Tories: We helped defeat Rae

[Slavik44]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...202?hub=QPeriod

Okay so I was reading that article in which jubuilant Conservative Strategists brag about how the helped defeat Bob Rae. So well you gotta ask what do they want? A button? Maybe one of those thongs?

While tampering in other parties nomination processes is a well known secret it is much like gays in the millitary "don't ask, don't tell." The truth is there is no advantage to admitting it, does it score pollitical points? Does it get you positive press? Does it make your opponents look bad? Well, no and for the most part the Liberals don't need any help looking bad. The Conservatives stregnth however is in looking good and this doesn't help that image.

Unfortunately when people talk about purposefully fabricating memo's, bragging about making funny little buttons, and the joy they got seeing people wear them, and finally how afraid they were that a candidate would win. It makes the party look bad, even if they did it, why admit it? There is absolutely nothing to gain by saying, Bob Rae made us piss our pants in fear, so we developed this cunning plan, this is what we did....

In then end its all about self gratification, in which case they shoulda stuck to masturbation. Same level of well known secret, probabley easier, cheaper, more enjoyable, and less harmfull. Its just a matter of using your brain, if saying something is not going to improve your parties chances why say it? Given that I believe this tampering happens amongst all parties I do not believe that this is a moral issue. It is a stupidity Issue. And it is better to be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. They should have just shut up. The only pro to admitting this is an enlarged head and the downside is more mud on the conservative image. Now the party is left hoping the comments are ignored and not played up by what Conservatives call a Biased media. Hint If you believe the media is blatantly biased, why would you tell them about the skeletons in your closet? It would have been better to shut up. If you want Canadians to continue to view liberals as evil bastards don't go out of your way to paint them as victims and yourself as the bastard. Now I am left sitting asking myself just how intelligent are these fools, maybe Bob Rae was right, the Vegetables will have steak too...there cannot be to much higher thought going up there.

[Saturn]

Hehe, what made you think they had working brains in the first place? Harper knows they don't, which is why he keeps them muzzled but he wasn't around to whip them to shut up in time. I bet they are in deep s**t.

[stignasty]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...202?hub=QPeriod

Of course when they wrote in their platform "A Conservative government led by Stephen Harper will: Ensure fairness in party nomination and leadership races" they didn't mean the leadership races of other parties.

Is anyone surprised that the conservatives would stoop to this?

[Saturn]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...202?hub=QPeriod

Of course when they wrote in their platform "A Conservative government led by Stephen Harper will: Ensure fairness in party nomination and leadership races" they didn't mean the leadership races of other parties.

Is anyone surprised that the conservatives would stoop to this?

No. What some are surprised by is that they came out an openly bragged about it. Because some thought the conservatives were smarter than that.

[mikedavid00]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...202?hub=QPeriod

I have to question the journalism here

"Just seconds after Rae was knocked out, a prominent Tory MP wandering the convention floor pulled out a handful of buttons mocking Rae and winked mischievously."

If they can't even give a name of the person handing out buttons then this can't be taken as serious journalism. And isn't this a private event? How did he get in?

Rae lost because the votes on teh floor weren't there due to the corrupt LIberal electoral system plain and simple.

[scribblet]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...202?hub=QPeriod

I have to question the journalism here

"Just seconds after Rae was knocked out, a prominent Tory MP wandering the convention floor pulled out a handful of buttons mocking Rae and winked mischievously."

If they can't even give a name of the person handing out buttons then this can't be taken as serious journalism. And isn't this a private event? How did he get in?

Rae lost because the votes on teh floor weren't there due to the corrupt LIberal electoral system plain and simple.

It also means we should never believe everything we read in the media, golly gee, who knows how many memos and scenarios the Liberals have conjured up...

To think that a few buttons swung the delegates is quite funny really, and yes it is interesting to note that the Liberal party once again rejected the democratic leadership process, opting to stay with the corrupt status quo.

[jdobbin]

I have to question the journalism here

"Just seconds after Rae was knocked out, a prominent Tory MP wandering the convention floor pulled out a handful of buttons mocking Rae and winked mischievously."

If they can't even give a name of the person handing out buttons then this can't be taken as serious journalism. And isn't this a private event? How did he get in?

Rae lost because the votes on teh floor weren't there due to the corrupt LIberal electoral system plain and simple.

I haven't noticed any Tories say they didn't do it. Would it help if they named the Tory? He'd admit he didn't do it even if he was recorded (as per standard procedure).

[jdobbin]

It also means we should never believe everything we read in the media, golly gee, who knows how many memos and scenarios the Liberals have conjured up...

