Borys Wrzesnewskyj and Kennedy
So Borys Wrzesnewskyj has suggested after a trip to Lebanon that Hezbollah should no longer be considered a terrorist organization. I am not about to wade too deep into that
minefield (or this)as I think that it is a no win situation, with very nuanced positions being slammed around and demonized.
I will say that between
Kinsella's seemingly unconditional support of Israel and some people basing their support of a broad legislative agenda and political philosophy on one hot button issue (helloooooo Heather and Gerry) and others unwavering critisisim of any and all actions of the Israeli government I find myself. Offering support and concern for civilians on both sides of the border.
Call me cowardly for not saying more but really, lets be honest its just a crappy mess.
I am interested in the fact that everywhere in the blogosphere comments are flying about Borys Wrzesnewskyj basically endorsing Hezbollah. Take a look
here,
here and
here.
I wonder about what this says for Gerard Kennedy and his leadership bid.
Last week Dion was jumped on (and I would argue, rightly) for making a big deal about receiving the endorsement of David Orchard, a classic wingnut who has never seen a vote he couldn't lose.
What exactly did the endorsement mean to Dion and more importantly what did it mean for Dion's policy platform. Quite rightly many people are concerned that Orchard will now have input on policy that Dion is going to develop. To go further was there any kind of agreement made or deal struck for that support?
What does this position of Borys Wrzesnewskyj say about the Kennedy platform? Does Kennedy agree?
We need a statement from Kennedy right away on this.
This has always been one of my concerns about Kennedy. ( I stress one of many). As an obvious lightweight can he be expected to control his caucus if he were to win the leadership.
Can he walk into a room filled with Bennett, and Ignatief and Dion and Dryden and get them to take him seriously?
Can he control Borys Wrzesnewskyj?
Remember the last fair haired boy from the west, who was bilingual, supposedly charismatic, and came from a provincial background.
I am not saying Kennedy is another Stockwell Day, oh wait a second, I am.
Remember how Day's lack of ability to control his caucus resulted in his party splitting?
Remember what Day gave to his party The CRAP or whatever it was called in the end?
Gerard Kennedy this announcement by Borys Wrzesnewskyj shines the spotlight clearly and fairly on you.
Time to step up to the plate and face your first leadership task in the big leagues.
Why do I expect that the Kennedy campaign will be very silent on this?
Why do I expect the Kennedy bloggin psycho pep squad will try to eviscerate me on this? (that one is really easy!)
C'mon Gerard, step up to the plate this is your chance to shed the lightweight image.
The NDP Progressive? Bwahhahahahahah!
I added the "Thanks Jack" banner to the blog
I want to thank
Lobster Thermidor for this little bit of code.
It sums up really nicely what I feel about the NDP lately.
I always had a bit of a soft spot for the NDP, I thought I would rather have an NDP MP then Conservative.
Not so sure anymore.
When Layton was first elected I was worried that he would destroy the NDP because he was so Toronto.
Now I am not so worried about it, I am more hopeful.
I still think he will destroy the NDP but I think that is a good thing.
Layton and his bunch remind me of Ralph Nader and his bunch. (as much as I admire some of what Nader has done.)
Crying that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush.
We saw how well that turned out.
The worst Liberal is still a better option then the best ReformoConservative.
Just a thought, can you really call the NDP progressive when they are enabling the most regressive government in Canadian History!!??!?!
Is Jack Layton what you would call a "usefull fool"?
Liberals and the horns of a dilemma
So I have been thinking a lot about Liberals trying to win in Alberta and how that is important for the future. I am also thinking about Liberals winning in Quebec and how crucial that is for the present.
Now I am not personally, onboard with this whole Quebec is a nation thing.
For one thing ANYTHING Lucien Bouchard said just can't be true the man is scum and a traitor.
Apart from that here is the problem.
The idea that Quebec is a nation is antithetical to the Albertan concept of Canada as a country.
The way that Albertans see Canada does not accept the idea of different nations in the bosom of a single state. Mostly it is a semantic issue. To the majority of Albertans, nation, state and country are the same idea. Loading them with different definitions, different shades of meaning does not change the issue that your fundamental loyalty needs to be with just one of those things, either a nation, state or country. Call it what you will, your ultimate loyalty must rest only with one.
IF Quebecers want to be loyal to their nation fine, but in the eyes and hearts of Albertans it means they CANNOT by definition be loyal to Canada.
Where do Liberals want to win? We have to decide what is more important, Alberta or Quebec?
We can't have both.
Every PM has had to learn this. For Mulroney to learn this almost cost us our country by giving us the BQ and regenerating the PQ.
Harper is learning this lesson over Israel and Lebanon.
We need to decide early on because if we decide to say as a party that Quebec is a nation we will not be picking up any seats in Alberta for a long time. In the past it has always been an easy choice because Quebec carried a heck of a lot more weight then Alberta but that is changing and fast.
Rob Anders does a Michael Jackson
So a tiny little story in the Calgary Herald today
(nah, there is no right wing media bais). Rob Anders and his former aid James Istvanffy have both dropped their lawsuits. You know the lawsuits where Istvanffy alleges Anders is a bloody thief and where Anders countersues for damage to his *cough cough* reputation.
Istvanffy won't comment.
