Scott Brison enters leadership race
I would like to welcome Scott Brison to the leadership race. I supported him for leader as Progressive Conservative in 2003 and I certainly haven't ruled out supporting him again, although I should note to Brandon, that I still haven't made up my mind yet. I was quite impressed with his bold ideas as PC leadership candidate and he once again has talked about bold ideas. While I realize some of the ideas he ran on in the PC Party might be seen as too "right wing" for the Liberals, the reality is he is quite progressive on the environment, social programs, and minority rights so he is a strong combination of both right wing and left wing ideas. The important thing as he mentioned on CTV's question period, is he is not rigid in ideology, but rather is about bold new ideas for the future of Canada. While I await his specific policies, I am so far impressed with what I've seen. I know some may say his Income trust e-mail will hurt him, and I agree this could be a problem, but it is not an issue for me personally as I don't believe he intentionally did anything wrong. I also think the fact he was a former Progressive Conservative should not prevent him from becoming Liberal leader, after all Pierre Trudeau was formerly an NDPer. But even of greater relevance here, Stepehen Harper and Jack Layton ironically enough both started their political careers as Liberals, although Jack Layton left in 1970 in reaction to the War Measures Act and Stephen Harper left in 1981 over the National Energy Program. So my point is just because you started in one party shouldn't prevent you from running in another.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 12:22 PM
19 Comments:
I supported him for leader as Progressive Conservative in 2003.
Huh?
I thought you said that you supported Peter MacKay?
Anyways...
Brison is going to have to swing left to win this thing. His previous ideas won't attract a large enough constituency in the Liberal Party for him to win the leadership.
And I have a feeling that there are a lot of Liberals out there who likely will never trust him. Add the IT e-mail and he's going to have an uphill battle on his hands.
But regardless, I'm still putting my money on you going for Brison on Ballot 1. Unless of course you have a spell of temporary insanity and go for Volpe.
Miles,
Brison ran for PCP LEADER. That makes a world of difference. I know, it is not the same party.
In addition, in my humble estimation, and for whatever it's worth, dyed-in-the-wool Liberals will not choose a "turn-coat" as their next leader.
"Not gonna do it", as George H.W. Bush would say.
"Not gonna do it"
Wouldn't be prudent.
Heh.
Actually I supported Scott Brison, but I supported Peter MacKay once he was leader. I think Peter MacKay was a good choice too, but Scott Brison and Jim Prentice, I preferred more.
You are probably right I will go for him, although I might go for Maurizio Bevilacqua who is also a Blue Liberal like myself. No I won't go Joe Volpe on the first ballot. I like his ideas of a more grassroots party, but I think with the exception of Bob Rae, he is probably the least likely to defeat Harper unless he does something really really stupid.
I agree he probably won't win, but I believe that the most democratic way to choose the best leader is not to choose who you think is most likely to win, but choose who you to win and let the chips fall where they may. My guess is that it will be between Michael Ignatieff, Stephane Dion, and Gerard Kennedy.
So, Miles, what do you think about Brison's Yankee-loving streak?
Surely you wouldn't just limit yourself to dredging up the pasts of your opponents and citing them as proof of a current conspiracy, eh?
Let's use the Hidden Agenda logic here. The fact Brison's said this in the past indicates his own, his true agenda. So the complete absence of this kind of thing now is obviously an attempt to obfuscate what he really stands for to get elected amid a sea of left-leaning Liberal candidates.
Aren't you afraid that Brison, if elected leader, would have a secret hidden agenda?
Jarrett layeth the smackdown.
Sorry Miles, you're totally boxed in on this one.
Given that he was saying almost the exact same things as Harper on the Iraq issue, there's no way for you to logically explain supporting Brison at this point.
If Harper's previous statements on Iraq make him a scary Bush-loving monster, the same must also apply to Scott Brison.
Consistency demands it.
Actually no I will explain my reasons here.
1. I don't reject a candidate based on one issue, but rather several issues. Harper's pro-American positions alone were not enough to reject him, but were part of my many disagreements with him.
2. Brison initially supported the war as I did, but since has come out against it. Harper hasn't changed his position.
3. Brison has bold new innovative ideas that make up for this easily, while Harper has lame five priorities that don't nearly make up for this.
1. To each his own, I guess.
2. Brison has come out against the war? He has? Do you have any proof of this? Any quotes of his that would prove this point? If not, how can we disprove he has a hidden agenda. Furthermore, Harper has also been critical of the US on failing to find WMDs, and yet he still has a hidden agenda? Face it, Miles, there's no way of sidestepping this issue, nor is there a way to make yourself not look hypocritical.
3. The five priorities, I would say, are innovative ideas someof which (i.e. law and order, Accountability Act) Canada needs. Plus, it is easier to keep 5 major promises then 700 minor ones.
Here is my reply
2. Scott Brison did according to Brandon back in December of 2005 come out against it. It is on his old blog if it can still be accessed. he made his comments on a radio talk show. While Harper still continues to support the war. He is disappointed with how it turned out, but he has not changed his position on Canadian participation.
3. You cannot have many priorities, but I believe priorities must be about dealing with big issues otherwise to choose a central issue you want solve be it the environment, increasing productivity etc. and then develop policies that flow from this. The five priorities are purely election gimmicks meant as a stepping stone to get a majority government.
