November 16, 2006

Pandering Will Solve Nothing

It is not who appeals most to people from other parties that will draw votes. Many Liberal Voters stayed home last election. People vote for Leadership. People vote for a vision. Pandering solved nothing before. It will solve nothing now.

(Caveat: this is not to say my candidate is the one who offers the best vision or does not pander, although I obviously believe that, and I will weigh into the discussion about that if necessary)

I want the discussion to be focused on what is more important, stealing people from other parties, or promoting a vision and selling that vision to Canadians.

Elections are not leadership races, the second choice doesnt matter in a general election...

Two elections that come to mind are 1980, where Trudeau offered constitutional change and patriation while Clark said the Liberals were corrupt.

The other is 2006 where Liberals basically said the Tories were scary and the Tories hammered home their vision (yes it was bad but at least they had one)



15 Commentaires:

Blogger John Lennard a dit...

Antonio, I think the important thing is to present a platform that will appeal to as many Canadians as possible. The fact is, our ideas DO need to appeal to people who have voted for other parties in the past. The Liberal Party has always been a big tent, and we should not go out of our way to isolate those progressive-minded voters who didn't vote Liberal in the last election.

The leader must also be able to communicate the platform effectively and understandably, without being unduly offensive, divisive or off-putting.

I obviously think Rae fits this bill the best. You disagree. Hey, we'll agree to disagree! But at the end of the day, I know we'll all unite behind the new leader and forge ahead with what's important.

11/16/2006 7:39 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

I think if we judge our platform based on others values before our own, we risk campaigning on somebody else's agenda.

When Pettigrew called people who voted for the PQ "losers" many of us knew he was going to join them.

There are ideological people in the NDP who you will never convince...just as there are Tories and Bloquistes in the same category. (there are ideological liberals too)

We should not be aiming to reach out based on their agenda...we should stick to our values and use those to reach out to Canadians. I guess it is a different way of approaching things.

11/16/2006 7:46 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

I clicked on this post hoping that you would be imploring your candidate to change his mind on the nation issue and stop pandering to the Quebec nationalists.


11/16/2006 7:49 p.m.  
Blogger John Lennard a dit...

Antonio, I think you and I agree almost completely on this issue. There is no question that we need to present a truly Liberal platform in the next election. But where we differ, it seems, is that I acknowledge that there are many progressive voters out there -- people who have, may, could and should vote Liberal -- who didn't vote for us last time around. We definitely need to appeal to these voters, and quite frankly, I don't think insulting them is the key to victory.

11/16/2006 8:00 p.m.  
Blogger canuckistanian a dit...

yes, many ndpers are ideological. apparently 30% aren't. we should be reaching out to them, not insulting them.

pandering will solve nothing??? funny, it only took the iggy campaign a couple months to figure that out.

11/16/2006 8:36 p.m.  
Blogger Quebec Liberal a dit...

Clark did not say that Liberals were corrupt in 1980. Not for an instant.

His campaign slogan was "Real change deserves a fair chance"

He campaigned on economic issues, in particular the low state of the Canadian dollar which had been one of Trudeau's legacies to the new Tory Government.

There is no correlation to your argument and 1980.
Both Leaders offered vision and Leadership. In fact the Tory ads featured Joe Clark. The Liberal campaign, run by Senator Keith Davey (father to Iggnatief Campaign boss Ian Davey) kept P.E> Trudeau hidden most of the campaign in his airplane. Trudeau would make one campaign appearance a day.

11/16/2006 9:46 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...


if people really think the nation is nothingbut pandering, they are fooling themselves.

Read what Ignatieff wrote in Blood and Belonging in 1993! It is completely consistent...stay on topic people!

11/16/2006 10:52 p.m.  
Blogger Ed King a dit...

When Pettigrew called people who voted for the PQ "losers" many of us knew he was going to join them.

Yet another distortion. I'm shocked!

Pierre Pettigrew did not call people who vote for the PQ losers. He said that their leaders have been losers, and clearly he is not the only person with this opinion.

Martin Bisaillon, hardly an arch-federalist, recently published a biography of René Lévesque called Le Perdant, The Loser(!). His conclusions about Lévesque's time in office are shared by many, especially those who worked closely with him at the time. PQ activists themselves clearly think P-M Johnson and Lucien Bouchard are losers since they loudly booed them both when the party paid tribute to them at the 2005 convention (that pitiful display is what prompted Mr. Pettigrew's comment in the first place). As for Jacques Parizeau, I can't imagine how anyone could argue that his time as leader of the PQ was anything less than a complete disaster. Bernard Landry... enough said. It may sound harsh, but there is no doubt that they are losers, all of them.

11/16/2006 11:13 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...


I was in the room. Pettigrew asked why people would vote for losers.

The bloc did not invent what he said. but that is completely off topic...why not venture answering the question ed.

11/16/2006 11:44 p.m.  
Blogger propatria a dit...

This: "When Pettigrew called people who voted for the PQ "losers..."

is not the same thing as this: "Pettigrew asked why people would vote for losers."

Im sure have heard separatist leaders call federalist leaders worse.

11/17/2006 9:19 a.m.  
Blogger Ed King a dit...

I was in the room. Pettigrew asked why people would vote for losers.

I'm not sure what you are referring to because the comments which made the news came from a scrum outside the cabinet room the day after the PQ leadership convention. This is the only "loser" comment I heard the Bloc harp on. In any case, you've confirmed that Pettigrew called the leaders losers, not the voters. Big difference, I think.

but that is completely off topic...why not venture answering the question ed.

Sure, why not. Maybe if I do, you'll return the courtesy next time. :)

I think the question is bogus. What do you mean when you say "stealing people from other parties"? How exactly do you "steal" people? If you mean convincing people who voted for another party last time to vote for Liberals, isn't that what every leadership candidate should try to do? How are we going to win an election unless we convince people who voted for other parties' candidates to vote for us? Turnout was up 5% from 2004 last time. Clearly, "stealing" people is the only way to grow.

There is no choice between "promoting a vision and selling that vision" and convincing people who have voted for other parties to vote Liberal. It's the same thing.

11/17/2006 9:29 a.m.  
Blogger Ed King a dit...

Im sure have heard separatist leaders call federalist leaders worse.

In fact, Duceppe responded to the "losers" comment by making a homophobic insinuation about Pettigrew and his chauffeur in front of a pool of reporters. Naturally, there was no backlash from PQ/BQ representatives or the media. Can you imagine what the reaction would be if a federalist leader publicly made a homophobic quip about Andre Boisclair and his former CoS Luc Doray?! I guess it's okay for a political leader to make gay jokes as long as the target is a federalist.

11/17/2006 9:46 a.m.  
Blogger cat mutant a dit...

Ed King

Give it a rest

11/17/2006 10:36 a.m.  
Blogger canuckistanian a dit...

iggy has completely reversed his position from "blood and belonging". i always disagreed with iggy on foreign policy, but respected his views on nationalism...until he completely reversed himslef. in the book, he referred to quebec nationalism as regressive...i agree. now he thinks we should recognize it in the constitution??? go figure.

pettigrew asked why people would vote for losers.

ignatieff asked pretty much the same thing...why would pepole vote for candidates that live in ghettos.

11/17/2006 3:34 p.m.  
Blogger propatria a dit...

Has ignatieff always been for not openly criticizing countries of their human rights records, or does that only apply to china?

11/17/2006 5:17 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home