06.14.2012 06:33 AM

Trudeau ten

Seeing as how everybody else is writing about Justin Trudeau, and seeing as how I’m a Liberal, I figured I’d do likewise in a column or something on the weekend. Herewith, then, Ten Reasons Why Justin Trudeau Is A Good Choice, in short form. Gratis. You’re welcome.

1. He’s the only candidate with the ability to get younger voters onside.

2. He isn’t an old fart. Old farts are out, and will be super out in 2015.

3. The name works still, in lots of places with lots of votes.

4. He’s got charisma, big time. Ottawa being Hollywood for ugly people, that counts.

5. He’s like his Dad: he only goes when he’s gonna win (cf. boxing match).

6. He’s effortlessly bilingual and thoroughly multicultural (eg. ask a cab driver, anywhere, what they think of him).

7. He makes the Liberals exciting again.

8. He has made pro-merger/coalition/cooperation noises in the past. He’s therefore smart.

9. He will bring back a lot of experienced folks who’ve been on the Liberal sidelines for years.

10. The hair.


  1. Glen says:

    I agree completely. I’m definitely no Trudeau (junior or senior) fan but he’s the only guy who can help them at this point.

    The divide in the party appears to be as deep as ever. Trudeau can overcome that.

  2. Karl Gotthardt says:

    Good choice to keep the country divided. The West will be really impressed with yet another Quebec candidate for Prime Minister. I really thought the Liberal Party had more imagination then that. Way to go Warren.

    • Warren says:

      Go soak your head. Trudeau would pick up tons of youth/women vote everywhere – including the West.

      Redford’s win showed everyone how much reliance we should put on old assumptions like yours.

      • Michael S says:

        A leftish transgender acquaintance is now working the patch in Fort Mac (no, really, she’s an engineer, and a good one) and on Facebook all I hear is how accepted she is in that town. Remember Fort Mac banned plastic bags before Toronto did, and they like it. Alberta is weird that way.

        • Jordyn m says:

          Simply put: In Alberta, people care more about what you can do for them than what you are. She’s a good engineer? Then hell yes we want her.

          Alberta is progressive in ways Ontario and Quebec could only dream about. It’s why I so desperately want to help get them the representation they DESERVE.

          • JamesHalifax says:

            I’ve been trying to tell folks that for a while. There are certain groups in TO and all of Quebec who think Alberta = Redneck.

      • Joey Rapaport says:

        Agree, he’ll get a lot of Con voters to swing, especially after 9 years in government…

    • Byron says:

      You divide a country by saying you want to firewall Alberta.

      I forget, who said that again?

    • tfalcone86 says:

      I don’t think Redford is going to drop everything to come lead the Liberal Party of Canada do you?

      • Jordan says:

        A federal Conservative taking over the Liberal Party, that’d be quite the contrast to the New Democrat currently leading the party.

  3. ottawacon says:

    Yet another example of the Messianic fallacy afflicting the Liberal party. He is genuinely accomplished in neither public nor private life, and makes errors that have already proven dangerous. He needs years more experience. As it is, it sounds like he is going to be pushed to the forefront – and utterly destroyed in less time than it took the machine to rip apart Dion or Ignatieff.

    Lots of potential, but winning now would ruin that. Best thing he can do is run and finish a respectable and loyal 2nd.

    • Kevin T. says:

      Wishful thinking much?

    • Brad says:

      He is genuinely accomplished in neither public nor private life…

      Just like Stephen Harper before he became party leader

      • Ottawacon says:

        @Kevin – No, not wishful thinking. I have long since parted company with the current government, But we have seen a steady parade of ‘leader = solution’ thinking slowly annihilate the LPC. Right now, defining Trudeau strikes me as even easier than defining Ignatieff was – and the Liberal Party is even worse equipped to defend him. The only Liberals I know who really seem to think this is a good idea are all Toronto people.

        @Brad – True enough about Harper, but Harper came to the fore in a leadership vacuum where there was enormous underlying political strength, the sum was less than the whole of its parts – the math always said that Refooorm + PC would be a serious threat. I am not sure that the Liberals right now have anything close. Maybe similar conditions could emerge in a Liberal-NDP merger scenario where Mulcair ends up being the standard-bearer, and then Trudeau emerges as the natural successor. Harper also had the major accomplishment of the merger before he fought his first election, I cannot envision any Liberal-NDP merger before the next election regardless of Liberal leadership choices. Both parties need to come to the table desperate.

