KENNEDY HAS THE MOMENTUM

Everyone is watching the lovely and fantastic Liberal Leadership Live Delegate Tracker, and I admit I've been watching it quite fanatically through my phone banking. I've been keeping records of the frames from each poll being recorded. From my observations Gerard Kennedy has the momentum. You can see below:

















You can see that Kennedy increased by 3% in 40 pollings being returned. Dion was at one time 9% points ahead of Kennedy, as seen here Kennedy has narrowed that lead down to a fluctuating 4%. With polls coming in it must be wondered how much more will Gerard Kennedy rise?

Kennedy, My Candidate

I am a Young Liberal in BC. My parents are divorced, I lived in Vancouver for most of my life. Looking back on it, I guess I lived in a few bad neighbourhoods growing up, but at the time I never saw the crime or the filth that those areas are now filled with. Growing up, I think I just saw the world through eyes that never aged. Perhaps I still see the world through innocent eyes, always believing there is good in everybody and people can change; but the difference between me as a kid and now, is that I know reality can be painful.

Since my perspective always tries to see the good, when I see wrongs and injustices they don't conform to my idea of the world. Crime, War, Injustice, those shouldn't exist. So when I hear about people in Canada that are starving, when children are being ignored in school, when Canadians are dying in the Middle-East, I want to change that. I don't want people in the alleys of a downtown anywhere, starving. I don't want children's lives affected forever by crowded classrooms. I don't want Canadians focused on military objectives when soon we will be forced to fight the Taliban as well as the people of Afghanistan. I want to change that.

That is why I am involved in Politics, in the Liberal Party, I want to change the world. Gerard Kennedy has that perspective. It is like mine, ideal in theory but practical in reality. The evils and maldecencies that occur in Canada and the world should not happen, they should never occur. Gerard has stated policy after policy that not only addresses and seeks to resolve the problems facing Canada, but to attack the roots, the social problems that give rise to all others.

From the environment, to Womens' equality, to Afghanistan, to the Economy, Gerard does not deal in the superficiality of semantics, he does not just talk, he acts. As other Candidates give speeches about Afghanistan, Gerard Kennedy addressed Stephen Harper and openly attacked the mission.

Gerard Kennedy is the Liberal that can draw from the NDP support without losing the more conservative Liberals. Gerard can do that by being the Liberal Leader of old. Caring and compassionate, with the skills of incorporating all views into the Party.

Gerard Kennedy will win the next election, he has no dangerous faults as other candidates do. Gerard has been a Liberal for a long time, he's lived in Canada all of his life, he's hasn't been investigated in this campaign, and the most compelling is he will bring his youth and new essence to the Liberal Party to re-identify it as the Party of the 21st Century.

I selected Gerard Kennedy because he believes that injustices and wrongs should never occur. That everyone in Canada and the World deserves food to eat, that children deserve a good education, and that torture is never O.K., and that war should always be the last option.

I know reality can be painful, but I also know it shouldn't be; that's why I have chosen Gerard Kennedy.

Gerard Kennedy: My Perspective And My Candidate

I am a Young Liberal in BC. My parents are divorced, I lived in Vancouver for most of my life. Looking back on it, I guess I lived in a few bad neighbourhoods growing up, but at the time I never saw the crime or the filth that those areas are now filled with. Growing up, I think I just saw the world through eyes that never did. Perhaps I still see the world through innocent eyes, always believing there is good in everybody and people can change; but the difference between me as a kid and now, is that I know reality can be painful.

Since my perspective always tries to see the good, when I see wrongs and injustices they don't conform to my idea of the world. Crime, War, Injustice, those shouldn't exist. So when I hear about people in Canada that are starving, when children are being ignored in school, when Canadians are dying in the Middle-East, I want to change that. I don't want people in the alleys of a downtown anywhere, starving. I don't want children's lives affected forever by crowded classrooms. I don't want Canadians focused on military objectives when soon we will be forced to fight the Taliban as well as the people of Afghanistan. I want to change that.

