LPC(O) AGM - Leadership Impressions

Here, in no particular order and without much forethought, are the impressions I gleaned over the course of this past weekend. I had more of a chance with some candidates than others, but I feel generally that I have solidified my understanding of most.

SCOTT BRISON:
I think it is unfortunate that our (mine and his) politics are as disparate as they are, because on a character and leadership qualities level I was considerably impressed. To corroborate a point that Steve made in a very recent post, Brison is presenting the most tangible and carefully conceived platform of any candidate. In a campaign thus far soaked in banality, Brison is able to answer just about any question he receives with a specific and detailed policy proposition. He demonstrated this particularly on Saturday afternoon, when he spoke to young Liberals in a smaller forum. On these grounds I find him to be considerable ahead of his competition. To be clear, I don't like his policy platform, but I like that he has one. On top of that, he is witty and genuine.
It wasn't all good, though. He came closest to criticizing the rest of the field than any other candidate. That alone doesn't bother me, but his criticisms missed considerably. He repeatedly emphasized that he didn't feel leaders should be locking themselves in to a right/left ideology. He essentially paraphrased Ignatieff's "plant the standard of liberalism in the centre-left" line in illustration. He said that this was an ideology of the 1960s, and that the world is more complicated now. The latter point is, obviously, utterly ridiculous. Making policy is complicated, yes, but one wonders what has changed that makes it particularly so. The criticism particularly falls short when addressed to Ignatieff. This is a distinctly leftist individual who has come out in support of what are received to be right wing initiatives. In other words, no candidate seems less likely to become locked in to one ideology rather than approaching policy on a pratical case basis.

BOB RAE:
An excellent barn burner of a speech on Friday night. I thought his and Ignatieff's were the best (with Hedy Fry close behind - and I absolutely mean that). He began with a focus on the Kelowna Accord and spoke exceptionally well. Say what you will about his record as a premier, he did take some strong strides with the First Nations people of Ontario.
He was also impersonable and shockingly rude, for one who is seeking support. I'm not terribly bothered by that, though. I'd have trouble feigning interest in me if I were in his position.
Right-hand man Greg Sorbara, on the other hand, was more than willing to engage me intensely. He told me, via some convoluted baseball analogy, to stow my idealism and understand that picking a leader is about picking someone who can win an election. Michael Ignatieff, he told me, can not win. "Electability" talk always drives me crazy anyways, but it's particularly hard to receive from a Rae supporter at an Ontario convention.

GERARD KENNEDY:
Over the course of the weekend, he both near-impressed me and near-cast me from his cause with a vengeance. His French, firstly, is really very bad. I'm with Geoffrey Simpson on that one. This "fluently bilingual" stuff is utter mythology. He's not much better than Brison, and Brison has been killed for language ability. That should be a major concern for any Kennedy supporter. Secondly, he has a very sexy voice.
So how was I near-impressed? I didn't think much of his Friday speech at all, but on Saturday afternoon he said some very interesting things. He announced his intention to create a cohesive national plan for engergy production and consumption. In doing so, he actually came within an eyelash of saying something very positive about the old NEP. With seeming deep pride he told the gathering that he had been present when the NEP was signed. This takes courage. He also, at that same Saturday afternoon address, announced that he did not want to see government reduced in any way, shape, or form. He took this a step farther, saying that he was not afraid to raise taxes if he had to. Given the vast task resources the Tory government has just forfeited, this is a conversation we are going to have to have. Again, a courageous statement.
Having said this, my previous frustration with him remains. To once again paraphrase Geoffrey Simpson, there just isn't much substance there. He still relies on rhetoric. He still has yet to present anything in the way of actual policy. He still tends to say things like "I follow a philosophy of respect for people." When asked about environmental policy, his response ran something along the lines of "We should strive to meet objectives." It is often difficult to glean from him anything beyond that he is in favour of Canada, and opposed to evil. That isn't enough for this Liberal. The bottom line is that I feel I share with Kennedy some basic values - I'm told repeatedly over the weekend by one rabid supporter that he is the candidate of the "little guy" - but I need to see substance before I would begin to think about support.

MICHAEL IGNATIEFF
Great speech on Friday night. I thought he represented himself well. He has developed an icy glare, with which he scours his audience. He is an orator, unquestionably. On Saturday I was able to attend a private audience that he held for bloggers. I looked forward to this intensely. I thought it would be a wonderful opportunity to ask him for particulars, about settling First Nations land claims, about Federalism, etc. It wasn't - although through no fault of his. Instead, the discussion became quagmired on the issue of blogging itself as an evolving medium. An interesting topic, perhaps. But not surprisngly, Ignatieff had little insight to offer (whereas I believe he would've had some pretty serious insight about Michael Ignatieff). Although he looked a little bored (and I was right there with him), he did his best to respond to what was asked of him. He has an underrated sense of humour.

JOE VOLPE
He did this thing in his speech where he alternated dynamics. He'd start out speaking softly and lull you into complacency, and then he'd say something loud and emotive. It wasn't very effective.

CAROLYN BENNETT:
She has that husky, throaty voice that I associated with sorority girls on Saturday morning. But I think she's an underrated candidate. It's unfortunate her organization isn't larger than it is.

HEDY FRY:
Ditto on the underrated comment. She delivered a damn good speech, and I afterwards she really impressed me when we spoke one-on-one. If that opens me up to ridicule, so be it.

KEN DRYDEN:
Not charismatic in the traditional sense, but he is able to invoke sympathy.

I didn't see enough of the others to glean any sort of impression.