1. Caucus didn't support her. Her first decision--does she keep her
promise and shove a snap election down her caucus's throat? Or does she break her first promise?
2. Pick another fight with the teachers, so she has something other than herself to campaign on? Does she keep another promise (lobby the feds to reverse Toseko Lake decision) and pick a fight with First Nations?
3. Does she borrow some plaid shirts from Gordon Campbell for when
ventures into the interior? Jeans and a Cowboy hat for the Williams Lake Stampede?
I still say: She will be a disaster.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Today's Leadership Contest--In a Nutshell
Christy Clark and Kevin Falcon are potentially polarizing figures who could split the Liberal anti-NDP coalition, with Clark encouraging the Conservative/Interior faction to think separation; and Falcon loosening up middle of the road liberals for the NDP.
Abbott and De Jong are a bit dull but will hold the centre. As I said back on December 17, De Jong would probably make the best premier, but (as I said back on November 28) Abbott is the best compromise choice. Abbott is not only the 'insider' who is most distanced from Campbell and the HST, but is also the only candidate from the interior of the province, which held court under the Bennetts and has felt marginalized under the Liberals.
Clark is obviously the best (most colourful) media personality of the bunch, but you could have said the same of Bill Vander Zalm and Glen Clark. She shares their automatic, egotistical quality--she cannot help being herself. And she lacks Campbell's business experience or industry and intellectual curiosity about policy, which means she wouldn't profit from the same long learning curve as Campbell, even if the electorate afforded her that opportunity (which it won't).
20 people in cabinet--not one supported Clark
12-13 women in caucus--not one supported Clark
47 people in the Liberal caucus--only one supported Clark (somebody named "Harry Bloy").
I still say, she will be a disaster as premier. You read it here first.
Abbott and De Jong are a bit dull but will hold the centre. As I said back on December 17, De Jong would probably make the best premier, but (as I said back on November 28) Abbott is the best compromise choice. Abbott is not only the 'insider' who is most distanced from Campbell and the HST, but is also the only candidate from the interior of the province, which held court under the Bennetts and has felt marginalized under the Liberals.
Clark is obviously the best (most colourful) media personality of the bunch, but you could have said the same of Bill Vander Zalm and Glen Clark. She shares their automatic, egotistical quality--she cannot help being herself. And she lacks Campbell's business experience or industry and intellectual curiosity about policy, which means she wouldn't profit from the same long learning curve as Campbell, even if the electorate afforded her that opportunity (which it won't).
20 people in cabinet--not one supported Clark
12-13 women in caucus--not one supported Clark
47 people in the Liberal caucus--only one supported Clark (somebody named "Harry Bloy").
I still say, she will be a disaster as premier. You read it here first.
Monday, February 21, 2011
The sad irony of Conservative personal attack ads
The early poll results from Globe-CTV News following the recent Conservative government blitz of negative personal attack ads have confirmed my worst fears: that audacious and disingenuous negative personal attack ads outside the confines of an election campaign have not been rejected as un-Canadian, but swallowed as completely as if we were a bunch of NASCAR-crazed FOX-TV addicts from Mississippi.
This is sad, not because Conservatives are again leading the Liberals, but because of why they are leading the Liberals. It is because Mr. Igantieff's reputation has suffered, even though he has had no new scandals, and not because of the Tories' recent policy announcements.
It is also ironic--because the message---that Mr. Ignatieff is somehow too American and too selfish for spending all that time at Harvard--- is too hypocritical to take seriously. Conservatives are not only succeeding in Americanizing our political discourse, they are painting the kettle black.
This is sad, not because Conservatives are again leading the Liberals, but because of why they are leading the Liberals. It is because Mr. Igantieff's reputation has suffered, even though he has had no new scandals, and not because of the Tories' recent policy announcements.
It is also ironic--because the message---that Mr. Ignatieff is somehow too American and too selfish for spending all that time at Harvard--- is too hypocritical to take seriously. Conservatives are not only succeeding in Americanizing our political discourse, they are painting the kettle black.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)