04.19.2014 04:31 PM

In Sunday’s Sun: when democracy is just a word

A year ago this month, Justin Trudeau was a candidate for the Liberal Party leadership.  He gave a big speech to delegates at what was called the “Liberal leadership showcase.”

Among other things, Trudeau said this:  “The only person Mr. Harper wants his caucus to serve is their leader.  Well, that’s not good enough. We need to be a party of community leaders, devoted to community service. That’s why I am calling for open nominations for all Liberal candidates in every single riding in the next election.”

“Open nominations” is political-speak.  It basically means what the phrase implies: the selection of candidates is wide open, and there is no special treatment for supposed star candidates. In a true open nomination process, there are no barriers to anyone wanting to be a Liberal candidate – and, in particular, the leader stays out of it.

Trudeau made a big deal out of his open nomination pledge.  No one asked him to.  He did it, all on his own.  In a speech after speech, in scrum after scrum, the newly-minted Liberal Party leader said open nominations were the new way.

In a year-end interview with the Toronto Star:  “Every candidate for the Liberal Party in 338 ridings in 2015, or whenever the election does come, will have been chosen in a free vote by the Liberal members of that riding.”

In a statement made just last month:  “Open nominations, which I continue to be committed to and have always been committed to, is about letting local Liberals choose who is going to be their candidate in the next election.”

And even on the Liberal Party of Canada web site:  “Our Leader Justin Trudeau is committed to open nominations in all 338 ridings from coast to coast to coast.”

Well, that wasn’t true, was it? No.  It was a lie.

Take, as an example, the sad case of the downtown Toronto riding of Trinity Spadina – where the undemocratic machinations of Trudeau and his inner circle have resulted in hurt feelings, lawsuits and an avalanche of bad press.  There, the Liberal leader’s guarantee has been reduced to farce.  His “open nominations” are neither.

But Trudeau keeps saying they’re open, even when they aren’t. “We’re glad to see there’s actually going to be an open nomination now in Trinity-Spadina,” he said, possibly with a straight face.

Three weeks thereafter, Trudeau emerged from a clandestine meeting with populist Toronto city councilor Adam Vaughan at Toronto’s Le Select Bistro – where a salad will set you back 13 bucks, and a plate of ribs 30 – and it was declared that Vaughan will be the Liberal candidate in Trinity Spadina. There you go, local Liberals: Adam is your candidate, whether you like it or not.

Mostly, they don’t.  Most of them wanted Christine Innes, who was barred from running again in Trinity Spadina because her husband allegedly had been super-mean to some young Liberals.  She’s now suing Trudeau and his oxymoronic brain trust for defaming her coast-to-coast.  She’s going to win.

Vaughan, meanwhile, gives an entirely new dimension to the concept of “political loner.” While smart and hard-working, Vaughan has mused about starting his own political party. He’s also said that “becoming part of a political machine” inevitably results that a candidate is “held prisoner to that ideology.”

Not so in Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party.  When it comes democracy, the Trudeau Liberals favour situational ideology. That is, the ideology or the policy is whatever Trudeau says it is. And if you disapprove? Well, too bad.

On Wednesday, Trudeau paused in repeating his “open nominations” mantra.

Why? Well, because on that day, the Liberal Party quietly slipped onto its web site that ten Liberals were going to be acclaimed across Ontario.  No nomination meeting, no openness.

The good news, I guess, is we now know why Justin Trudeau said he admired “dictatorships.”

.

68 Comments

  1. john robinson says:

    All this really proves is he is a real politician

  2. Matt says:

    Meanwhile the Conservatives are allowing open nominations which has cost one current, longtime CPC MP a spot in the 2015 election. And when Harper learned that the Conservative Party’s Executive Director was interfering in his girlfriends (MP Eve Adams) attempt to become the candidate in a different riding, Harper fired him. Yet Trudeau claims Harper is a control freak and dictator.

    And Adam Vaughan running for the Liberals? Are you freaking kidding me???

