Stronach out, Kennedy in: Canadian Liberal Leadership mit pohl

Hey, Canuckistani handicappers... time to re-ink those racing forms for the NEXT PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA.

Belinda Stronach is press conferencing, as I type, that she is out. Bob Rae is probably in, and Michael Ignatieff is very likely. The field likely to emerge tomorrow:

Clifford Blais (Quebec)
Stephane Dion (Quebec)
Hedy Fry (BC)
John Godfrey (ON)
Michael Ignatieff (ON)
Gerard Kennedy (ON)
David McGuinty (ON)
Bob Rae (ON)

It looks good for Ignatieff, since I see the next strongest contenders being Rae and Kennedy, who may split the Liberal left flank... although on the Convention floor in December, one may award their delegates to the other and really challenge Iggy.

I've always thought Rae was a puzzle, the most corporate-friendly and program-cutting NDP pol imaginable. Kennedy has more social-justice cred. Rae is yesterday's man, and Kennedy is the up-and-comer.

I think the rest of Canada will really warm to Kennedy. He's young (45), very smart, a good speaker, has had roles of great responsibility in private life (Founding CEO of Toronto's Food Banks) and Ontario government, and he's good-lookin'. Even the Kennedy name still has a certain cachet. He was born in The Pas, Manitoba... rural/remote.

This track-rat says Kennedy's the horse to watch. Not that I haven't torn up my tickets in disgust before.

•  Gerard Kennedy info

  From the Draft Gerard Kennedy website.Draft Kennedy linky

  by howth of murph on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:46:17 AM PDT

  •  I have it on good authority that

    Kennedy is a jackass.  He puts on a good show but is a bully in his office and treats his staff like crap.  Perhaps my source is biased but I trust them.  

    Bob Rae is a good man but he's not going to be able to get out from under his reputation in Ontario.  

    I'm kind of left wondering if there are any other choices.  

    by lonestar canuck on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:05:20 AM PDT

    •  Rae

      Bob Rae was an atrocious premier who ran away from the platform on which he was elected the second that he was sworn in.  He's a weakling and a traitor, and if the Grits are stupid enough to make him their leader, they deserve to be out of government.

      by Trapper John on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:09:14 AM PDT

    •  Rep

      I've also read that he's tough on his staff.  So what?  If that's the criteria, there wouldn't be too many viable candidates.

      by Paleo on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:09:38 AM PDT

      •  I think...

        there's a difference between a demanding, high pressure environment and abusive behaviour.  It's an important distinction to make.

        by vansterdam on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:15:19 AM PDT

    •  Apparently

      Paul Martin had an atrocious temper with staff and cabinet in private, something which was never really seen in public.

      I'm not sure it's an issue.

      by FrankFrink on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:18:03 AM PDT

•  you missed one

  What, no Ken Dryden? I maintain that, if he chooses to run, he'd be a very serious candidate.

  Think about it - he's a hockey player, big and lovable. Talks about childcare a lot. The kind of person that every Canadian naturally sympathizes with; he's Clintonesque in that regard. Doesn't that make him the perfect man to balance out Harper's cold, divisive technocracy?
  (His French may be a sticking point - I can't speak to that.)

  Kennedy has some of the same qualities, but IMO he's got a bit of an Ontario-elite air about him that might not fly in the Maritimes or the West.

  And Ignatieff, my God - if they give him the leadership I'm leaving the party. He has absolutely zero political chops - hell, he had his riding handed to him on a silver platter and almost fucked THAT up. He's a pompous ass, or at least comes off as one on TV, with all the charisma of a lawn chair. The Trudeau comparisons we keep hearing for him border on the hallucinogenic.

  by MarkusRTK on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:57:38 AM PDT

  •  Earlier on in January

    I was roundly mocked for suggesting that Dryden had a shot. I still feel he does (if he actually goes for it), but I'm still more inclined to back Kennedy.

    by howth of murph on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:02:04 AM PDT

•  Christ

  What a weak bench the Grits have these days.

  by Trapper John on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:03:04 AM PDT

•  I don't see Ignatieff's chances as being too good

  The fact that he hasn't lived in Canada for most of the past couple of decades is probably not going to sit well with a lot of voters, nor will his continued belief that Canada should have sent troops to Iraq.  (And if he's changed his mind about that, it certainly hasn't been well publicized...)

  by vansterdam on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:04:05 AM PDT

  •  From what I've heard about Ignatieff...