        • Kevin T. says:

          Definitely wishful blinders then.

          • ottawacon says:

            On someone, clearly. But if thinking that Trudeau is teflon-coated and will inevitably lead the Liberals back to the Promised Land helps you sleep at night, by all means it can be me.

          • Kevin T. says:

            Thinking that Harper’s teflon skills will be permanent and he will never get kicked out of the promised land is slightly more deluded. Harper’s arrogant democracy-hating douchebagginess is a debt that will be due someday, and it would not be unlike karma to have him slapped down by a Trudeau.

    • Jim Hanna says:

      Ibbitson’s article had a good point on that – your premise only makes sense assuming the Liberals eye to win in 2015 (God I hate fixed election dates)…and that a leader, any leader, only has one kick at the can. If Trudeau runs now and wins; he will have plenty of opportunity to get blooded in the next election and work things out for the following election. The experience he gains will be in Parliament over the next six years.

      As for the machine ripping him apart…we’ll see. They tried that with the boxing match, it didn’t work out well for them.

      In any case, thanks to the new voting system; if Trudeau runs he will win; there is no race. Its really irrelevent what the party thinks.

  4. Jordyn m says:

    Everyone who slags and calls Trudeau a facile former drama teacher does him a huge favour.

    Politics is all about managing expectations, right? Well if everyone expects him to be a shallow, unintellectual pretty pony as oh so many anti-Trudeau supporters suggest, then they’re doing is lowering everyone’s expectations of Trudeau. If he then manages to string 5 sentences together in an intelligent-sounding manner, then suddenly everyone is going to fuh-reak at how much he overperformed

    Remember Levant’ SHOCK when Trudeau put a hurting on Brazeau? Like that. Everyone expected him to get turned into dust — then everyone was honestly gobsmacked and impressed when he ruined Brazeau.

    The boxing match, ironically, made the privileged son of one of Canada’s most popular (except in my home of Alberta) prime ministers into an underdog.

    Which I’m pretty sure is what Trudeau wants. Because the dude is actually pretty cunning.

    Trudeau knew what he was doing then. Trudeau knows what he’s doing now. If he ultimately decides to go (and I think he should, because I like to be entertained) I bet he’ll know what he’s doing.

    But right-wingers, don’t keep slagging Trudeau. You are playing into his hands. And turning him into an underdog.

    • Ted B says:


      I’m no fan, but I’m open to the idea.

      The ra-ra boosterism and adulation for his “rock star” status despite any accomplishments in his life is a HUGE turn-off for me. Moreso the few who are already attacking those who would dare ask questions about him (for clarity, that ain’t Warren).

      But this underdog/political cunning angle rings true and shows signs that maybe there is something deeper.

      I’m willing to be convinced by this guy. I’m not at this point, but open to it.

      • Ted B says:

        Also the idea that he would be effective in getting Liberals together.

        Though I refuse to buy into this “only Trudeau can do it” meme. We’ve been down that road too many times recently.

        • Jordyn m says:

          I’m from Alberta (Fort Mac, specifically ) — the reason I harp on that is because I am SO NOT your typical dyed in the wool Grit. I actually didn’t know there was this “only a Trudeau can do it” meme!

          This is about as much as P.E.T. has touched my life: my 2nd generation Albertan mother fondly remembered shaking his hand once to me, and every Albertan has the myth of the NEP seared into their DNA. So I feel little loyalty to the Trudeau brand.

          I’m just a highly-political, 24-year-old progressive small-l liberal looking for a political home. Maybe Trudeau will give it to me. Maybe Garneau will. Maybe Nathan Cullen will.

          But I hope someone does soon because holy man I want to kick the crumb bums currently controlling Ottawa.

    • Jim Hanna says:

      I think you are absolutely right…he has learned what Chretien mastered, managing expectations. And he is far more political than his father; he takes after his grandfather (or is it great grandfather?) from BC, Sinclair…the underestimation of Trudeau starts from forgetting his politcal DNA from both sides of his family

    • Ottawacon says:

      That boxing match did more to change his image than Dion and Ignatieff managed in their combined years of leadership. I despised PET, but by the time the fight actually happened, I found myself utterly disgusted with the baying mob of pudgy Conservatives eager to see him get pounded by a bully. As I said then, the sins of the father should not be visited upon the son. When he actually won, it was the first time I thought that his leadership might be anything but a wet-dream of aging Liberals. Still think is way too early for him…

      • Michael S says:

        No kidding. That stupid boxing match really really set the stage:

        People vastly underestimate and ridicule him,
        then they they vastly overestimate and oversell his opponent,
        then he wins.