  3. Mike Sloan says:

    I admire Adam Vaughan because he was tough on Rob Ford from day 1. Other than that, the optics couldn’t be worse. He’s not even a member of the Liberal party, as far as I can tell. I’ve never met him, but if he does get elected, my sense is that he will be a headache for the party.

  4. doris says:

    And people wonder why they should get into party politics and activities. Nothing ever changes. The Leader says do this and the lemmings and faithful say “How High??”
    Doesn’t make a damn bit of difference which party, they all do it hence another rung on the ladder of cynicism. Can’t see any way out of this shit and too old to fall for the musings of a dilettante. So I guess it’s back to carping from the back rows.
    Well that thought of progressivism lasted all of three weeks!

    • Elisabeth Lindsay says:

      Well Doris…..it seems you have really come to the conclusion that no party in Canada is ever going to live up to your expectations.

      Where are you going to go now?

  5. frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib says:

    I had such high hopes when the Liberal Party was hammered at the polls in the last election…….I thought that things were now going to be done differently from the days of Iggy…….or at least I had the impression of things being done differently under Bob Rae……sadly, with its new found popularity(with all credit going to M. Trudeau) the LPOC seems to have returned to its old ways…….I still support the party, and M. Trudeau……because another term of Mr. Harper is more than I can bear…..but Im disappointed the party hasn’t lived up to the promise of open nominations…..
    There is a young man in my riding who is working his butt off to garner the Liberal nomination in our riding. I hope that he isn’t too terribly disappointed if it turns out the fix is already in.

  6. Liam says:

    Pity poor Adam Vaughn. He’s going to give up his council seat, only to end up unemployed. On by-election day, NDP supporters will vote for Joe Cressy, and Christine Innes supporters will vote for Joe Cressy. I’m not sure how Vaughn isn’t smart enough to figure this out.

    • Matt says:

      I could be wrong, but I don’t think Vaughan has to resign his seat on council to run for a federal seat. He just takes a leave of absence.

      IIRC, Ms. Chow did the same after Layton became leader of the Fed NDP.

      She took a leave to run in a by election, lost, then returned to her place on council. She ran again and won a seat in ottawa.

      Or am I mis-remembering?

      • Sezme says:

        Vaughan has said he’s not running for reelection at Council and says he wasn’t going to run for reelection anyway. Since the federal election is in 2015 and the municipal election is this year, he won’t have to worry about stepping down.

        As to Olivia, she did take a leave the first time she ran federally, but she stepped down the second time.

        • Liam says:

          Thanks for the correction Matt and Sezme. I was not aware of either of those scenarios. Ultimately though, Vaughn will go out with a defeat, IMHO.

          • Sezme says:

            Actually I was a little overtired and forgot this was a by election so he would presumably have to step down or take a leave, but it sounds like he’ll likely resign his seat.

  7. que sera sera says:

    Not only is “democracy” just a word, right now it appears to be a dirty word according to the unFair Elections Act.

    I suspect 36% makes “majority” just a word, as well……….. along with “kakistocracy”.

    The dirty political paradox is that only improbably “clean” hands at the top can mitigate the filth at the bottom.

    • Matt says:

      Everyone is making the “no vouching” part of the Fair Elections act such a big deal.

      Question:

      Why wasn’t it a big deal in the recent Quebec election? They don’t allow vouching. And, they only accept 5 forms of ID. There are over 40 forms of acceptable ID for federal elections.

      Or is your issue simply that the Fair Elections act was proposed by the Conservatives?

      As for the percentage needed for a majority, Mr. Chretien never got above 42% in any of his three majorities. 1997 he was down around 37.5%

  8. Sean says:

    Trudeau is arrogant and deceitful. He’s arrogant in that he consistently insults the intelligence of those connected to him by repeating the same lie, or nonsense over and over again, such as his bogus statistics re the number of pot convictions. His arrogance rings through loud and clear when he feels entitled to drop the F-bomb at a charity event and then use the shit word during a CBC interview. He truly must be afflicted by a narcissism so deeply entrenched into his psyche that he believes himself to be invincible.

