Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Rae, Kennedy, or Dion. All Possible.

Excert from my conclusion:
If we can't say who will win, then what can the Rae campaign, Kennedy campaign, and Dion campaign do? Well they can argue policy, present their candidates better. Cherniak wants to show why Dion can beat Ignatieff to sway the anybody-but-Iggy-crowd to Dion, because he hopes Dion is the only contender who can do that, but as I have stated that is false. Rae, Kennedy, or Dion could take on Ignatieff. I guess Cherniak doesn't believe his candidate can sway people on policy alone.

Who can beat Ignatieff? Honestly, any of the top three, Rae, Kennedy, or Dion, can beat Ignatieff. This is disagreeing with Cherniak's crystal ball but it's a fact. Rae could win this, Kennedy could win this, or Dion could win this, but more importantly Ignatieff could win this.

Rae could win this by Kennedy supporting him. Possibly Kennedy would support Rae over Dion because of ideological similarities. This is in stark contrast to Cherniak's machiavellian view of politics which is quite disturbing.

Cherniak thinks a candidate supports another wholly based on future power gains. It may be true, but that has huge exceptions. Through the exceptions I can easily show that it may be true but it is no way possible to jump to that conclusion due to contrary evidence.

Would Dryden support Ignatieff? In fact Cherniak has a lapse in his power-theory and postulates Dryden would go to Kennedy because they have similarities, not because of power gain. Dryden wouldn't support Ignatieff because of the huge differences in ideology. Furthermore, if a candidate did support another candidate it does not follow his supporters would too. Looking at the candidates, Rae is more similar to Kennedy then Dion. So it follows more would go to Rae. But it is unclear if Rae's NDP background would have an overiding factor to influence Kennedy supporters away.

Kennedy could win this by Dion supporting him. If Dion supported Kennedy, Rae would support Kennedy, or at least his supporters would because of similarities. Dion possibly would support Kennedy because Gerard is more similar to his platform then Rae; also Dion would go to Gerard because of again Rae's NDP background, and since Gerard's poor showing in Quebec, Dion would be given extreme influence in the campaign. His supporters would mostly follow forcing the majority of Rae supporters to come as well.

Dion could win this by Kennedy supporting him. I just said Kennedy would rather support Rae because of similarities, but this contrary opinion within my own post is building on my conclusion that fortune-tellers like Cherniak ignore for obvious reasons. I mentioned it is unclear if Rae's NDP history woud deter Kennedy supporters, and give them to Dion, thus Kennedy could support Dion. With Dion higher then Rae it is possible that Rae goes Dion.

What is evident here, is that any of the three can win. Cherniak uses machiavellian premises to suppose Dion will win. Such premises all rest on a candidate wanting power, such as Martha wanting a french-canadian and quite humourously Cherniak cites "facts are facts." I hate to point out a flaw, actually I don't, as this one is ridiculous; afterall opinion does not equal fact.

Why would Martha want a French-Canadian? So next time it would be an english Canadian? This alternating system between English and French is not even convention, if it was explain Ignatieff's dominance? Wasn't Martin before him? A fact is a fact, an opinion is not a fact. A fact dictates how reality is and will be, clearly I just illustrated a flaw in your facts, mainly because they're opinions, however well-thought out they may be.

What Cherniak and others want to portray is that there are guarentee's, that there are "facts" that can be used in determining who to give your second ballot support to. Well I'm telling you, that any "facts" anybody tells you are opinions. Cherniak wants to limit who can win, but the almighty Cherniak, even he can't do that.

Rae, Kennedy, and Dion have possibilities to win. There are so many factors that it is opinion motivated by bias that tells otherwise. I am a Kennedy supporter, I don't know who will win, but I hope it's Kennedy.

If we can't say who will win, then what can the Rae campaign, Kennedy campaign, and Dion campaign do? Well they can argue policy, present their candidates better. Cherniak wants to show why Dion can beat Ignatieff to sway the anybody-but-Iggy-crowd to Dion, because Dion is the only contender who can do that, but as I have stated that is false. Rae, Kennedy, or Dion could take on Ignatieff. I guess Cherniak doesn't believe his candidate can sway people on policy alone.

A theme then is present here, Cherniak emphasizes the pursuit of power as the ultimate motivation in selecting a candidate. He does so in postulating why candidates should support Dion, but he also does it trying to convince readers of his blog. He hopes readers of his blog are too, only after power. He does have a place for policy; it distinguishes Ignatieff and everybody else, but pursuit of power is what will collapse 'the everybody else' into Dion. Well Rae or Kennedy or Dion have the same liklihood of ganing the collapsing support, it isn't the pursuit of power that should crown one of them, it's policy.

To convince you I urge you to read the below post, it's from thescottross.blogspot.com. It's what real policy means. I give the entire post because the archival system he uses makes it hard to cite. Here it is:


Why I Look Up To Gerard Kennedy
I look up to Gerard Kennedy, and I realize that that may sound corny or overly sentimental. The thing about Gerard is, I don't just agree with his vision of Canada, I admire it. His latest policy release concerning the strengthening of the equality of women is by far the best policy proposed yet in this leadership race.

First let me explain that a major turning point in my deciding a candidate to support was listening to a speech made by Gerard. In it he said that we have to listen to the quiet sounds; those are sounds that institutions don't listen to, that they have no bureaucracy or procedures or funding to handle them. A student having difficulties learning in an overcrowded classroom, with the teacher too busy to help, that's a quiet sound.

All my life there has been a 'quiet sound"; I knew it was an injustice, but it became so normalized that eventually I accepted it even though I knew it still affected my mother. I grew up in a single parent home, my mom had to work two jobs; one was delivering newspapers at four in the morning, the other was a secretary at Sun-Rype Ltd. She worked extremely hard at both. At Sun-Rype she quickly advanced, from secretary to Customer service, and from there she became manager of Customer Service and Sales. Currently she has a staff and a secretary of her own. The thing is, however, that in all this advancement, in all this positions, money was tight, and there was one fact that kept constant; if she was a man she'd have been making 20% more.

As a boy I'd hear my mom refer to this, not as often as she was justified to do. After a while though, she gradually stopped and I never really grasped the effect this has.

There are other policies from other candidates that have their points, and then there is Gerard's international country, the new value of enterprise, and his extensive environment paper; but out of everything from everybody, this women's equality proposal is by far the greatest. It's great for many reasons; first, it's a policy that should be implemented as soon as possible, no questions. Second, it has real practical value. Unlike other candidates who use vague language in which their policies could be implemented a thousand different ways and thus differ in theory and practice, this policy of have women's wages equal to men's has a singlur translation from the theoretical to the practical. Third, this policy is liberal through and through. It looks to correct the institutions that affect our lives, and in doing so, better them.

Gerard Kennedy listened to the quiet sound, maybe not specifically to my own experience, but to someone's; and now that sound willl be answered with the equality my mother and women deserve. That's why I look up to Gerard.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, but did you just say, "Rae's poor showing in Qu├ębec?" or did you mean Kennedy?

10:30 AM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

Yes that is what I meant. I made that mistake. I have fixed my error. thank you.

12:26 PM  
Blogger Neo Conservative said...

It's not so much that voters in Quebec didn't like Gerard Kennedy in particular... they just didn't like Liberals in general.

8:57 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home