Bob Rae out ahead in poll of Canadians

jbg · October 16, 2006

Iggy will ifnd a way to "waffle" his position. Wasn't Paul Martin known as "Mr. Dithers" for a similar reason?

Iggy waffling is great for us.

No way the Liberals try and make an issue of Afghanistant with Iggy at the helm. Waaaaay too much can go wrong with that one.

What's stopping him? Never stopped Mr. Dithers. Didn't stop his recent waffle on Israel and "war crimes" v. "not losing sleep".

Ricki Bobbi · October 16, 2006

What's stopping him? Never stopped Mr. Dithers. Didn't stop his recent waffle on Israel and "war crimes" v. "not losing sleep".

The only thing stopping the Liberals is wanting to win.

Look how "successful" dithers was....

gerryhatrick · October 20, 2006

It's a long way from winning a poll to winning an election. Rae's whole period as Premier of Ontario will be an election issue if he is elected Lib leader, as I expect he will be. Let's see how much of it sticks. Okay, so Bobby has Rae Days to explain, but Stevie will have Afghanistan.

Actually Martin put us in Afghanistan. Not that I'm complaining.

And Stephen Harper called a snap vote to commit us for 2 years.

It's time they took some responsibility for something. Anything.

geoffrey · October 20, 2006

The $13b surplus? That despite claims that we were going to be in massive deficit from the Liberals and their think tank brethren.

Ricki Bobbi · October 20, 2006

And Stephen Harper called a snap vote to commit us for 2 years.
It's time they took some responsibility for something. Anything.

Nobody forced an opposition members to vote for the mission. They made a calculated decision to support the mission. That's the foundation of democracy. If the Liberals didn't support extending the mission why did they vote for it?

gerryhatrick · October 20, 2006

And Stephen Harper called a snap vote to commit us for 2 years.
It's time they took some responsibility for something. Anything.

Nobody forced an opposition members to vote for the mission. They made a calculated decision to support the mission. That's the foundation of democracy. If the Liberals didn't support extending the mission why did they vote for it?

You're confused. I wasn't talking about the Liberals and the free vote they had after the House debate.

I was talking about the SNAP debate & vote called by HARPER on the 2 YEAR COMITTMENT to Afghanistan.

And I asked when the CPC will take responsibility for the mission instead of blaming it on the Liberals.

Ricki Bobbi · October 20, 2006

You're confused. I wasn't talking about the Liberals and the free vote they had after the House debate.
I was talking about the SNAP debate & vote called by HARPER on the 2 YEAR COMITTMENT to Afghanistan.

And I asked when the CPC will take responsibility for the mission instead of blaming it on the Liberals.

We have been asked to avoid the personal insults, please respect the moderator's wishes.

I was referering to the debate and vote on extending the mission by two years.

The Conservative motion received 24 votes from Liberals or the motion would have failed and there would have been another election. Those are the Liberals that shouldn't have voted for it. Why would the Conservatives take responsibility and give the Liberals a free ride?

gerryhatrick · October 20, 2006

You're confused. I wasn't talking about the Liberals and the free vote they had after the House debate.
I was talking about the SNAP debate & vote called by HARPER on the 2 YEAR COMITTMENT to Afghanistan.

And I asked when the CPC will take responsibility for the mission instead of blaming it on the Liberals.

We have been asked to avoid the personal insults, please respect the moderator's wishes.

I was referering to the debate and vote on extending the mission by two years.

The Conservative motion received 24 votes from Liberals or the motion would have failed and there would have been another election. Those are the Liberals that shouldn't have voted for it. Why would the Conservatives take responsibility and give the Liberals a free ride?

I didn't realize telling someone they are confused was an insult. I determined you were confused since your response to me was not related to my post. That certainly indicated confusion. There is no shame in being confused, and you should not take it as an insult. If I didn't no better I'd say you were making a frivalous complaint.

How the Liberals voted has no bearing on the topic or my post. You remain confused.

I pointed out that STEPHEN HARPER called the SNAP VOTE for the TWO YEAR COMITTED EXTENSION.

This, in my view, was a cynical and small-minded thing to do. He should have allowed far more time for debate on such an important decision, including private hearings with Senate and opposition members.

