Maurizio, we hardly knew ye

So Maurizio Bevilacqua has dropped out of the race. This surely is a good thing, with no offense to the candidate but out of deference to the “workability” of the race itself. I am seeing little impressive reasoning behind these apparent "profile-raising" runs and the fact is anyone who saw the leadership debates realizes these numbers have made the race much less engaging. They've also stood in the way of our old hobby horse here at Steelcity of policy over platitudes (actually, we're okay with platitudes at this stage, but let us at least generalize about policies). There are a few more that seem to have little business in this race at this point, obviously. That is not to say that we should be pushing people out because the media or even real support has anointed someone else. The difference is between running against great odds to further a legitimate vision and running to get a cabinet portfolio.

Maurizio's throwing of his support behind Rae is surprising because if Bevilacqua was in the race to represent what he felt was an under represented (I'll stay away from the dreaded left-right red herring he and other candidates have thrown out) shall we say fiscally cons-oops, sorry now-prudent agenda, then is that where Bob Rae stands? ...Interesting how dropping the supposedly ideological terms blurs the lines, isn't it? Because who doesn't want to be prudent... Anyway, does this suggest Rae's sympathies lie with a continuation of the more rightward (a hell it's unavoidable) shift, at least in fiscal matters? Perhaps not, as any support is welcomed. Yet he was attractive enough to Bevilacqua. And if we are questioning the personal motivations involved, well, all I can say is there are other frontrunners so that is no automatic explanation. Though I don't mean to overstate its importance too much, we should certainly be thinking about this.

-Steve