    ...let's hope you're right.

    by Marlyn on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:11:23 AM PDT

•  Others

  Volpe, Belavaqua and Brison are likely running.

  And who is Blais?

  by Paleo on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:05:34 AM PDT

  •  Blais is...

    ... a sovereigntist (anti-separatist) MD from Montreal who has never held elected office. He's a very dark horse indeed, and has said himself he doesn't expect to win.

    by howth of murph on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:10:36 AM PDT

•  Kennedy

  Kennedy is the best of the bunch.  Dion's English is terrible and might not bring much in his home province.  Dryden might be formidable.  Ignatieff is probably the frontrunner, unfortunately.  

  by Paleo on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:07:32 AM PDT

•  The more

  I see and hear of Kennedy the more I like him.

  Strengths:

  • His social justice background.
  • Western born and raised
  • Beside his Scottish brackground he also has Ukrainian roots - don't discount that, especially in the West. Canada has the largest Ukrainian community outside of the Ukraine & Russia, over a million strong.
  • His French is more than passable. His wife is an Acadian from Prince Edward Island.

  On Micky Iggy - I think there's a basic distrust of Ignatieff even from the centrist portion of the Liberal Party due to his endorsement of US policy in Iraq and his awkward attempts at trying to explain his apparent support for (limited forms of) torture. That poses a problem for him with the public.

  I like Dion, but he's more or a less a wonk and I'm not convinced that the party wants to go with another Quebec based leader at this point.

  Forget Hedy Fry (she's my MP in Vancouver-Centre). Everyone knows she's a bit wacky (and I'm being generous).

  The others? Shrug.

  by FrankFrink on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:09:15 AM PDT

  •  Second that about Hedy

    You are indeed being generous. My MP as well. Yuck.

    by Alien Abductee on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:34:13 AM PDT

    •  Consider the choices we had...

      I'm not sure Svend would have been any better.

      by vansterdam on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:55:30 AM PDT

      •  I am

        Svend will never really live down his little "misadventure," and has been less than calculating on how some of his stands played out, but I agree with him on many issues and was ready to give him another chance.

        by Alien Abductee on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:15:09 AM PDT

        •  I don't really care about the theft.

          "Less than calculating" is very kind - I may steal that for future use. ;-)  

          The way I would describe him is credulous, scattershot, and unfocussed - on national and international issues.  I've seen (through my job) that he often has less information than he should when he takes one of his less infamous, more local stands.  

          Hedy may be a flake, but I think she's a slightly more competent flake than Svend.

          by vansterdam on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:29:34 AM PDT

          •  heh

            credulous, scattershot, and unfocussed

            Yeah, well some of that too. OK, kick me - I'm an idealist. But I think you're overstating, particularly on the local side. After all, he was returned, what, 6 or 7 times.

            by Alien Abductee on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:44:52 PM PDT

            •  He has a great reputation with his constituents.

              I'll give him that.  But - though I'm not going to go into detail, since I'm posting from work and that's bad enough - I have seen firsthand that a lot of his official requests/inquiries are based on partial or inaccurate information.  

              There are a lot of things I really like about Svend (and having met him a few times, I can tell you that his intelligence and sincerity do come across) but they just don't override my doubts.

              Oh well.  As with anything, YMMV...

              by vansterdam on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 01:23:19 PM PDT

              •  Sometimes

                it's the holy fools who spark the most profound progress.

                In any case, all moot now.

