Next Face

...and now for her close up.

2010-02-07T22:56:00.002-05:00

A close up of Palin's hand.

Palin Reads Cheat Notes From Her Hand

2010-02-07T08:54:00.003-05:00

This never gets tired.
From a Tea Party Q and A yesterday...

Please feel free to link this up to your respective blogs and
share the love.

If at first you don't succeed...

2009-12-06T08:03:00.003-05:00

We were disappointed in last years coronation.
We were bewildered by the leadership convention results of December, 2006.
And so we find ourselves entering the next phase of the next face race.

Our sources tell us that Bob Rae and his "...years of the long knives..." are bearing fruit.

You heard it here second.
Bob Rae, Liberal leader, 2010.

You heard it here first.

Bush Ducks Shoes.

2008-12-15T11:14:00.004-05:00

Incredible video here.

Is Ignatieff Already In?

2008-12-07T23:02:00.004-05:00

Looks like he is if you believe the Canadian Press. CBC is reporting it here too, just 30 minutes ago.

Wow. Looks like Dion's video changed the face of the Liberal party virtually overnight.

Manley and Ignatieff. Some Sanity Prevails.

2008-12-06T07:30:00.005-05:00

While Bob Rae has accepted the position to become the senior sales executive in charge of the "National Coalition Program", two sobering voice could be heard this morning rising above the din of the raucous and frenzied madness. First John Manley - who only a few days ago distanced himself from the coalition while on an on-line round table by denying to be one of the "4 wise men" - in the Globe and Mail, writes how the first step for the Liberal Party would be to "replace Stéphane Dion as leader with someone whose first job is to rebuild the Liberal Party, rather than leading a coalition with the NDP". Wow. A sober and resounding indictment of the soon to be legendary (for the wrong reasons) Liberal leader and now his infamous "youtube video". We can only imagine how Mr. Rae feels this morning after reading this, having accepted a position as cheerleader for a coalition that would now have him defend a partnership with the NDP, a skin that he has spent the past several years or more publicly shedding.

As for Mr. Ignatieff - who's body language since last weekend exposed his true feelings on the coalition, and who, like Manley tried to distance him self by suggesting that the inner workings around the deal were being orchestrated by those "with a much higher pay rate than his" - it appears that his concern too would focus around an expedient ousting of the current leader so as to end any future harm to the Liberal brand. On the idea of a more expedient process to replace Dion, this morning Mr. Ignaieff is quoted as saying, "I have been informed that discussions are ongoing," We hope that Mr. Ignatieff received a raise in the past 72 hours and that his rate of pay now entitles him, along with Mr. Manley, to become part of a process that would move this party in a new direction with the focus on rebuilding.

We expect that the fall out from all this will include the end of Mr. Dion's political career, regret by Mr. Rae for taking his new salesmen's position, and a bright future from Mr. LeBlanc if he can distance himself from the coalition rallies about to take our country by "storm".

In January, Mr. Harper will likely table the most un-conservative-like budget in the history of this nation and will give the opposition little choice but to accept it. It will be a spending extravaganza. As such, it would be best for the Liberal's to focus away from the coalition and start to look beyond January to a longer rebuilding process, one that we feel will be necessary to restore the confidence in the Liberal party that was eroded in large part by Mr. Dion's performance over the past seven days.

To that end, Mr. Rae might want to rethink his new position. He should perhaps fake an illness and stay in bed for a few weeks while the fragile coalition ballon looses its "hot air" and scurries off into political oblivion.

Hypocritical and Insidious.

2008-12-03T23:22:00.007-05:00

We have nothing else to add.
(Except for maybe a copy of the 2004 Harper/Layton coalition draft when we find it...)

Tonight's Addresses.

2008-12-03T19:38:00.006-05:00

Some observations on tonight's taped addresses in no specific order...

• What's with the dark and ominous storm clouds graphic behind Peter Mansbridge's head? Did they mistakingly queue up the Hallowe'en set?
• Why did Peter and Keith get so pissy over the tape being late? Did Peter have a hockey game to watch?

