I was highly skeptical at the outset, I'll admit, but you make a number of strong arguments. I'm not convinced his relatively low profile will be an advantage, however, especially given the limited time that he would have to introduce himself. He would be a better choice than Freeland, Joly, and Champagne in my mind.
I think the lower profile is an advantage for someone who’s planning to cleanly and clearly break with unpopular Trudeau policies. A big disadvantage if they’re going to try and avoid offending Trudeau loyalists
My big fear with this race is that the field will bend over backwards to avoid betting seen as attacking Trudeau. Instead of publicly addressing his mistakes they’ll try and give him the beloved party statesman treatment
It’s the strategy that will keep certain party insiders happy, but will kill any momentum with the broader public
You make a good case here Evan. I've noticed him during the strikes and he struck me as highly competent, confident (he wears 30 years experience well) and obviously intelligent, like so many Liberals are. (This reality is central to why the cons with their alarmingly shallow talent pool and bobble-head, token-inclusive front bench DESPISE them; remember the kids at school like that, and how the bullies ALWAYS came from that jealous, resentful bunch who sucked at reading comprehension?)
The best hope for "taking down the temperature" as Justin said (the dream of more and more of us) is indeed someone obscure so as to stymie the nasty rhymer.
I would love to see a woman, a true feminist rather than JT's ersatz actions, take the reigns of the Party, but I don't think Freeland has what it takes to be a 'retail politician' (and I am not a fan of the term. But I often feel that she's lecturing us when she speaks). As a citizen of BC, no effing way should Christie Clark get elected to anything ever. So that leaves Anand and Jolie (if she's running.
Are these two more capable of halting the Lib slide? More than McKinnon? I wish I knew.
Anand is definitely more than competent. And I personally appreciate both the demeanour and the skills of Gould. My fear is that PP would tear a woman to shreds because he is that guy, and I would not wish that on one of these wonderful women.
He has mostly flown under the radar but has stepped up with conviction when necessary. He can also be tough but is a good person. This may be the smartest choice.
"... finding the right candidate who can win back the Golden Horseshoe and also keep us alive in Quebec ..."
So, screw the ROC, is that it?
On the other hand, I suppose that that is fair because pretty much ALL of Canada says, "Screw the LPC."
As to Steve MacKinnon, you write, "His low name recognition in the country is an asset, allowing him to define himself ..." Well, I suppose that Stevie Wonderful could argue that he was not a member of cabinet and therefore had no role in the ever so great decisions of the Face Painter's government. Of course, the CPC would then provide proof that he WAS a member of cabinet and had participated in so many of the cabinet decisions. Yup, good candidate. Good for the CPC.
..... and the PP lapdog shows up spouting their usual bs, and I know why. You're scared, you realize Erin's suggestion is the person who is most likely to do what's laid out. Thanks for showing your one dimensional thinking.
1. I have no bias toward PP; he certainly has his flaws but I will wait and see what his platform is;
2. Scared? Of what? Certainly not the LPC. If there was anything about which to be scared it might, repeat might, be the NDP but certainly not the LPC.
3. Who the hell is "Erin"? Did you perhaps mean Evan? I don't find his suggestion convincing. Interesting but certainly not convincing.
4. One dimensional thinking? Hmmm ..... I above said that I will wait and see what PP's platform is. From your commentary it seems to me that you have already made up your mind. Pot meet kettle.
I'll end your suspense on Poilievre's "platform;" he doesn't accept either the science OR the reality of climate change, like all right wing populists.
This is not surprising since our cons follow the GOP playbook now officially leading the world in psycho right-wing populism, openly buoyed/"boyed" in their case by "Project 2025's ALTERNATE reality of RELIGION, largely made possible in a country long on the verge of theocracy.
U.S. is an anomaly in that, but if nothing else it may also finally demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that theocracy and democracy can never coexist, even though we thought history had already proven the need to separate church and state.
People prioritise their personal finances over climate change policy. Countless surveys have shown this. Surveys also show Canadians are all on board with carbon taxes as long as they personally don't have to pay. Expect Pierre Poilievre to keep the industrial portion of carbon tax.
Good for the Convoy Party of Canada you mean, YOUR guys?
You guy guys are SUCH wordsmiths when it comes to name-calling, accompanied by the trademark smirk found on the face of every school bully ever.
Not sure how you can plead distance from Trump/Trumpism when you're copying him so obviously, but are we maybe finally getting close to come actual TRUTH here now, i.e. you're no longer pretending NOT to be acolytes, bush league versions notwithstanding?
