Frank McKenna won't run for Liberal leadership!

[fellowtraveller]

Tobin will no be able to make any gains in Saskatchewan or Alberta and probably not in BC. That leaves the Liberals still in minority status forever and ever amen.

Haven't the Liberals proven umpteen times that they have no need at all for AB and SK when it comes to forming majorities?

I stand corrected on the cod Thelonius, it was indeed a turbot.

They both have fins and scales and stuff, bloody suspicious if you ask me.

[tml12]

What about Hedy?

McKenna's announcement increased Hedy's chances five fold. She's now 1000 to 1 instead of 5000. Poor Hedy, she still doesn't realize that thousands in Vancouver Centre held their noses to vote for her over her light fingered opponent. It's the holding of the noses part she can't come to grips with.

I'm surprised posters on this thread discount Brian Tobin's leadership possibilities. An extreme partisan, yes, a Chretienite, yes, but tenacious, well informed and with a national profile. I would guess he is the new favorite.

Tobin has no profile in the West. Then again, when did the Liberals ever care about the west?

Allan Rock is their best chance at winning an election in the next 6-8 years.

I still back August (maybe it's because we're Montrealers) and put Stephane Dion in.

Sure he'd get shut out of Alberta with his far-left policies on the environment and the failed Kyoto accord but he'd have a chance with the far left in BC and I am sure he'd be popular in the East.

The only problem is if Harper fails the soft nationalists will go back to the Bloc after Dion's stance on Kyoto and his extreme federalist (read: Clarity Act) views.

[gerryhatrick]

Supposed reasons: worried about how he would be seen in Quebec, huge Liberal Party of Canada debt, looking for balance in his life.

"supposed reasons". Guess so, since those aren't the reasons he gave.

After this election I'm a little tired of BS. Can we not all just be honest for a little while?

[shoop]

Actually looking for a little balance in his life was the *big* reason he did give in his statement.

Do you have anything constructive to add to the site? Why start with a post like this? How was I not being honest....

"supposed reasons". Guess so, since those aren't the reasons he gave.

After this election I'm a little tired of BS. Can we not all just be honest for a little while?

[tml12]

Supposed reasons: worried about how he would be seen in Quebec, huge Liberal Party of Canada debt, looking for balance in his life.

"supposed reasons". Guess so, since those aren't the reasons he gave.

After this election I'm a little tired of BS. Can we not all just be honest for a little while?

We're having a debate here gerry about the underlying reasons of why he may have stepped out of the race.

Of course if you'd like to take his word for it, your more than welcome to...

[gerryhatrick]

We're having a debate here gerry about the underlying reasons of why he may have stepped out of the race.

Of course if you'd like to take his word for it, your more than welcome to...

Ah. So when you said "supposed reasons" you were talking about your own take on it.

I watched the guy on TV and believe what he said. He didn't want the job because of the expectation of success and thus the 10 year commitment. He was largely expected to have the job if he wanted it, correct? And quite within the realm of reason to expect the Liberals to win the next election.

So...he had to ask himself if he wanted that kind of committment.

How did you come up with the "looking for balance in his life" supposed reason? That's a bizarre one!

[cybercoma]

For anyone from Ontario, what is Bob Rae's popularity like there?

About as good as Paul Martin's popularity in Quebec.

[tml12]

We're having a debate here gerry about the underlying reasons of why he may have stepped out of the race.

Of course if you'd like to take his word for it, your more than welcome to...

Ah. So when you said "supposed reasons" you were talking about your own take on it.

I watched the guy on TV and believe what he said. He didn't want the job because of the expectation of success and thus the 10 year commitment. He was largely expected to have the job if he wanted it, correct? And quite within the realm of reason to expect the Liberals to win the next election.

So...he had to ask himself if he wanted that kind of committment.

How did you come up with the "looking for balance in his life" supposed reason? That's a bizarre one!

Shoop mentioned the "looking for balance in his life." I didn't hear that, but to be honest I didn't read the article on why he decided to step out of the race. Shoop is an honest guy so I take his word for it...

And yes, as for "supposed reasons" that would mean our take on it...that is what the debate is for. If you choose to take whatever he said at face value, that is certainly your right too.

[tml12]

For anyone from Ontario, what is Bob Rae's popularity like there?

About as good as Paul Martin's popularity in Quebec.

Rae is done.

[shoop]

Hey gerryhatrick. Posts from different posters come from different people.