To think that a few buttons swung the delegates is quite funny really, and yes it is interesting to note that the Liberal party once again rejected the democratic leadership process, opting to stay with the corrupt status quo.

Your definition of democratic votes is pretty narrow as is your view of corruption.

Is the U.S. electoral college democratic? Most people would say it is. Delegate selection is democratic.

Is the one person, one member system democratic? Yes, but it is also corrupted by selling membership and from taking members who are not really members of the party.

[scribblet]

It also means we should never believe everything we read in the media, golly gee, who knows how many memos and scenarios the Liberals have conjured up...

To think that a few buttons swung the delegates is quite funny really, and yes it is interesting to note that the Liberal party once again rejected the democratic leadership process, opting to stay with the corrupt status quo.

Your definition of democratic votes is pretty narrow as is your view of corruption.

Is the U.S. electoral college democratic? Most people would say it is. Delegate selection is democratic.

Is the one person, one member system democratic? Yes, but it is also corrupted by selling membership and from taking members who are not really members of the party.

Really - I don't know about the U.S. electoral college system other than it was supposed to level the playing field between large and small states, but it is not relevant here.

Old style delegate brokered conventions might be more exciting but why should a member need or want a representative to vote for them, I can make up my own mind and prefer to be directly involved in the process.

And if you think the Liberals use similar tactics you need to take off your rose coloured glasses.

[jdobbin]

Really - I don't know about the U.S. electoral college system other than it was supposed to level the playing field between large and small states, but it is not relevant here.

Old style delegate brokered conventions might be more exciting but why should a member need or want a representative to vote for them, I can make up my own mind and prefer to be directly involved in the process.

And if you think the Liberals use similar tactics you need to take off your rose coloured glasses.

The one member, one vote system for a political party lends itself to a corrupt process. How does the party avoid being hijacked by special interests? I'd say the best strategy for lobby groups is to buy memberships for all it union or tobacco farmers or anti-abortionists and dominate a political party. Hell, perhaps the NDP and Liberals could buy all their members a party card and vote for the weakest leader.

So who has the rose coloured glasses now?

[jbg]

Your definition of democratic votes is pretty narrow as is your view of corruption.

Is the U.S. electoral college democratic? Most people would say it is. Delegate selection is democratic.

Is the one person, one member system democratic? Yes, but it is also corrupted by selling membership and from taking members who are not really members of the party.

JDobbin, we had an equivalent incident in the US Electoral College in 1876. Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican candidate was deadlocked with Samuel J. Tilden. The "deal" that was brokered was to allow back into the Union some unrepentant Southern states (the South voted Democratic in those days) if they allowed Hayes to win the election, which he had not fairly won. The revulsion prevented any further dealings at the Electoral College level, and probably was the cause of the U.S. Supreme Court having to decide Bush v. Gore.

[Off topic, the punch line there of course is that had the Supreme Court gone the other way, the Florida Legislature (dominated by Republicans) could have put its own Electors in, regardless of the results of the recount. My analysis of the Supreme Court ruling is tha tthe Supreme Court ruled the way it did to avoid that very humiliation].

[jbg]

Your definition of democratic votes is pretty narrow as is your view of corruption.

Is the U.S. electoral college democratic? Most people would say it is. Delegate selection is democratic.

Is the one person, one member system democratic? Yes, but it is also corrupted by selling membership and from taking members who are not really members of the party.

JDobbin, we had an equivalent incident in the US Electoral College in 1876. Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican candidate was deadlocked with Samuel J. Tilden. The "deal" that was brokered was to allow back into the Union some unrepentant Southern states (the South voted Democratic in those days) if they allowed Hayes to win the election, which he had not fairly won. The revulsion prevented any further dealings at the Electoral College level, and probably was the cause of the U.S. Supreme Court having to decide Bush v. Gore.

[Off topic, the punch line there of course is that had the Supreme Court gone the other way, the Florida Legislature (dominated by Republicans) could have put its own Electors in, regardless of the results of the recount. My analysis of the Supreme Court ruling is that the Supreme Court ruled the way it did to avoid that very humiliation].

[geoffrey]

If anyone thinks a few little buttons changed the outcome of that race, your dreaming.

[jdobbin]

JDobbin, we had an equivalent incident in the US Electoral College in 1876. Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican candidate was deadlocked with Samuel J. Tilden. The "deal" that was brokered was to allow back into the Union some unrepentant Southern states (the South voted Democratic in those days) if they allowed Hayes to win the election, which he had not fairly won. The revulsion prevented any further dealings at the Electoral College level, and probably was the cause of the U.S. Supreme Court having to decide Bush v. Gore.