        The first job of the new Liberal leader is to make it a government in waiting. That shot will happen in 2015, two years after the leadership vote.
        The second job of the new Liberal leader is to form a government. That won’t happen until 2019.

        Guess what? He’ll be the same age his dad was when HE became Prime Minister. Almost exactly the same age. Kinda eerie. Look it up!

    • Dan says:

      It’s hard to manage expectations when your last name is a synonym for “The Second Coming”.

      I don’t think people are going to ask if Justin is what Conservatives say he is. They’re going to ask if he’s the same man as his dad.

      When that becomes impossible to live up to, they’re going to ask if he got to where he is for anything other than his dad.

      Democracies and dynasties don’t mix.

      • Not that Gord says:

        Bush I, II. The Clintons. The Kennedies. The Roosevelts.

        Hell, Wikipedia has an entry on our own quaint little country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_political_families

        In the UK, our mother democracy, there were two father-son pairings for PM I can think of off the top of my head. George Grenville, then later his son William. And of course Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger.

        I would say there’s plenty of history of dynasties in democracies. Now whether there SHOULD be, that’s a discussion worth having — or whether democracy actually works, for that matter.

  5. Brad says:

    I have to agree with Ottawacon. He had some potential coming in to Fed politics but has done very little to distinguish himself as an intellectual, thoughtful and passionate leader the way his dad did in the early sixties. I loved his father for what he stood for. I have no idea what Justin Trudeau stands for…

    I think he should sit back and wait until the next leadership round, and in the meantime, establish himself as a serious contender for PM, by doing something. Anything.

    Oh. And no more boxing. It’s undignified.

    • JamesF says:

      “but has done very little to distinguish himself as an intellectual”

      Given the success rate of the Liberals after having put forth two of the most intellectual people in all of Canada I can’t really see this as much of an argument against him. It doesn’t appear to much of an asset nowadays (which is a shame).

  6. Jeff says:

    Justin is to the Liberals what George W. was to Republicans, once upon a time.

    Probably the most significant differences are 1) he’s genuinely curious, 2) decent, 3) interested in helping people.
    (I don’t think there’s any reason to conclude he’s any more intelligent or more likely to succeed.)
    I think those qualities would make a huge difference.

    I don’t know that Warren, or anyone else, is Rove North… that those tactics would work, or that there’s a more positive version out there; I don’t know that Canadians will be suffering enough Harper fatigue when the next election rolls around, the way the Americans were tired of Clinton-Gore… then there’s always vote splitting to factor in.

  7. Rene Gauthier says:

    He would definitely get my support.

    Where do I sign?

  8. Linda white says:

    From an older…I do mean older person who was looking for some HOPE in the Liberal Party…today I will use one of Charlie Sheen’s immortal words…”WINNING”

  9. smelter rat says:

    I’m pretty sure the people who think he’s “not ready” for the Liberal leadership are the same ones who thought he didn’t have a chance against Senator Toughguy.

  10. Craig says:

    Trudeau heightening divisions would be good for the Liberal Party – they won’t accomplish much muddling along in a mushy centre.

    At least he knows how to give a punch. I’m deeply suspicious of JT, but I still can’t help but like him.

  11. Matt says:

    Interesting times. Governments have a shelf life and the Cons are stating to show it. The NDP meanwhile elected the anti-Jack as leader forgetting totally what got them to where they now find themselves. Decency and charisma matter and Justin has both. The combined personality of the other two roughly equates to my left shoe. It will be refreshing to finally stop hearing the politics of fear and division that have characterized the federal scene for far to long.

  12. Lala says:

    A few years ago I was on one of Parliament Hill’s green buses, along with Trudeau. After Justin jumped off at his stop the driver turned to me and said that Justin was the nicest MP on the Hill. Coming from these drivers, who see and hear everything, that means a lot.

  13. Bil Huk says:

    the liberals need a leader so i figure he’s as good as any, and probably better than most.

