Watch this. Take a couple minutes, and watch it. If this woman doesn’t make you smile, at least once, you’ve got a stone for a heart.
When I finally got around to watching this, I just kind of knew that she would be Ontario’s next Premier. In a contest between your political head, and your political gut, the gut should always win.
This woman is a winner. And my gut tells me, now, that she’s going to win.
Now, maybe someone on another campaign can call a reporter and complain about how mean it is to, you know, talk about it.
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 06:20:05 -0800
Subject: Sad life
From: thecuttingedge180@gmail.com
To: warren.kinsella@sunmedia.ca
Who do you see in the mirror I think its evil you see in your face
It was a host-guest thing at the outset, but then we became good friends. She brought the fledging network plenty: she was a journalist, with a journalist’s impatience for bullshit, and she was far less interested in opinion than in telling a good story – which is what the best journalism is all about. She was smart, and she knew what she was doing.
I am very confident she will go on to do great things on the other side of the pond. And that she will be back, as an even-bigger name, in no time at all.
Interesting.
“May you live in interesting times,” sayeth the font of all acquired wisdom – ie., Wikipedia – is an ancient “Chinese curse.” As in, if you live in an interesting age, you’re not going to be terribly happy.
By that measure, federal Liberals who endured their party’s first leadership debate should be deliriously happy.
That’s because the first Grit leadership debate was not very interesting, and that’s putting it mildly. It was more boring than an Antiques Roadshow marathon. It was more boring than a week-long jazz festival.
It was boring. It was not interesting.
There were some attempts at making Sunday’s debate in Vancouver less dull, inadvertent though they were. The pitiless moderator, for instance, recalled Austin Power’s ‘Dr. Evil,’ but with none of the charm.
For reasons none could fathom, the audio was also wildly out of sync with the candidate’s lips. It was like a Sergio Leone spaghetti western, but with none of the requisite carnage to keep you glued to your seat.
And finally, there were no less than five (5) contestants who could not recently win a seat in the House of Commons, but who feel that they should be leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
They were sort of interesting, too, but only in the way that unbridled immodesty and sheer gall are interesting. You kept asking yourself: “Why do these people think they can win the country, if they couldn’t win their own hometown?”
Other than that, it was – as noted – coma-inducingly dull. Justin Trudeau was a little less dramatic than before (good), and Marc Garneau was a little more dramatic than before (also good). They both acquitted themselves well.
Now, we know what you’re thinking: “It’s better to live in interesting times, isn’t it? Better than being dull, no?”
Well, no, actually. Per the Chinese aphorism, being too interesting is still bad. Especially in politics.
Liberals, for instance, had a series of debates in 2006 that were highly captivating. They were extremely interesting. Contestants like Michael Ignatieff, Stephane Dion and Gerard Kennedy went at each other hammer and tong. They were fiercer than a bunch of cobras at a sock hop.
At the time, they probably thought they were making things interesting, and that interesting was good. Except that, when the election rolled around, the Conservatives ran ad after ad showing the interesting Liberal leadership aspirants scratching and clawing each other.
Their message: “These clowns are more critical of each other than we are. Do you really want them running the country?”
Short answer: no.
Journalists, naturally, love conflict. It makes their bells go off. So, too, the Libs’ political opponents. They adore knock-down, drag-’em-out political leadership races.
Blood sells papers. And, for a Conservative, it’s always better to see Liberal blood spilled blood than your own.
Thus, Liberals are being very, very careful this time around. They are disinterested in giving the media more prime time Grit fratricide. And they are particularly disinterested in giving Stephen Harper more fodder for TV attack ads.
May you never live in interesting times? Damn straight.
Those ancient Chinese sayings-makers knew what they were talking about.
The Amandas are me, Bjorn, Troy and Rockin’ Al. We recorded and mixed this GBV-inspired tunage on an iPhone in Vancouver over the holidays. Click The Handsome Amanda’s – GPS to give it a spin, gratis!
(Oh, and watch out, Davey Snot! I’m steppin’ out on ya!)
Sandra Pupatello and Kathleen Wynne are going into the leadership convention set off by Dalton McGuinty’s surprise resignation as the apparent favourites – and for good reason. Both have strong track records in government. Each makes a persuasive case that she is the Liberals’ best choice now.
It’s a close call, but on balance we favour Sandra Pupatello. Of all the candidates, she stands out as the one with the energy, personality and message that will give her party the best chance to hold on to power in what promises to be a closely fought contest with Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats. After a year of lurching from one crisis to another, the Liberals badly need to change the channel with a new leader and a new approach. Going with Pupatello would be the most convincing way to do that.
In a meeting with the Star’s editorial board, Pupatello left no doubt what her priority would be as premier: “Jobs and the economy is the number one issue in every part of Ontario.” As minister responsible for trade and economic development from 2006 to 2011, she made her mark selling the province to the world. At the same time, she has made it clear that for Ontario the road to economic success cannot be “a low wage race to the bottom” like that being pushed by the far right.
Pupatello has also demonstrated her commitment to social justice throughout her life, and as minister of community services and education in the McGuinty government. She promises a “frugal government with a social conscience.” That’s the right message for these times of tightened budgets; it’s what voters need to hear after too many reports of wasted money in areas like the ORNGE scandal.
Pupatello brings two other important cards to the table. Her roots in Windsor (where she plans to seek re-election) allow her to counter the unfortunate, but undeniable, anti-Toronto bias in Ontario politics. And she sat out the 2011 election, and so had the good fortune to watch the government’s recent stumbles from the sidelines while adding a stint on Bay Street to her resume. As a result, it will be easier for her to campaign on a message of change when an election eventually comes.
All signs are that her main rival for the top job is Kathleen Wynne, who over a decade as an MPP and minister built an impressive record of accomplishment in three important ministries. As education minister, in particular, she drove improvements in Ontario’s school system that have made it a leader in the English-speaking world. That will be at the top of the McGuinty government’s most enduring accomplishments, and Wynne can claim much of the credit.
The knock against Wynne is that she is not “electable” – code, as she puts it herself, for being “a lesbian from Toronto.” No one knows how that would play out in 2013. But the bigger problem for her, and for other recent ministers in the leadership race, is that she is so closely identified with a government that is discredited in the eyes of many voters. That would make her an easier target for Hudak and Horwath in the next election campaign.
There’s always a chance, of course, that a convention decided by delegates and horse-trading among candidates could take an unexpected twist. Gerard Kennedy, sitting in third place going in, is trying for a comeback after falling short in previous leadership bids at both the provincial and federal levels. He has talent and experience in spades, but can’t seem to shake the perception that he is yesterday’s man.
Harinder Takhar has made a surprisingly strong showing in the race so far, but is dogged by controversy. Charles Sousa and Eric Hoskins, both strong assets for the Liberals, will have to wait for next time.
Whoever wins on Saturday will face an uphill climb to keep the Liberals in power. Any government accumulates heavy baggage after nearly a decade in office, and this one is certainly no exception. Sandra Pupatello is best placed to give the party a new face and energetic new leadership – while keeping it true to the values that make it distinct.
You know, it is only the Sun that is giving this boy’s death prominent coverage. The Globe’s web site has totally ignored it, from what I can see, and the Star has relegated it to a single link off on the side.
I don’t think the Sun (or any news organization) is perfect. But I figured I’d give them credit for this, seeing as how nobody else ever will.
I don’t know where this anti-Harinder crap is coming from – although, based on who is retweeting it, I have a few well-founded suspicions – but let me say this:
It isn’t working, Anonymous Campaign Dirty Tricksters. It’s engendering sympathy, not antipathy. It’ll backfire on you.
Just watch.