    His lie re open nominations cost him Zach Paikin, an honest and honorable person, as well as the trust of many liberals who despise Machiavellian politics and the sleaze of back room deals. But back room dealing seems to be what Trudeau is about.

    • smelter rat says:

      You’re funny!

    • Ty says:

      Trudeau deserves to get raked, but losing Paikin is a feature, not a bug.

      He hasn’t done jack squat with his life yet and wants to represent 100k people. It’s narcissism defined.

      • smelter rat says:

        Bingo.

      • islandcynic says:

        There is no reason to disenfranchise young Canadians from engaging in the political process. You think that Zack does not want to make things better because he is young?
        If there was an open nomination process he would have gained valuable experience. I know plenty of young people that have more insight then people twice their age.
        Grabbing their attention by being a pot smoker is not the way I want to see it done.

  9. Ridiculosity says:

    There will be 338 ridings voting in the 2015 federal election.

    If Justin can find 337 other exceptional candidates like Adam Vaughan I’m good with that.

    I’m also good with him calling the shots. As are all of the other card-carrying Liberals that I know. Without exception.

    As for “hurt feelings’? I think James Carville said it best, “You have to have sharp elbows if you want to change something.”

    As Lisa Kirbie said during an interview with David Akin in April of 2013 in response to his assertion that “winnability is a big issue for you”, Kirbie responded, “When I went to that dinner [with Justin], I was surprised that he said it. [open nominations] is a very populist idea that causes concern for those of us inside the bubble, I think, more so than everyday Canadians. But we will debate this as a party, as the Liberal Party tends to do.”

    Your ‘everyday Canadian’ doesn’t care one iota HOW somebody ended up on a ballot. The do care WHO is on the ballot. And there’s no debating that.

    • Terry Quinn says:

      well said

      • G. Babbitt says:

        You’re missing the point. I would support a return to delegate style leadership and I don’t believe that democracy within a party is important. The problem is that Trudeau tried to score political points by promising that he would open the party to open nominations. He lied or at best backtracked. Yes most people don’t care about party internal democracy, but Trudeau’s character is at stake. If he promised a to build an arena in Kamloops and then without a good reason changed his mind, I would be weary of the promises he makes in Cornerbrook. And there’s no debating that.

  10. Coelocanth_Jones says:

    Warren, you may remain a Grit, in some capacity, for the rest of your days, but unlike just about every other Grit I interact with, you understand how fucked the machine is, and why people like me have run away, never to look back. For that, I thank you

  11. james Smith says:

    Good article.
    There has always been a tension between the good constituency MP or MLA or MPP and the cabinet ministers or high flyers or Stars. I believe one needs both sets of people in a caucus. But the gap between Mr T’s comments and actions aside, I think all parites need to move towards the British Labour Party’s Model where by and large the central party recruits, vets and installs candidates.

    WIth a few exceptions, riding associations in this day and age are a waste of people’s time and money. Battles like Trinity Spadina, or Halton North Burlington or Hamilton East or Calgary Signal Hill waste time and money and create rifts for no good reason. Single issues candidates or people with baggage or unilingual wait staff on holiday in Las Vegas are the result in our present system.

    No doubt some may say we will have fewer average people and more elitists, I doubt we could get more elitist than we are at present. In in marginal ridings, the central party would work harder to get local people with a local profile to run, especially if they don’t have to put themselves through a contested nomination against a local party machine boss who gets the nomination because the riding is the boss’ club.

    • doris says:

      so hows that unilingual wait person doing these days? Take a look an exceptional MP putting the lie to the fact that one needs to be a lawyer or someother ‘acceptable’ person to be an MP. We need more workers and less parasites in Parliament. the system of picking joe bloes works well in the jury panels how about trying it for MPs you might be surprised as to what the common folk can do when put to it!