    But the liberals haven’t lost soley because of their leader, and i wonder if he’s got the skill sets necessary to do the unglamorous heavy lifting to make that party ready to govern/relevant to Canadians again. He’s sexy as fuck, but the conservatives pulled themselves out from 2nd and 3rd place because their supporters suffered through enough election defeats to know that different shades of blue had to come together, and they found a leader with a will as hard as steel who approached elections with an intelligence that previous Sea-Do leaders were obviously lacking.

    as a conservative supporter the thing that poses the greatest risk to my interests is that he’s smart enough to know some association with the NDP is necessary, but it still takes two to dance that tango and hardcore NDP supporters and party members haven’t forgotten being called irrelevant (and worse) in multiple elections by the party courting them now.

    It’ll be interesting to see how many election losses it will take before the NDP decide they’ve hit their glass ceiling.

    Liberals think they’re there now, just like the old PCs thought the same of the reform. it takes longer for the official opposition to come to that conclusion on their own.

    i wonder if Justin will wait that long.

    • campbell says:

      I agree with this. I think one of Justin’s greatest strength’s as a Liberal is that he seems to be open to a “whatever it takes” (within reason obviously!) approach to changing the country’s current direction. I don’t know his precise views on a merger, but his comments on Quebec, which I thought quite rational and intelligent (though obviously not well taken in the media), demonstrated to me that he is passionate about bringing good public policy back to Canada. If he can see that good public policy might be more important than even national unity, I’d bet that he’d be open to merging the parties if it advanced that goal.
      A merged left-centre poses the greatest threat to Conservative government in this country for the foreseeable future, so I think Liberal leadership candidates would be wise not to rule it out when establishing their platforms.

      • BIl Huk says:

        i do think the best thing that the liberals can do to convince the NDP that a merger is necessary is to try and eat into their support, which means tacking left. that leaves more of the centre available to the conservatives (yes, i know liberal supporters don’t think they’re a centrist party, but the canadian voter has disagreed to date with the view that the conservatives are a hard core right wing party), but i don’t think the liberals can win a majority without a merger anyway, so the goal should be convincing the NDP of the intelligence of a merger, and you can’t do that unless they feel they’ve gone as far as they’re going to go on their own.

        beating the snot out of the conservatives could allow the NDP to fly up the middle with consolidated left leaning support, and you can kiss a merger good-bye if they ever win a minority government.

        so if i’m justin, i get me a bag of intelligent left leaning policy initiatives, get used to the taste of tim hortons/coffeetime coffee and meeting 10s of people in legion halls and start convincing liberals that he needs more than their vote, he needs their money too.

        If he tries to win ontario like Chretien did, he may hand the NDP more hope for the future than would be good for the future of his party.

        the conservatives have a rock solid core of support that will vote for them whether the NDP or the Liberals beat them. I question whether the liberal support is as solid or will further leak if the NDP can either keep or improve their position in parliment.

  14. JamesHalifax says:


    I find it a little curious that in your entire list….you didn’t mention any ideas, competency, or policy initiatives that Justin may with to expolore further. In fact, everything on your list could also be used against Justin, as if that’s all he brings to the table, someone is bound to notice sooner or later.

    I suspect the Liberals behind Justin are working on giving him some ideas now……so apparently we are just going to wait for the announcement.

    Just sayin…..

  15. Bill From Willowdale says:

    I stopped at No. 1. — “1. He’s the only candidate with the ability to get younger voters onside. ”

    Ummm, the race hasn’t started and there are no declared candidates. He may be great and just what the Liberals need but let’s wait until there is really something to talk about.

  16. buck says:

    I think its easy for people to say that he’ll be embraced by ‘young people’ because he’s young-ish, telegenic and has a name-branded star quality. But don’t forget that the vast majority of voters have *seen* plenty of him, in the news, in pictures – and sure, he stacks up to how he’s described – but not *heard* much from him.
    Personally, I have trouble with the way he talks, the way he sounds. I’m sure he’s a great guy, but I don’t see young (or old) people embracing him because he sounds just so damn un-cool when he opens his mouth. And I can’t see how one can run for PM without being heard, at least a bit.
    Does anyone else see this?

    • Kevin T. says:

      Harper needs the mounties to keep reporters and citizens away from him and never talks unless it is a smear or an attack.

