02.09.2012 07:22 AM

Memo to certain Liberal convention delegates

TO: 75 per cent of the Liberal delegates

FROM: Stupid blogger

RE: Your decision

MEMO: Just a few questions.

One, still think it was a good idea to open the party up to special interest takeovers? Starting to see what the leadership selection process is going to look like?

Two, if the anti-choice guy wins, will you now join me in urging everyone in Toronto-Danforth to vote for the NDP candidate?

Three, still think ‘change for change’s sake’ is a good idea?

32 Comments

  1. VH says:

    It would be better if the Liberal party focussed on economics and attacking the trickle down policies of the Conservative ideology rather than focussing on internal party tactical maneuvers.

    During out of election season news stories, just about the only topic that you will hear Liberals comment on is the about the Liberal party itself.

    The center can’t hold with such navel gazing. People need to focus on the important things; everything else will fall into place.

    • David Imrie says:

      Right on! When the hell will the Liberals in Toronto Danforth, my old riding, grow and realize there is more than petty crap to worry about? The long has long passed that it will be an “aldermanic” type of race. This one has national implications.

  2. Brad says:

    At the risk of a silly question:

    The article says that they tried to do this before in the 80s when the party was weak – how is now really any different?

    Too, all else being equal, is $10 that much of a disincentive to special interest groups?

  3. MP says:

    If this is what it takes to spur couch potato Liberals into action, then bring on the crazy. This isn’t supposed to be a spectator sport.

    In my opinion, far too many self-described Liberals have been waiting for a Obama-like bandwagon to come along and lift them up as opposed to doing some heavy lifting themselves.

  4. Kelly Oh says:

    If the leadership selection process can be taken over by a few allied special interests, then the party has a bigger problem. Liberals for life can win a riding nomination because of the small number of votes needed. If they (or other special interest groups) can do the same at the leadership level, it means that there aren’t many people voting for the leader. If that is the case, then the media can truthfully write the party’s obituary.

  5. CalgaryGrit says:

    As Steve said, supporters can’t vote for nominations, so this just shows the kind of power special interest groups can have under the current system..

    And I’d rather they did open up nominations. After all, it’s a lot harder for pro-lifers to win a nomination where 500 Liberals + supporters vote than one where 100 Liberals vote.

  6. JH says:

    Didn’t the Liberal Women also pass a motion at the convention on this issue? I think it was condemning a Liberal provincial governnment (maybe PEI’s?) because they don’t cover abortion costs?

  7. que sera sera says:

    Bitchiness is an unattractive quality, in anyone, even stellar individuals. And counterproductive as hell. What I find exhausting and demoralizing is listening/watching Liberals eating their own on a daily basis. Good grief.

    If following the dictates of one supreme all-knowing god-like political being is what is important, perhaps membership in the Conservative Party is the answer.

    Stifling people’s voices (opinionated idiots are people too) and votes is not what democracy is about.

  8. KP says:

    As Dilbert once said – y’know, before he got all sanctimonious – there’s nothing more dangerous than a resourceful idiot. Is Haitas just attempting to run for the Liberals because it gives him a larger profile than running as a Green in that riding? Either way, he’s running for the wrong party, though a Conservative would have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning Danforth.

    I have major issues with a social conservative group popping up – or in this case, re-popping – within a party which has repeatedly tried to move away from those kinds of policies and worldview. It’s certainly not consistent with the Liberal Party I support.

  9. frmr disgruntled Con now happy Lib says:

    As a relatively new Liberal Party member, I was against this from the get go……around election time, most “members” can be counted upon to slog in the trenches, and contribute what $ they can….”supporters” will vote for their leadership candidate of choice, never to be heard or seen from again…..
    I believe the powers that be wanted to increase their data base……fine…..but at what risk of having the party hijacked?….and ladies and gents, it can happen……
    The Progressive Conservative party was almost made the personal vehicle of the David Orchard “cult o’ personality” such were the numbers of his supporters joining……because we were weak at the time…
    Now the party says that anyone who signs up without making a small financial commitment, or stating that they support the aims and goals of the Liberal Party, can have a say in who leads it?……the anti-choice folks must be salivating at the thought……
    Im all for a “big tent”(I have been welcomed as a result of that)…..but not at the risk of giving away the farm………

  10. Mulletaur says:

    C’mon, Warren – get with the program. This is all part of the Raelian Master Plan to destroy the Liberal Party of Canada once and for all so that there will be only one party of the left : the NDP.

