PM PM's Mistakes

[August1991]

I'm one of those who thought Dukakis could have won in 1988 and Gore certainly in 2000. This post is a "what-could-have-been". Too soon to write PM PM off? I wrote him off in March when I predicted a Tory minority. Go for the gusto.

1. He should have run on the economic record. "It's the economy, stupid."

2. He should never have made such a big deal of this Auditor's Report. He wants to clean up government? Fine. But do it on his own time.

3. He should never have called this election.

4. He should never have accused fellow Liberals of anything. "You dance with the girl what brung ya."

5. Bringing in Lapierre was laudable but shouldn't have been an insult. For example, PM PM knows Quebec well enough to have played Dion and Lapierre. Trudeau had Serge Joyal.

6. He should not have gone negative. It works in the States but it doesn't work here. (Advertising and billboards work in big cities but not small towns, where word of mouth matters more).

There is no doubt in my mind that Chretien would have won a fourth term. PM PM could have had a majority. It won't happen and all those ambitious Liberal wannabees now know there will be no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

[playfullfellow]

I think it is about time too. The Liberals have become too complacent as a whole over the past 11 years. Chretien would have won again no doubt, he is by far a better politcian than Martin. I do not like Chretien but I have to respect him because he had control of the party, Martin does not, just like Day did not have control over the Alliance. A defeat for the Liberals will be good for them so they can get back on track and pull their heads out of the clouds. Martins arrogance got him into trouble which is good. He has proven time and again that his word is one that can be broken at the drop of a hat. He had many good things to say during the leadership race but pfffffffffffffftttt, gone to the wind are all the democratic reforms he was talking about. I am sure Chretien is sitting back and enjoying the whole fiasco thinking "I told you so".

[Slavik44]

The debate was martins last chance to prove he had the stuff, according to Ipsos read poll, he lost the debate:

1.Harper 37%

2.Martin 24%

3.Layton 18%

4.Duceppe 7%

If Martin was sitting where harper is siting for debate results, he would have the elction, but he couldn't pull it off. I agree that chretien could have won a 4th majority simply because he would not have raised peoples expectations so ridiculously high, like Martin did. This election was certianly martin's to lose, thsi debate was Martin's to lose and I think we can see he most likely lost both. Unfortuantley there is not much more he can do now, if his performance at the debate was better, he could have brought momentum to his side for the first time in a long time. But now that he is without momentum and with out a debate win there will be no pot of Gold as you said.

[idealisttotheend]

Chretien is an interesting subject.

I predicted (not here) that when he left everything that the media hated about Chretien would be what is seen to be lacking in Martin. It turned out that way I think. Chretien would have done much better in the debate. Everyone would have complained about his arrogance but he would have won.

1. I agree with Slavik. Martin raised expectations too high and could not live up to them. Chretien knew how to lower expectations but then meet those expectations and manage to govern fairly adequetly. Never excellently, never with much innovation but well enough to keep everything together and running smootly in a country where that is never easy. King would have been proud.

2. I agree with playfull, Chretien's party discipline was seen as undemocratic but it worked.

3. I agree with August. People tend to believe what you tell them. The sponsorship scandal was backround noise to most people until both parties agreed that it was a big problem. When Martin said that the sponsorship scandal was a major problem the average voter believed him and that led to part of his problems. Chretien would've waved his hand and dismissed it as a couple of dollars here and there, and while some people still would have seen it as a major problem, I think the majority would have blown it off too.

4. No matter how bad things got, Chretien never would've looked like he was losing. He would brushed it all off and said, "you know, I have seen a lot of the polls in my thirty years and I never believed them then and I won't start now." Martin has looked vaguely defeated for a long time now. Confidence breeds confidence in politics as with all things.

5. Chretien brought the party together in 1990 and Martin never did. Chretien ran against Martin and Copps and Copps was deputy PM and Martin finance minister in his government. Martin ran against Copps and Manely. Neither is with the party anymore and there is no good reason why not. Martin's advisors no doubt thought that either would do to Martin what Martin (or rather the advisors themselves) did to Chretien and never really made the effort to reunite the party. Stupid, stupid, stupid. What other big name is there in the Liberal party but Martin now?

6. Chretien always had decent advisors, Martin's are clearly incompetant.

Martin seems like a decent man and would probably make a half decent PM. He is intellectually honest and capable. But what he didn't learn about politics is killing him and Chretien is laughing.

[August1991]

When Martin said that the sponsorship scandal was a major problem the average voter believed him and that led to part of his problems. Chretien would've waved his hand and dismissed it as a couple of dollars here and there, and while some people still would have seen it as a major problem, I think the majority would have blown it off too.

Idealist, I'll pick that one point as an example. What is 250 million if the Canadian economy grows by 3 billion? IOW, who cares if Conrad Black walks away with 20 million if the other shareholders got several thousand more too. (After all, the alternative was to have nothing.)

If there's more available, anything extra is a plus. How we share this "plus" matters much less than the extra itself.

By extra, I don't mean merely more "stuff". I mean more wisdom to use what we have intelligently so we don't destroy this planet.

In fact, seemingly honest efforts to share will destroy our planet. For example, if the environment matters, we must think about how we will collectively protect it. The Soviet way will not work. The Greenpeace way will not work. Kindergarten drawings will not work. Raising awareness will not work.

The Left unfortunately has no understanding of collective action.