  12. Houland Wolfe says:

    You’re smoking hot tonight*. Ouch! You’ve burnt both bridges to the federal and provincial Liberals. And now, you’re fronting for Olivia.

    You may be older, but no less bolder.

    *smoking pot

  13. Vlad Bishop says:

    Democracy is the rule of the majority. As long as the will of the majority was not clear, as long as it was possible to make it out to be unclear, at least with a grain of plausibility, the people were offered a counter-revolutionary bourgeois system disguised as “democratic.” But this delay could not last long.

    During the months that have passed, the will of the majority of Canadians, the overwhelming majority of the country’s population, has become clear in more than a general sense. Their will has found expression in the Trudeau cadre and the Young Volunteers. They understand the tired old guard has to be swept away. The senators opposed us and now they are no more. The courts submit to the Charter and will submit to the right of majority, as expressed by the cadre, to liberate the people from counter-revolutionary shackles. The people understand that they don’t understand and therefore must not trouble themselves with understanding the tactics of the revolutionary cadre to fake out the likes of Innes and her ilk.

    How, then, can anyone oppose the transfer of all power in the state to the Trudeauites? Such opposition means nothing but renouncing democracy! It means no more no less than imposing on the people a government which admittedly can neither come into being nor hold its ground democratically, i.e., as a result of truly free, truly popular elections.

  14. Terry Quinn says:

    As soon as the Christine Innis file gets to discovery she will drop her suit. She has tried to force JT’s hand and has failed. Yes open nominations as a process are nice in a perfect world, but we don’t live in one. JT needs some high powered candidates and sometimes, for the good of his election campaign, he must make decisions that run contrary to his policy. The NDP and Harpertrons will do the same in certain situations.

    • Bill MacLeod says:

      So, you’re saying that you approve of your leader lying to his supporters? Why should voters believe any of his policies, assuming he actually rolls a few of those out between now and the fall of 2015?

      The answer is: They shouldn’t.

      • William says:

        What leader doesn’t lie to his supporters?

        The answer is: They all do.

        • Bill MacLeod says:

          That may be good enough for you but it certainly isn’t for me. You want me as a supporter? You better not be lying to me. Loyalty and deceit do not work well together.

          • que sera sera says:

            This ain’t Kansas anymore, Toto.

            You’ve never changed your mind when your shiny black & white position is untenable amongst dirty shades of gray? Apparently Neanderthals had the same problem adapting. Duffy, Wallin & Brazeau, Guergis, Duncan, & Toews, del Mastro, Penashue & Anders appear to as well.

            Reality check. While Harper & his tax paid chorus of turd polishers have vested thousands of hours trying to reinforce delusions Harper is “your leader”, JT is just another fucking politician working towards the legal, non-fraudulent election of a majority of Liberals. I can understand why some people have a problem with that.

          • Bill MacLeod says:

            “You’ve never changed your mind when your shiny black & white position is untenable amongst dirty shades of gray?”

            Yes, I’ve changed my mind when it turned out that I was wrong about something, especially something important. However, I haven’t heard Trudeau changing their mind here, I’ve just heard him promising one thing whilst he was doing another — several times over.

            Here’s a reality check for you: Voters who actually believe this “fraudulent election” stuff may have a difficult time voting for a leader that breaks his promise for democratic nomination meetings before getting so much as a sniff of 24 Sussex.

          • que sera sera says:

            “Voters who actually believe this “fraudulent election” stuff….”

            You mean the voters who witnessed the CPC, plead guilty to election fraud?
            You mean the voters who witnessed Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro resign as Harper’s Parliamentary Secretary after being charged with election fraud?
            You mean the voters who witnessed Conservative MP Peter Penashue resign his seat and lose in a by-election after having his $30,000 election fraud exposed?

            Politicians and a party with a proven history of lying, cheating and committing electoral fraud while participating in Canadian federal elections going back to 2006 are problematic for most voters dealing with reality.

