The Real Negatives During The Leadership Race

Over the past months bloggers have made a big deal about many things, so let's try to take perspective on them, and see which are real negatives and which are the most disastrous. I will try to be as unbias as possible, feel free to disagree in the comment section.

Michael Ignatieff

Well in the beginning Michael Ignatieff had the most "gaffes." When asked if he'd run in the next election, Michael answered, "Depends who is leader." After public uproar Michael quickly made clear he would run in the next election.

At the time a lot of bloggers used this to argue Michael isn't that dedicated to the Liberal Party. Because we can't get inside his head, however, and from his past interviews I see that he was kidding in some respect and if one uses a suitable level of charity, the remark could be understood as such.

Yet in politics the public rarely uses charity, so in this regard, Michael's gaffe could foreshadow future errors as Leader. Thus he was termed 'the Rookie' early on.

Also another mistake of Ignatieff's was in an interview Michael said he was not losing sleep over civilian deaths in Lebanon, you can read it here. He even admits it was a mistake. Now this can also be attributed to his being a Rookie, but it also opens the door to another bigger problem of Ignatieff's; he is too detatched. This may seem unfounded, but I have heard this from a Provincial Youth Co-chair of Ignatieff's as well. Michael, being an academic, has been more concerned with theory then reality, and thus does not understand or appreciate the human component as he should. Therefore he committs himself to cold statements such as "not losing sleep."

I see his detachment from the more practical, humanistic side, as the real negative of Michael Ignatieff.

Also there was a dispute involving Michael and memberships but that will be ignored as Michael was proven wholly innocent.

Bob Rae

Bob began well, though not popular, his reputation was rather clean; however as he became more popular, more negatives began to develop.

The first was that it came out, that Bob had contributed to the NDP in the past election. He defended it as (and this is no alteration) "giving to charity." He also pointed out that he gave to the Liberals as well. Including the use of any charity, I see this as undeniably horrific. Bob Rae, a former Premier should know, that a polutical party is not a charity.

For giving to the Liberals, that excuse does not make the first action right. If you consent that giving only to the NDP is wrong then my argument is won. My argument goes: If giving solely to the NDP is wrong, and since Bob Rae gave to the NDP and the Liberals then it is a neutral outcome; then by that reasoning, doing a wrong is erased by the action of something right. However that conclusion is an absurd logical deduction.

Bob Rae did not give to the Liberals to apologize in giving to the NDP but he gave to both illustrating his opportunism. In giving to both parties, Bob Rae made friends in two parties.

His opportunism is further collaberated by his switch from the NDP to the Liberal Party.

This is the real negative of Bob Rae, his opportunism.

More recently, Mason Loh, Rae's BC Campaign Manager resigned because of submitting form 6's that were forged. This is a real negative but not Rae's prominant flaw. As with charity it could be argued Rae had no idea of the scheme and thus is not liable. Then others can claim Rae should be punished for it as Volpe was. Looking at the story right now and basing my opinion on those facts, I think a fuller deeper investigation is warranted, guilt to be judged later.

Gerard Kennedy

Now because I am a Kennedy supporter I don't doubt recieving criticisms of prejudice, and because I made that declaration I don't want to give the impression they aren't warranted, but I would like any comments to illustrate some basis.

Gerard maintained a clear reputation like Rae for most of the race, if not all, however one incident tarnished his record.

I say it may have put a blemish on Kennedy's reputation, but I do not think it did. First, not many people even know what I'm talking about, to show the low profile or unimportance of the event. Indeed the only public mention I can find and that only has been referenced to by any blogger was this. The article states that Raymond Chan brought in voters to a Delegate Selection Meeting on a Bus, and as it notes, is strictly against the rules.

Where I point to it being subordinatly important, is the fact not only that no newspaper or journal or news program picked it up, but that Raymond Chan admitted to the error and took full responsibility. Not only that, but in the same article it is referenced that other Leadership campaigns committed the same offence. In the comments section it is admitted that Ignatieff's Campaign did the similar strategy.

For those who still disagree, I pose that in degrees of offences forgery, as was in Bob Rae's case, and transporting voters, are very distant. The consequences are evident of this. Mason Loh has stepped down, where Chan has publicly apologized.

Gerard Kennedy though has a real negative, but not in the same genera as the previous two, Gerard's real negative is he is not a profficient french speaker. This real negative has been deemed the root reason why Quebec organizers selected other candidates; I won't offer speculation. Gerard has been criticized for poor French, I personally think it is mediocre. I dare you to distinguish between an expert french conversationalist and a French or Quebec citizen. My point being that judging language skills is often done by either saying it is good or that it is bad. Clearly Kennedy could get by in a discussion with a Quebecois, he isn't the best or even good, but he can get by.

I see the reasoning behind the criticism that Kennedy does not speak the best French. And as this is not my defence of Kennedy, I will not go into my argument. The real negative of Kennedy is that he speaks mediocre French.

Stephane Dion

Stephane too like Gerard and Rae began with a clean reputation, but this was a story that broke that reputation for Dion. I read the articles about this and the blogs, I see that there was a lot of exaggeration by the media as no consequences have been imposed. However because Mark Marrison admits to doing the action and Mackinnon makes clear the action is at least questionable I see this in the same regard as Raymond Chan's Bus of voters, but to a lesser degree.

A flaw for Dion, and this is from observation from blogs and results from the super weekend, is that he does not speak English that well. Now he can talk in english and make his point clear, but he does not portray his emotions or strength in any of his speeches. He has gotten better since I met him, but his english is not the greatest. You are probably wondering then if I'm comparing Kennedy's french to Dion's english, well I don't know. I am not perfectly bilingual, so I can not compare the differences.

The most recent and biggest flaw for Dion that I can percieve is that he was absent in the vote on Kyoto. Kyoto was implemented under Dion as Environment minister, Dion was known for his focus and committment to Kyoto. He was so passionate about it, he named his dog Kyoto. Then when the vote was held by the Conservative government Dion did not show. That is the real negative of Stephane Dion; he doesn't stand for what he says he does.

Now this may seem quite negative on my part for making such a claim, however just because I support Kennedy, does not mean I do not support the environment.

Stephane Dion is quite obviously a green candidate in the Liberal Party. So much so, he published his Green strategy in multiple parts because of it's length. Yet a vote to determine Kyoto's implementation, Dion misses it.

Another example is, in a previous post I have mentioned this as well, Dion talks about his youth campaign, and says how he values it; yet there is no youth website. Now money does not necessarily determine value, but in politics you don't usually take someones word when others are actually demonstrating it. Ignatieff and Kennedy both have youth websites to allow the youth of the party to bring their ideas and discuss them in an open environment.