That is why I am involved in Politics, in the Liberal Party, I want to change the world. Gerard Kennedy has that perspective. It is like mine, ideal in theory but practical in reality. The evils and maldecencies that occur in Canada and the world should not happen, they should never occur. Gerard has stated policy after policy that not only addresses and seeks to resolve the problems facing Canada, but to attack the roots, the social problems that give rise to all others.

From the environment, to Womens' equality, to Afghanistan, to the Economy, Gerard does not deal in the superficiality of semantics, he does not just talk, he acts. As other Candidates give speeches about Afghanistan, Gerard Kennedy addressed Stephen Harper and openly attacked the mission.

Gerard Kennedy is the Liberal that can draw from the NDP support without losing the more conservative Liberals. Gerard can do that by being the Liberal Leader of old. Caring and compassionate, with the skills of incorporating all views into the Party.

Gerard Kennedy will win the next election, he has no dangerous faults as other candidates do. Gerard has been a Liberal for a long time, he's lived in Canada all of his life, he's hasn't been investigated in this campaign, and the most compelling is he will bring his youth and new essence to the Liberal Party to re-identify it as the Party of the 21st Century.

I selected Gerard Kennedy because he believes that injustices and wrongs should never occur. That everyone in Canada and the World deserves food to eat, that children deserve a good education, and that torture is never O.K., and that war should always be the last option.

I know reality can be painful, but I also know it shouldn't be; that's why I have chosen Gerard Kennedy.

The Importance Of The Youth: Kennedy and Ignatieff

Youth is one of, if not the most important factor in this Leadership race. For two reasons, the first is that youth delegates and the youth of the Party play a huge part in the race by being around 33% of the delegates and having the technological skills to blast into the blogosphere (excluding of course the exceptions of Cerberus and Cherniak who out do the young guns regularly). The other reason is Youth in the form of new ideas and rejuvenation the Party needs to change the Liberal Party and to change Canada.

But here the first point is of interest here. The Liberal Party recognizes the importance of Youth, giving them the opportunities to reshape the Liberal Party and to keep it current. In fact on the YLC homepage it states you don't even have to agree with the Party in fact they promote difference of opinion; that's how the Liberal Party can change with the times. That is the importance of Youth, to have the Liberal Party in touch with the present so it can continue into the future.

Because the youth are our future, it seems important for Leadership candidates to address Youth concerns. However out of the eight rmaining candidates only two think the youth of the Liberal Party are worth addressing specifically and providing a website to accommodate they're diverse opinions. Those candidates are Gerard Kennedy and Michael Ignatieff. In my book the only two candidates who have demonstrated a desire to represent all interests.

Gerard Kennedy was the first to have a site specifically for youth, at Generation Kennedy, he was followed by Michael Ignatieff with Iggy Nation. I support visiting both sites to see the differences. I won't explicitly say which is better, but I do think Kennedy's is actually more youth oriented as opposed to Ignatieff's that seems less organic.

Either way both candidates are models of how a Leader should be. He should focus on the present and think of the future. Bob Rae has no real youth wing; a Bob Rae youth delegate is motivated either by a chance of power or is easily influenced.

Stephane Dion has an extremely vehement youth wing, indeed Kennedy's and Dion's are the largest youth wings of the campaign. The question is where are they in Dion's view? I take the position of putting your money where your mouth is. A candidate can say he is for the youth and rejuvenation, but if he ignores your interests or subjecates you to a lower recess, is he really?

There is a youth for volpe site, but it is in poor taste, I'll leave you to find that on your own.

In all this, it is pretty clear what candidates recognize the importance of youth, the future of the Liberal Party, and which candidate should be leader of the Liberal Party.

So Much Opportunism, So Little Time. The Problems Of Bob Rae

If you grant me the lieniancy required, please allow me to use 'opportunism' in place of other motives of Bob Rae. This post will go to show quite readily Bob Rae's opportunism.