  11. A says:

    While I certainly don’t favour pro-lifers taking over any party I think people are missing the irony here – the last Liberal MP for the riding – one Dennis Mills – was a pro-lifer.

  12. Neil says:

    There are several pro-choice Liberal MPs, ergo the party is taken over by the pro-life movement. All parties are open to special interest groups…its called democratic pluralism. If this is so distasteful Warren, then please stay in the OLP where there are no pro-lifers … none, not even in cabinet. Really, the party will be taken over by special interest groups? A political party is a collection of special interest groups – that’s the whole idea.

  13. Dan says:

    Misleading memo. Riding nominations were not opened up, just the leadership nominations.
    And while he said he was a pro-lifer, he also said that he didn’t want to open up the debate which is fine by me.

    This is nothing new http://www.theinterim.com/politics/pro-lifers-give-chretien-fits/

  14. Dan says:

    You know, Warren… I often think that if I were your age, I would have ended up voting for Pierre Trudeau. But by the same token, if you were my age, I think you would have ended up voting for Jack Layton.

    The Liberal party isn’t what it used to be. I know you’re inside it, so you probably see a lot more of the goodnatured “just society” people still kicking around. But there are enough people trying to hijack the party, and enough people happy to welcome them into the big red tent, not realizing that they’ve stretched the tent so wide that they’ve knocked out the legs. I’m talking about the (dying) BC alliance between the Liberals and the Conservatives, the PLQ under Tory leadership, the austerity under Chretien-Martin, the courting of Belinda Stronach and other PCs, the canonization of a guy who got props in American circles by cheerleading Bush’s foreign policy…

    There’s been a fight for the soul of the Liberal party for a while. I respect your loyalty and I wish you the best in fighting it. But I think it’s been lost already.

  15. Tim Sullivan says:

    Nothing that happened at the convention has encouraged, triggered or effected the nomination of the local candidate. There is nothing different here than what happened with Tom Wappel when he took over his riding association. Opponents, potential candidates and “pro-choice” supporters can go out and sell $10 memberships, too.

    What happened at the convention was to open the door, just a bit, to having those who call themselves Liberals but who may not have active memberships, pitch-in for the leadership. The Republicans and Democrats have not been taken over the other party, south of the border. I was suspicious of the initiative, voted against it, but I am curious to see what it will produce next time.

    Can’t be any worse than the last 2 choices, and I will go so far as to say the last 3 choices “we’ve” made about our leadership (Iggy was not popularly elected by members).

    Silence from Andrew Lang. He should be out there, selling memberships. He’d have a good chance against the NDP. I just hope the NDPer will fess-up about any ill-health issues, unlike the last fellah from Danforth.

  16. Jim Hanna says:

    Well, I was in the 25%, for a host of reasons, and I think that ultimately that idea will come to bite us in the ass. Andre Boisclair and Stockwell Day were both voted in by OMOV and this would just exacerbate that tendency at best; or lead to something like this.

    However, at the riding level, I actually don’t have a problem with a more open process. It would be a lot easier to counter a takeover with a more open system, as well. And at the end of the day, someone (although I don’t think it should be the party leader, but thats another topic) signs off on their nomination papers.

    We voted for a bad change, imho, on party leader, but then still allowed the leader to veto policy and appoint candidates to his hearts content. Now thats a scary thought, come a special interest takeover – the leader can choose his policies and his candidates, and it really doesn’t matter what the members or, god forbid, the sitting MP’s say.

  17. Steve T says:

    I love watching Liberals’ heads explode when someone in the party actually dares to deviate from the groupthink on one of the Liberal sacred cows.

    Funny how, if this person had expressed a fiercely pro-choice opinion (or a fiercely pro-socialized medicine opinion, or whatever), he wouldn’t be painted as a “single-issue candidate”. But if you go against the accepted truths, watch out buddy…

    This is especially ironic when looking at all the Liberal scorn cast south of the border towards Republican / Tea Party fire-breathers who pillory anyone within the party who speaks in favour of these exact same things.

    Preston Manning had the right idea (but unfortunately the wrong execution) when he tried to create a party where people could actually speak their mind without fear of retribution. Sadly, we just don’t seem to want that openness.

Leave a Reply to Michael Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*