      • Philip says:

        I just love it when Conservatives concern troll Warren’s site. Having witnessed the herds of sleazy douchebags who make up Harper’s Inner circle, I sincerely doubt the Conservative Party has anything to teach about leadership.

        • buck says:

          Philip, do you find Trudeau’s verbal communication style engaging? Personally, I find it off-putting. I’ll vote for a leader with that in mind. Do you agree that most of the would-be electorate hasn’t *heard* him enough despite possibly buying into the celebrity concept of him? I’m interested in ideas and issues, not conspiracies or comparisons with the cons.

          • bck says:

            WIsh I could say I did.. but I’m too young to know whether the amalgam of his parents’ voices is redeeming. Which is my concern here – that the so-called youth infatuation won’t materialize because there is no collective nostalgia, and the man really ain’t an Obama, as breathlessly as people wish for it.

  17. Kelly says:

    Harper: times are tough — you’re on your own

    Mulcair: there’s not enough to go around and our side wants it

    Trudeau: There’s a POINT to Canada we’re all bigger and better off working together

    Which message pulls in the independents?

    • Dan says:

      Part of the reason why the Liberal party keeps losing is because they underestimate their opponents. That’s not Harper’s message, and that’s not Mulcair’s message either. When you do that, you risk having an Ignatieff “rise up” moment, where you ask the people to vote on principle, and they pass the Liberals right by.

    • JamesHalifax says:

      Couple of points, Kelly.

      Harper has never indicated that people should be on their own. Instead, he’s saying people who are quite capable of being successful should be free to do so. Times are tough…and Harpers trying to help out folks who are having a hard time making it on their own, by allowing them to keep more of their own money and deciding how to spend it.

      Mulcair. He’s not saying there isn’t enough money, he thinks there is too much money. Exactly the opposite of what you propose. The problem with Mulcair, is that he wants what he THINKS is excess money, because he thinks he knows better how to use it, than do those who have actually earned it. He’s a socialist….that’s what they do.

      Trudeau. If he thinks there is a Point to Canada…..tell him to spell it out. Right now, all we know about Trudeau is that he has nice hair, a famous Dad, and loved his time with the taxpayer funded Katimavik program which was essentially a program to “hook up” with other young Liberals.

      As for the independents…..they too like to keep their own money (those that have it)..and will vote accordingly.

      • Kelly says:

        Interesting. I didn’t use the word money once in my post but that’s how you interpreted it.

        I understand your traditional conservative position — people who work hard earn more and deserve to keep what they earn. Here’s the problem (many conservatives don’t “get” it and it’s why conservatives can’t seems to get 40% of the vote): lots and lots and lots and lots of Canadians are working harder and harder and making less money because the owners and bosses are cutting their wages or freezing them even when their companies are profitable. How hard you work has nothing do do with how much you earn and everyone knows it. Too many people in this country are so poor they hardly participate in the economy, yet there’s utter silence from the Conservatives on poverty. Why do you think the NDP is tied with the conservatives and Harpers ratings are so low? The country has figured him out and people hate feeling like they had the wool pulled over their eyes. The Harper regime is comprised of phonies. Enjoy it while it lasts. Trudeau is definitely not a phony — ask Brazeau — and that’s his greatest strength.

        • JamesHalifax says:

          No, Kelly…you didn’t mention money. That’s part of the problem.

          Why are times tough? Well, usually, when someone says that, it means they are having a hard time making a living or supporting their family. The fact you never wrote, “Times are tough because money is tight”..simply shows you don’t quite understand the issue.

          When you wrote Mulcair said there isn’t enough to go around……what exactly did you mean then if you didn ‘t mention money? If money wasn’t the issue for you…then what was. What wasn’t there enough of?

          As for there being a point to Canada……then perhaps Justin should express what that point is? I daresay, the point to Canada is as varied as Canadians. Everyone has “points” that they think are important. If you think the point to Canada…is some feel good, holier than thou nature of the Canadian spirit that allows you to feel superior, good for you. that’s your point. I think for a lot of other people, the point to Canada is having a peaceful, safe place to live where you can work, make a living, and raise a family.

          As for the independents, they have their own version of points as well. And not all of them, will be in agreement with yours. All we ask, is that you don’t force your “point of Canada” down our throat and make us pay for it.

