Random Thoughts on Leadership Forum
Note: I support Stéphane Dion in the leadership race. I'll be explaining why soon - in the next few days anyway. Meanwhile, I wanted to make it clear, so that you feel free to accuse me of bias in his favour. I have not at all, however, made up my mind as to an eventual second choice, so I think I am relatively unbiased when comparing the other candidates.
Note #2: I have missed a part of the debate, but I have seen most of the 2 and a half hours.
Note #3: I realised, upon re-reading my post, that due to my rush to finish it yeasterday, it contained typing mistakes. I have corrected them now.
So there go my random thoughts on some of the candidates' performance, in no particular order:
Ken Dryden: Boring... we've been warned about that. And his French is really bad. His opening statement, though, was actualy among the best (even though you'd think that's where a boring candidate gets the best opportunity to show just how boring he/she is). I really liked his sentence "We don't write off!". An eventual campaign slogan?
Maurizio Bevilacqua: I was impressed by him. Perhaps because I didn't expect much. The emphasis on economics is welcome, because it's an important subject and no other candidate (perhaps except Scott Brison to some extent) seems to talk about it at any length. I liked his comment to the effect that we can't send soldiers to build democracy in Afghanistan after an undemocratic pseudo-debate in the House of Commons. His French is pretty good.
Stéphane Dion: He was the one who gave the most policy details whether on equalisation or foreign aid etc, if not the only one. He spoke too quickly, but it was at least partly to try to fit some substance in the 90-second speaking times. His English seems to be better than a few months ago - but that might be wishful thinking on my part. Still, it was not bad.
Bob Rae: Nice, serious, bilingual... why hasn't he become a Liberal a few years ago at least? Maybe next time...
Gerrard Kennedy: Too much of a social activist to my liking. I might not have heard correctly, but he seemed to have said (answering the EI question) something like "What's important is not access to jobs, and income, but to dignity". If he did say this, I really don't like him. Having a decent job is a big part of human dignity - at least for someone who wants to work (which most people do). Telling people "yeah you're poor, but it's ok 'cause I love and care for you" is simply hypocrite. I hope I misheard him. In any case, he's not what I want a future Prime Minister of Canada to be like. And his French is not good enough. It's not his wife that's important - it's he. And he still has a lot of work to do.
Scott Brison: Not bad... except for the NYT comment, which was really stupid... like the Blackberry gaffe. If the man has a tendency to do silly things from time to time, he shouldn't be our leader. His French is not aweful, but it's clearly unsatisfactory.
Michael Ignatieff: VERY STUPID explanation for his vote on Afghanistan. Even Brison's was better. The question was a very serious one, and a guy who is supposed to be supremely intelligent should not have been deciding it based on the reason Republicans give us because they want to avoid us to think. In general, Ignatieff has disappointed me. I knew I disagreed with him a lot, but I thought he'd still make me proud as a Liberal and as a Canadian if he became PM one day. I'm afraid I don't think so anymore.
Note #2: I have missed a part of the debate, but I have seen most of the 2 and a half hours.
Note #3: I realised, upon re-reading my post, that due to my rush to finish it yeasterday, it contained typing mistakes. I have corrected them now.
So there go my random thoughts on some of the candidates' performance, in no particular order:
Ken Dryden: Boring... we've been warned about that. And his French is really bad. His opening statement, though, was actualy among the best (even though you'd think that's where a boring candidate gets the best opportunity to show just how boring he/she is). I really liked his sentence "We don't write off!". An eventual campaign slogan?
Maurizio Bevilacqua: I was impressed by him. Perhaps because I didn't expect much. The emphasis on economics is welcome, because it's an important subject and no other candidate (perhaps except Scott Brison to some extent) seems to talk about it at any length. I liked his comment to the effect that we can't send soldiers to build democracy in Afghanistan after an undemocratic pseudo-debate in the House of Commons. His French is pretty good.
Stéphane Dion: He was the one who gave the most policy details whether on equalisation or foreign aid etc, if not the only one. He spoke too quickly, but it was at least partly to try to fit some substance in the 90-second speaking times. His English seems to be better than a few months ago - but that might be wishful thinking on my part. Still, it was not bad.
Bob Rae: Nice, serious, bilingual... why hasn't he become a Liberal a few years ago at least? Maybe next time...