A Short History Of Opportunism

Bob Rae has only been a Liberal for a few months, becoming a member in February. I know this from amoung other things, because I was at an pre-leadership event of his in Vancouver. At that event even Bob joked about his ink on his membership card still being wet. This was just two months since he had contributed against Liberals, to the NDP. He also contributed to the Liberals, but not to the advantage the NDP recieved; for more information, click here, scroll down and read, "How Can A Liberal Be So Un-liberal." At that time he also told a friend he wanted the NDP to gain more seats. That was then, this is now. Bob Rae is a a few months old as a Liberal and he's running for Leader of the Liberal Party.

Present Opportunism

In Maclean's, you can read it here, Bob Rae seemingly proves my point of his opportunism. Bob states:

"The big change in my life wasn't going from being a New Democrat to being a Liberal," he says. "The big change was from being in opposition and being in government. It made me think about politics in a different way -- the need to get to solutions, the need to set priorities. When you're in opposition you can say all sort of things."

I admit one has to analyze what he says, but for what politician do you not have to. The big change for Rae wasn't between Parties but between being in power and not being in power; this is troubling, Rae is either saying the NDP and the Liberal Party are extremely similar or Bob Rae didn't change. I have only crossed off the option of growing out of the NDP ideology because I believe that takes longer then two months. We can assume the NDP and the Liberal Party are not similar; thus Bob Rae didn't change ideologies.


Why Opportunism

Then why did Bob Rae change parties if not ideologies? The latter part of his statement adequatly answers this, "for power." That's the only change Bob wanted, the big change from being in opposition to being in government. This is the opportunism of Bob Rae.

Bob Rae, Gerard Kennedy, and Martha Hall Findlay, only candidates not suspected of any wrong doing

This race is turning into a disgrace for the Liberal Party.

First Joe Volpe with his numerous assualts on Liberal Dignity with signing up members who were way too young. Now his current scandal of signing up dead people and paying for membership fees, you can see a blog's satirical take on this here.

Then there was this aricle, it explains that Stephane Dion, Ken Dryden, and Scott Brison are under investigation for giving out confidential information about Liberal members.

Now Michael Ignatieff is having his reputation rebuffed and actually sullied greatly, and in doing so the Liberal Party's. It seems Michael Ignatieff has a complaint against him. 48 members in his riding had their memberships paid for them by the Ignatieff campaign, the evidence is pretty strong. Newspapers have quickly jumped on this; reporting it here and here.

So with 5 of the leadership candidates having their conduct questioned, it makes you think. Is a good strategy for future leadership races, to not do anything that would merit investigation or complaints? You would think this is obvious, yet here we are, with a majority of our potential leaders being put forth in the media as scandolous crooks.

Bob Rae, the leading; Gerard Kennedy, the dark horse; and Martha Hall Findlay, the underdog, all have warranted no scandals or disrepute for the Liberal Party.

49% OPPOSE AFGHANISTAN, 38% SUPPORT: Plus how the candidates stand

The Toronto Star put out this article giving the poll results and then listing the Liberal leadership candidates's stances on the issue.

49% of Canadians surveyed oppose the mission in Afghanistan, dramatically higher then those who support at 38%.

I hope you read the article. Here's a summary of the positions in relation to the poll numbers.

Joe Volpe:

Wants to change the mandate.


Bob Rae:

Wants a discussion.


Hedy Fry:

Stay till 2007, but keep our original mandate.


Martha Hall Findlay:

She can see staying or leaving, all depending on our NATO partners.


Ken Dryden:

Stay in Afghanistan, in fact he never talks about positvely leaving, just about extending it.


Stephane Dion:

His stance is somewhere between Harper's and Layton's, his words. Also depends on our troops and if Afghanistan wants us.


Scott Brison:

Not just military, must have humanitarian component, and reviews of our mission.


Michael Ignatieff:

Home after 2009.


Gerard Kennedy:

Home if NATO doesn't change it's mandate into a more effective one.


The question is who represents the people?

Fact Is Dion Campaign Broke The Rules

I blogged earlier of three campaigns that provided the Strategic Council Poll with confedential membership lists; appearently, quite disturbingly no one is shocked or dismayed. Maybe because everyone likes Dion, Dryden, and Brison, I for one do. But I'm not blaming the candidates, unless they knew. Odds are however it was their campaign managers who lacked the judgement necessary or who were underhanded and purposly and knowingly broke the rules.