    • Dan says:

      Trudeau: There’s a POINT to Canada we’re all bigger and better off working together

      —–> Was that his message when Trudeau said he could support Quebec’s separation if the majority of Canadians in English-speaking provinces shared Harper’s ideals? C’mon Liberals. You can’t work together if you continue this notion that Harper and the Conservatives are somehow inauthentic Canadians. The people have spoken, and voted them into a majority. Respect democracy.

      • Dan says:

        Hey! That’s not me.

      • Kelly says:

        Over 60% of Canadians did not vote for Harper’s phony “majority”. We voted for various shades of progressivism. Our steam age electoral process let us down again. NDP greens and Libs team up and Cons are gone for a 100 years — and Harper knows it.

        • Tim Sullivan says:

          Even those who voted for the Conservatives didn’t even vote for them. Ask Boris.

        • JamesHalifax says:

          Kelly, no party has received a majority of Canadian voters in the last election. Do you consider JEan Chretien’s three straight majorities invalid because of it? (that is a valid, and technically correct opinion by the way, and one that no one can really disagree with).

          As for your various shades of progressivism……….I wouldn’t care how progressive you want to be, just don’t make me pay for it.

          As for the greens, NPD and Liberals joining forces……I’m sure it would get the Conservatives out of power, however, you will be hard pressed to get ALL of those voters to pick the Progressive side if such a merger happened. I know a great many Liberals who actually understand what is at stake, and the thought of NDP policies taking effect in Canada would cause a great many of them to vote Conservative.

          Which by the way….has been Harper’s plan all along.

          Two parties. One on the right, and one on the left.

  18. Nike says:

    And he is gorgeous….

  19. Dan says:

    I don’t think the Liberal party will be able to resist. I voted for Layton, but I’d have voted for Pierre Trudeau if I could. He WAS our greatest prime minister.

    Pierre Trudeau should have taught the Liberal party that you can inspire a nation around strong principles, around someone who wants to take on the powerful, and tell inconvenient truths on behalf of “the little guy”. But it looks like all they’ve learned is “we need another guy named Trudeau.”

    We’ll see how it plays out with the electorate, but you don’t have to dig very deep to find resentment against people who didn’t earn their spot on their own merit. Half of your top 10 is related to his dad. The closest thing on your top 10 to a rallying cause or accomplishment is that he once considered merging with the NDP.

  20. Nic Coivert says:

    Engaging youth, crucial. He’s Generation X, not a boomer. About time, really.

    Also, I think he has the capability to rebound from mistakes, the electorate will cut him more slack than usual, he’s trustworthy.

  21. Philippe says:

    The most exciting thing about this guy is he has the potential to excite every voter demographic except for old angry white guys, who will always vote Conservative anyway.

    • Ted H says:

      Maybe not always, I am an older white guy and I would stick needles in my eyes before I would vote for a Conservative. Then again, I am not angry.

  22. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    I’ll be looking to see what role ageism plays in this will he, or won’t he debate. IMHO, it’s not so much about the so-called thinness, or lack thereof re: a résumé. Some people seem to think a younger candidate immediately out of the box has much more to prove than an older individual with comparable credentials and accomplishments. Will be most enlightening to see how it all shakes out.

  23. Mulletaur says:

    I’m all for a leader with good hair.

  24. G. Babbitt says:

    I’m out of the loop who are the sidelined liberals who Trudeau would encourage (besides your own good self perhaps)?

    • Warren says:

      There’s a looooong list.

      • Cath says:

        would John Manley be on that list? I saw him speak at the U. of Western’s convocation yesterday and wondered throughout his speech was a shame it was that he didn’t take another kick at the LPOC leadership can. He was great with the audience of new grads. while being confident and genuine in character.

        Thinking about that yesterday and Justin Trudeau – I don’t think Trudeau’s there yet.

        • Warren says:

          Great guy, but involved in Libs anymore, in any way.

        • erich says:

          John Manley is a delivery boy for a bunch of corporate grocery clerks, just like Stephen Harper. Manley is last person who should run for leader.

          At least Trudeau has *not* sold out to the grocery clerks, and can develop a platform based on the ideals of ordinary Canadians.

        • JamesHalifax says:

          Cath, John Manley would have been my pick too. He was one of the classy LIberals who actually understood what was required to run a country. He’s now deep in the business world….so he knows what’s necessary to keep the economy (and therefore, social programs) running.

