A Quick Word About Stéphane Dion ...
Let me get it out straight off the first line of this post: Stéphane Dion did the right thing by stepping down as leader of the LPC.
Despite his intellectual qualities and his integrity, he has shown himself to be too much the triangulator, has demonstrated indicisiveness and a tendency to make bad judgement calls when he actually made them, and has shown himself to be lacking in communicating skills (even, to some extent, in his own French language).
Now, Dion apologists and "loyalists" have been promulgating various targets to blame for Dion 's failures and demise, namely that it is all the fault of Dion's aides "giving him bad advice", of "party insiders seeking his demise", of the (rightly shameful) "smearing campaign by Harper and the CPC", of the (demonstrated) "bias of the media for Harper", and so on and so forth.
However, the fact remains that in the end, it was Dion who accepted to start off the LPC campaign with his green shift/green tax proposal as essentially the sole platform - a clearly wrongheaded decision.
The fact remains that it was Stéphane Dion who kept promising lavish "billion dollar" promises on the campaign trail, without an actual balance sheet to back it up, in addition to opening the barn doors wide open for attacks from his opponents (especially Harper) as being about "spend, spend, spend" without budgetary concerns - another momentous mistake considering the current economic woes.
The fact remains that it was Stéphane Dion who failed to prepare adequately his party and his fellow candidates in running a clear, precise and steady/consistent on-message campaign, along with failing to coax/prompt/direct the same fellow candidates into a necessary, intense and rigorous door-to-door meeting of the electorate in their respective ridings.
The fact remains that it was Stéphane Dion who lead his party into such a poor excuse of a campaign, one that was ill thought out, ill prepared, ill planned and ill run - resulting not only is losing the elections, but actually losing seats from to won in 2006.
The fact remains that, as party leader, the "buck stops" with Stéphane Dion.
And the fact remains that in the end, Stéphane Dion failed overall as a leader - not only for his party, but obviously in the eyes of Canadians who actually performed their duties as citizens and cast their votes.
Conclusion: the LPC better wake up and wise up when it will choose its next leader - along with getting its act together platform-wise and politics-wise (especially with regards to an excess of triangulation as opposition party).
And that, as they say, is that.
Despite his intellectual qualities and his integrity, he has shown himself to be too much the triangulator, has demonstrated indicisiveness and a tendency to make bad judgement calls when he actually made them, and has shown himself to be lacking in communicating skills (even, to some extent, in his own French language).
Now, Dion apologists and "loyalists" have been promulgating various targets to blame for Dion 's failures and demise, namely that it is all the fault of Dion's aides "giving him bad advice", of "party insiders seeking his demise", of the (rightly shameful) "smearing campaign by Harper and the CPC", of the (demonstrated) "bias of the media for Harper", and so on and so forth.
However, the fact remains that in the end, it was Dion who accepted to start off the LPC campaign with his green shift/green tax proposal as essentially the sole platform - a clearly wrongheaded decision.
The fact remains that it was Stéphane Dion who kept promising lavish "billion dollar" promises on the campaign trail, without an actual balance sheet to back it up, in addition to opening the barn doors wide open for attacks from his opponents (especially Harper) as being about "spend, spend, spend" without budgetary concerns - another momentous mistake considering the current economic woes.
The fact remains that it was Stéphane Dion who failed to prepare adequately his party and his fellow candidates in running a clear, precise and steady/consistent on-message campaign, along with failing to coax/prompt/direct the same fellow candidates into a necessary, intense and rigorous door-to-door meeting of the electorate in their respective ridings.
The fact remains that it was Stéphane Dion who lead his party into such a poor excuse of a campaign, one that was ill thought out, ill prepared, ill planned and ill run - resulting not only is losing the elections, but actually losing seats from to won in 2006.
The fact remains that, as party leader, the "buck stops" with Stéphane Dion.
And the fact remains that in the end, Stéphane Dion failed overall as a leader - not only for his party, but obviously in the eyes of Canadians who actually performed their duties as citizens and cast their votes.
Conclusion: the LPC better wake up and wise up when it will choose its next leader - along with getting its act together platform-wise and politics-wise (especially with regards to an excess of triangulation as opposition party).
