1. Nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure
Ignatieff was doing well in the polls until he threatened to force an election; his current standing seems more to be a reaction to that than to any underlying problems with his image. Consider this: every criticism of Ignatieff would appear very different if our polls were better. For example: I keep hearing the complaint that he takes too much time off, but if the polls were better this would likely be ignored - or maybe even seen as a benefit (he knows how to pace himself, etc).
2. Third up at bat can't afford to strike out
After two failed leaders (Paul Martin and Stephane Dion) who we booted out early in their terms, we got the Number One pick of our party. If we boot him out, we become a national joke. No matter how good Number Four is, he would come in with an impossible legacy. We must stick with Ignatieff.
3. We know who Ignatieff is
We all knew, right from the first day of his first leadership campaign, that Ignatieff has no experience in politics. He was the number one pick of the party in both leadership campaigns. We wanted him and now we can't act surprised that he has a learning curve.
We also knew that Ignatieff is a brilliant thinker with the potential to transform longstanding problems in our country. He has a depth and scope of understanding that we have never had before. In a couple of years, if we can get him elected, he might do magnificent things. I'm thinking about Quebec, first nations, and our role in the world.
4. Responsibility for our current state does not lie solely with the leadership
We Liberals have to look to ourselves for a lot of the responsibility. Many of us seem to be fair weather fans who only support the team when we're winning. The party needs money. You get most of your donation back in a tax credit at tax time. You want the party to be more effective in opposing Harper? Donate here.
14 comments:
We wanted him? No we didn't. He went into his first leadership race as the front runner only to be rejected by the party. He went into his second leadership race as the front runner and then circumvented the democratic process to make sure he wasn't rejected a second time. And there is no doubt in my mind he would have been rejected again. Liberals have never wanted Igantieff as their leader.
Hi Anonymous 12:31 -
Your point is another valid way of looking at what happened, I guess. My take is that he had the most delegate support in the first leadership race, and in the second race the other candidates dropped out because they didn't have a chance of winning.
I was an extremely vocal Rae supporter, but I agreed when he dropped out of the second race. I agreed because he didn't have the support in the party. And Rae was the only contender to Ignatieff. So I think, if you don't accept that Liberals wanted Ignatieff, that at least you have to agree that there was noone else they wanted more.
Rae had no chance of winning because the Ignatieff team, with the backing of bunch full of idiots on the LPC executive, successfully re-engineered the rules so that it was impossible for anyone to win but Ignatieff. And I contend those decisions were unconstitutional. Had a constitutional leadership race been held Ignatieff would certainly have lost. He is, as we have seen, error prone. He would have screwed up just like he did the first time around. And as we have seen, Rae has proven himself extremely adept at handling himself in spontaneous and stressful situations. Ignatieff would have gone down in flames the second time just as he had the first time.
When did we 'boot' Paul Martin out of the Leadership of the Party? He resigned on election night.
Igs didn't go down in flames the first time. He would probably have won if not for three things: the deal between Dion and Kennedy; the characteristics of Kennedy supporters (young men who were willing to move their vote where he directed); and the timing of Kennedy's throwing his support to Dion. There was a chance that Rae would have won the last ballot from his second place position, but he _was_ in second place.
I attended some Ignatieff speeches in the first campaign. I found some of his gestures to be amateurish (finger wagging, in particular), but his speeches to be very good. They were certainly well received. In fact he was treated like a rock star.
Dion resigned too. It doesn't mean he wasn't pushed.
Yes Yappa, Ignatieff would have won the first time if those delegates you mentioned didn't vote for Dion. But that's how a delegated convention works, whomever the majority of the delegates vote for becomes leader. Ignatieff started out the strongest and crashed and burned - he lost. He would have lost second time as well. Liberals accept him as leader but only a minority are endeared by his leadership.
In fairness MI is just now starting to find his comfort zone. Let's not forget, he is a deep thinker, and as such things take a little longer. 2010 can still be the year of Iggymania and the LPC. Be patient. Please.
I don't know why everyone is commenting anonymously today ;-) but 3:31, I'm with you. I think we need more patience: more emphasis on the war and less on the battle.
I believe that Ignatieff will now be rebuilding the party and increasing our polling numbers by a small amount each month. Recovery, for the Liberals anyway, has started!
As a female Kennedy delegate (and there were many of us!!!), I am sick and tired of inaccurate writings about why so many Kennedy delegates supported Dion. If Kennedy supported Rae, I would not have followed, if Kennedy supported Ignatieff, I would not have followed. Dion was the best
2nd choice at the time and I made up my own mind- thank you very much.
'if Kennedy supported Ignatieff, I would not have followed. Dion was the best'
And now anonymous have you learned from your mistake?
I think a lot of Liberals realize that Ignatieff was the best choice after all.
I agree... I think Ignatieff will turn out to be a great prime minister. As to his low poll ratings, his ratings were great until he threatened to call an election, and they'll go up again.
Post a Comment