Instead he conducted the political equivalent of railroading and now that our military is complaining that they can't handle the current situation for another 1.5 years people complain about other allies who won't give us a "break".

Give me a break.

Argus · October 20, 2006

I was talking about the SNAP debate & vote called by HARPER on the 2 YEAR COMITTMENT to Afghanistan.
And I asked when the CPC will take responsibility for the mission instead of blaming it on the Liberals.

Well, since absolutely nothing would have been any different to this point in time if the Liberals had gotten back in power, I would say that the Conservatives should be responsible once they either seriously deviate from the mission the Liberals agreed to, or once that mission would otherwise be over but for their extension.

gerryhatrick · October 20, 2006

I was talking about the SNAP debate & vote called by HARPER on the 2 YEAR COMITTMENT to Afghanistan.

And I asked when the CPC will take responsibility for the mission instead of blaming it on the Liberals.

Well, since absolutely nothing would have been any different to this point in time if the Liberals had gotten back in power, I would say that the Conservatives should be responsible once they either seriously deviate from the mission the Liberals agreed to, or once that mission would otherwise be over but for their extension.

If the Liberals had gotten back in power there would not have been a SNAP vote on such a serious issue as a two year comittment in Afghanistan.

Liberals would have been more open about the current realities of the mission and without a doubt would be handling it better.

Argus · October 20, 2006

I was talking about the SNAP debate & vote called by HARPER on the 2 YEAR COMITTMENT to Afghanistan.

And I asked when the CPC will take responsibility for the mission instead of blaming it on the Liberals.

Well, since absolutely nothing would have been any different to this point in time if the Liberals had gotten back in power, I would say that the Conservatives should be responsible once they either seriously deviate from the mission the Liberals agreed to, or once that mission would otherwise be over but for their extension.

If the Liberals had gotten back in power there would not have been a SNAP vote on such a serious issue as a two year comittment in Afghanistan.

Perhaps, but I remember a lot of Liberal bills where closure was brought in, and the extension has not, thus far, had any affect on the mission.

Liberals would have been more open about the current realities of the mission and without a doubt would be handling it better.

The Liberals would have been more open? That's a new one. In what way would they have been more open? About what? I can't think of anything the Tories have hidden other than a brief attempt to keep the public from seeing castkets offloaded every week.

gerryhatrick · October 20, 2006

and the extension has not, thus far, had any affect on the mission.

You claim knowlege of something that you certainly don't possess.

Argus · October 20, 2006

and the extension has not, thus far, had any affect on the mission.

You claim knowlege of something that you certainly don't possess.

Do you claim it has affected the mission? In what way? If there had been no extension, would they not still be there, doing exactly what they're doing?

Canuck E Stan · October 20, 2006

Queue up all the "oh Bob is HATED in Ontario" natterers.
I've been predicting he'll be the Liberal leader, and I believe he'll make a good one. Detracters can yap about what made him unpopular in Ontario if they like, and they will obviously. Realisticly though what politician isn't going to have an unpopular period after upwards of what....25 years at the game?

Bob Rae

"You'd be crazy not to learn lessons," Rae told the Globe's John Ibbitson recently. "But I'm also very proud of some of the things we did."
And so he should be proud, his accomplishments as premier showing clearly why this is the guy to run the country.

Greg Weston lists the great accompishments of Bob, he definately is a winner.

* Bob Rae made history as a man who gets things done. It took 40 years for mainly Conservative governments in Ontario to accumulate $20 billion in debt building the province's schools, hospitals, highways and hydro dams. It took Bob's NDP administration only four years to run up another $40 billion in red ink with little of enduring value to show for it at the end.
* Bob Rae is a visionary in health care. It was his NDP government that implemented the ingenious plan to cut medicare costs by reducing the number of doctors graduating from medical schools. Today, his legacy endures with a physician shortage that saves taxpayers a fortune by not having to treat millions of sick Canadians who can't find a family doctor.

* Bob Rae is a champion of the Canadian leisure industries. For the first time since the Great Depression of the 1930s, there were fewer people employed in Ontario industries when Rae left office than when he arrived.