[Off topic, the punch line there of course is that had the Supreme Court gone the other way, the Florida Legislature (dominated by Republicans) could have put its own Electors in, regardless of the results of the recount. My analysis of the Supreme Court ruling is tha tthe Supreme Court ruled the way it did to avoid that very humiliation].

There are problems with both systems. To say one if more democratic over the other is hard to measure in any meaningful way.

[fellowtraveller]

Rae lost because the votes on teh floor weren't there due to the corrupt LIberal electoral system plain and simple.

No, Rae lost because he represented a bit of a wild card and the Liberal National Executive wanted a safe candidate, part of the Old Guard. Which is what they got and in doing so they have made a grave strategic error.

The one member, one vote system for a political party lends itself to a corrupt process. How does the party avoid being hijacked by special interests? I'd say the best strategy for lobby groups is to buy memberships for all it union or tobacco farmers or anti-abortionists and dominate a political party. Hell, perhaps the NDP and Liberals could buy all their members a party card and vote for the weakest leader.

Rubbish. How can you say that when exactly the opposite was demonstrated just yesterday in Alberta? Morton attempted to hijack the process by selling memberships to every churchgoer in Alberta. It worked for one ballot but didn't result in anything other than his third place finish, which was as good as he was ever going to get. Why doesn't it work? Two Reasons. First, there are a finite member of one-issue people. They don't attract others to their cause because they are clearly obsessed. Second, once the existence of the one-issue whackjobs is confirmed, it attracts a much larger number of centrists which easily outwegh the whackjobs.

How much evidence do you need? Just review the voting results in Alberta yesterday for cionfirmation that your theory is simply not valid.

Look to the results in Montreal to confirm that the delegate system is the one that is corrupt and easily manipulated by the party elite. After all, their man won......Quelle surprise.

[geoffrey]

Morton supporters second choice is what won it for Stelmach. Without Morton, Dinning would be Premier. Maybe Morton did win after all?

The one member, one vote system works much better.

[Wilber]

So what is being said is that the Conservatives could figure out who their most dangerous opponent would be but the Liberals couldn't and that the Conservatives were able to manipulate the convention for their own purposes. Doesn't say much for those Liberals.

[Rue]

I am with Fellow's comments on this and I will add some more two cents. If I was a conservative strategist I would believe Dion is the toughest opponent. Here's why. We all know Iggy was a disaster/accident waiting to happen and could not have made in throughout an election without a major gaff. Kennedy would have been completely unexperienced and while he is a great speaker and clearly this man really is quite the strategist and networker (proving to me he is no dummy at all I take it back) could not have matched Harper in economic debates. Who did that leave. Rae and Dion. Now let's be serious. Does anyone think with the economic baggage Rae had, he could convince Ontario let alone the West he was capable of running our economy. He would have been blown away as a socialist. I think of all the candidates Harper would have blown away the easiest it would have been Rae first, Iggy second, then Kennedy third simply because of Kennedy's lack of experience. So that leaves Dion. Dion has the same temperment. Everyone talks about him the way they did when Harper ran-a stiff, unfriendly, no nonsense, bland kind of guy. sound familiar? Dion has a ph.d in sociology and a B.A. and M.A. in Political Science. His doctorate is from Paris, his other degrees from Laval where his father was the head of the PoliSci faculty. Look he is an academic-but he has something no one else did in the LIberal Party-ten years technical experience garnered from being the inter-governmental affairs Minister, and then Environmental Minister. If nothing else that equipped him far better then the rest. He also has demonstrated in debates despite his French accent that he is another Stephen Harper, i.e., someone with razor wits, and like Harper, is no nonsense and blunt and no b.s.

I think these two are the best match up for proper debates. I think all this nonsense about the Tories being happy, etc., is b.s. and made up. We all know their are pro's and cons with anyone who would have won.

Obviously when McKenna did not run, that is when the Tories would have been happiest but I quite frankly think Frank McKenna was very over-rated. Is Dion the Joe Clark of the Liberals. I don't think so. I think the difference is he has paid his dues in an unpopular ministry taking on very explosive unpopular issues and I think warts and all, in a corupt regime of Chretien's you don't see people sticking any of the dirt on him and this is a guy who worked loyally for both Chretien and Martin. This is a survivor. He will make Harper work hard.

