Tories wonder if Jason Kenney next to lead party

[jdobbin]

If he'd been here for say 5-10 years before running for the leadership maybe it would be more believable, but the fact that he was parachuted into the position shortly after returning kind of indicates why he came back in the first place.

He wasn't parachuted in. He ran as an MP in Martin's government. He ran and lost the leadership and stayed on as MP. He has been in the country since 2004. That's five years.

[punked]

He wasn't parachuted in. He ran as an MP in Martin's government. He ran and lost the leadership and stayed on as MP. He has been in the country since 2004. That's five years.

I don't know about Dobbin math but he left Harvard on August 26 2005 meaning he was in the states teaching until then, and didn't start his run for Martin until November of 2005.

[jdobbin]

I don't know about Dobbin math but he left Harvard on August 26 2005 meaning he was in the states teaching until then, and didn't start his run for Martin until November of 2005.

He was recruited in 2004 by the Liberals and bought a house in Toronto, finished his teaching assignment in the U.S. in 2005, took a job at the University of Toronto. This was the same bios that you are quoting from.

Ignatieff served the same amount of years as MP as Harper did when he became Opposition leader.

[punked]

He was recruited in 2004 by the Liberals and bought a house in Toronto, finished his teaching assignment in the U.S. in 2005, took a job at the University of Toronto. This was the same bios that you are quoting from.

Ignatieff served the same amount of years as MP as Harper did when he became Opposition leader.

Buying a house and Living in the house are two different things. So we agree he did not live in Canada until the summer of 2005.

[jdobbin]

Buying a house and Living in the house are two different things. So we agree he did not live in Canada until the summer of 2005.

His primary residence was listed as a Toronto in 2004. He lived in that house.

[punked]

His primary residence was listed as a Toronto in 2004. He lived in that house.

and flew to Boston everyday to teach? Nice.

[Wild Bill]

His primary residence was listed as a Toronto in 2004. He lived in that house.

We should perhaps be more clear here, jdobbin.

First off, we don't have a legal requirement for how much of an individual's adult life has been spent in Canada, if he wants to run for Prime Minister.

If it's legal, who's to stop him?

However, obviously some of us would lack confidence that someone who has been away for so long can relate to the problems of our country today.

Others might have confidence that a man like Ignatieff is more capable than some of rising above that limitation and doing a better job than perhaps an opponent who may have lived here longer but lacks some other strengths.

These are personal value judgements. We can all argue all day about such points till the cows come home and it won't resolve anything.

Obviously, the accusation will be made during the next campaign. It will be up to individual Canadians if they think the point is important enough to sway their vote.

Nothing said in this thread is likely to correctly predict how large numbers of Canadians will feel about the issue when asked to vote. However, it is also obvious that it WILL have some effect, one way or the other!

[Topaz]

IF you read Kenney's bio. he is more qualified to PM than Harper but I would think when bringing the Alliance and PC's together that MCKay would have first chance over the rest of the former Alliance members. There also, Prentice and may even Baird to think about.

[jdobbin]

Nothing said in this thread is likely to correctly predict how large numbers of Canadians will feel about the issue when asked to vote. However, it is also obvious that it WILL have some effect, one way or the other!

I guess that is where it will be finally decided. The Tories have been running the outsider ads for some time. In some ways it re-enforces certain attitudes about Harper in regards to negative campaigning.

[Sir Bandelot]

IF you read Kenney's bio. he is more qualified to PM than Harper but I would think when bringing the Alliance and PC's together that MCKay would have first chance over the rest of the former Alliance members. There also, Prentice and may even Baird to think about.

Good lord what a crew. I'd rather cut off my arm, before I would ever let it mark a vote in support of one of these. But then again, I won't let it vote for the other guys either. The sad state of politics in Canada

[capricorn]

The sad state of politics in Canada

Meh, in my 40 years voting in Canada, it usually boils down to picking the best of a bad lot. Nothing's changed.

[Bryan]

That was the headline. If you don't like it, talk to CTV. Maybe they are Tories.

Jennifer Ditchburn and her "unnamed sources" again? Come On.

[jdobbin]

Jennifer Ditchburn and her "unnamed sources" again? Come On.