And that, as they say, is that.
Actually, Bob Rae and Gerard Kennedy were the heads of the platform committee, Michael Ignatieff wanted a carbon tax and Stephane put it all together and took the hit. Get ALL the facts before you besmirch a great man and his LOYAL followers. Are you just another PQer that doesn't like Stephane just because he's Stephane?
ReplyDeleteI would expect more from an intellect such as yourself.
... and actually, where was Teh Leader in this promoting/establishing said platform? Are you trying to defend Stéphane's "uninvolvement" in this by saying "he was not supposed to be involved"?
ReplyDeleteThere you go again blaming "others" while conveniently forgetting to consider that Teh Leader was nevertheless Teh One who promoted said platform, which you yourself just indicated he resolved not to involve himself in its establishment - thereby proving my entire point exactly.
And what is your point about Ignatieff? I ask, because it was Teh Leader who ultimately decided - however much prompted/convinced/counseled to do so - to run first and foremost with the green shift - which is what I *wrote*.
Hence the conclusion: the "buck stops" with Stéphane and he failed - whether you like it or not, whether you refuse to accept the *reality* of it or not.
And where is this "besmirching" you accuse me of?
... especially when you accuse *me*, of all people, of being a "PQer"?
Sounds to me that you are (over)reacting and making cheap ad hominem attacks, while at the same time using strawmen arguments, *just like those "on the other side"*, in order to try to make a point - and utterly failing in the process.
What those "on the other side" do, as you have just done, I call "intellectual sloth-driven incompetence".
What a shame that you would steep so low as to follow in "their" footsteps ...
(sigh)
It takes a team to lose and you guttersniping Dion is irrational. Liberals have lost lots of elections. In this case, Stephane Dion was the only one in history not allowed a second time.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'll say this again. The party failed Dion. They weren't prepared. They weren't (and won't be) funded. And, many sat on their hands deliberately.
I know "the anonymous liberals". The poor bastard never had a chance.
Where did you campaign during this recent election?
Someone sounds rather bitter. The fact is that while Dion is a man of intelligence and integrity, there were other candidates that also held these qualities, but with the added benefit of broader popularity, and stronger communication skills. People such as you are blaming other Liberals for not contributing. My question is, why weren't they contributing? The reason is partly because Dion was unable to perform one of the most important duties as leader: motivate the party base. He was unable to connect, in part, because he was a consensus candidate few truly wanted, but finally settled for with a bit of resignation.
ReplyDeleteNow before you interrogate me you may know that while I am a graduate student and thus not following with money, I contributed to my local candidate in a riding the Liberals didn't have a prayer of winning. I refused to contribute nationally because I did not support the leader, the team, or their failed campaign strategy that made Martin's team look like geniuses (which I didn't think was possible). As for campaigning, I am away from my home riding and while I contributed to my home riding, I am studying in a very safe Liberal riding and focused on my research instead (I suppose the only benefit of FPTP is that it can let me do that without feeling a bit guilty; we really need to get around to changing our electoral system).
Anyway, my point is, Dion was the wrong man for the job. As much as you defend him on various blogs, it isn't going to erase the fact that he did not connect with the people who matter: voters. As leader he appointed his campaign team, and the group of them failed. he should be accountable for his failure and resign as he has. I only wish he would have stepped down immediately as I fear we now have a lame duck leader which might create an exploitable situation for Harper to try and win a majority. Then again, why should we be surprised given Mr. Dion's reputation for selfishness and, according to the Globe today, hopelessly delusional. Nice, bright, honourable, but others have these qualities and are better for the job.
Just my two cents.
1. Dion beat those other so-called intelligent people.
ReplyDelete2. Martin's team very much ran this campaign. so now they are 1 for 3.
3. Any leader, interim or otherwise, would have been a lame duck right now. Dion made the right move. The animals in caucus were already stabbing each other to get their guy to be interim leader. Goodale - Rae. McCallum - Iggy.
The war was already getting ugly and Thursday's caucus meeting will be no different.
And, naturally, CTV will be getting blackberried to death from inside the meeting.