Harper
• That smile to start things off really scared me. He looked too intense and clearly disingenuous.
• He mentioned the "Separatists" 4 times in his under 5 minute address, suggesting that they are part of the coalition. I am sure the fact checkers will have a field day with this one; more Orwelian rhetoric from a dishonest Prime Minister. Maybe he thinks if he tells the Canadian public enough mis-truths, that they may then be inclined to accept them as facts. Kudos to Peter and Keith for calling Harper on this point.
• He looks like he lost weight. Frankly, he looks defeated.
• You know, when Martin took to the air with his address a few years back, he outright apologized for the Adscam even though he had nothing to do with it. Not Harper. No apologies here. Only smugness, and feigned overconfidence in the face of the worst blunder in Canadian political history.
• ...and what is with this plea to at least have the budget heard in January? There was no budget in January until the coalition was formed and forced your hand, Sir. So don't give the Canadian people the impression that the opposition at least owes you and your party the tabling of the budget. Too little too late Sir, and again, a misappropriation of the facts.
• Surprisingly short and surprisingly NOTHING new to offer that we have not heard in the last 48 hours.

Dion
• Why did we miss the beginning of the tape? Why was the CBC unable to present this address in full?
• Did anybody else notice that Dion's face was out of focus and that the books behind him were in focus? So much so that I can clearly read the title of one as "Hot Air". Do you think someone might have had the sense to focus the damn camera and remove "Hot Air" from the shelf before the taping of this fairly important address? His image was also off centre, favouring the right side of the screen. Odd.
• We liked hearing about his letter to the GG, pressing her to deny any motion for adjourning parliament.
• We were happy to hear that Dion was going to work "...day and night(s)"
• We can see why many Canadians are put off by his english. "...Feuding..." sounded remarkably like "...Fooding..."

Overall, we didn't breath during either broadcast. Crazy times in Canadian politics and a lot at stake for both sides and for all Canadians.

From Pierre Bourque Tonight. Late Breaking.

2008-12-02T21:29:00.001-05:00

From http://www.bourque.org/

EXCLUSIVE: IGGY RETHINKS COALITION

CRACK IN THE COALITION
Finally, a sign of sanity. Better late than never. A first serious sign of leadership from the presumptive leader-in-waiting. Senior Ignatieff insiders are tantalizingly whispering to Bourque that the Toronto MP is having grave doubts about supporting the shocking Dion coalition bid, now labelled by many as the "Separatist Coalition", given the defining support it has from both the BQ's Gilles Duceppe and former PQ Premier Jacques Parizeau. One longtime senior Ignatieff backer, under condition of anonymity, confided that "Michael is in a tenuous situation and he is feeling a lot of heat from caucus colleagues and constituents alike. Frankly, we think we got snookered by Bob Rae on this one". It nets out to this, according to this longtime Liberal and echoed by many other key backroom players: ordinary Liberals across the country, the card-carrying bbq-ing door-knocking envelope-stuffing phone-banking kind who make up the backbone of the party and who would need to be counted on to support his leadership aspirations, are vehemently rejecting the Dion argument that a deal with the separatist Bloc Quebecois is in the best interests of Canada. "Bullshit", said one Liberal power-broker, who was quick to point out Dion is tilting at Liberal history for the sake of a short stint at 24 Sussex. "Dion is nuts", he told Bourque, "I am ashamed he is leading the party of Laurier, Pearson, Trudeau, and Chretien - my God, Chretien, the guy who poured out his federalist heart against Rene Levesque's country-killing forces so long ago - I am ashamed Dion is selling us out." He and the others are right, of course. Add to that a comment from one of Canada's leading media personalities, who told Bourque this evening that "the Liberals can never again say that they are the guardians of National Unity". He has a sobering point, unfortunately. Ignatieff, in turn, would be right to heed the growing chorus of advice from his own braintrust and to distance himself from this embarrassing marriage of expedience fueled by nothing more than the personal egos and ambitions of a relatively few desperate 'inside-the-beltway' political personalities, both elected and otherwise, the 'chip-on-their-shoulders' type who can't see beyond their disdain for Harper. In short, no act of clarity whatsoever ...... UPDATE 1:Meanwhile, former Lib MP & Deputy PM John Manley is also now distancing himself from Dion's unholy alliance, telling a G&M confcall that his inclusion in Dion's wise men sounding board is news to him. "I havent agreed to do anything", he said ...... UPDATE 2: Insiders are telling Bourque late this evening that "at least 15 opposition members are ready to break ranks and, if necessary, sit as independents. This group includes Dryden, Tonks, Bevilacqua (from Grits) and Angus (NDP)". Bourque is also hearing that "at least three Bloc members are considering same course of action and there maybe at least two Tories thinking of going the other way (as independents) - Michael 'Cheech' Chong and backbencher Lee Richardson." Developing ...