I said looking for balance as the way I summed up what McKenna said in the press conference.

P.S. thanks tml12

[gerryhatrick]

Shoop mentioned the "looking for balance in his life." I didn't hear that, but to be honest I didn't read the article on why he decided to step out of the race. Shoop is an honest guy so I take his word for it...

And yes, as for "supposed reasons" that would mean our take on it...that is what the debate is for. If you choose to take whatever he said at face value, that is certainly your right too.

I watched the press conference...and didn't hear that myself.

I didn't realize shoop spoke for multiple people here! When he said "supposed reasons", I understood that to mean the reasons given by the ambassador. I have been since corrected by shoop and understand it's only his own opinions. And yours also, you say.

It was my mistake. Certainly I understand what debate is for, and am happy to engage with good faith.

I don't take things at "face value" always. I'm very critical. I heard the guy explain why he wasn't interested in the job and he struck me as very honest and his reasons as quite understandable.

Maybe you can help me with something though....when shoop said "supposed reasons", the word "supposed" implies he's questioning anothers reasons...not that they are reasons he procured and believes.

Why would he use the word "supposed" if they are the reasons he believes? Wouldn't he present then as the reasons he believes...rather than "supposed" ones?

[gerryhatrick]

I said looking for balance as the way I summed up what McKenna said in the press conference.

To say he's "looking for balance" means he's lacking it now.

It sounds like you're just wanting to insult the man. Maybe because of his politics?

What, specifically, did he say that allows you to claim you're summing him up to say he rejected the job because he's "looking for balance"?

Sounded to me like he is very happy with his life. Sounded like he loved serving Canada and was sad about having to leave his position.

[shoop]

To say he's "looking for balance" means he's lacking it now.

It sounds like you're just wanting to insult the man. Maybe because of his politics?

What, specifically, did he say that allows you to claim you're summing him up to say he rejected the job because he's "looking for balance"?

Here is a direct quote from McKenna himself dealing with the balance issue.

I was unable to find the appropriate balance then, and I am certain I would not be able to find the appropriate balance now."

[gerryhatrick]

Here is a direct quote from McKenna himself dealing with the balance issue.

I was unable to find the appropriate balance then, and I am certain I would not be able to find the appropriate balance now."

This does not support what you are claiming though. The context is missing.

He is not referring to his time as the US Ambassador. Thus the word "then".

And the word "would" indicates that there is an "if" at play...that being "IF" he were to become the Liberal leader.

Nothing in there indicates that your claim that he's "looking for balance in his life" is true, since your claim explicitely implies that he currently does not have balance in his life.

Obviously he is seeking to avoid imbalancing his life, and thus his decision.

[tml12]

Shoop mentioned the "looking for balance in his life." I didn't hear that, but to be honest I didn't read the article on why he decided to step out of the race. Shoop is an honest guy so I take his word for it...

And yes, as for "supposed reasons" that would mean our take on it...that is what the debate is for. If you choose to take whatever he said at face value, that is certainly your right too.

I watched the press conference...and didn't hear that myself.

I didn't realize shoop spoke for multiple people here! When he said "supposed reasons", I understood that to mean the reasons given by the ambassador. I have been since corrected by shoop and understand it's only his own opinions. And yours also, you say.

It was my mistake. Certainly I understand what debate is for, and am happy to engage with good faith.

I don't take things at "face value" always. I'm very critical. I heard the guy explain why he wasn't interested in the job and he struck me as very honest and his reasons as quite understandable.

Maybe you can help me with something though....when shoop said "supposed reasons", the word "supposed" implies he's questioning anothers reasons...not that they are reasons he procured and believes.

Why would he use the word "supposed" if they are the reasons he believes? Wouldn't he present then as the reasons he believes...rather than "supposed" ones?

Gerryhatrick,

I don't profess to speak for anyone. But the point of the thread is to discuss the ulterior motives of why McKenna didn't seek the leadership. Usually, both politicians on the right and left, have different reasons for making decisions. And sometimes, they do not want to admit their reasons.

Shoop's original post was to discuss "supposed" reasons. I believe Shoop, and I can say for sure myself, define "supposed" as dictionary.com does, as "Presumed to be true or real without conclusive evidence."

Neither Shoop nor I nor anyone else on this board profess that we know the *real* reasons behind McKenna's decision. But as someone who lives in Quebec, I believe the Quebec factor, the Liberal struggles in this province, and the fact McKenna doesn't speak much French, could play a role in his decision. Of course, those are things we presume to be true. McKenna would probably never admit that.

