Conservatives Make a Prize Recruit

[August1991]

Michael Ignatieff attempted to recruit diplomatic celebrity Chris Alexander to be a candidate for the Liberals, but disagreements over party policy on Afghanistan prompted him to reject the offer and join the Conservatives instead.

....

This week Mr. Alexander, 41, made a surprise announcement that he would give up his foreign service career and seek the Conservative nomination in the suburban Toronto riding of Ajax-Pickering.

He is viewed as a prized catch for any political party, given his credentials as one of the world's leading authorities on Afghanistan.

G&M

This is remarkable in several ways.

First of all, I think Valpy's spin on this is misleading. If Alexander has made the decision to run as a Tory candidate, it is because he understands that the Conservatives are likely to return to government in the next election.

Secondly, it is a measure of Harper's talents and personality that Alexander has chosen to run as a Tory. Harper was born in 1959, Alexander in 1968. I suspect that they first met in meetings about Afghanistan. However one slices this, Harper recruited Alexander.

Thirdly, I welcome this direction of the Conservatives under Harper. Canada has a legitimate opposition to what was once the "natural governing party". Harper deserves a majority or two and the Liberals should have a leader or two who never become PM.

[jdobbin]

First of all, I think Valpy's spin on this is misleading. If Alexander has made the decision to run as a Tory candidate, it is because he understands that the Conservatives are likely to return to government in the next election.

Actually, he made the decision according to his own word because his family have always been Conservatives. He says he met Ignatieff's people out of courtesy and denied that he didn't accept over Afghanistan.

Thirdly, I welcome this direction of the Conservatives under Harper. Canada has a legitimate opposition to what was once the "natural governing party". Harper deserves a majority or two and the Liberals should have a leader or two who never become PM.

Not good enough for Harper. He wants the Liberals destroyed so they cease to exist as a party. He is fairly pathological about it.

[waldo]

Secondly, it is a measure of Harper's talents and personality that Alexander has chosen to run as a Tory. Harper was born in 1959, Alexander in 1968. I suspect that they first met in meetings about Afghanistan. However one slices this, Harper recruited Alexander.

Thirdly, I welcome this direction of the Conservatives under Harper. Canada has a legitimate opposition to what was once the "natural governing party". Harper deserves a majority or two and the Liberals should have a leader or two who never become PM.

shameless promotion!

Harper's talents? What personality???

not just deserving of a single majority, you say... deserving of two majorities, you say

[August1991]

Actually, he made the decision according to his own word because his family have always been Conservatives. He says he met Ignatieff's people out of courtesy and denied that he didn't accept over Afghanistan.

I'll accept Valpy's report of Alexander's words. Both are astute men.

Not good enough for Harper. He wants the Liberals destroyed so they cease to exist as a party. He is fairly pathological about it.

You mean that Stephen Harper is like Jean Chretien? Harper wants to reduce the Liberals to two seats?

Let it happen. And let a future Liberal leader resurrect the Liberal Party.

----

Dobbin, I'll make an additional point - at the risk of thread drift. I'll know that the resurrection of the federal Liberal Party has started when Liberals understand that changing the subject to attack their opponents is not a way to win elections and more importantly - when federal Liberals understand that the Canadian universe doesn't turn around them.

Rather than shift the topic to the Liberals (a losing proposition under the circumstances), I suggest that you return to the main point of the OP.

Who is Christopher Alexander and why has he chosen to run as a Conservative?

Edited September 20, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

I'll accept Valpy's report of Alexander's words. Both are astute men.

From what I can tell, this guy has had his sight set on politics for a while and comes from a Conservative family background. If anyone should be watching their back, it is Harper.

Still, you have to win a seat to be a threat.

You mean that Stephen Harper is like Jean Chretien? Harper wants to reduce the Liberals to two seats?

Actually, that is not what Harper wants. He wants the end of the Liberal party. Period. Complete dismantling. He'd prefer two parties: NDP and Tories and no others.

Let it happen. And let a future Liberal leader resurrect the Liberal Party.

That is not what Harper wants. He wants it all gone right down to its last member.

Dobbin, I'll make an additional point - at the risk of thread drift. I'll know that the resurrection of the federal Liberal Party has started when Liberals understand that changing the subject to attack their opponents is not a way to win elections and more importantly - when federal Liberals understand that the Canadian universe doesn't turn around them.

Really. But you have no problem when Tories do it?

Rather than shift the topic to the Liberals (a losing proposition under the circumstances), I suggest that you return to the main point of the OP.

Since you choose a topic to hammer the Liberals whenever you can, I feel free to hammer right back.