* Bob Rae boldly stands up for Big Business and isn't afraid to stick it to the Little Guy, those whining small businesses that always have it easy. In the five years before Rae came to office, about 85% of all the net new jobs created in Ontario were in companies with fewer than 100 employees. Even in the 1980s recession when big companies shed more than 100,000 jobs, small businesses in the province grew by almost twice that number.

But not under Bob's watch -- a few major industries got huge bailouts, while all those mom-and-pop operations got ravaged, losing more than 100,000 jobs in the four years of NDP rule.

* Bob Rae understands what it means to be a taxpayer -- when economic times get tough, the tough get taxed, thereby ensuring the economy slows to the point where everyone gets screwed equally -- although some more equally than others. For instance, by the time the NDP left office, Ontario professionals and entrepreneurs earning more than $67,000 a year had the highest marginal tax rate in North America, and were ungratefully running for the border in droves.

* Bob Rae is a politician who never forgets his promises. The NDP pledged to introduce public auto insurance that would save car owners a fortune in premiums. Four years later, the Dippers were still promising socialist collision coverage even as they were being driven out of office.

* Bob Rae is perhaps the only great Canadian leader of the last century to have a day named in his honour -- Rae Days. Just over a decade ago, the man who would now be the next federal Liberal leader and perhaps Canada's next prime minister looked out upon the economic landscape he had created and saw that it was ravaged by record debt, record deficits and record job losses, and he knew exactly what needed to be done.

He hired 100,000 more public servants, gave them all a big raise, and ordered them to stay home and not get paid.

Yes, good ole Bob has much to be proud of. You have to be a real loser not to back a winner like this?

gerryhatrick · October 20, 2006

Greg Weston.

Who should we quote next? Helen Thomas?

There are few more snake-like partisan reporters than Greg Weston.

Canuck E Stan · October 20, 2006

Greg Weston.
Who should we quote next? Helen Thomas?

There are few more snake-like partisan reporters than Greg Weston.

I'll take it that the truth about Bob is hurting your feelings?

A lot of Ontarians will never forget or forgive Bob for his "accomplishments".

Can't wait for for Bob to run the Liberals the same way..... "left" winging it. :lol:

If he ever ran the country and that would only be for one election....the Liberals wouldn't see another victory until the Clean Air Act would be finished in 2050. :rolleyes:

Ricki Bobbi · October 20, 2006

I didn't realize telling someone they are confused was an insult. I determined you were confused since your response to me was not related to my post. That certainly indicated confusion. There is no shame in being confused, and you should not take it as an insult. If I didn't no better I'd say you were making a frivalous complaint.
How the Liberals voted has no bearing on the topic or my post. You remain confused.

I pointed out that STEPHEN HARPER called the SNAP VOTE for the TWO YEAR COMITTED EXTENSION.

This, in my view, was a cynical and small-minded thing to do. He should have allowed far more time for debate on such an important decision, including private hearings with Senate and opposition members.

Instead he conducted the political equivalent of railroading and now that our military is complaining that they can't handle the current situation for another 1.5 years people complain about other allies who won't give us a "break".

Give me a break.

What do you consider to be an insult?

I was directly addressing your first post and said that more explicitly in my response. WRITING IN CAPS DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS OBVIOUS YOU ARE ATTACKING WHILE IGNORING WHAT I AM ACTUALLY SAYING.

If the Liberals really thought that it wasn't enough time they could have voted against the motion and had the power to negotiate a longer timeline for debating the issue. A quarter of their caucus voted for it. By sending troops in the first place, and their caucus so divided on the mission when a vote came up for extending the mission. Their 'strong opposition' to the mission now is textbook cynical.

gerryhatrick · October 20, 2006

What do you consider to be an insult?

I certainly don't consider telling someone they're confused to be an insult.

You are being frivolous in your personal complaints, which is not new. It's unfortunate for the forum.

Shakeyhands · October 20, 2006

You're confused.
I was talking about the SNAP debate & vote called by HARPER on the 2 YEAR COMITTMENT to Afghanistan.

And I asked when the CPC will take responsibility for the mission instead of blaming it on the Liberals.

We have been asked to avoid the personal insults, please respect the moderator's wishes.

I'd call this complaint pathetic but....

