Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

A non-endorsement in the LPC Leadership race.

I’m still a neutral in this Liberal Leadership race, and haven’t decided yet who I’ll vote for and in what order, but I can certainly tell you who isn’t going to be on my voting ballot – Martha Hall Findlay.

Yes, she represents (or tries to represent) the centre-right in the Liberal Party, and there needs to be a conduit for those views, but she went over the line when she openly said Joyce Murray should be running for the leadership of another party due to her cooperation views with other parties – a tactic that led to the most unusual step of Liberal MP’s openly being critical of MHF (unusual in that it’s normally “anonymous Liberals” that do the criticizing).  I don’t agree with exactly everything Ms. Murray advocates either, but her wing of supporters are going to be needed to help rebuild the party – one shouldn’t be issuing statements trying to drive them away (or Ms Murray for that matter – one who holds a these-days rare title of being a Liberal MP).

This petty stuff, more then any of the other policy positions Martha Hall-Findlay holds, leads me to openly declare my resounding non-endorsement of her.

UPDATE @ 2:44 pm: As you might recall, It isn’t the first time she’s done this trying to out-Conservative the Conservatives vis-a-vis attacks. She’s already tried this with Justin Trudeau, (and failed miserably at it).

4 comments to A non-endorsement in the LPC Leadership race.

  • Jordan

    How are Joyce Murray’s policies different than Mulcair’s?

  • catherine

    I didn’t have the reaction you did to Martha’s arguments. I thought they came from the heart and expressed some legitimate concerns about Joyce’s platform and the way she is selling it.

    Joyce recently stated that the whole point of what she calls her one-time cooperation plan is to get a coalition of parties in power to implement proportional representation. Besides the obvious problem of Mulcair not going along with her plan, there is also the problem of how many Liberals and how many Canadians actually want proportional representation (as opposed to status quo or to preferential ballot, which Joyce says is no better than status quo). I am a bit surprised that PR has risen so far up on her agenda, given that Liberals strongly endorsed another option just last year, and given that many Canadians will be more concerned about the economy and other matters.

    I don’t expect either Joyce or Martha to win, so I’m more concerned about Joyce’s attacks on Justin – like her latest where she sent out a twitter saying that Justin doesn’t support electoral reform, including preferential ballot. What’s up with that? Someone on twitter called this shocking. Earlier her campaign said Trudeau was likely acting out of malice. I found that shocking. Are we in for another Chretien-Martin era?

    Among Joyce’s supporters are numerous statements that the other candidates are selfish and putting the Liberal Party above the interests of Canada. So that’s a debate one should have. Is a strong and successful Liberal Party at odds with the interests of Canada and if so, will this one-time coop plan solve that problem? But what is to debate about saying your opponent is acting with malice or saying he doesn’t support his own platform?

    • Well, you’ve ignored the fact that MHF pulled this pit-bull routine on Justin Trudeau too, or tried to. She apparently decided to ignore him after he dealt with it rather adroitly and escalated it with Ms. Murray.

      I was never going to support or vote for MHF likely anyhow, given her centre-right positions/policies.. but I certainly wasn’t going to do a “non-endorsement” until she started trying to out-Conservative the Conservatives on attack-ad stuff with JT at the one debate, and then escalated it with Ms. Murray. It says something when a former supporter of hers from 2006, MP Sgro, openly comes out and criticizes her.

      • catherine

        Yes, there was that time too. The difference I see is the MHF’s attacks have substance to them – in that case she was challenging JT on his focus on the middle class. Connecting this to his personal situation was wrong, but she did have a point beyond that.

        By contrast, Murray’s attacks never seem to have any point other than to put the other person down. What’s the point of saying JT doesn’t support pref ballot when he does? What’s the point of saying (in a snarky way during the debate) something like “nice to see you’ve changed your position” to MHF when MHF hasn’t? What’s the point of accusing JT of malice? Seem’s like these are just meant to try to get others to think less of her opponents, with no positive content.

        At least MHF’s out of line attacks (and, yes, bringing in JT’s background and questioning JM’s commitment to the LPC are definitely out of line) come in the midst of her discussing the issues and are recognizable as crossing the line, whereas with JM you either know her statements are false or, unfortunately, she is having the effect she wants of misleading you into believing something that isn’t true.

        But, ALL of these attacks are a big turnoff and I applaud you for expecting better. JT talked today about the need for more positive politics. He’s going to have his hands full just trying to get his MPs on board.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.