So if we could get that straight, I am sure we can debate the issues clearly again...

[shoop]

Wow you are a pedantic little pain.

Yet again, here is a question you might want to answer.

Please explain how the nuanced difference between "looking for balance in his life" and "seeking to avoid imbalancing his life" illustrates how I am *just wanting to insult the man.*

Man, if you want to get into some flame war at least provide some sort of target that would be interesting to engage. Your feeble attempt above is just making me sleepy.

This does not support what you are claiming though. The context is missing.

He is not referring to his time as the US Ambassador. Thus the word "then".

And the word "would" indicates that there is an "if" at play...that being "IF" he were to become the Liberal leader.

Nothing in there indicates that your claim that he's "looking for balance in his life" is true, since your claim explicitely implies that he currently does not have balance in his life.

Obviously he is seeking to avoid imbalancing his life, and thus his decision.

[gerryhatrick]

tml12, we're just having a basic misunderstanding. Hopefully this will clear it up.

If shoop had said something along the lines of "underlying reasons" or "the reasons I think" then how you characterize him would stand.

Instead he said "supposed", which you define as "Presumed to be true or real without conclusive evidence."

He was pretending to represent Frank McKemnas given reasons....the "supposed" ones which we can take at face value or not.

He's admitted as much a short time ago in regards to the mistaken "find balance in life" reason he's attributed to the Ambassadors words. He got mixed up on that one due to his confusion with tense.

See above.

[shoop]

Gerry, once more I am asking.

For the third time, here is a question you might want to answer.

Please explain how the nuanced difference between "looking for balance in his life" and "seeking to avoid imbalancing his life" illustrates how I am *just wanting to insult the man.*

Man, if you want to get into some flame war at least provide some sort of target that would be interesting to engage. Your feeble attempt above is just making me sleepy.

[gerryhatrick]

Wow you are a pedantic little pain.

Don't accuse me of flaming when you engage troll/insults like this.

Please explain how the nuanced difference between "looking for balance in his life" and "seeking to avoid imbalancing his life" illustrates how I am *just wanting to insult the man.*

Oh, the difference is just "nuanced", is it?

I will gladly explain for you shoop. In the first case the phrase logically indicates the balance is missing. If someone is "looking" for something, it means they don't have it currently.

If you seek to avoid losing something (in this case, balance), then obviously you possess it.

[shoop]

How does this difference explain how I am *just wanting to insult the man?*

Oh, the difference is just "nuanced", is it?

I will gladly explain for you shoop. In the first case the phrase logically indicates the balance is missing. If someone is "looking" for something, it means they don't have it currently.

If you seek to avoid losing something (in this case, balance), then obviously you possess it.

[gerryhatrick]

...

[shoop]

For the fifth time, how does this difference explain how I am *just wanting to insult the man?* IF you keep avoiding the question then yes you are being a pedantic little pain.

Oh, the difference is just "nuanced", is it?

I will gladly explain for you shoop. In the first case the phrase logically indicates the balance is missing. If someone is "looking" for something, it means they don't have it currently.

If you seek to avoid losing something (in this case, balance), then obviously you possess it.

[tml12]

How does this difference explain how I am *just wanting to insult the man?*

Oh, the difference is just "nuanced", is it?

I will gladly explain for you shoop. In the first case the phrase logically indicates the balance is missing. If someone is "looking" for something, it means they don't have it currently.

If you seek to avoid losing something (in this case, balance), then obviously you possess it.

He is predicting them true because he believes they are, as do I.

Gerry, how is this baiting?

[gerryhatrick]

He is predicting them true because he believes they are, as do I.

Gerry, how is this baiting?

tml12, you need to read my last post to you. Gerry is not predicting them true, he is associating them directly to what the Ambassador said.

It has nothing to do what shoop or yourself think. shoop could profess that Frank is not taking the job because he's worried that some past crime will be uncovered. That could be a belief of his.

In this case he's claiming that the Ambassador said he was refusing the job because he was "looking for balance".

Now he admits a difference between "looking for balance" and looking to avoid an imbalance. Yet he sees no difference.

This strongly supports the claim he looks to insult the man.

[shoop]

In this case he's claiming that the Ambassador said he was refusing the job because he was "looking for balance". Now he admits a difference between "looking for balance" and looking to avoid an imbalance. Yet he sees no difference.

This strongly supports the claim he looks to insult the man.

How?