"There's a confidentiallity agreement in there, so I am not allowed to comment on much of it."
This story is buried on page B2 in a tiny little box of other news in brief, you know right beside the "Student Job Centre closes for summer" headline.
This agreement was announced late on a Friday in August, gee, no one is trying to bury that story at all.
Soooooo, the lawsuits are called off.
Istvanffy has signed a confidentiality agreement.
Just when Anders is actually facing a possible nomination challenge?!?!!?
Did Anders pay something????
Is there still a police investigation?
Calgary Eye has some interesting Anders dirt
here (no perma links so Scroll down to Friday June 23) plus some crytic comments at the very beginning of his blog that mention Peter Millican.
I still contend that all Liberals should take every opportunity to support Rob Anders, I think he gives us five seats in TO. IF he goes it is one less argument that these guys are a bunch of wing nuts because honestly he is the wingnuttiest of the wingnuts.
Hopefully it is not long before Rob Anders dangles Harper off of a hotel balconey.
More Mischief
Okay I am not a Joe Volpe fan but this is just wrong.
A freind forwarded me this email going around.
From: joe volpe To: hfdshfSubject: wajid Khan
Dear Fellow Liberal,
Wajid Khan M.P. Mississauga-Streetsville has done what he considers the ethical think and has resigned his associate critics portfolio and will not be attending the Liberal Caucus.
now the question remains will he do the ethical think and also resign from the Volpe Campaign as the Ontario Campaign Manager?
How can Joe depend for advise on a Conservative Envoy?
When Will they both do the ethical step and also ask Wajid to step aside from the Campaign?
Phone the Volpe Campaign and ask for both th eresignations
613 232 1003
or email them at contact@joevolpe.caNow this seems kinda goofy. It is poorly written. It pretends to be from joe Volpe the address is actually "joe volpe [volperesign@yahoo.com]" when you expand it.As much as it raises some good points why pretend to be from the actual Volpe campaign.
The what do I know grit had some good points
here.
We need to fight the real enemy Harper and quit looking like the gang that could not shoot straight. We need to quit hacking at each other. (Bob Rae anyone)
Posting Comments
Ok, I feel like a knob!
I was depressed that I was never getting comments.
Now I see I was I just had not found where and how to post them.
I guess I am really new to this blogging thing.
I have put up all the comments from before and now I will pay attention.
What a maroon!!!
Not sure how I feel about all this.From: Hon. Jim Karygiannis M.P. [jim@karygiannismp.com]
Dear Liberal,
Below is an email which was send around by Hon. Maria Minna P.C., M.P. and
Hedy Fry P.C.,M.P. I would suggest that you read it and give their comments
careful consideration
Hon. Jim Karygiannis P.C., M.P.
Scarborough-Agincourt
______________________________________________
From: Fry, Hedy - Assistant 1
Sent: August 9, 2006 4:08 PM
To: - LIBERAL MEMBERS/DÉPUTÉS
Subject: Am memo from Dr. Hedy Fry
Dear colleagues,
I am writing to express my support for the position taken by Hon. Maria
Minna in her recent letter to caucus. Moreover, I am concerned that any
advice which Mr. Khan may give to Mr. Harper in his capacity as Special
Advisor could be misconstrued as Liberal policy. Mr. Khan’s role as Special
Advisor and his continuance as a member of the Liberal Caucus represents a
clear conflict of interest and of trust. Mr. Khan should either resign from
his new Special Advisor position or resign temporarily from National Liberal
Caucus.
Sincerely,
Hon. Hedy Fry, PC, MP
Vancouver Centre
(Original letter from Hon. Maria Minna below)
Traduction française à venir.
Dear Colleagues:
In my opinion, Mississauga-Streetsville MP Wajid Khan should either resign
his new position as Special Advisor to Conservative Prime Minister Stephen
Harper on South Asia and the Middle East or resign temporarily from National
Liberal Caucus.
Wajid’s appointment is a slick, sick, calculated move on Harper’s part.
Liberals shouldn’t touch this thing with a 10-foot pole.
Harper has proven time and time again that he is a sharp, calculating,
political player who doesn’t have a non- partisan bone in his body. But,
this time, he has gone over the line.
Wajid should have known that he was playing into the hands of the
Conservatives and Bill Graham should have said NO.
I could go on at length about how Harper could have consulted with Bill
Graham before making the appointment or that he could have sought
non-partisan advice from the Foreign Affairs Committee.
But, let’s face it. There is nothing non-partisan about Harper or this
latest scheme that he has concocted.
This is, pure and simple, a partisan effort aimed at halting the
Conservatives’ slide in the polls. We should not be aiding and abetting
their efforts in that regard.
We cannot have the Special Advisor to a Conservative prime minister sitting
in the room as members of the National Liberal Caucus debate contentious
issues.
How can I express myself on Lebanon when somebody preparing a report for
Stephen Harper is listening in on what I have to say?
I fully support peace in the Middle East but Stephen Harper is doing what he
has done from day one – playing crass political gamesmanship.
It’s Wajid’s choice. Play Harper’s game or resign temporarily from our
caucus.
Sincerely,
Hon. Maria Minna, .P.C., M.P.
Beaches-East York
Official Opposition Critic for the Status of Women and Multiculturalism