For those of you who do not know the situation, in the strategic poll Dion and Dryden got supremly higher numbers then what they had been getting. It turns out, here that they supplied the poll with their membership lists. So wonder of wonders, their numbers go up, looking way better then before.

For more reading on the shadowy actions of Dion in him breaking the rules you can go here

Scott Brison is also accused of this, but as Personally Penny pointed out, his numbers should have been alot higher. So I personally agree with Penny.

Now I've already had the commentors trying to downplay this, which is just Orwellian to me. How can you deny something is black? No matter what they say I'll always see four fingers, I'll always see that the Liberal Party RIGHT NOW is investigating those campaigns. That's a fact! You can't spin that.

So far, the party is still investigating. Party national director Steve MacKinnon said, “Needless to say, using our membership lists for anything other than the intended purpose . . . troubles us. Membership lists are the property of the Liberal party and they are not to be disseminated to anybody on whim.” (glad to see that it’s about the party’s property rights, not members’ privacy interests - ed.)

Dion’s campaign director, Mark Marissen, claims “his camp received legal advice that it was within the bounds of the agreement to give the membership lists to the Globe strictly for the purpose of conducting a poll”, pointing to terms of the confidentiality agreement that permit the lists to be used by “an outside source” if the source signs a confidentiality agreement.

Some commentors have noted what's the harm? Me qualm, and it may be just a little reflex of mine, is when someone breaks the rules they get punished, especially when they break the rules, agreed upon by the party for their own advantage. Mark Marissen even admits they did it, currently he's saying they thought it was by the bbok, but this is just one more incident highlighting Mark's questionable methods.

Another example of hopefully just Mark's "accidents" and not Dion's was that during the last leadership convention, Jean Chretien requested that leadership camps in his riding allow an "undeclared" slate win so as not to politicize his role in the convention. At the convention his delegates would be fair game. Jean was granted this request.

After this precedent, Paul Martin made the same request to all 10 leadership camps, and after much consideration, 9 agreed. One refused. The refusal came within days of the Form 6 submission deadline, and came from Stephane Dion, despite the fact the request was conveyed to Dion via two Martin-ites turned CanaDions: Tim Murphy and Mark Marrissen. The refusal from Stephane was in very poor taste. Perhaps it's because he has no ground organization and required all the delegates he could get?

Dion, Dryden, and Brison, tsk, tsk

An article highlighting the dirty and shadowy attempts of some candidates. Most notably the second tier candidates who want to change public perception about their chances. Well it looks like Volpe and Bob Rae have some company.

I can't believe this.