I don't consider James Rajotte an unnamed source.

[Keepitsimple]

I don't consider James Rajotte an unnamed source.

Unless you can point out a question or quote that I missed, James Rajotte never replied to a question about whether Mr. Kenney was considering or being considered for the leader's position. The entire article is speculation based on comments about how everyone thinks Mr. Kenney is doing such a good job......and don't kid yourself Dobbin, Liberal leadership antics are still bubbling just beneath the surface. With so many people certain that Mr. Ignatieff will go back home to Harvard if he doesn't gain power soon, it's only a matter of time before the Libs start the whole process over again.

[jdobbin]

Unless you can point out a question or quote that I missed, James Rajotte never replied to a question about whether Mr. Kenney was considering or being considered for the leader's position. The entire article is speculation based on comments about how everyone thinks Mr. Kenney is doing such a good job......and don't kid yourself Dobbin, Liberal leadership antics are still bubbling just beneath the surface. With so many people certain that Mr. Ignatieff will go back home to Harvard if he doesn't gain power soon, it's only a matter of time before the Libs start the whole process over again.

No one goes on the record about leadership aspirations with a leader in place. Rajotte as talking openly about the qualities Kenney has in regards to the party.

However, the question of succession ought to be something any party thinks about when their present leader is closer to the end than to the beginning of run as head of the party.

I doubt very much that Canadian Press had to try very hard to find people positioning themselves to be thought of as the future of the party.

As for the Liberals, I haven't seen things this quiet on leadership aspirants in two decades. There are no circular firing squads. I think a lot of this is owed to Bob Rae.

[Keepitsimple]

As for the Liberals, I haven't seen things this quiet on leadership aspirants in two decades. There are no circular firing squads. I think a lot of this is owed to Bob Rae.

Nor have I seen things this quiet but as I implied - it's probably the calm before the storm. The economy is picking up - and with that, Conservative polling numbers will as well. The Liberals' hopes for ongoing economic devastation are fading fast - as is their credibility to "better manage the economy". What do you really think would happen to the Liberals if Mr. Ignatieff goes back to Harvard? I can't help but think that the public would view the party as suckers as best, fools at worst. Either way, their credibility will be non-existant - scandal and leadership-strife legacy, two leadership flops, mis-readers of the economy, etc. Granted, Mr. Ignatieff's departure is speculation - but getting closer to reality every day.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

Nor have I seen things this quiet but as I implied - it's probably the calm before the storm. The economy is picking up - and with that, Conservative polling numbers will as well. The Liberals' hopes for ongoing economic devastation are fading fast - as is their credibility to "better manage the economy".

There will be plenty to think about on managing the economy even if we see growth in this year.

In my view, Tories were showing a lack of control long before the recession hit.

What do you really think would happen to the Liberals if Mr. Ignatieff goes back to Harvard? I can't help but think that the public would view the party as suckers as best, fools at worst. Either way, their credibility will be non-existant - scandal and leadership-strife legacy, two leadership flops, mis-readers of the economy, etc. Granted, Mr. Ignatieff's departure is speculation - but getting closer to reality every day.

I think Harper is likely to go before Ignatieff. He has shown himself to be a quitter before. People who say he would be happy with another minority are probably understating the fact that no one in the party seems happy with that scenario. For Tories, it is like having your first kiss except it is with grandma and she has taken her teeth out.

[Moonbox]

I think Harper is likely to go before Ignatieff. He has shown himself to be a quitter before. People who say he would be happy with another minority are probably understating the fact that no one in the party seems happy with that scenario. For Tories, it is like having your first kiss except it is with grandma and she has taken her teeth out.

That made me laugh!

[Molly]

In my view, Tories were showing a lack of control long before the recession hit.

They are sure enjoying the free pass to run a deficit! When all those prokbarrel chickens come home to roost, I can just hear: "The (Liberal) Devils made us do it!"

Another 'dirty trick', no doubt.

[nicky10013]

Perhaps through your Liberal lens. Tell me, why hasn't anyone from these professional and immigrant groups come forward to accuse the Tories of attacking their Canadianism because of the ads about Ignatieff's absence from Canada? The accusations are a fabrication of Liberal strategists.