And just why is it that you want to make me a supporter of the convoy? What did I do to give you the right to determine who or what I support? Hmmm?
You make the mistake of ever so many folk who simply say, "He supports X, therefore he supports Y." Your assertion may or may not be correct but it is sloppy thinking on your part given that you have no additional evidence.
As for Trump/Trumpism I think that his opponents (would I be correct in thinking that includes you? Just asking.) think that Trump is a bozo with no ability. I absolutely think that Trump is a bozo but I also think that to assert that Trump has no ability is to vastly underrate the individual. As noted, I think he is a bozo but, make no mistake, he has spent a lifetime learning how to "negotiate" (beat up prospective opponents); how to use the law (bankruptcy laws are simply a tool to use to get your way); and how to live a wealthy life at the expense of others. Admire him? Not at all, but it is important to understand how the bozo operates.
It is really good to know that you "understand" the truth about me when you have never met me.
Oh, and I have not called you names; I don't call people names, with one exception: I am so disgusted by the current Prime Minister that I refuse to speak his name but call him instead by what he is: Face Painter. No other names for anyone else. So your assertion that "You guy guys are SUCH wordsmiths when it comes to name-calling, accompanied by the trademark smirk found on the face of every school bully ever" is curious as I don't call names and I have never been accused of being a bully.
You, on the other hand, certainly seem to have called me names and seem to be trying to bully me. Therefore, I choose to end this discourse between us.
The convoy rubbed so many Canadians the wrong way because it went against type of Canadian culture. Canadians are supposex to be hard working hewers of wood and drawers of water. Good peasants know to shut up and get er done. We don't just not have a protest culture, we have an anti protest culture.
Well, as it happens, notwithstanding that I scolded Tris, I DID support the convoy or, more accurately, I supported the idea of the convoy in that they stood up to the dictatorial government (and, boy, did the government prove itself dictatorial; incompetent too) and asserted loudly (Oh, how un-Canadian - they were LOUD! their displeasure. Tough and loud was needed.) that the government had overstepped and had not listened to people and simply refused to listen to reasonable alternatives.
I was highly skeptical at the outset, I'll admit, but you make a number of strong arguments. I'm not convinced his relatively low profile will be an advantage, however, especially given the limited time that he would have to introduce himself. He would be a better choice than Freeland, Joly, and Champagne in my mind.
I think the lower profile is an advantage for someone who’s planning to cleanly and clearly break with unpopular Trudeau policies. A big disadvantage if they’re going to try and avoid offending Trudeau loyalists
My big fear with this race is that the field will bend over backwards to avoid betting seen as attacking Trudeau. Instead of publicly addressing his mistakes they’ll try and give him the beloved party statesman treatment
It’s the strategy that will keep certain party insiders happy, but will kill any momentum with the broader public
I had never heard of him before. Will do some more reading, but he sounds promising. Do we know if he has expressed an interest to run?
Yes, he's on record saying so.
You make a good case here Evan. I've noticed him during the strikes and he struck me as highly competent, confident (he wears 30 years experience well) and obviously intelligent, like so many Liberals are. (This reality is central to why the cons with their alarmingly shallow talent pool and bobble-head, token-inclusive front bench DESPISE them; remember the kids at school like that, and how the bullies ALWAYS came from that jealous, resentful bunch who sucked at reading comprehension?)
The best hope for "taking down the temperature" as Justin said (the dream of more and more of us) is indeed someone obscure so as to stymie the nasty rhymer.
I'm going to suggest not underestimating the intelligence of your opponents whoever they are in life. Unknown unknowns have a way of humbling people.
I would love to see a woman, a true feminist rather than JT's ersatz actions, take the reigns of the Party, but I don't think Freeland has what it takes to be a 'retail politician' (and I am not a fan of the term. But I often feel that she's lecturing us when she speaks). As a citizen of BC, no effing way should Christie Clark get elected to anything ever. So that leaves Anand and Jolie (if she's running.
Are these two more capable of halting the Lib slide? More than McKinnon? I wish I knew.
I hate to say it, but in the current toxic conservative climate, I don't think ANY woman can win.
This is the ultimate test of whether or not progressives have realized that there's no more virtue in "virtue signalling."
Both Susan Holt and Danielle Smith have had strong victories recently. Women are winning
Anand is definitely more than competent. And I personally appreciate both the demeanour and the skills of Gould. My fear is that PP would tear a woman to shreds because he is that guy, and I would not wish that on one of these wonderful women.
He has mostly flown under the radar but has stepped up with conviction when necessary. He can also be tough but is a good person. This may be the smartest choice.
"... finding the right candidate who can win back the Golden Horseshoe and also keep us alive in Quebec ..."