Who is Christopher Alexander and why has he chosen to run as a Conservative?

He is running because he comes from a Conservative party background and is ambitious. No doubt he has his eyes set on Harper's job.

By the way, there have been a few former Tory advisers who have gone off to sign on for Liberal and BQ candidacies. Why don't we talk about them as well?

[August1991]

He is running because he comes from a Conservative party background and is ambitious.

Ambitious, yes. Conservative Party background is a cover, IMV - except for the Afghanistan twist. Alexander may really think about Western Civilization and how best to defend it.

Anyway, Harper got him.

No doubt he has his eyes set on Harper's job.

Possible. His French is far better - and his Russian is cute. Edited September 20, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Ambitious, yes. Conservative Party background is a cover, IMV - except for the Afghanistan twist. Alexander may really think about Western Civilization and how best to defend it.

Cover? He comes from a family of longtime Conservatives.

As far as Afghanistan goes, are you saying that the plan of the Tories is to extend the mission if they win a majority and that Harper has told him so?

Anyway, Harper got him.

Landing a guy with a Conservative background while in government should be a given.

The fact that Harper has lost two other former Conservative advisers to other parties should not be.

Possible. His French is far better - and his Russian is cute.

Let's see if Harper kneecaps him.

This is all contingent on him winning. For all we know, he might be a poor campaigner.

[Moonbox]

Not good enough for Harper. He wants the Liberals destroyed so they cease to exist as a party. He is fairly pathological about it.

I see you've gone back to the mindless rhetoric again. There's nothing 'pathological' about a party leader undermining the opposing party. I also don't really see the problem with shaking up the status quo in Canadian politics. I don't think it's a good thing that one party should be able to dominate on a regular basis and I think it's better for the country if we don't have ANY 'natural governing party'.

[Moonbox]

Let's see if Harper kneecaps him.

This is all contingent on him winning. For all we know, he might be a poor campaigner.

A lot of the time it doesn't matter how you campaign. The party leader has more impact on each individual riding than the actual candidate him/herself. I would say probably over 80% of people don't pay a second of attention to the local candidate's campaign.

I did, but only because I knew the Liberal candidate (he's a good guy and I would have voted for him if not for Dion) and the CPC candidate's campaign was a total botch job.

[jdobbin]

I see you've gone back to the mindless rhetoric again. There's nothing 'pathological' about a party leader undermining the opposing party. I also don't really see the problem with shaking up the status quo in Canadian politics. I don't think it's a good thing that one party should be able to dominate on a regular basis and I think it's better for the country if we don't have ANY 'natural governing party'.

Look, I am basing this on what Tom Flanagan has written in Globe and Mail articles for some time now. You think he was writing mindless rhetoric or do you think as a friend and adviser, he might know what he is talking about.

Flanagan says that Harper is not merely happy defeating the Liberals but ending them. He wants the only choice to be between Conservatives and whatever is left on the other side except for a Liberal party.

We have gone over this before in these forums, the various articles by Flanagan have been cited and then debated in terms of how Harper believed party financing was the way to do this. And yet you continue to believe that mere defeat is all Harper wants?

[jdobbin]

A lot of the time it doesn't matter how you campaign. The party leader has more impact on each individual riding than the actual candidate him/herself. I would say probably over 80% of people don't pay a second of attention to the local candidate's campaign.

I suppose if you are only interested in the leader, you vote the party ticket.

However, time and time again, we have seen local candidates defeated because people tired of the candidate.

I don't presume to know what people in Jaffer's riding were thinking but a number of them defeated him in his own riding when Harper won bigger numbers of MPs elsewhere. I wonder if that riding felt they were defeating Harper or getting rid of an MP they didn't want.

I did, but only because I knew the Liberal candidate (he's a good guy and I would have voted for him if not for Dion) and the CPC candidate's campaign was a total botch job.

Sad to think that some people end up with terrible MPs because people vote the ticket rather than the person.

You can't predict how people will react to candidates in their riding though. Bourassa won a big majority in Quebec and failed to win his seat.

[Keepitsimple]

Big deal....so the Liberals tried to misrepresent the facts. The important thing is that we'll have another qualified person in Politics - if the voters elect him. I like the fact that he chose the Conservatives but as he said, his family is historically Conservative and he never had any intention of doing otherwise - in spite of the Liberal spin. Welcome aboard Chris.

[nicky10013]

I'll know that the resurrection of the federal Liberal Party has started when Liberals understand that changing the subject to attack their opponents is not a way to win elections and more importantly - when federal Liberals understand that the Canadian universe doesn't turn around them.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you serious about this? No, really. You didn't chuckle a bit when typing this out? Honestly, I was going to say that if you're serious you should just give up and throw your computer out but this is too funny for you not to stop. Please, what else do you have in your magical bag of conservative hypocrisy? I love to laugh!