In some Toronto newspapers they have. Fact is, if you look at the two leaders professional qualifications, Ignatieff is more qualified hands down. He has taught at Oxford, Harvard and has been a journalist in the UK and abroad (covered the war and genocide in Yugoslavia). IF anyone understands the way the world works and how Canada should interact in the globe, it's probably Ignatieff. In the end, the world is globalizing at a rapid pace and being around matters less and less when one can keep up with national headlines and problems daily. The fact that the conservatives have become so anti-intellectual shows that they understand that this is Ignatieff's strength and need to turn it into a weakness by simply declaring that he didn't live in Canada and therefore isn't worthy as a Canadian leader. Understandably, this works to the conservative base and people who don't know much about Ignatieff.

Though being outside of Canada could be looked upon as a detriment, the fact is the issues we face as a country today aren't that much different from those faced by other countries in terms of economics and national unity. The fact that he spent his entire life (whether in Canada or out of it) lecturing on these issues shows that he has a greater ability to produce a plan towards a possible solution (lets be honest, everything we face is a long term problem).

Finally, the way the anti-Liberal hatred on this site is espoused is absolutely appalling. Everything anti-Harper is Liberal fabricated lies. I even saw one post to the effect of calling Liberals gutter dwelling vermin. All Canadians of every stripe, whether we agree with them or not, is trying to do what's best for Canada. There's no need for this propaganda. We can disagree without bringing up these extremely disturbing stereotypes. I'm currently reading Saul Friedländer's Nazi Germany and the Jews. Without trying to sound too dramatic (which is impossible when making a reference of this kind), some posts you could substitute liberals with jews and things read here would be absolutely Hitler-esque, which to me is infintely disturbing as to how much of a divide there is between left and right now-a-days. It used to be that the Liberals and Conservatives were essentially the same party with some differences here and there. Now, the discontent being fostered by many is leading to this kind of garbage.

Edited August 7, 2009 by nicky10013

[Bonam]

In some Toronto newspapers they have. Fact is, if you look at the two leaders professional qualifications, Ignatieff is more qualified hands down. He has taught at Oxford, Harvard and has been a journalist in the UK and abroad (covered the war and genocide in Yugoslavia).

How does any of this experience relate to his ability to lead? I'd be more impressed if he had been, for example, a CEO of a successful company.

IF anyone understands the way the world works and how Canada should interact in the globe, it's probably Ignatieff.

I see little justification for this statement, though I do agree that Ignatieff's thoughts on foreign policy, where he has articulated them in a non-partisan manner, are mostly quite sensible.

In the end, the world is globalizing at a rapid pace and being around matters less and less when one can keep up with national headlines and problems daily.

Agreed.

The fact that the conservatives have become so anti-intellectual shows that they understand that this is Ignatieff's strength and need to turn it into a weakness by simply declaring that he didn't live in Canada and therefore isn't worthy as a Canadian leader. Understandably, this works to the conservative base and people who don't know much about Ignatieff.

I agree, accusations of not having lived enough in Canada are irrelevant. However, I don't see the conservatives as "anti-intellectual".

Though being outside of Canada could be looked upon as a detriment, the fact is the issues we face as a country today aren't that much different from those faced by other countries in terms of economics and national unity. The fact that he spent his entire life (whether in Canada or out of it) lecturing on these issues shows that he has a greater ability to produce a plan towards a possible solution (lets be honest, everything we face is a long term problem).

Again, lecturing on issues and being able to come up with a viable, successful, plan are two entirely different things, and require entirely different skillsets. Academics and businessmen are very different kinds of people, with strengths in different areas. I know many excellent professors, and while some of them may also have made good leaders, they are definitely the exception, not the rule.

Finally, the way the anti-Liberal hatred on this site is espoused is absolutely appalling. Everything anti-Harper is Liberal fabricated lies. I even saw one post to the effect of calling Liberals gutter dwelling vermin.

I agree, the partisanship on this site is excessive, just as it is in parliament. Our supposedly mature, intelligent (laugh), politicians spend time hurling insults, booing, and yelling at each other. This is a symptom of our flawed, partisan, political system.