I will say this. I think Harper can take the soft middle of the road votes way from Dion by saying something a but more conciliatory about the environment and maintaining his approach to middle class tax cuts. That will take away voters who may be thinking Dion is too left. I also think if Haprer is smart he will get into Quebec and exploit the hatred for him there. However if anyone thinks Iggy won over Quebec and could have delivered Quebec and Ontario unlike any other Liberal, while I agree, I also think he would have self-destructed. I also think Quebecers would still not have voted for Iggy and still would have voted Block Q despite Iggy's nation nonsense.

[Slavik44]

I want to specify a few things because it appears a few people have ministerpreted my post.

I want to stress tha tI am not suggesting that the Conservatives were the ones responsible for Rae's defeat, I also want to stress that I was not really trying to paint this as a moral Issue, I even said this is not a moral issue it is a stupidity Issue. Putting asside morals, there is no logical justification for bragging about what they did, other then expansion of the ego. In the past Canadians have been a little leary of the percieved conservative ego. I am not trying to say the Liberals don't have one either, that was not my point. My point was purely from a strategic sense it is bad news. And if you, as most conservatives do, believe th emedia is on a biased witch hunt to destroy the party, what in the hell were they thinking.

[Wilber]

I agree, they should shut up. I was refering to the media's take on it. I also think Rue may have something. I wouldn't be so quick to write Dion off. He's a survivor.

[kimmy]

The only pro to admitting this is an enlarged head and the downside is more mud on the conservative image. Now the party is left hoping the comments are ignored and not played up by what Conservatives call a Biased media. Hint If you believe the media is blatantly biased, why would you tell them about the skeletons in your closet? It would have been better to shut up. If you want Canadians to continue to view liberals as evil bastards don't go out of your way to paint them as victims and yourself as the bastard. Now I am left sitting asking myself just how intelligent are these fools, maybe Bob Rae was right, the Vegetables will have steak too...there cannot be to much higher thought going up there.

I disagree that there's no upside in this. There's a few possible upsides.

It could sow the seeds of another rift within the Liberal party. If it leaves Rae supporters (or, Dion opponents) doubting that the results of the vote were the real deal, it could lead to divisions and bickering.

It could undermine Stephane Dion right from square one. While the perception that Conservatives tampered with the results would look bad for them, the perception that the Liberals got tricked into picking a lemon would be worse for the Liberals. Nobody wants a lemon to be the next Prime Minister.

And, it might leave people asking "if they can get conned into picking the wrong guy to lead the party, are these people competent enough to run the country?"

I'd look at this as a piece of bait. If the Liberals are smart, they ignore the bait, downplay any suggestion that the Conservatives influenced the results, and proclaim that they're very pleased with their process and their new leader.

If the Liberals aren't smart, they'll make a big deal about this. Because basically, there's no way to turn this into a news story without undermining Stephane Dion.

-k

[scribblet]

The one member, one vote system for a political party lends itself to a corrupt process. How does the party avoid being hijacked by special interests? I'd say the best strategy for lobby groups is to buy memberships for all it union or tobacco farmers or anti-abortionists and dominate a political party. Hell, perhaps the NDP and Liberals could buy all their members a party card and vote for the weakest leader.

So who has the rose coloured glasses now?

Mine are off LOL

I agree there can be a problem with memberships but the system can be fixed, (e.g. no new memberships less than say 30 days prior to the vote) The delgated conventions has its problems too, and can be manipulated.

Special interest groups - like who at a leadership convention, we all have our special interests, each riding has its own interests. Rural ridings usually have different isues than city ridings.

Either that or we register for a party, therefore any registered person can vote for the leadership.

[Canadian Blue]

I was reading the Globe and Mail about the Federal Liberal Youth delegates, and it made me wonder why some of those people were voting. One guy said he's not even involved in politics, his friend just got him to do it so he could lend some votes for his candidate. The Liberal system seem's kind of f$#@ed up.

[jdobbin]

I was reading the Globe and Mail about the Federal Liberal Youth delegates, and it made me wonder why some of those people were voting. One guy said he's not even involved in politics, his friend just got him to do it so he could lend some votes for his candidate. The Liberal system seem's kind of f$#@ed up.

Must be nice to spend $2000 to go party.

[stignasty]

I was reading the Globe and Mail about the Federal Liberal Youth delegates, and it made me wonder why some of those people were voting. One guy said he's not even involved in politics, his friend just got him to do it so he could lend some votes for his candidate. The Liberal system seems kind of f$#@ed up.

I don't think it's worse than selling a vote for party leader for $5. I know one uber-NDP supporter who bought a membership and voted in the hopes of electing a weaker leader for her enemies.