            Politicians who green/red-light aspiring candidates long before an election is even called — not so much.

            With your impeccable standards and high level of personal integrity, I suspect you won’t be voting in any federal elections anytime soon.

          • Bill MacLeod says:

            OK, let me be clear: I mean “voters who believe these actions indeed constitute fraud and are upset with those involved.”

            Those people are just as likely to be annoyed with the seemingly undemocratic processes at play within the LPC.

            You say: “Politicians and a party with a proven history of lying, cheating and committing electoral fraud while participating in Canadian federal elections going back to 2006 are problematic for most voters dealing with reality.”

            Unfortunately, the entire raison d’etre for this comment thread is Mr. Kinsella’s calling an LPC website statement as being a lie.

            Actually, I’ve voted in every election in which I have been eligible to cast a ballot, dating back to 1972. I think what you mean to say is that I will continue casting about for a (temporarily) worthy candidate. I’ve been a card-carrying member and supporter of no less than four federal parties over the past 45 years and I’m not about to accept mediocrity from my potential prime ministers no matter what their political stripe.

  15. Mississaugapeter says:

    That last line …

    Ouch!

  16. Ty says:

    The commitment was stupid in the first place and reeked of front-runner syndrome. Sometimes you’re forced to stick to principle and sometimes you have to turn.

    Turning was the right choice here. He’s the leader and he has a right to exclude candidates (just like JC with Liberals for Life, just like SH).

    He will get heat, and you are right to give it to him. As my articling principal told me, the road to everyone being pissed at you is overpromising, and it’s better he burns his hand on the stove here then the whole house down during the election.

    Re: The last line, you guys at the Sun really didn’t like that joke, did you?

    • Terry Quinn says:

      Yea they do, but remember who the principle owner is

      • Ty says:

        Individual members of the party, who gave Trudeau a 78% mandate.

        Anyone working in the Canadian system knows there’s really no such thing as an “open nomination”, they all involve different levels of official interference/shenanigans.

  17. Andy says:

    I thought Grease is THE word.

  18. squeakywheel says:

    I didn’t know the boss at SUN news was a separatist!

  19. Joe says:

    In a representative democracy having the party leaders or their apparatchiks appointing local candidates is tantamount to dictatorship. You ignorant plebs get to vote for a Conservative leader’s bootlick, or the Liberal leader’s bootlick, or the NDP leader’s bootlick, or the Green leader’s bootlick and no you can not elect someone who shares your viewpoint if that viewpoint is at variance with the Leader because we are smarter than you and only pick candidates with shown bootlicking abilities.

  20. graham watt says:

    Toronto Liberals, still at the icky,picky stuff that almost destroyed the damn party before JT arrived.

    • Len Powell says:

      Do you honestly believe that Justin Trudeau is resurrecting the Liberal Party to it’s past grandeur and he will lead them to defeating Harper and Mulcair? That’s a mighty big challenge if you ask me. The popularity polls are encouraging but how will Justin stand up to election campaign scrutiny and attacks from the Left and Right? Has Justin created a critical mass of pro-Liberal voters and now he’s immune to any attacks?

  21. Peter Jay says:

    “… Vaughan has mused about starting his own political party. He’s also said that “becoming part of a political machine” inevitably results that a candidate is “held prisoner to that ideology.””

    What exactly is the Liberal ideology?

    As far as I can tell there isn’t any ideology which is why it attracts the opportunists, especially when the polling looks good.

    The trouble is, you need lots of donations and volunteers to win an election and for that you don’t require opportunists but believers in a cause. The opportunists will get a big surprise in 2015.

  22. Len Powell says:

    But Warren…. you know it’s all to no avail because Justin is golden and his words are sweet as honey. The adoring masses don’t understand nor care about some administrative stuff about “open” nominations and even if you explained it to them they would yawn.

