The Steel City Grit (in exile): clearing up the Rae debate

Thursday, September 21, 2006

clearing up the Rae debate

I'm willing to get past this donations issue soon, but first the slavish apologists require a response. This is not an issue of loyalty, or party fealty. Not at all. This is a values issue, in a practical sense.

In both the '06 and '04 elections, I chose the Liberal option. I didn't do it out of instinctual adherence to the Red and White. I didn't do it because I was auditioning for a job. I did it on principle because I believed it the party most capable of governing.

Bob Rae chose the NDP option. We can assume he did so on principle; he's a principled man. The NDP was closer to his political vision a few months ago then was the Liberal Party. That puts us fundamentally at odds.

It makes no sense not to take that into account.

- Mike (SCG)

18 Comments:

Anonymous said...: The Liberals ran a good candidate here in London, I was sad to see him lose.; 8:33 AM
Lord Kitchener's Own said...: I tend to think this whole thing's been WAY overblown.

Rae donated money to the campaigns of his FRIENDS in 2006, both Liberal and New Democrat. He supported INDIVIDUALS he knew, liked and trusted. Many of whom served in government with him.

So he wouldn't put up a Liberal sign when asked. So what? He didn't have an NDP sign up either, did he?

I don't think Rae chose an "option" at all in '06. He chose to support his friends, and those he knew well and trusted, INDIVIDUALLY regardless of party affiliation. To me, that's to be applauded, not criticized. There are MANY Canadians who support candidates based upon who the candidate is, and what the candidate stands for, and not just what party they belong to. As Liberal leader, Rae would have different obligations. But to me, short of donations to idealogues on the far left or right whom Rae barely knows, these donations from 2006 are less than meaningless.; 9:57 AM
Robert said...: ...refused to put up a Liberal sign when asked, a mere month before flipping to the Liberals.

Wasn't he still under contract to the government at the time, and required to be publically non-partisan?; 10:37 AM
SteelCityGrit said...: I don't give a damn if he donated to Liberals as well. I chose the Liberal option in Hamilton Centre - where I live. He donated to Christopherson. I wrote in vocal support of the Liberal option in London Fanshawe. He donated to Mathyesson - who refuses even to condone what he did. Those are two INDIVIDUALS he supported - and two INDIVIDUALS I opposed. Two INDIVIDUALS I heartily opposed, because I think they are ridiculous candidates and make ridiculous MPs. What aren't you getting?

If he didn't choose the NDP option in those two ridings (and elsewhere), then he was acting very unprincipled in providing material support for those campaigns.

OH WAIT - I get it! He was looking after friends instead of worrying about the bigger picture, about the practical impact those friends would have on governance in Canada. Geez - what was I so concerned with? Surely (despite all that recent stuff about culture of entitelement, unprincipled management, patronage) Canadians will understand that Liberals have a responsibility to look after their friends first and Canada second.; 11:15 AM
Anonymous said...: How much money did Ignatieff donate to the Liberal Party in the last election?; 11:16 AM
SteelCityGrit said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 11:17 AM
SteelCityGrit said...: Oh bravo, anonymous. I don't give a damn about Ignatieff because we are talking about Bob Rae. Show me where Ignatieff or Kennedy or Brison or Dion or etc. donated money to campaigns that I personally competed with and I will say the same things about them. That's a promise.; 11:19 AM
SteelCityGrit said...: Was it "slavish apologists" that you didn't like?; 11:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Bob Rae has sold out to the old Liberal establishment and Toronto business establishment some time ago, accepting their board appointments and becoming a bit of a "John Turner" in retirement.

I guess he was feeling guilty a bit and that's why he still had to pay up to the NDP during the last campaign.; 11:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Rae is an opportunistic "gigalo".

Promise me something and I will pretend to be faithful - you know, make me an offer I can't refuse.

Rae said he donated to friends he liked and trusted. Now, new rumour is that he donated to Ignatieff (for MP or leadership, I don't know) but if he did, then he was indirectly endorsing Ignatieff. If he did, thank you Mr. Rae.; 1:48 PM
Zac said...: How much money did Ignatieff donate to the Liberal Party in the last election?