                Good to hear your views.

                by Alien Abductee on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 02:11:00 PM PDT

•  More info here

  Here's a plug for a good CDN political blog for more info and opinion. Canadian Progressive Bloggers

  by howth of murph on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:20:49 AM PDT

•  Ignatieff

  http://redtory.blogspot.com/

  My favourite Canadian blog, Red Tory, has spent quite a bit of energy on Ignatieff in the past few weeks; go back to his March 25th post because I think that is where he starts. I haven't had time to read these posts myself, so no personal opinion here. However, I can attest to the high quality of this blogger's writings and his opinions are always very fair and balanced, and centre-left.

  When Frank McKenna dropped out, I pulled the covers over my head and stopped watching. I cannot stand the sound of Harper's voice and at the moment there are no Liberal or NDP contenders who inspire. IMO, Layton is to blame for the current Harper gov't due to his Liberal bashing and power grubbing for what?? a few lousy seats. Enough said.

  Thanks HofM, for the diary. I may take a look at Kennedy later today and see if I like him as much as you do. Ignatieff, well if Red Tory likes him even somewhat, I will look at him too. But, the covers are still firmly clutched and I am ready to dive back under at any moment.

  by Blackstar on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:48:14 AM PDT

  •  Layton

    It's simply incorrect to blame Layton.  An election would have been held by now anyway because of Martin's promise relating to Gomrey report.

    And while it's nice to see someone with brains in political life, Iggy Pop's neo-con like foreign policy is not something to be happy about.

    by Paleo on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:57:12 AM PDT

    •  Don't tell me who to blame,

      I can think for myself. If events had unfolded the way Martin said they would, we would have had an election now, after the Gomery report was fully out, after the so-called RCMP investigation of the income trust situation (called by the NDP during the election), the key word being after. In fact, would the NDP have even called the RCMP, that is the question. If the NDP are truly lefties as they claim, how can they sidle up to this far right Harper bunch and play tag team with the separatists? If you can't see the unholy alliance here, then you are the one who needs corrective measures, not me. It is plainly obvious that all three opposition parties used their time in ELECTED office to play the Liberals right out of the game and they succeeded. Are you happy with the result? I am clearly not. The question now, for me, is who exactly are the NDP? Not what they claim to be, for their actions in the past year have been to oppose their natural allies in favour of their natural enemies. Go figure. They helped Harper win, every step of the way. Stupid is as stupid does.

      by Blackstar on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:24:31 AM PDT

•  second ballot

  although on the Convention floor in December, one may award their delegates to the other and really challenge Iggy.

  Candidates can't "award their delegates" to anyone -- each delegate decides how to vote on ech ballot. Usually when a candidate X withdraws (s)he publicly endorses another candidate, say Y, but each delegate supporting X will make up her own mind. The pundits love to calculate the outcome of the next ballot on the assumption that all of candidate X's support will go to Y, and always act surprised when the numbers don't come out that way, because delegates have minds of their own.

  Typically, Y will get the largest share of X's vote, but usually nowhere near the whole thing. If Bob Rae ran third in a Kennedy-Ignatieff contest, for example, I can see his support being divided. Both Rae and Ignatieff have appeal to fellow intellectuals, even though Rae's NDP history makes him suspect to the right wing of the party and Ignatieff's support for the Bush-Blair war in Iraq make him suspect to the left wing.

  BTW, you never mentioned Martha Hall Finlay, who was the Liberal candidate in Aurora-Newmarket in 2004 (back when Stronach was a Conservative). She's running, although she has little name recognition nationally. You included Blais, who has even less national recognition, so you should include Finlay (or is it Finley?)

  by MGK on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:19:43 AM PDT

  •  I believe that it's Findlay

    n/t

    by FrankFrink on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:29:15 AM PDT

•  No mention

  of Ashley MacIsaac announcing his interest in running?

  But then again, don't we already have too many politicians who fiddle about?

  by FrankFrink on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 04:13:38 PM PDT

•  Dion

  Because of the alternating anglo-franco thing.  Plus he's coming out strong on the environment, which I think is the sleeping giant of the issues.  If you had Brison up there, I'd be tempted to go for him as well.  But Kennedy has zero name recognition outside Ontario and very little time to get it.

  by fishhead on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 03:00:08 PM PDT