Gerrard Kennedy: Too much of a social activist to my liking. I might not have heard correctly, but he seemed to have said (answering the EI question) something like "What's important is not access to jobs, and income, but to dignity". If he did say this, I really don't like him. Having a decent job is a big part of human dignity - at least for someone who wants to work (which most people do). Telling people "yeah you're poor, but it's ok 'cause I love and care for you" is simply hypocrite. I hope I misheard him. In any case, he's not what I want a future Prime Minister of Canada to be like. And his French is not good enough. It's not his wife that's important - it's he. And he still has a lot of work to do.
Scott Brison: Not bad... except for the NYT comment, which was really stupid... like the Blackberry gaffe. If the man has a tendency to do silly things from time to time, he shouldn't be our leader. His French is not aweful, but it's clearly unsatisfactory.
Michael Ignatieff: VERY STUPID explanation for his vote on Afghanistan. Even Brison's was better. The question was a very serious one, and a guy who is supposed to be supremely intelligent should not have been deciding it based on the reason Republicans give us because they want to avoid us to think. In general, Ignatieff has disappointed me. I knew I disagreed with him a lot, but I thought he'd still make me proud as a Liberal and as a Canadian if he became PM one day. I'm afraid I don't think so anymore.
posted by Leonid at 22:40
6 Comments:
"Kennedy is a centrist and out of the four candidates mentioned above he's the only one who I would describe as progressive-conservative."
-rightofcenterice.blogspot.com
Just saying...
And I'm not sure I totally remember but I thought he was talking about seasonal workers.
Question I keep asking everyone is: Who can put the party in the best shape financinally and organizationally for the next election?
To me that person is Ken Dryden. I understand his problems in French. Despite these of course, people in Quebec love him and he'll get better in french just as Harper did.
Kennedy was outstanding in the debate. Furthermore, he came across as the only candidate that knew how to debate. His French was very good. Dryden, Bennett and Fry were so painful in French, it hurt to sit there and watch them. You had to be in the room to catch that because transaltion was provided over their French on TV.
Kennedy is a centrist and not a social activist. Look at his 10 year political record, he is fiscally conservative but credible in all social issues as well.
I thought Gerard and Dion were clearly 1-2 in the debate. I think Kennedy takes the leadership on the 4th ballot and he makes Dion his #2 in caucus.
I was in Winnipeg for the debate and what amazed me was how almost every person I met who was supporting Dryden, Kennedy, Dion and pretty much every candidate other than Iggy HATES Iggy and will support ANYBODY but Iggy at the convention.
Unless Iggy gets 45%+ at the convention, I think he will hit a wall pretty quickly.
Thanks for the comments... especially the signed ones.
Here's a response.
Dave: I have to admit I'm even less of an expert on fundraising than on anything else. However, it would seem to me that having people fall asleep at fundraisers is not the best way to succeed. As for Dryden's French, the mere fact that he hasn't bothered to learn it during hisspell with the Habs will be used against him. And he's been in Parliament for two years now. Why is his French STILL that bad? By the way, as a McGill law student, I'd be happy to cheer for an alumnus in this race. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the right stuff, in my humble opinion.
Dan, Indievoter, anon, David: All right. Kennedy is mostly a (left-of-?)-centrist... who talks and looks like a social activist. Now, that I prefer people looking like university professors to people looking like social activists is a matter of taste (or lack thereof).
The criticism on his French remains however and, anon., I am not judging him from listening to the translation - my French is better than my English so I listened to everything in whichever language it was said in (changing channels... long live my remote!) The fact that Dryden's (or Brison's) is still worse doesn't help Kennedy in my opinion.
Ignatieff's argument in favour of the extension in Afghanistan were pathetic: a clumsy attempt to wrap himself in a sentimental flag and win over doubters with that kind of argument.
Ignatieff dealt with Harper's cunning and abusive Afghanistan debate in the same way that John Kerry dealt with Bush's rush to war in Iraq. It will haunt him for this leadership campaign.
But his policies are more flawed than just one lapse in one debate. Ignatieff's "centre of gravity" as a politician lies in the USA, not Canada.
That is what the audience at the debate and Liberals throughout the country are concerned about. Why elect a man who is more American than Canadian, to run Canada? Aren't Canadians good enough to run their own country?
Ignatieff will not win the leadership of the Liberal Party.
Post a Comment
<< Home