How much money did Ignatieff donate to the NDP is a better question to ask.

The issue isn't donations that Rae made to the Liberal party, but rather to the amount he provided to opposing parties.; 2:23 PM
Steve said...: What nonesense. THis isn't an issue of subtance, but Ignatieff's place of residence (of course convienantly forgetting Britain over US for many years) is? Ignatieff's liking an American baseball team is? Ignatieff's use of pronounes is? What nonesense!

And what substance? Are you kiddding/ THis blog is about substance almost every single post and its very interesting that despite professing to care so much (we have gone into detail on teh constitutional question since last march before anyone was talking about it) the only time I see the people saying that chime in here is on the only issue they deem to have no substance. And what substance is that? Rae's endorsement of constitutional change over a lifetime and as recently as this summer, and then his complete turnaround to bamboozle voters into thinking he is somehow the saviour of Trudeau, a man he made a career mocking?

The fact is all those things, such as choosing a candidate they liked better are entirely different when you are running to be the leader! Didn't put a sign up? That is bad, he wasnts to be the LEADER. That implies a commitment that is so deep, that involves feeling the party "in your bones" as Rae now says about the country.
And as Mike says those individuals robbed us, particularly Mathyssen of an outstanding Liberal candidate in Glen Pearson.

I dont' exagerrate I don't think this made those races win or whatever some people are saying and I'm not calling for him to step down or some such thing but Steelcitygrit is not picking at nothing here. Especially after the time we have spent refuting inane comments on other candidates.; 2:32 PM
SteelCityGrit said...: I agree with most of your last post Herb. I also would love to see more New Democrats migrating to this party - and not just for the political logistics of it. I am glad that Rae is now a Liberal. I don't even think that he needs to pays his dues. I want our party to reward promise, rather than longevitiy.

My issue, at its simplest, is that Bob Rae demonstrated support for individuals with whom I don't share a political vision. That shouldn't be a decisive issue, it certainly shouldn't be reason for him to step down as leader, but it is substantive.

I'm willing to drop this issue now, but I think it has shown legs for a reason.; 3:39 PM
Steve said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 4:57 PM
Anonymous said...: You make it sound like he personally attacked you because you supported the Liberal candidates in those ridings. Unfortunately, I think your real gripe is with those who voted for the candidates (and Paul Martin's team for running such a piss-poor campaign) but if you can't accept his supporting friends and colleagues, then I guess you really must be important. Can't oppose you or feel that wrath of Khan!; 11:09 PM
Steve said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 1:48 AM
Steve said...: Its no pissing match, or at least it doesn't have to be. The question that you miss, that from our perspective is a problem, is that this, along with Rae's comment "I did that long before I ran for leadership" (which was a period of a few short months) seems to indicate that he is partly a Liberal so much because he has a chance to be leader. At least to me, obviously not to you. It never was a question of outsiders in etc., it is how much is this dedication based on opportunism, ie. reshape the party in your image and who wouldn't want in. Like Mike said, how well does the vision fit with our vision of the Liberal party. It would make no sense to not stand up now, in a time of leadership competition, and say no we believe this signifies a divergence of vision than has been stated, one that we disagree with (such as "supporting great people" but in his judgement seeing them as superior to candidates who's viewpoints we specificaly preferred-especially GLen Pearson for me).

His comment I mentioned before, that he thinks that's an excuse, "oh well I wasn't running for leader then so why should it matter" is exactly the problem. Of course we take different views on this, but with someone who due to their past opens this question already, its not illogical to be concerned. That's really all I have to say too.

Burlivespipe, that comment makes no sense other than to take some sort of dig. Herb-I would point out to you that it is this sort of comment that attempts a pissing match.; 1:50 AM
SteelCityGrit said...: What an embarassing comment on the part of Burlivespipe. As much as I hope that on some level he realizes how badly he has missed the point, it really doesn't merit a response.; 10:53 AM

Thursday, September 21, 2006

clearing up the Rae debate

18 Comments:

Contributors

Previous Posts

Links