I was a Laurier supporter who switched over to St. Laurent. Louis' my guy. Wait a minute? Whatchya mean he's not running for leader?
I keep hearing all this BS about "Chretien supporters" or "Martin supporters" behind this or the other leadership campaign or candidate. This is really getting old. We ALL supported someone in the past. Many of us have changed our minds. Many of us are mature enough to be able to move on to the "next one".
Sure some of the "behind-the-scenes" people (on all sides) were assholes. They often are in it for the whole WIIFM (what's in it for me) thing. You know, they want to be the PMO employee, or the backroom hack on the Hill in some other office. You can read these people a mile away. Yes, they will step on your toes. They've stepped on mine too. Get over it. Assholes are everywhere. Giving them undue attention is not helpful to anyone.
Oh yeah... and don't just label someone an "asshole" because they supported someone else. They may not be. I recall being called a few names at the Montreal convention. I didn't call any back. Just smiled and went on my way. Remember this little line: "Be nice to people. The asses you kick on the way up, just might be same asses you have to kiss on your way back down."
I recall the past leadership contest. Take a look at the old Saskatchewan "Chretien" machine. They're significantly with Ignatieff. The first people who approached me about the Michael Ignatieff campaign were Chretien supporters from way back in 90, and a Sheila Copps organizer from Hamilton (he approached me at the Martin coronation in 04). I saw a lot of Martin supporters come on board in Alberta, and a lot of former Sask. Martin team members - right there, working alongside their old 1990 and 1993 leadership rivals.
I think we have got to be careful labeling people as "Martin" or "Chretien" "supporters". I don't think it does ANY good bitching about the past. My blog is not going to criticize any of these new leadership hopefuls. They all have some great strengths, and I would take any of them over Harper.
I'm going to talk about what each can offer to "de-throne" Harper. We should all focus on that.
As far as which Laurier or St. Laurent supporters (or Trudeau, or Chretien, or Martin, or Turner supporters), this childish f'n argument does us no good. The conspiracy theories about someone behind someone are just plain stupid. I've been around the party (working campaigns, etc.). There has never been a leader I didn't like, but also never a leader I didn't criticize (with the exception of PET). There were both "Chretien and Martin people" in every leadership team last time. I'm sure there were also some people from the "Laurier cabal". See how stupid that sounds?
Time to grow up and focus on the future.
My choice for leader?
Dhalla
Rae
Ignatieff
LeBlanc
Kennedy
Rudolf the f'n Red-nosed Reindeer
Who cares? THE Leader is going to have my support, and if you're not a petty little child, your's too - NO MATTER WHO THAT LEADER IS.
4 comments:
YOU ARE 100% CORRECT.
Every leadership campaign last time and this time included/includes Liberals who admired/supported Chretien and/or Martin.
Unfortunately, one camp is at this time planning to make it seem they are the GREAT UNITER. I hope they would spend more energy mobilizing grassroots Liberals instead of grandstanding.
The Liberal leader after May 3 should be the leadership candidate who can motivate the most grassroots Canadians to become enthusiastic, active members of the Liberal Party of Canada.
The Liberal leader after May 3 should NOT be the leadership candidate who gathered a few outspoken, loudmouths, who gave the Liberal Party tepid support in October.
too true
The job is too big, the task to important, to be just another re-enactment of old feuds. I agree 1000%, there is a place in Canada for a united, strong Liberal Party. A disengaged, bitterly fractured frat reunion? Not so much...
Curious about something. Why do you always spell Chretien's name Cretien, without the "h"?
Post a Comment