[jdobbin]

Big deal....so the Liberals tried to misrepresent the facts. The important thing is that we'll have another qualified person in Politics - if the voters elect him. I like the fact that he chose the Conservatives but as he said, his family is historically Conservative and he never had any intention of doing otherwise - in spite of the Liberal spin. Welcome aboard Chris.

What misrepresentation are you talking about? That they met this guy to discuss whether he might run?

[Wild Bill]

Look, I am basing this on what Tom Flanagan has written in Globe and Mail articles for some time now. You think he was writing mindless rhetoric or do you think as a friend and adviser, he might know what he is talking about.

Flanagan says that Harper is not merely happy defeating the Liberals but ending them. He wants the only choice to be between Conservatives and whatever is left on the other side except for a Liberal party.

We have gone over this before in these forums, the various articles by Flanagan have been cited and then debated in terms of how Harper believed party financing was the way to do this. And yet you continue to believe that mere defeat is all Harper wants?

Wipe out the Liberals?You say this like it's a bad thing!

What's odd about that? Politics is all about such rivalry. I don't recall Chretien showing any mercy whatsoever to the Tories or Reform through any of their troubles.

I too would be happy to see the Liberals decimated! Perhaps that's what it would take to get them to examine their values and perhaps decide to be dictionary, classic style Liberals.

I could vote for that kind of Liberal!

One things for sure, political parties are no different than any other institution. They never change until and unless their back is up against the wall and its a matter of naked survival.

If Harper can achieve his goal, the Liberal party may be forced to change into something that appeals to Canadians coast to coast, in large numbers in all regions.

If he doesn't achieve his goal, I don't believe it will ever happen, at least not in my lifetime.

[Keepitsimple]

What misrepresentation are you talking about? That they met this guy to discuss whether he might run?

I'm only commenting on what I read in the article - does it not sound like misrepresentation to you (my bold)?

The Liberals' narrative is that Mr. Alexander met several times with Mr. Ignatieff and senior party officials in Ottawa and Toronto and that he approached them months ago, before he returned to Canada. They say the conversations ended when Mr. Ignatieff made clear there would be no change in party policy.

Mr. Alexander, however, said he met with the Liberals as a courtesy, after they approached him about being a candidate, but he never at any time had serious conversations about candidacy “and I made it clear why it wouldn't happen.”

He said he at no time demanded the Liberals change their policy on ending Canada's combat role as a condition for running for them. He said he would not challenge a decision made by Parliament. The 2011 deadline was approved both by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

I'm only commenting on what I read in the article - does it not sound like misrepresentation to you (my bold)?

Clearly someone is lying.

[waldo]

Ajax-Pickering? Really? That's the riding this "prize" Conservative candidate will be running in? Really? C'mon... why not run the Toronto native in, oh... say... Toronto? Wouldn't this "prize" Conservative candidate handily beat through the understood impenetrable Toronto Liberal fortress! He's a "prize"... after all.

[punked]

Clearly someone is lying.

I think we say someone is changing what they have said in the past. I wonder who it could be????

"I never signed the coalition agreement"

"I never talked about Canada as peace keepers"

"I never said I supported the HST"

Hmmmmmmmm who could it be????

[punked]

Ajax-Pickering? Really? That's the riding this "prize" Conservative candidate will be running in? Really? C'mon... why not run the Toronto native in, oh... say... Toronto? Wouldn't this "prize" Conservative candidate handily beat through the understood impenetrable Toronto Liberal fortress! He's a "prize"... after all.

The ridding went Liberal by 15% last election it is pretty Liberal.

[waldo]

The ridding went Liberal by 15% last election it is pretty Liberal.

Liberal Marc Holland => a 6.4% greater number of votes as compared to his closest competitor, Conservative Rick Johnson.

[punked]

Liberal Marc Holland => a 6.4% greater number of votes as compared to his closest competitor, Conservative Rick Johnson.

My bad I was looking at 2006 results 50% to 32%. Sorry.

[August1991]

Just a few months into the job, he is already turning heads as a future political star. He is parliamentary secretary to Defence Minister Peter MacKay, and was recently named as the top rookie in the House of Commons in a poll of MPs done for Macleans magazine.

At this stage in his successful shift to politics, it's hard not to ask the obvious question: Is he the future face of the Conservative party? Perhaps even a contender to someday be the Tory leader?

Link

And he speaks good Russian too.