    The real loser in this Justinmania epidemic is none other than NDP Mulcair and he knows it! Recently, Mulcair is aiming his political cannons at Justin because that is his #1 concern now. He fears Justin will scoop up the Quebec vote and eradicate the NDP in Quebec… Mulcair’s power base within the NDP.

    Hey, didn’t les quebecois go apeshit crazy for Jack’s l’Orange Crushez koolaid and flocked to the NDP electing university students and restaurant servers to represent them in the HoCs? The same quebecois lemming mentality can equally apply to Justin because he is after all a self-proclaimed “Son of Quebec”. Meanwhile, the cagey CPC war-room is staying quiet and presumably keeping their powder dry.

    Justin Trudeau can say anything he wants anywhere and lie lie lie… and he can get away with it because the Canadian masses, and particularly Canadian women are besotted with his aura, his charisma, his je ne sais quoi …. You cannot reason with emotionally committed people because their hero worship is unassailable!

    So Warren…. please explain how Justin can be politically defeated when his supporters see him as their anti-Harper messiah?

    • sezme says:

      His supporters may believe he is a messiah, but the question is how many supporters he’ll have at the end of the day (cf. Rob Ford). You paint the electorate as fickle, which they may be, but you have to realize that they can be just as fickle to JT. Calling it Justinmania seems to be overstating the case. Maybe you’re right; we’ll see.

  23. Michael says:

    Trudeau often said the words “Open Nominations” but there was never any question in my mind that there would be a “Green Light” process, which by its definition implies the possibility of a red light.

    In my riding, our Candidate Search Committee has been active since last summer, and has operated under this assumption from the beginning. The members have been informing interested parties all along that, while the rules had not yet been communicated (they have now), it was very likely that interested parties would have to be vetted through a “Green Light” committee before they could get on the nomination ballot. So far as I can tell, the intent of Trudeau’s “Open Nomination” plan has always been this: An election between properly vetted and qualified contestants. It was never meant to be a free-for-all, even though to many, that’s how it sounded. It’s unfortunate that this nuance was not well communicated. Now he’s getting blowback for it.

    There is no question, however, that a vetting process is crucial for any party. If Rob Ford or Ezra Levant wanted to run for the Liberals (safe example, because they don’t), the party should be able to block their attempt. Without that ability, it could severely damage the party system. Whether or not that’s a good thing is a debate for another day.

    In the cases where there are acclamations occurring, I believe there were no challengers. If paperwork was submitted and a “green light” given to more than one candidate, an acclamation would not occur. There would be an election. I believe this is the case in Trinity-Spadina, where Trudeau convinced Vaughan to throw his hat in. Vaughan is not (yet?) the Candidate; he is a contestant, and will have to beat the other Liberals running for the nomination. I believe there are at least two others running. There is no doubt that in most circumstances having the Leader’s personal backing would score huge points and tilt the balance; in this case, with the Innes affair ongoing, there may not be the same effect.

    • smelter rat says:

      Exactly.

    • debs says:

      thanks Michael for the reasonable synopsis of the political system. I think trudeau has the right to back a candidate he likes and they way you explain it, sounds like he did that while still keeping the process open to others to vye for the position.

    • catherine says:

      Exactly.

      Other parties which say they have open nominations, also have a green light process and also have acclamations. Joe Cressy was acclaimed by the NDP and the NDP also booted a candidate for harassing other NDP supporters online in the past.

      Adam Vaughan and the other nominees have said they expect to have to win the nomination for the LPC in order to run as the candidate. I, for one, am happy that the LPC has a leader who will do the work of trying to attract candidates who have a good chance of winning.

      I had completely written this riding off for the LPC before it was announced that Adam Vaughan will be running. I don’t know if Vaughan will win, but unlike the other LPC names mentioned, I think he at least has a chance. He has good name recognition in the riding and has a track record of winning elections. I hope he wins the nomination, as I’m looking forward to the race between him and Cressy. In some ways, it seems like a repeat of his race against Helen Kennedy who was hand-picked by Chow and expected to win. Cressy was also Chow’s pick and for whatever reason didn’t have to compete with anyone else. We’ll see how this all turns out, but I think it is foolish to assume Cressy has gazillion to one odds.

