taking one is dangerous. The ever popular Joe Volpe is in the news again. Man, I love this guy!
...Joe Volpe's trouble-plagued bid to become the next Liberal leader suffered another, possibly fatal, blow with the resignation Friday of his national campaign manager.
In a written statement released late Friday, Volpe said Jim Karygiannis, a controversial Toronto MP, "has left the campaign as a result of the position taken by the candidate on the current crisis in the Middle East.''
Volpe has been strongly supportive of Israel's bombardment of Lebanon, arguing that the Jewish state has a right to defend itself against attacks by Hezbollah guerillas based in southern Lebanon.
I will link this with the poll that came out a couple of days ago that had the Liberals at 26%. That is 26% with no leader - an empty shell in which you can insert your dream candidate. However any leader brings baggage that will alienate some supporters and invariably without leader numbers go down when a leader is selected. Now neither Scott Brison or Joe Volpe are going to win leadership but with positions like these
Scott Brison: “Israel not only has the right but the absolute duty to protect itself and its citizens from terror attacks. In a region that is already a powder keg, the coordinated actions of Hamas and Hezbollah - both of which are on Canada’s
terrorist list – can only raise the tensions and elevate the risks for all parties,” affirmed Mr. Brison. (Brison Press Release, July 13, 2006)
Joe Volpe: "One thousand missiles [fired] into Israel? That is an act of war," said Volpe over the phone. Israel has a right to defend itself and a right to exist, he said. "[A Liberal government] declared Hezbollah a terrorist organization," he added. "We cannot now make excuses for its behaviour." (National Post, July 20, 2006)
Yet again the Liberals show that you can take any position on any subject and find a Liberal that agrees with you. When things get serious it is nice to have coherent positions though.
Update: Idealistic Pragmatist asks why disagreement within a party is a bad thing - especially during a leadership campaign. She links this with US politics where public disagreements within parties is common place which makes me wonder whether the issue in Canada has to do with us having more than two parties. When there are only two parties there is much more ability to stake different positions and still remain "in the tent" whereas in Canada the tents are smaller.
Comments (7)
Well, I think you know I’m not a Liberal, but the assertions in your last paragraph make me go hmm. I’ve been asking questions about this over at my blog, and I’d love to hear your two cents’ worth.
Posted by Idealistic Pragmatist | July 22, 2006 11:26 AM
Posted on July 22, 2006 11:26
Volpe was the man that toured the Churches and promised in private that he’d never let the Liberal Party redefine the Traditional Marriage, much like Anne McClellan, Paul Martin, Jean Chretien……….blah blah blah blah.
Posted by roger daly | July 22, 2006 11:33 AM
Posted on July 22, 2006 11:33
That Adriatic bond is broken. It’s about freaking time. Ironically, Jimmy K. and Joe both ride in on the wings of immigrants who come here with very little education and just support the ethnic name.
Jimmy knows where his bread is buttered and his riding is laden with east Indians and Muslims.
Posted by TrustOnlyMulder | July 22, 2006 11:57 AM
Posted on July 22, 2006 11:57
If anything, Liberal poll numbers should go up a few points for a while after the party selects a leader.
You can’t beat somebody with nobody, and people won’t take a chance on a leaderless party in a snap election.
Posted by Loyalist | July 22, 2006 2:05 PM
Posted on July 22, 2006 14:05
Now we can see why Michael Ignatieff is staying quiet…
Any position you take on this issue is bound to piss off supporters.
Posted by Jeff | July 22, 2006 10:46 PM
Posted on July 22, 2006 22:46
“You can’t beat somebody with nobody, and people won’t take a chance on a leaderless party in a snap election.”
Sure - in an election, the Liberals will do better with a leader than without. But this was a poll. When polled, people tend to fill in their preferred leader: ‘sure, I support the Libs (becasue I really like Iggy / Dryden / Rae, etc).’ When the actual leader is selected a large number of people are disappointed - some of them will stay with the Liberals and fight with their ‘less than first choice’ leader; but a number will drift away - either to the Dippers, to the Greens, or even to the Tories - dependin on who is selected. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a drop in polling numbers after the convention, particulalry if it is a close decision, and if it gets at all acrimonious.
Posted by Deaner | July 23, 2006 11:20 PM
Posted on July 23, 2006 23:20
I seem to remember polls that came out just as Stephen Harper was becoming leader of the CPC that put the Liberals up 49-19…
I think that Liberal numbers will rebound (for a while) once they get a leader. After that, though, it’ll be up to how he or she does…
Posted by Ben (The Tiger in Exile) | July 24, 2006 10:32 AM
Posted on July 24, 2006 10:32