So, screw the ROC, is that it?
On the other hand, I suppose that that is fair because pretty much ALL of Canada says, "Screw the LPC."
As to Steve MacKinnon, you write, "His low name recognition in the country is an asset, allowing him to define himself ..." Well, I suppose that Stevie Wonderful could argue that he was not a member of cabinet and therefore had no role in the ever so great decisions of the Face Painter's government. Of course, the CPC would then provide proof that he WAS a member of cabinet and had participated in so many of the cabinet decisions. Yup, good candidate. Good for the CPC.
..... and the PP lapdog shows up spouting their usual bs, and I know why. You're scared, you realize Erin's suggestion is the person who is most likely to do what's laid out. Thanks for showing your one dimensional thinking.
So, John, some responses:
1. I have no bias toward PP; he certainly has his flaws but I will wait and see what his platform is;
2. Scared? Of what? Certainly not the LPC. If there was anything about which to be scared it might, repeat might, be the NDP but certainly not the LPC.
3. Who the hell is "Erin"? Did you perhaps mean Evan? I don't find his suggestion convincing. Interesting but certainly not convincing.
4. One dimensional thinking? Hmmm ..... I above said that I will wait and see what PP's platform is. From your commentary it seems to me that you have already made up your mind. Pot meet kettle.
I'll end your suspense on Poilievre's "platform;" he doesn't accept either the science OR the reality of climate change, like all right wing populists.
This is not surprising since our cons follow the GOP playbook now officially leading the world in psycho right-wing populism, openly buoyed/"boyed" in their case by "Project 2025's ALTERNATE reality of RELIGION, largely made possible in a country long on the verge of theocracy.
U.S. is an anomaly in that, but if nothing else it may also finally demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that theocracy and democracy can never coexist, even though we thought history had already proven the need to separate church and state.
People prioritise their personal finances over climate change policy. Countless surveys have shown this. Surveys also show Canadians are all on board with carbon taxes as long as they personally don't have to pay. Expect Pierre Poilievre to keep the industrial portion of carbon tax.
Good for the Convoy Party of Canada you mean, YOUR guys?
You guy guys are SUCH wordsmiths when it comes to name-calling, accompanied by the trademark smirk found on the face of every school bully ever.
Not sure how you can plead distance from Trump/Trumpism when you're copying him so obviously, but are we maybe finally getting close to come actual TRUTH here now, i.e. you're no longer pretending NOT to be acolytes, bush league versions notwithstanding?
And just why is it that you want to make me a supporter of the convoy? What did I do to give you the right to determine who or what I support? Hmmm?
You make the mistake of ever so many folk who simply say, "He supports X, therefore he supports Y." Your assertion may or may not be correct but it is sloppy thinking on your part given that you have no additional evidence.
As for Trump/Trumpism I think that his opponents (would I be correct in thinking that includes you? Just asking.) think that Trump is a bozo with no ability. I absolutely think that Trump is a bozo but I also think that to assert that Trump has no ability is to vastly underrate the individual. As noted, I think he is a bozo but, make no mistake, he has spent a lifetime learning how to "negotiate" (beat up prospective opponents); how to use the law (bankruptcy laws are simply a tool to use to get your way); and how to live a wealthy life at the expense of others. Admire him? Not at all, but it is important to understand how the bozo operates.
It is really good to know that you "understand" the truth about me when you have never met me.
Oh, and I have not called you names; I don't call people names, with one exception: I am so disgusted by the current Prime Minister that I refuse to speak his name but call him instead by what he is: Face Painter. No other names for anyone else. So your assertion that "You guy guys are SUCH wordsmiths when it comes to name-calling, accompanied by the trademark smirk found on the face of every school bully ever" is curious as I don't call names and I have never been accused of being a bully.
You, on the other hand, certainly seem to have called me names and seem to be trying to bully me. Therefore, I choose to end this discourse between us.
The convoy rubbed so many Canadians the wrong way because it went against type of Canadian culture. Canadians are supposex to be hard working hewers of wood and drawers of water. Good peasants know to shut up and get er done. We don't just not have a protest culture, we have an anti protest culture.
Well, as it happens, notwithstanding that I scolded Tris, I DID support the convoy or, more accurately, I supported the idea of the convoy in that they stood up to the dictatorial government (and, boy, did the government prove itself dictatorial; incompetent too) and asserted loudly (Oh, how un-Canadian - they were LOUD! their displeasure. Tough and loud was needed.) that the government had overstepped and had not listened to people and simply refused to listen to reasonable alternatives.
Oh darn.