Liberal leadership contenders face possible sanctions
Canadian Press
OTTAWA Three Liberal leadership hopefuls could face sanctions for giving
the party's confidential membership lists to a newspaper which used the data
to conduct a controversial opinion poll on the leadership race.
The Globe and Mail, which published the poll results last week, said it
obtained the lists from the campaigns of Stephane Dion, Ken Dryden and Scott
Brison, although the latter's camp has since denied any involvement.
Yet each candidate was required to personally sign a declaration of
confidentiality before the party handed over the coveted lists of members
across the country.
In the declaration, candidates agreed to take "appropriate measures to
protect the confidentiality of the personal information on the lists." They
further agreed that they "will not disclose the lists to anyone outside the
Liberal Party of Canada." Liberal national director Steven MacKinnon said
the party is still investigating the possible breach of confidentiality.
"Needless to say, using our membership lists for anything other than the
intended purpose . . . troubles us," Mr. MacKinnon said.
"Membership lists are the property of the Liberal party and they are not to
be disseminated to anybody on whim," he added. "We are taking this very
seriously."
Mr. MacKinnon would not disclose the nature of the sanctions that could be
imposed on candidates deemed to have broken their oath to protect the
confidentiality of the lists. But party insiders said punishment options
include a private reprimand, a public reprimand, a fine or even
disqualification of a candidate, an unlikely option in this case.
Leadership hopeful Joe Volpe said he's not sure what penalty could be
imposed but "I'm told they're quite harsh and severe." However, Mark
Marissen, Mr. Dion's campaign director, said his camp received legal advice
that it was within the bounds of the agreement to give the membership lists
to the Globe strictly for the purpose of conducting a poll.
He said the paper and pollster, Strategic Counsel, signed declarations
ensuring the lists would not be used for any other purpose.
Mr. Marissen pointed out that the confidentiality agreement signed by each
candidate expressly states that use of the lists by "an outside source" such
as a mailing house or call centre, is allowed, provided that a
confidentiality declaration is signed.
Not all rival camps were buying the argument, however. Some noted that
campaigns would ordinarily use a call centre to solicit support from
members, not to conduct a poll.
If camps did provide the lists to the Globe, Mr. Volpe said: "It's in
contravention of an agreement that all the campaigns signed."
"We all undertook to keep the lists within our respective campaigns and to
use them . . . for membership or voting purposes only," said Alex Swann,
spokesman for former Ontario premier Bob Rae's campaign.
"It was a serious undertaking. We take those things seriously." Mr. Marissen
said the Mr. Dryden and Mr. Brison camps also provided lists to the Globe. A
Dryden spokesperson was unsure but Mr. Brison spokesman Dale Palmeter
vehemently denied his camp's involvement and said he's demanded an
explanation from the newspaper.
"To the knowledge of everyone on our campaign, no one provided the lists,"
he said.
Moreover, Mr. Palmeter questioned the results of the poll, which suggested
that Rae and Michael Ignatieff were virtually tied when party members were
asked who they'd support on the first ballot. Mr. Dion was close behind. The
poll also suggested that Mr. Rae and Mr. Dion had the best potential for
growth on subsequent ballots.
Mr. Brison emerged with only three per cent support but Mr. Palmeter said
the poll appears to have surveyed very few Liberals in Atlantic Canada,
which will account for 10 per cent of the delegates to the December
leadership convention and where Mr. Brison's support is strongest.
Mr. Palmeter pointed out that the survey didn't even bother to specify the
sample size or margin of error for the region, although it does provide such
data for all other regions of the country.

SO TRUE. SO KENNEDY.

I don't care what candidate you're supporting, you're candidate should at least ask this about any government act:

'How will this translate into results? Where are the results?'"

This quote is taken from today's Globe.

Keeping government in the theoretics and distant from people and their daily living is a part of why the Liberals lost the last election. What has to be done is government in accordance with results. This transcends any difference in Liberal Ideology, in fact it's non-ideological, it's a principle of procedure how an effective body should be ran.

Most Liberals already accept this, as seen in the result of our election loss motivating us to change.

Gerard Kennedy has this characteristic, the Globe iterated that fact today.

Michael Fullan, senior policy adviser to the Premier and chief architect of Ontario's blueprint for raising levels of numeracy and literacy, said he was "amazed" to find at their first meeting that the minister knew more about the proposal than his own officials. Mr. Kennedy quickly became its driver.

In Mr. Fullan's judgment, four things made Mr. Kennedy effective: concern for social justice, his sheer, intellectual prowess, an obsession with results, and indefatigable energy. "He must have worked 20 hours a day. I'm sure it made him annoying to some staffers. Too much micromanagement. Too many expectations. He didn't berate anyone, but he was demanding. He put enormous pressure on people, because he was driven that way. I've worked with policy makers for 25 years. Most just want to get it on the books, not worry about implementation. Gerard's take was, 'How will this translate into results? Where are the results?'"

Having a result based government will constantly keep it renewed and connected with the people it governs. It must be reactive to the changing needs of the people. Gerard Kennedy already has done that.

"I established clear goals, at the ministry and elsewhere, and gave a lot of latitude, but was never content to see those things not done. You have to get the implementation. There's nothing worth getting up for otherwise."