The Accountability Act is full of holes and considering Harper has broke already many things that he plans to put in it, I think it is a sham. The GST Cut will do nothing to stimulate the economy; income tax cuts and corporate tax cuts will, even the Fraser Institute agrees on this point. Childcare allowance may sound nice, but much like the Liberal plan, it is a complete gimmick that won't nearly cover the cost of childcare. The cracking down on crime sounds good on the surface, but the mandatory minimums are also for drug crimes too, which I disagree with. Besides mandatory minimums are no doubt very popular, but not highly effective according to most research on the topic. Health care wait times may be innovative, but the Liberals also had this in their platform.
"2. Scott Brison did according to Brandon back in December of 2005 come out against it. It is on his old blog if it can still be accessed. he made his comments on a radio talk show. While Harper still continues to support the war. He is disappointed with how it turned out, but he has not changed his position on Canadian participation."
Are you high, or do you just not accept the multiple public declarations Harper put forth, saying that he would not send troops to Iraq?
Anyhoo, you haven't answered my question.
"3. Brison has bold new innovative ideas that make up for this easily, while Harper has lame five priorities that don't nearly make up for this."
Like, lame, dude! Dude, it's like, lame.
Yeah! Who the fuck cares about health care wait times, anyway? And trying to stop corruption! Wanting to do something about those things means you're a -square-. Let's get government back to its hip, sexy role: paying for roller coasters in PEI and shoe musea in Toronto!
I'd like to remind you, Brison's "new and fresh ideas" were supposed to be the tools with which he would defeat and ridicule Paul Martin. Not so much, eh? Surely, if Brison really had some new ideas, we would've seen them during his stint in the last Liberal hackocracy?
Miles, you said this only a matter of days ago:
"I supported Peter MacKay and I would have voted Conservative had he been leader and he supported the War in Iraq. What I am against is leader's who say we should follow the United States no matter what."
Your previous argument for supporting people who were behind the Iraq war was thus that they did not say that we should "follow the United Sates not matter what."
Harper never said such things either, but with that excuse in mind, here are some Brison quotes to chew on:
"Canadians, as a people, would never abandon our best friend during times of trial and challenge...
"In the fight for what’s right – Canadians have never been neutral...
In the name of freedom and justice Canadians and Americans have fought evil side by side...
A tiny minority of Canadians define their patriotism based on anti-Americanism. Their hurtful comments have embarrassed the over-whelming majority of proud Canadians who define their patriotism based on pride – not paranoia...
I want to see a strong government in Ottawa that matches the iron-will of the Canadian people to support our best friend – the United States....
We stand beside America and we shall never abandon her."
So, there you have it. Brison said the very things you accuse Harper of saying, and when it's brought to your attention, you just change your argument and they find another way to justify this blatant double standard.
This is starting to become a genuine pattern. When someone knocks down your argument, you come back with a different and often completely contradictory one. And when someone knocks that one down you create yet another one, and so on.
Miles, there is no dishonour in admitting you are wrong now and then. You could just rightfully point that you were unaware of these quotes and that you'll have to rethink any possible support for Brison with them in mind.
Doing so would allow to preserve at least some measure of credibilty. That's something you might want to keep in mind.
And one final point. Given these quotes, you can't honest argue that Brison wouldn't have sent Canadian troops to Iraq had he been PM in the spring of 2003.
You know full well that he most certainly would have.
Brandon - I'll admit I don't totally agree with Brison here, but there will never be a leader of any party I disagree with. I disagree with Harper on too many issues to support him and the Iraq issue is just one of many issues. As someone who doesn't want to him to become PM, I will use all the tools I have to make the case he shouldn't be PM.
Stephen Harper did say that Canada would blindly follow the United States and with his annoying God Bless Canada, tough talk on we won't cut and run, and refusing to show flag draped coffins (which even two Tory MPs, Garth Turner and Daryl Kramp, both former PCs I might add have criticized this) he sure seems to have a lot in common with his pal George W. Bush. Considering Brison is openly Gay and George W. Bush is homophobic, I don't think he is a big fan of him.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Well, the point is that you made the argument that Harper is unfit to be PM for alledgedly making the same kind of statements Brison made.
If that makes Harper unfit to be PM, then it makes Brison unfit to PM.
You can't have it both ways.
It was only one of the reasons that made Harper unfit to be PM. This may be negative against Brison, but his positives more than outweigh his negatives, while with Harper his positives don't outweigh his negatives. In the big picture, Brison is a better choice for PM and fit to be PM. Harper is not a good PM and I hope his stay in office is as short as possible.
That's very funny, though, Miles, that you judge a PM not on whether or not you agree with or approve of what they DID, but what their opinions were on the matter in question.
Politicians often base their decisions based on their opinion, especially if they are a top down type leader such as Stephen Harper who doesn't tolerate dissent. If they are more open to dissent like Paul Martin was, then I take their opinions less seriously as I know they will listen to others and make decisions based on consensus of the party, not my way or the highway, which is how Harper governs.
Given your twisted logic, I think it's good you've gone over to the Liberals. You're well suited to each other.
Given your disdain for people anonymous who don't support your right wing views, it is a good thing I am no longer a member of the Conservatives.
Post a Comment
<< Home