          Besides….he’s not a shrill hystrionic crank like Mulcair and his cohorts.

  25. Mom says:

    I say Hall-Findlay for 4 or 5 years and then let JT have a run at if he likes. I really think we are too quick to anoint candidates – let’s take a deep breath and think this through…

  26. Jordan says:

    One thing for sure is that the executive of the party needs to allow the next leader to be him or herself.

    For some odd reason the Liberal Party doesn’t really bother to craft a lot of policy by engaging the grassroots, and when the grassroots does have a say the party doesn’t always run with it. Therefore the leader of the Liberal Party seems to play a much larger role in deciding policy, and maybe there’s nothing wrong with that. The leader needs to believe in the policies they are selling to be able to sell it properly to people.

    Michael Ignatieff was thought by many to be more right-wing, and I’ve seen many comments and heard from Conservatives that they really feared him as leader in 2006 because they thought he could attract their voters. When he finally became leader a reporter asked him if he was Prime Minister what we he do in his first 100 days in office. He said he’d cut income taxes for low and middle class to increase their spending power, he’d overhaul and streamline Employment Insurance and he’d consult with mayors to find out their priorities for infrastructure projects. While it was two years later that he campaigned to be Prime Minister in my mind his views had been completely changed. The party moved further to the left, Lyaton said they basically stole his 2006 platform, and basically couldn’t differentiate themselves from the NDP. Instead of cutting income taxes the party planned on raising corporate taxes to create new social programs. The man who many Conservatives feared could steal their voters allowed himself to be moved to the left in the hopes of pushing the NDP out of the picture. He wasn’t able to sell “his” platform and it ended up in destruction for him.

  27. dillon says:

    A politician does not need to be an intelligent person but if he isn’t he needs street smarts and common sense. Chretien is the perfect example. Unfortunately Trudeau takes after his mother and is pretty flaky. No sreet creds and no intelligence. Just a pretty face. Cauchon fills the bill.

  28. CQ says:

    He’s the ‘Justin’ Bieber* of Canadian Politics. Sure you can gain a ton of easy know-nothing sales – with MSM e-pushing – from the Best Buy / Walmart crowds. Most people will prefer to choose from a vast number of other, criminally less advertised, choices.
    * Versus Michael ‘Buble’ Ignatieff’s overly worshipped appointed-safe riding-cabinet-position run.

  29. Shawn says:

    Whatever the Liberals do they should do it with an eye towards a long term strategy. You always try to win, but they shouldn’t elect a leader with a “win or bust” mentality. They need some stability and long term leadership. That should mean someone relatively young. Inexperience shouldn’t be too much of an issue with someone you want to grow into the job. They aren’t hiring a mercenary. They have to view this like the NDP viewed Jack Layton or the Conservatives viewed Harper.

  30. kre8tv says:

    I’ve said before that I don’t think he should run because of his young family and for what this job can do to a person. He shouldn’t have to sacrifice just because the LPC is possibly…maybe…in a death spiral. BUT…I take strong exception to the idea that he’s not ready to lead, either because of his age or lack of track record. That’s utter nonsense that comes from the corduroyed bleachers in Ottawa where opinions run far deeper than experience at ever having actually run anything or achieved anything.

    Leaders inspire and pull out the best in others. The really gifted ones are also calculating to a near-bastardy level and do things when they know they can win. It has nothing to do with whether you’re a Rhodes Scholar or have a bunch of wins in the boardrooms on Bay Street. It probably has even less to do with good hair. But hey. A bonus is a bonus.

  31. smelter rat says:

    Gord…is that you?

  32. Greg from Calgary says:

    My only fear is this, the con wrecking machine chews him up. I hate to see that happen, I like JT but politics involves risk, I just hate the personal crap which will be flung his way.

  33. JamesHalifax says:

    Tim….that’s part of the problem with our elections today. Too many people are worried about being “fashionable” and not worried enough about being right.

    A lot of NDP’ers won in former BLOC seats as well….and Like trudeau, they voted NDP because it was fashionable thanks to Jack Layton.
    As for Justin’s win in the riding……he also relied upon his name for that victory as well. I don’t recall anything of importance that he said, other than the usual platitudes…..

    Justin fully intends to lead the liberal party……getting elected as an MP, is just the first step.

Leave a Reply

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