This, he conceded, "was a bit unusual for people. They were used to being handed an objective along with, 'Could you at least make it look like this is happening?' But government is not an academic exercise. It's spending people's money and causing some good to happen."

Kennedy's ministry was a success in Ontario and has been an example to other provincial and federal ministries.

Act Together, New Leader, Afghanistan: Liberal's will Win, Conny's will Lose, No Coalition Necessary

An article in the Toronto Star places huge emphasis on the fact that the Liberal Party won't win the next election, partly because of the electoral system and partly because other parties are becoming more prominent. The article could be summed up with the reporter announcing his views that the Liberal Party should be more left,

And with a coalition it is likely to lead a government that actually represents a majority of voters, instead of its usual 38 per cent to 40 per cent. This is an advantage that is uniquely available to the Liberals: The Conservatives, because of their solo position on the right, could not, given the current party support pattern, attract any coalition partners, so are condemned to form only minority governments, or to form the opposition.

But the he goes on to add that it might not give a majority, in fact I propose it wouldn't even give us a minority.

The NDP is their obvious first choice. If that does not offer sufficient seats to form a majority (as is currently the case), then the Liberals could opt for a minority government in the hope of surviving with a few Conservatives not voting, or Bloc members crossing to support them on an individual basis. This is not an ideal situation; but it is the best on offer, and better than any available to any other party.

With a coalition with the NDP Liberal Members would dwindle. The reporter, Hugh Thorburn forgets about the political spectrum within the Liberal Party. There are Liberals who find the NDP too socialist-like in nature. This is just an observation of members especially in my riding.
If the Liberals and NDP were to team up, it would be an end or at least obstacle to the Liberal Party.

I am bold enough to state that the LIberal Party will win the next election without a coalition. We will do so with a new leader, (Partisan Warning) perhaps Kennedy, and we will win by our stance on Afghanistan, on our renewed structure, and the freeness of no sponsership related propaganda. What we need however is the belief and determination that we will take the conservatives down.

To Hugh, the electoral system will due until a better one comes along. All systems have their faults. For him to base long-term perspective on one election is beyond extrapolation.

Hugh forgets the past and thinks that people are now no longer Liberal. He forgets the reason people wanted Liberals out was so we'd get our act together. Well we got our act together and we got a whole new game.

Not Infighting, Just Fighting: There's Nothing In The Liberal Party Called The NDP

This Bob Rae has clearly gotten myself and many others angry. On my blog you can see I posted on Sept. 18 to vent and show my extreme disgust with his actions. Joan Bryden a reporter for the Canadian Press, either through bias or complete error has reported my motivation and others as attacking Bob because of the strategic council poll that showed he was the leader. So not only does her article refute Bob Rae's actions (quite poorly) but she also advertises that he is in the number one spot.

First, to Joan Bryden, look here, do you see the date? Sept. 18th, same with Northern Liberal's. Now look here at the Strategic Council's poll. It says Sept.19th. So Joan, your article made it in countless newspapers, such as here, here, and here, and you were completely wrong. You misrepresented Liberals against Rae. It's not that he's leading that I have a problem with him, it's that he's un-Liberal that I have a problem with him.

Now Bill Curry of the Globe and Mail is also wrong. Bill here, is also saying it's in light of the poll. I must again say check the dates of my post with the Council's poll.

Let me set this straight, even before this poll I thought Bob Rae does not have a good chance, I still think he does not.

The NDP contributions he made are beyond any petty Leadership feud, this is a Liberal feud vs the NDP.

Bob Rae contributed during an election to the NDP, while I was contributing to the Liberal cause. A literal translation, Rae was my opposition. I can not support or even respect someone who thinks they can lead me when so soon ago they were fighting me in federal politics.

Michael Ignatieff, I can follow. I may fight with his campaign, but we fight over differing Liberal values and principles, not different ideologies or political parties.

In Curry's article he goes on to:

Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis also said he has problems with the donations. "Playing the field until you sort of decide where you're going and say, 'There's an opportunity here for me,' I think doesn't sound right by a lot of people," he said.

