Friday, January 11, 2008

Susan G. Cole likes Hillary and why do leaders keep screwing over David Orchard?

Lesbian, feminist NOW Magazine editor Susan G. Cole wrote a pretty convincing defense of Hillary Clinton's candidacy in yesterday's edition (and slammed the new euphoria surrounding Barack Obama's campaign in the same breath)...

I gotta admit that she convinced me to get back on the fence in the presidential race.


Prior to his long-shot bid for the PC leadership in 1998, how many of us had ever heard of David Orchard? What is it about this guy that is so special? I've never understood it.

It's too bad he feels slighted by this. Many people feel slighted by party central when nominations don't go their way.

If you're in politics to always get your way, David, then that's your mistake. Why do leaders of parties you join always seem to be screwing you over? The pattern here speaks volumes...Hmmm....


Anonymous said...

Seems to be a pretty low dig at David Orchard, eh?

Blaming the victim for getting screwed.

Let me tell you something, Matt. Up till the mid 1990s, the Coalition against Free Trade had an office in Bloor and Yonge. Why it existed in this prime location almost a decade after the 1988 election boggles me. When Orchard's supporters almost took over the remnants of the Progressive Conservatives, we knew where the anti-FTA people were.

A decade later, the anti-FTA vagabonds came knocking at Stephane Dion's door and they were welcomed. Hey, Dion welcomed many others too, some of them we met in the MMP campaign. When you are in Opposition, you cannot afford to say no to people. Especially when the suitors on your Rolodex stopped calling.

In an ideal electoral system, David Orchard can form his own party and get represented in Parliament with a comfortable 3 to 5 per cent threshold. Under ours, Orchard remains a vagabond knocking on the elite's deal asking for a cookie. The cookie usually crumble and Orchard is left with crumbs. You can blame this on the weakness of first past the post, Matt.

Matt Guerin said...

A pretty low dig, Edward? I don't think so. Orchard is not the first person to suffer under the appointment power of leaders, or the frequent manipulation of nominations (which happens in virtually all ridings, not just those with byelections). By the way, this kind of stuff would happen under MMP, too. I admire your idealism, Edward, but you are dreaming in technicolor if you thought parties would've left their lists completely open democratically to party members or anyone else who could stack a nominating meeting.

Furthermore, byelections are a different deal altogether. Witness how the Tories treated Mark Warner. Orchard thought of himself as leadership material (at least in his last party). Compare his behaviour now and that of his supporters to Martha Hall Findlay, another leadership candidate and lifelong Liberal who was pushed aside in favour of Belinda Stronach in Newmarket-Aurora. Did Martha complain and bad-mouth the leader's decision?

I do think the leader has a right to appoint candidates. The leader is responsible for these people should they get elected. The leader has to choose a cabinet eventually. Orchard's behaviour since last week confirms he's not really a team player and is guided more by his own agenda than anything else.