I know not many people are all that interested in the Federal Liberal leadership election.
However, I thought Gerard Kennedy's
latest stance was an interesting one to take. I'm curious what those with a foreign policy background think of what he's saying. I know Gerard himself doesn't have an extensive foreign policy background. Especially given his entire political career has been within provincial politics. It's one area that Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion definately have a leg up in experience - especially Ignatieff. However, experience does not necessarily equal good decisions.
So what do you think? Are we taking the wrong approach in Afghanistan right now? It sure does seem like it's just developping into a mission with no end in site. I certainly see the great value of our role in Afghanistan, but perhaps we need to change the way we're trying to protect the government from the Taliban. Attacking the economic means of the locals sure doesn't seem like the wisest way to do it.
I think the leadership race is actually very interesting for a student of political science. It's especially interesting to me as a long time Liberal. Yeah, don't tell anyone, I do work in the media. So shhh! Personally I'm backing Kennedy in what little way I can. I've had some talks with his organizers, but really there didn't seem to be a way I could realistically contribute much from here in Owen Sound. So when it comes time for me to vote on delegates, I'll try to push for one who backs Kennedy.
However, I find it dissapointing how some Liberal bloggers have turned a leadership race into the kind of war of words you'd expect from a federal election. I know it's important to get the right leader, but there's still too much mean spirited stuff out there. I've got to say, I can find reasons to get behind all four guys at the front of the leadership pack.
Who is that pack? Seems quite clear it's Ignatieff, Dion, Kennedy and Rae.
Want to know more about
Ignatieff? There's a very in depth
article on his personal history right
here from the Globe. How much stock you take in a man's personal past is certainly up to you. Still, I find the man intelligent and thought provoking so it was very interesting to read about his past. Reading his history it makes me think that perhaps he's been a bit too calculated in some of his big decisions. Paul Martin tried to be very calculated when forming his public positions as well. I sense a bit too much of that "all things to all people" attitude in Ignatieff when I hear about caculated shifts in direction. Especially when you hear some who have followed his policy work (like my friend Scott) who feel a lot of those views seem to be watered down now that he's in public life.
That being said, I'd be glad to support an Ignatieff led Liberal party. At least from what I've read of his policies and heard from him personally. He's a man with great experience, a tremendous depth of knowledge and a lot of ideas.
Bob Rae is a bit confusing to me here. I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that the one time NDP MP and Premier is a Liberal leadership candidate. This is not me being unwilling to accept him in the party - it's more just me not really understanding the move. I havn't heard an explanation from him that I really understand yet. Regardless, I think Bob Rae has some good ideas. I like that he leans to the left of the spectrum. I'm glad he has his brother John and other key Chretien organizers by his side. To me that means he has some real value to bring to the table here. However, ultimately when I look at a candidate I also look at whether he'd be electable. The Liberals need Ontario to win - and Bob Rae's reputation in this province is miserable. People's memories _are_ short, but I don't think they're that short. I just don't think it's all that smart to elect someone with that kind of baggage in what is still really the Liberal's best hope.
That said, I think he'd be a very effective opposition leader. For example, I really like this quote from his
website:
"With the Harper government's handling of the softwood lumber issue we are seeing a troubling pattern emerge: a government that would rather get serious issues "out of the way" than answer important questions and arrive at sustainable solutions that reflect our values and the best interests of Canadian communities. We have seen this on climate change, Afghanistan, the fiscal imbalance and now trade with the US. This does not show "discipline." It shows sloppiness and disrespect for our most vital Canadian interests."Spot on and sharp commentary. I'd certainly welcome him as a big gun in the Liberal campaign. I just don't know if Ontario is attainable with Bob Rae at the helm. Just my own damn opinion.
As for one time Environment Minister
Stephane Dion? I think he'd make for some pretty dry debates with Harper. However, I also think Dion is very bright. He has a detailed education, important experience in government, and some great ideas. Dion puts a lot of emphasis on the environment, and I truly feel it's one of the policy points where the Liberals could make some serious gains. Canadians do care about the environment, and the Torries clearly show very little interest in dealing with it. Critics can say the Liberals didn't get results (fairly) but the Conservatives don't even seem to want to try. New leaders and new ideas on the environment could be a tremendous spark to the party.
Dion continues to be a very strong Liberal with a lot to contribute to the party. He's a man I would gladly follow were he elected leader of the party. There are flaws, I mean his english isn't very good for someone to lead this country, but he's a worthy man.
As for my chocie -
Kennedy - I can certainly point to lots of faults for him as well. Gerard's french is not quite as good as we were all hoping. He doesn't have federal experience or much background in foreign policy. He certainly doesn't have the educational pedigree of Dion or Ignatieff - but I'd argue his experience as a young man running a new foodbank in Edmonton is uniquely valuable.
Kennedy was born in Manitoba, lived and worked in Edmonton, and has been part of a government in Ontario. His view of this country is a broad one based on his variety of experience. He's a tireless worker who has all ready come out with several new, creative policy ideas for the party. He's also full of charisma - and I've talked to a lot of people who became real fans by just meeting the man once. The other nice thing about Kennedy? He's a completely fresh face. No association with Martin or Chretien. No association with the old government. He's not associated with any past governing failures... unless you feel like the McGuinty Liberals are one. The McGuinty Liberals BTW who have now
balanced the budget! He had a very good run as Ontario Education Minister. Hell, the man actually brought labour peace to Ontario schools.
I'm not really offering you much depth to his ideas and character here - but what I am pointing out is some of the reasons why I think he could be a successful leader. To me for the Liberals to have a good chance to win the next election, Kennedy and Ignatieff are the best two options. Dion and Rae are a step behind as electable leaders, but again I think it's a good final four.
There's nobody among the 4 front runners who I absolutely would not support. There's no disaster waiting to happen.
I wish I'd offered a more detail policy analysis between the four leaders. However, I didn't really intend to turn this into a final four review until I was halfway through it. Perhaps as we get closer to the convention I'll talk more about their policy.
But here's my ballot...
1)
Kennedy2)
Ignatieff3)
Dion4)
RaeIncidently, I'd throw Dryden in there somewhere if he had a chance.