Ms. Mathyssen said she was under the impression that Mr. Rae donated to her campaign in January because he wanted more NDP MPs in the House of Commons.

"For him to say he believes in NDP candidates and is willing to support them, to switch and go to another party is absolutely unbelievable, unspeakable," she said.

Rae Resign? Or Has Just His Ethics?

I am not going as far as some, particularly Liberal Outsider in demanding Rae resign; but I do see and feel the same feelings of disgust towards a, sadly, potential Leader of the Liberal Party.

I do not see Rae disobeying or in conflict with the strict word of the Liberal Party's "Rules and Procedures," or with the Constitution of the LPC; but I know Bob Rae in funding the NDP, especially in a riding where we lost by around 800 votes, then running as a candidate is ethically wrong.

For a detailed account of what exactly I am referring to you can visit my previous post here or visit The Northern Liberal, Liberal Outsider, Canadian Cerberus, Calgary Grit, Naylor's take,
Far And Wide, Wonk Blog, Fuddle Duddle, A View From The Left, Yes Another Liberal Blog, and Cherniak on Politics.

First and foremost I think Bob Rae has to answer for what he did. A statement explaining his actions. Then if he admits that he made those contributions which Elections Canada says he did, there should be an inquiry by the National Returning Officer into that conduct.

Any Liberal who brushes this off did not fight in the last election. I fought in a riding where $300 dollars would have meant life and death.

I may be sentimental but I look to officials in the Party for inspiration, afterall I am arguing for them in debates, door-knocking, and in every chance I get. I can't respect Bob Rae. The last election is muddled by Bob Rae's actions, and furthermore he's tarnishing the Liberal Leadership race by his arrogance in thinking he can do what he's done.

Bob Rae has to answer for what he did, if he doesn't and wins; I'll mail him my Liberal Membership Card, because I won't be needing it and certainly it's older then the one he has.

How Can A Liberal Be So Un-liberal?

First and foremost, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I don't know how Bob Rae would run as candidate for Leader of the Liberal Party when he has only been Liberal for a few days before the contest began. A few days is not an understatement it is a literal specification of time that transpired. So I exclaim again and again at the marvel that is Bob Rae; how could he be so opportunistic?

Well for anyone who thinks this evidence is not substantial to merit a second thought, I present detailed information that specifies in great detail the opportunistic nature of Bob Rae. Him not being a Liberal Member but until days before the race just leaves the image that he was liberal just not officially. However these accounts illustrates that is not the case, and up to months prior to the Liberal Leadership contest he was funding NDP candidates purposely to defeat Liberal ones. Strictly policy-wise Bob Rae might have made a good Leader, but including his character and actions he should have his conduct seriously questioned.

In tight races against Liberals Bob Rae has supported NDP candidates.

Three days before the last federal election Bob Rae donated $300.00 to a NDP candidate by the name of Ms. Mathyssen in London--Fanshawe. She was in a very close two-way race with Liberal newcomer Glen Pearson to replace Liberal Defector Pat O'Brien. Mathyssen narrowly defeated Liberal, Pearson by 868 votes. The difference could have easily been overcome by a 300 dollar contribution to the Liberal Party or without a contribution to the NDP.

Perhaps at the time Mr. Rae didn't like Glen Pearson, or perhaps at the time (8 months ago) he just didn't like Liberals. Maybe Mr. Rae wanted to help out a past colleague. (Ms. Mathyssen was Member of Ontario Parliament from 1990-1995 in Mr. Rae's NDP caucus). However when Ms. Mathyssen ran federally in 1997 and 2004 and provincially in 1999 and 2003, he did not make a donation. Only when she had a shot at defeating a Liberal in 2006 did he ante up.

Days before the election in 2004 Mr. Rae donated to David Christopherson, the NDP candidate in Hamilton Centre also in a tight race against Liberal incumbent and Minister of National Revenue, Stan Keyes. Mr. Christopherson won the election defeating the Liberal by 5,373 votes.
He also contributed to Tony Martin in a nail biter against Liberal Carmen Provenzano. Mr.Martin won by 752 votes.