Come on Ricki, let it go. Instead of trying to get him banned why not just do what you've been asked or put those you don't like on Ignore. As I said before, if you have an issue report it and let Greg deal with it. Stop clogging up the board with this stuff, it truely is a waste of bandwidth.

gc1765 · November 18, 2006

Once again, the surprise is how well Bob Rae would do in Ontario compared to the other candidates. I would have thought that kennedy would be the one who would have had the most support in Ontario.

OTTAWA — As the nine-month Liberal leadership marathon entered its final days, a new poll suggested the party would fare best in an election with Bob Rae at the helm...
...Thirty-seven per cent of respondents said they would vote Liberal or consider doing so if Mr. Rae was the leader, compared with 34 per cent for Stephane Dion, 33 per cent for front-runner Michael Ignatieff and 31 per cent for Gerard Kennedy...

...Among Ontario respondents, 46 per cent said they would or would consider voting Liberal with Mr. Rae as leader, compared to 45 per cent for Mr. Kennedy, 40 per cent for Mr. Dion and 38 per cent for Mr. Ignatieff.

Moreover, 47 per cent of Ontarians said Mr. Rae's record as premier is a non-issue. Another 19 per cent said his record is actually a positive factor, while 25 per cent said it's a negative factor...

Link

normanchateau · November 18, 2006

Once again, the surprise is how well Bob Rae would do in Ontario compared to the other candidates. I would have thought that kennedy would be the one who would have had the most support in Ontario.
OTTAWA — As the nine-month Liberal leadership marathon entered its final days, a new poll suggested the party would fare best in an election with Bob Rae at the helm...
...Thirty-seven per cent of respondents said they would vote Liberal or consider doing so if Mr. Rae was the leader, compared with 34 per cent for Stephane Dion, 33 per cent for front-runner Michael Ignatieff and 31 per cent for Gerard Kennedy...

...Among Ontario respondents, 46 per cent said they would or would consider voting Liberal with Mr. Rae as leader, compared to 45 per cent for Mr. Kennedy, 40 per cent for Mr. Dion and 38 per cent for Mr. Ignatieff.

Moreover, 47 per cent of Ontarians said Mr. Rae's record as premier is a non-issue. Another 19 per cent said his record is actually a positive factor, while 25 per cent said it's a negative factor...

Link

I see Rae as Liberal leader being a bad news good news scenario. The bad news is that the Conservatives will find it easier to viciously attack him than any of the other leading Liberal contenders. The good news is that Canadians don't like US-style negative campaigns. Remember the election where attacks on Chretien's appearance turned off most Canadians and the ads were pulled.

Canadian Blue · November 18, 2006

I'm surprised Kennedy isn't doing better. But I suppose he doesn't have as much of a profile across the country as the other candidates.

Topaz · November 18, 2006

As far as the "RAE DAYS" I know alot of the civil servants who had to work under those conditions, and at the time , yeah, they didn't like them but, when Harris came in and we all saw what happen when the union went on strike and how harris handled that, with the police using force and people getting hurt. The union then wished Rae was back and Harris gone. As one person told me, "it was better to have a job, even a partimer, then to deal with the Harris government!

normanchateau · November 18, 2006

As far as the "RAE DAYS" I know alot of the civil servants who had to work under those conditions, and at the time , yeah, they didn't like them but, when Harris came in and we all saw what happen when the union went on strike and how harris handled that, with the police using force and people getting hurt. The union then wished Rae was back and Harris gone. As one person told me, "it was better to have a job, even a partimer, then to deal with the Harris government!

I must admit I've never followed Ontario provincial politics and certainly not during the time that Rae was premier. But I gather he had a major falling out with the public labour unions and even other unions like Buzz Hargrove's Canadian Auto Workers. What did Rae do that so alienated the unions and why would federal NDP supporters now want to switch their allegiance to Rae as some Liberal supporters seem to believe?

geoffrey · November 18, 2006

I'm surprised Kennedy isn't doing better. But I suppose he doesn't have as much of a profile across the country as the other candidates.

He's the only candidate that appeals in Ontario... he lacks Quebec.

He's the ideal candidate only if the Liberals can get over their fascination with getting Quebec... they can do without it, but they have to commit to not being Quebec's toy first.

He also appeals in Alberta, where the Liberals need a seat or be accused of yet again, not being a national party.