All Canadians of every stripe, whether we agree with them or not, is trying to do what's best for Canada. There's no need for this propaganda. We can disagree without bringing up these extremely disturbing stereotypes. I'm currently reading Saul Friedländer's Nazi Germany and the Jews. Without trying to sound too dramatic (which is impossible when making a reference of this kind), some posts you could substitute liberals with jews and things read here would be absolutely Hitler-esque

An exaggeration.

which to me is infintely disturbing as to how much of a divide there is between left and right now-a-days. It used to be that the Liberals and Conservatives were essentially the same party with some differences here and there. Now, the discontent being fostered by many is leading to this kind of garbage.

They are still the "same party with some differences here and there". The actual differences in policy are minimal. What would Ignatieff have done differently than Harper in the last little while? Maybe had a slightly bigger stimulus package? Maybe increased EI by a few more weeks or something? Big deal. The differences are always exaggerated and dramatized by the politicians, the media, and the hardcore party supporters, to our detriment.

[Keepitsimple]

Finally, the way the anti-Liberal hatred on this site is espoused is absolutely appalling. Everything anti-Harper is Liberal fabricated lies. I even saw one post to the effect of calling Liberals gutter dwelling vermin. All Canadians of every stripe, whether we agree with them or not, is trying to do what's best for Canada. There's no need for this propaganda. We can disagree without bringing up these extremely disturbing stereotypes. I'm currently reading Saul Friedländer's Nazi Germany and the Jews. Without trying to sound too dramatic (which is impossible when making a reference of this kind), some posts you could substitute liberals with jews and things read here would be absolutely Hitler-esque, which to me is infintely disturbing as to how much of a divide there is between left and right now-a-days. It used to be that the Liberals and Conservatives were essentially the same party with some differences here and there. Now, the discontent being fostered by many is leading to this kind of garbage.

You're entitled to gush over Mr. Ignatieff but your final comments are as humerous as they are in error. You're a new member so perhaps you've mixed up your boards or just haven't read through the postings on this board. Pick any of the topics in which the subject is Mr. Ignatieff and I think you'll find most comments from Conservative-leaning posters to be critical, very much so - but not rabidly derogatory. He is not continually called a liar, or the devil, or a mad dog sociopath, as Liberal-leaning posters say about Harper. If you're going to frequent this board, I'd encourage you to keep track of truly derogatory remarks on both sides of the argument. It appears that you might be in for a big surprise.

[nicky10013]

You're entitled to gush over Mr. Ignatieff but your final comments are as humerous as they are in error. You're a new member so perhaps you've mixed up your boards or just haven't read through the postings on this board. Pick any of the topics in which the subject is Mr. Ignatieff and I think you'll find most comments from Conservative-leaning posters to be critical, very much so - but not rabidly derogatory. He is not continually called a liar, or the devil, or a mad dog sociopath, as Liberal-leaning posters say about Harper. If you're going to frequent this board, I'd encourage you to keep track of truly derogatory remarks on both sides of the argument. It appears that you might be in for a big surprise.

Oh, what a surprise...the "you're a newbie argument." Though I have no doubt some shill comes from the left, the fact that you're essentially accusing me of not being able to read is somewhat offensive.

Furthermore, was my example exaggerated? Somewhat, but when you read gutter dwelling liberal vermin, there's no other example to turn to.

[Keepitsimple]

Oh, what a surprise...the "you're a newbie argument." Though I have no doubt some shill comes from the left, the fact that you're essentially accusing me of not being able to read is somewhat offensive.

Furthermore, was my example exaggerated? Somewhat, but when you read gutter dwelling liberal vermin, there's no other example to turn to.

Well, you are new. Be offended if you like - I'm just stating facts. Your original argument was based on your perceived comments about Mr. Ignatieff. My point is that derogatory remarks about him pale in contrast to the frothing-at-the-mouth comments made about Stephen Harper.

[nicky10013]

Well, you are new. Be offended if you like - I'm just stating facts. Your original argument was based on your perceived comments about Mr. Ignatieff. My point is that derogatory remarks about him pale in contrast to the frothing-at-the-mouth comments made about Stephen Harper.

Thats fine and I didn't disagree with the fact that there are attacks against Harper. However, the fact that I'm new doesn't change anything; as if you stating facts magically changes something in this argument.