Coverage of the Leadership Campaign-Part 1

The reaction that began with Frank McKenna stating he would not run for the Liberal leadership has been worrisome. The story that has followed honestly would not have crossed my mind, yet seemed to instantly spring to life in the news: it's a job no one wants. I fail to see how the individual decisions of three men (add Manley and Tobin) mar the whole process. It belies political reality, which sees a party second by fairly little in a minority government (some may even suggest coming in a distant third for most of forty years may qualify as a bit of a lack of success, but I digress). The Libs are in that position after a campaign over ethics that included an RCMP investigation, and a number of gaffes that on their own could have sunk a party in a close race . It is not too self-serving for Liberals to suggest they could be picking the next prime minster. At the very least, there is plenty enough reason for interested Liberal contenders to believe so.

The leadership race appears to be rife with quality candidates. Just because the insiders guessed wrong, does not mean no one is qualified. The media assessment also supposes a very particular set of requirements for a top-notch candidate. These are not beyond question.

Granted, the criticisms have not been harsh on their own, but take on a new light when viewed in relation to the actual political context.

Some of those discussed here are the same people who have been so adamant about the (democratically-elected, popularly supported) "one-party rule" they see stemming from a lack of effective opposition in Canadian politics. Perhaps if we didn't go out of our way to absolutely thrash the inevitable loser in a one-winner race, to the point of manufacturing an image of political reality, we wouldn't have such swings in party support.

But this is to give such arguments more weight than they deserve.

-Steve