Sunday, December 26, 2010

Persichilli: Just Waiting for Defeat

Angelo Persichilli's column today reflects how uninterested he is in constructive ideas for the Party. His band-aid solution? Get rid of the current leadership and people in the Liberal backrooms, and everything will be A-OK. We'll start over, begin anew, and everything will be great. That's how this stuff works, right?

Well, I don't have to tell anyone that no, it isn't. Persichilli at least admits that right now, there is no person waiting in the wings that could manage such a renewal. But the man also lacks a certain respect for the attempts made by everyone in this party to try and do exactly what he's said, if not by his own recommendations. It's saddening to note that this man is what passes for "smart editorials" these days, given his track record of bullying, inaccuracies, and general wrongness.

But, anyways, my lack of respect for Persichilli isn't the point here. I haven't been in this party long, I'll admit, but I've seen enough in the past two years to note that the members of the Liberals' grassroots and the organization's leadership can't be knocked around for a lack of trying. That's not necessarily much, but the party hasn't been sitting on its ass, more than I can say for Persichilli. Whether its been through riding initiatives, or the Canada 150 conferences, or Iggy's summer tours, we are doing our best to get our act together. We have an energized base that, yes, isn't exactly thrilled with the leadership, but is willing to sacrifice their time, money, and energy to the Party's cause. And we've seen results. We've seen improvements. We've even seen unity, something that Persichilli brings up constantly as the source of the party's decline. I would dare venture that it is defeatist attitudes like Persichilli's and others that have contributed just as much, especially since 2006, to our issues.

This isn't to paint a pretty picture over our problems - we do have them. I remember that LPCO convention in Windsor that shocked me to no end with its disorganization and the disinterest by some of the executives. There's a problem and we need to fix it, I don't doubt this. But "wiping the slate clean" will not solve them. These are entrenched issues within the party, borne out of divisions that go as far back as the Trudeau-Turner feuds. They're not only squabbling personalities but fundamentally different philosophical schisms in the party that can't simply be washed over. The Afghanistan issue has demonstrated this clearly enough. No matter who you put in there, divisions will come. It's just the nature of any party.

But I'll tell you this, stoking these divisions, as Mr. Persichilli does, is not the way to do things. We used to be a party that closed ranks behind our leadership, suffered and worked through our differences for the betterment of the party and our country. That's how we won in the past, through our collective efforts and our unity. But it seems, doing something that like again, even promoting it, doesn't help Mr. Persichilli's narratives of doom and gloom for the Liberals.

I for one will work to improve our Party in any manner possible, support our leadership, even when I disagree with what they're doing sometimes. After all, I'm not much use if I sit and complain from the outside, being negative all the time, am I? If Persichilli actually cares what happens to the Liberal Party, maybe he'd do well to learn the same lesson.


  1. Hi there, Your new layout, It's a bit difficult to read. Perhaps your text box needs to be less translucent. It is difficult for a migraine sufferer such as myself. Sorry.

    Perischilli is a Harpercon cheerleader and he has always hated Iggy. Last year, before Xmas, he predicted Iggy would leave before 2010 started and we all know how wrong he was.

    Changing leaders isn't going to help. We saw in the past how playing musical leaders was not serving the party well; the problem was clearly with the caucus; doesn't help when the media is clearly backing Harper and the cons for the most part, and the odd columnist who does back the LIberals, dislikes Iggy.

    I think the caucus is starting to get it now. I only hope it's not too late. Whether they like Iggy or not, they're lined up behind him. He successfully got the party to vote for the long gun registry and despite the disappointment in Vaughan and the divisions regarding the continued mission in Afghanistan, they all voted with their leader, despite all the predictions that they wouldn't.

    As usual, Perischilli is behind the times.

  2. CK,

    Thanks for the feedback on the layout. I was going to ask how people liked it, but you cut me off before I could get that far. I'll see what I can do.

    Anyways, I completely agree, 100%. It's no surprise to me that Kinsella loves the guy so, either. Just a shame though that someone who claims to be so loyal to the Liberal Party, or at least used to be, is now such a rotten ass. Ah well.

  3. I heard Perischilli on CJAD, here in Montreal with the insufferable Beryl Wajsman awhile back, he sounded ever like the Harpercon cheerleader. He is as far to the right as they are. Make no mistake.

    As for Kinsella, well, I think he's still bitter over being let go by the OLO. Certainly no love lost between him and Iggy. Then there was his role in that coalition kerfuffle with Bob Rae and co last spring.

    Then he wasn't all that successful with the Rocco Rossi campaign in TO, now was he? Perhaps his prime has passed? Now, look at him; he's now with the Sun Media machine and by the looks of things, will have a show on Fox News North. Great career builder.

    Hell, he supported Julian Fantino in Vaughan.

  4. Aye. I suppose this is the revenge of the Chretienites, eh?

  5. Now, now, even though he's got his down, unhelpful days & may sometimes let personal loyalties cloud his judgment, let's not perpetuate misinformation about Kinsella: he wasn't fired, he quit the OLO over the way his friends were fired; and re: Vaughan, it wasn't as though he did anything to campaign against the Lib. candidate, it's just that he didn't try to denigrate Fantino, who was appointed by his current main client (Premier McGuinty) -- and on that score, it should be noted that it eventually emerged that Ignatieff's own office tried to recruit Fantino as a candidate themselves, so you should be grateful WK didn't try to portray Fantino as some kind of menace / monster, or the OLO's judgment would be shattered, too.

  6. Actually the OLO's judgement wouldn't have been shattered too much, given that they didn't even like the guy after they delved an inch under the dust to see what he was. Though in all honesty, that doesn't even excuse them in the eyes of some of my more leftist colleagues in my local association.