Donations made by Bob Rae in 2006 (sourced from www.elections.ca):
Mathyssen, Irene (New Democratic Party) - London-Fanshawe, Jan. 20, 2006, donated $300.00
Carnegie, Rochelle (New Democratic Party) - Willowdale, Dec. 22, 2005, donated $250.00
Godfrey, John (Liberal Party of Canada) - Don Valley West, Jan. 16, 2006, donated $300.00

Donations made by Bob Rae in 2004 (sourced from www.elections.ca):
Christopherson, David (New Democratic Party) - Hamilton Centre, Jun. 25, donated $250.00
Martin, Tony (New Democratic Party) - Sault Ste. Marie, Jun. 28, 2004, donated $250.00
-----
I am astonshed that Bob Rae is a candidate in the Liberal Leadership race. The aforementioned facts can only try to describe the gross enormity of his opportunistic actions. How can a Liberal be so unliberal?

CONSERVATIVE CRISIS: Liberals Must Speak Out

Yesterday's Globe and Mail reported that the Conservative Party of Canada is practicing anti-democratic behaviour within it's party. The story states that Stephen Harper and the Party claimed this Summer that no Conservative Incumbant would be protected from challengers in their nomination process. However, instead of out-right and clear denial to challengers, the Party dismisses challengers without explanation.

Denying the possibility of democratic procedures such as electing a candidate, and holding a previous candidate responsible is fundamental and necessary to representaion and euitable votes. Grassroot Conservatives are so outraged that they are suing their own Party for such injustice.

I believe it is our duty as Liberals to aid these Conservatives in pursuing a more democratic Conservative Party. This is not to illustrate Liberal generousity, this is to fight tyranny in a democracy.

As Liberals, participants in a political organization, we know the importance of having your voice heard; it is this reason that we must help the Conservatives because they should enjoy the same rights that we do.

I will pursue a curse of action to motivate the Liberal Party to take the Conservative problem to heart, and address a call of action to Stephen Harper.

I may disagree with the Conservative Party and it's ideology, but I do not disagree with it's rights.

Environment Minister For PM?

At the beginning of the Leadership race Gerard Kennedy was criticized for being weak if not void of policy; as time progressed and opportunity arose, Gerard proposed policies on every facet of Canada. He has wide ranging addresses from Domestic affairs, such as party renewal, women's equality, education, immigration, and food supply. He has also demonstrated a juggernaut stance in foreign affairs, posing the policy of withdrawal of Canadian forces if NATO does not renegotiate its mandate and pursue a wider scope then just occupying Afghanistan. This all arising from Gerard Kennedy, someone that has risen from nothing to be a leading contender for Liberal Leadership. Therefore the bar is pretty high for those who started the race with federal political acclaim such as Stephane Dion; yet Dion remains at bar level if not below.

Gerard Kennedy has progressed and has developed original policies; while Stephane Dion has repeated old speeches and ignored significant issues. The most important of which, is foreign affairs, or anything do with foreigners. Stephane Dion has not put forth a single policy directed to Canada's relations with other countries. I do admit he put forth an explanation of why the Liberal Party was not supporting Israel as Harper was, but this lacks any predictive value of what he'd do as Leader and Prime Minister.

Stephane Dion is a bright man, he was a professor of political science, he has written many scholarly journals, and has many years of federal government experience; yet the question arises, where is his foreign policy? Where is his stance on immigration? Dion answers at a time of pre-civil war in Iraq and turmoil in Afghanistan, with policy proposals on the environment.

Is Dion still environment minister? No infact he's the foreign affairs critic! His job in the Liberal Party of Canada, right now is arguing against the Conservatives, finding their flaws, and addressing a proper means of action. The question is why is Dion ignoring foreign affairs and currently discussing the environbment? The answer may appear negative, but I feel it's rational; Dion does not have any ideas, good or bad, about foreign policy or immigration. Dion does have ideas about the environment.

In conclusion, if you want an environment minister, who appears to know only that, to be Prime Minister vote for Stephane Dion.