Monday, January 9, 2012

Did Warren Kinsella Just Shoot Our Foot?

I like Kinsella on a general scale, but if you need proof that the man operates outside the bounds of normal, sane practices that will help the Liberals in the longer term, look no further than his website and his quoted bit in a Hill Times article:
Warren Kinsella, a Liberal pundit, was less optimistic about the outcome of the convention, however. “I think a lot of people hope it’ll help renew the party, but I’m skeptical as to whether that’ll happen. I’ve been hearing about renewal in the LPC since I was in diapers, but I wish them luck,” he told The Hill Times in an email last week.


.... "Crawley is the unilingual Turner-Martin guy, and Copps is the multilingual Trudeau-Chr├ętien person.  That’s why it’s attracting a lot of attention, at least among Liberals,” said Mr. Kinsella, a former adviser to Mr. Chr├ętien and a former Cabinet ministerial staffer. “If Crawley wins, it’ll signal a return of many of the folks who consigned us to opposition status in the first place. But don’t take that to mean I support Copps holus-bolus: her statements about Rae and the leadership have done her a lot of damage, and she was wrong to say what she said. If she loses, it’ll be because of that"
Oh for the love of God... can't once in this goddamn party we don't have these stalking ghosts of Liberal past coming back to maliciously dump a truckload into the machinery? Just once?!?

I'm aware, sort of, of the ties of each of the various candidates to before-my-era party leaders, but I didn't make my decision based on that, I did it based on merit. I was attracted to the race because it was a race of IDEAS and ABILITIES and EXPERIENCE, not who threw who's mud during the effing 1980's and 1990's.

Sigh.

10 comments:

  1. Sorry, didn't mean to irritate you! Was what I think. People shouldn't get uptight about just one former staffer's opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's not just your opinion, Warren - the fact is that you're more than likely right! It's hard for someone like me, who came in just three years ago, to settle for all these dogmatic fights and how they end up informing a lot of people's decisions around here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Understood. When David Herle starting taking tweeted shots at her last week, I figured everyone else noticed, too, that the old tribal wars were back. She doesn't need me to defend her, at all, but it was obvious what was happening, and that's why I said what I said to the HT reporter.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ron Hartling or Alexandra Mendes then?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm moving for Hartling, especially since that Crawley's history at the LPC(O) isn't exactly fantastic. The rest of my riding is voting for Copps, however. Or at least a few are.

    ReplyDelete
  6. My riding's the mirror opposite of yours. I'm leaning to Hartling (possibly Mendes), but I suspect everyone else in my riding will for for Crawley.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I consider myself a Chretien-Martin guy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I consider myself a Chretien-Martin guy.

    Benedict Arnold. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Actually, my "problem" is that I dislike Trudeau. Y'all can start hollarin at me right now, but prior to, and after Trudeau, the party was a Centrist party, with a modern mindset. We need to return to that IMO. Turner however I do like, and Martin I sort of liked as well. Chretien, though, was my Fav Liberal Leader, and I think, the best PM we've ever had, and maybe, will ever have.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Warren can fault Martin for supposedly consigning the Libs to opposition status, sending them from Sussex Drive to Stornoway, but it was Warren's own guy, the one he worked for, who took the party from Stornoway to Motel 6.

    ReplyDelete