"It takes a team to lose and you guttersniping Dion is irrational."
ReplyDeleteYes, it takes a team to loose. But who was leader/coach/captain of said team? Hence my conclusion that evidently Stéphane, however much I appreciate his intellectual/integrity qualities (already mentioned in the post), has shown himself to be lacking in leadership by this very fact.
This is not "guttersniping", let alone "irrational" - this is making an observation of reality.
Again, you are overreacting and making ad hominem attacks in order to lend a semblance to whatever point you are trying to make - like those "on the other side".
"And I'll say this again. The party failed Dion. They weren't prepared. They weren't (and won't be) funded. And, many sat on their hands deliberately."
*Why* were they not prepared, exactly - considering their actual delaying after delaying of no-confidence voting Harper out in order to *buy time* to this effect? And who was the leader of the party - you know, the one who is supposed to inspire the troops, give them direction and purpose - again?
And why were they not funded? Because people didn't see them *anywhere* except on the TV or in newspapers, showing how often they chose not to show up for confidence vote after vote after vote. Where were the funding drives? Where was the organization to do so?
I know I saw none in my region.
In other words: where the hell was Teh Leader and, *consequently*, Teh Party?!?
And about your grand statement that "many sat deliberately on their hands" - have they, really? How would you know?
But let's assume for the sake of argument that this is the case - then those who thus sat on their hands lost, haven't they? Hence, such "sabbotage" (no other word for it, really) on their part only insured their *own* political demise, in addition to opening themselves up to possible expulsion from the party for such sabbotage - which doesn't make much sense, if only for the basic desire to *win* after "risking it all" by throwing your hat in the ring as a riding's candidate to begin with.
"In this case, Stephane Dion was the only one in history not allowed a second time."
And your point is?
Times change - obviously ... especially considering that the LPC has lost seats this time around, as compared to 2006.
Again - it all boils down ultimately to party leadership, direction and inspiration by the one person that was voted in as the party's leader - and on who's desk the "buck stops" there.
I'll let you know that I am not a member of the LPC - I quit the party back in the late 80's-early 90's, largely because of the irrational, almost "fanatical" and intractable devotion members professed for the party leader, brooking no rational/valid criticism whatsover - not unlike what you are displaying here.
I nevertheless voted for the LPC - as I ultimately did this year ... and in spite of the LPC candidate in my riding (Stanstead-Compton) being a no show, no where, except on standard ads hanging here and there on lightposts and such.
No knocking on doors. No pamphlets. No phone calls. Nada. Zip. Nil.
Nothing in the local newpaper, either.
Couldn't even find the riding's LPC campaign HQ - assuming there was one.
Now I ask you: what is the point of accepting to be candidate in a riding for a party and not do *anything* in order to, you know, ***win***?
Other than *not* being helped, counseled and/or directed to do so by your party leader, that is?
So again - we get back to the roles and successes - or failures - of leadership ...
Which is what my post is all about - regardless of the fact that said leader is a "good man".
Stanstead-Compton
ReplyDeleteAh yes. The briliant "nation" motion maker professor Hogg. Jen Crane should have run there.
Sabateurs don't always lose...especially in Montreal ridings.
Rodriguez. Coderre. Frulla lost long ago. Inspite of them, Dion finished second in PQ and won Papineau and Westmount Ville Marie and just barely lost in Ahuntsic and Outremont.
The party is broken inside, and until we rid ourselves of those entitled to their entitlements, we will not ein any time soon.
Dion won because the people of this party spoke up against the backroom boys that continue to sabotage this party from within.
To quote Senator Smith "When you wish upon a star". Who did he back again?
anaon@10:20: "Anyway, my point is, Dion was the wrong man for the job."
ReplyDeleteThat is what Dion's behavior as opposition party leader, and this election, have demonstrated - agreed.
JC: "The party is broken inside, and until we rid ourselves of those entitled to their entitlements, we will not win any time soon."
ReplyDelete... and I could not agree more with you on this "spot on" diagnosis and conclusion.
addendum: hence why I ended this post regarding the LPC's dire need to get its act together ...
ReplyDelete