  24. Paul Brennan says:

    this is all good but did he smoke pot today …

  25. Jerry says:

    Both Trudeau and Mulcair are opposed to uniting the centre-left and both intend to run on their own in the October 2015 election.

    If the Harper Conservatives win another decisive majority government, that will end the political careers of both of them.

    There will be no alternative for Liberals and Dippers but to merge the remnants of their battered parties and under new leadership.

    To most Canadians, the Liberals and Dippers represent a divisive political choice that makes no sense. Unite or perish!

    • Julie Sharp says:

      Are you suggesting that to Fight the Right, the Left must first be near-fatally wounded by the Conservative Apocalypse? I don’t think Warren had that in mind when he wrote his grand thesis. Warren?

        • Julie Sharp says:

          Now that “Fight the Right” is being ignored by both the Liberals and NDP what do you have for Plan “B”? How about “Unite the Left” which will not be a call to arms against the Conservative hordes but rather a guide to survival in the political waters and treading the shifting tides?

          I suppose the Liberals and NDP can fight it out to the bitter end and watch the Conservatives sail into another majority government. That would create a left wing power vacuum in Canada that would have to be filled quickly or else the armageddon becomes the apocalypse and Canada won’t be recognizable.

    • Michael says:

      During last year’s Liberal leadership campaign, I heard on many occasions that the new leader must get at least 2 elections to try and win. The LPC has come to the realization that they are shooting themselves in the head by ditching their leader if he fails to win on the first try. So your assertion that Trudeau’s political career is over over if Harper wins a decisive majority is pure unadulterated crap.

      Mulcair on the other hand does not have the same luxury. After watching Layton make steady gains over the last we elections the NDP were looking for a leader who could seal the deal and take them to the promised land. That was why they made the choice of Mulcair. In the minds of many NDP members Mulcair was the one who could hang on to the Quebec seats and make gains in the ROC. If Mulcair fails to do this, or worse yet, the NDP goes back to their historic seat levels, he is done like dinner.

      As for the two parties uniting, it may be what the chattering classes are calling for, but there is not a lot of traction for that idea within either party.

      • Mississaugapeter says:

        “During last year’s Liberal leadership campaign, I heard on many occasions” Trudeau say that there will open nominations, he has revealed it “is pure unadulerated crap.”

        The CPC have exposed themselves as pathetic and the polls have for over a year given Trudeau a significant lead. If he fails to capitalize now, and “Harper wins a decisive majority”, what God-given right would the Loser have for a second shot?

        I believe that Trudeau will continue to have a lead in the polls until the next election (no matter how many times he has foot in mouth moments nd his Cabal gives him bad advice). If he fails to seal the deal and loses decisively, why would anyone give him another chance? Because supporters at a Leadership race say it should be so? Sorry Michael, that is what Dion and Ignatieff folks would have suggested one year prior to the election. But that is not reality. People will blame his pot, China, Dauphin, hair, you name it as the reason for the loss. And then the Liberals will nominate a more
        mature individual.

        All of this should be mute if Trudeau does what he should do considering the pathetic CPC, and that
        is take Liberals to the promised land.

  26. graham watt says:

    The Liberals were in the toilet before JT arrived. It’s Brazeau that’s in rehab. JT isn’t the second coming, he’s the first Liberal that did something, amid that smouldering wreckage of wounded prides, not afraid to make mistakes, not afraid of corny stuff like hope, or to say some jerk in the House is full of shit when he is. He’ll make more mistakes but he’s not afraid of many things, especially bullshit and conventional tactical political strategies because for some reason he seems to actually believe in the intelligence of the Canadian people. Rare. Sort of young and energetic too.

Leave a Reply

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


*