Darfur if something even worse came along? At some point you have to stick to your commitments, otherwise they aren't commitments.

[Wezil]

Yes, I understand the distinction between AQ and the Taliban gov that supported them, but the "attack" that spurred NATO was deemed to have come from Af-. As an alliance we decided they (the Af- state) had attacked hence the response.

While of course the Taliban are not the whole of the Af- people they do come from the dominant Pashtun tribe. The same group, not surprisingly, that is determined to fight us rather than allow the form of state we would like to establish.

[- Groucho -]

I think this mattered more if you were from Quebec than Ontario. Where do you live if I may ask?

I live in Coquitlam - just outside Vancouver. Knee-jerk anti-americanism is alive and well on this coast as well.

What about the percieved need to "heal" the party (whatever that really means) inside Quebec after Adscam? Was Dion not seen as the best to do that?

I honestly believe that was just window dressing. None of the serious contenders for leadership had Adscam connections. Remember how the convention went, Dion came from third to win on the strength of the anti-Ignatieff sentiment that lead to his coalition with Kennedy and then Rae. When those two dropped, the vast majority of their support went to Dion but there was no impassioned "Lets heal after Adscam" speech to tie that to. In fact, his addresses to the convention were pretty uninspired (as were Ignatieff's if I'm being honest). The biggest factor I could see was that he was not Ignatieff. Kennedy and Rae both represent the left of the party, and the left of the party was having none of Ignatieff. When K and R dropped, the left had no where else to go but Dion.

[Wezil]

Yes, the other issues were at play (and I'll concede may be more important) but it was the fact Dion was from Quebec and wasn't directly linked to Adscam I was getting at.

[- Groucho -]

On Afghanistan:

The Pashtun tribe is the largest, but pre-invasion they only represented 36% of the population of the country and now they are estimated by the CIA to be 42% - sources: CIA worldfactbook and wikipedia (which cites Encyclopedia Iranica). So when you say "dominant" it leaves the impression that they are the majority. 60% or so of Afghanis are not Pashtun, and not all Pashtun are Taliban supporters.

On a more general note, the biggest problem I see for us in Afghanistan is tribalism. The country has been so shattered by decades of war that I have to wonder if there is an "Afghanistan" in the sense of a unified people anymore. It just seems to be a bunch of tribes that live in the area that isn't Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan.

Perhaps the answer is partition? Not that that process went all that smoothly in India (extreme understatement), but if you can't get them all to agree on one form of government, maybe you break off the south and start again with two countries?

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by Wezil
Yes, the other issues were at play (and I'll concede may be more important) but it was the fact Dion was from Quebec and wasn't directly linked to Adscam I was getting at.

I'm sure there was some of that in the mix. It's tough to win a majority without some way of extracting votes in Quebec. But I'm hoping my fellow liberals aren't so uninformed as to think that just being from Quebec is sufficient to make you popular in Quebec. I read someone after the convention who quipped "Congratulations, Liberals, on unifying the country. You've managed to pick the only candidate who is equally disliked in both English and French Canada."

[Wezil]

I made a General Election bet with a couple posters here following Dion's ascension. I didn't put my avatar on Dion.

[Seeker]

Whatever happened to those old Northern Alliance Tajiks who fought the Pashtun Taliban for years?

I seem to remember them getting snazzy new uniforms and then...?

Maybe they should be fighting in the mountains in their own country while we do a support role.