1984.

2008-12-02T17:51:00.010-05:00

This evening we offer two quotes from George Orwell's 1984 and the proof to support the fact that Mr. Harper is using Orwellian tactics to govern. He has been caught red-handed trying to lead this nation down a dark and ugly road.

1984, Quote #1
"A few agents of the thought Police moved always among them, spreading false rumours and marking down and eliminating the few individuals who were judged capable of becoming dangerous..."

YOU DO NOT SEE A FLAG. THESE PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS. YOU DO NOT SEE A FLAG. THESE PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS. YOU DO NOT SEE A FLAG. THESE PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS. YOU DO NOT SEE A FLAG.

Stephen Harper, House of Commons, December 2, 2008 : "Here we have these three parties signing a document, and they wouldn't even have a the Canadian flag behind them! They had to be photographed without it, because a member of the coalition doesn't even believe in the country."

1984, Quote #2
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. ... We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. ... How does one man assert his power over another ... By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is inflicting pain and humiliation."

Tories to pull plug on funding political parties
David Akin, Canwest News Service
Published: Wednesday, November 26, 2008

OTTAWA -- The federal Conservatives will propose Thursday that all public funding of political parties cease, a move that's sure to spark a war with the three opposition parties.

All political parties receive a public subsidy of $1.75 per year for each vote they receive in a general election. That subsidy costs taxpayers about $28-million in the 12-month period ending Sept. 30.

"This is huge. This is so audacious and outrageous," said Pat Martin, an NDP MP from Winnipeg. "This means war."

"During an economic crisis, (Prime Minister) Stephen Harper is more focused on putting the boots to his political adversaries than helping vulnerable Canadians protect their jobs and savings with a real economic plan," said Liberal MP Scott Brison.

For the NDP and Green Party, the subsidy accounted for about half their revenue in the same period.

"This is not a perk; it is a way of having fair democracy in Canada," said John Bennett, communications director for the Green Party. "This is a way of using the financial crisis to do political damage to other parties."

"They're using the financial crisis as a cover for an attempt to eliminate the political opposition in Canada, despite the fact that the government only got a little over one third of the votes of Canadians. This is a blow to democracy. It will have a significant impact on the ability for the party to maintain our offices and our operation in Ottawa."

The Liberal party, in particular, will find itself in dire straits without the subsidy.

Venice Is Sinking.

2008-12-01T23:27:00.003-05:00

Just like the Stephen Harper and his Conservative government, historic Venice is under water.

More here.

Dion It Is!

2008-12-01T15:18:00.003-05:00

Dion will lead the coalition.

Well he was the only real choice. After MI spent the last three days distancing himself from this process by proclaiming to whomever would listen that "...Mr. Dion IS the leader of this party...", and that "...any discussion on a coalition is above my pay scale..." etc. It was obvious that neither he nor Rae would want to taint their leadership aspirations with this potential time bomb.

Time bomb? To quote a former Vice Presidential candidate, "you betcha".

Here are three reasons why:

1. Has anyone stopped to think how this thing is going to play outside of Ontario and in particular, west of Saskatchewan?
2. Has anyone wondered what the long term implications are on the credibility of a Liberal leader who overthrows an existing government with the "support" of the party who would have us carve Quebec out of this confederation?
3. Has anyone considered how the optics of bedding Jack (Robin Hood) Layton and his merry band of lefties will affect the Liberal brand?

On another note, a good summary of the Governor General's options here, today courtesy of Norma Greenaway, of the Ottawa Citizen.
With thanks to JRA for the link.

It's Done. The Coalition Will Topple The Conservatives.

2008-11-30T21:48:00.010-05:00

Next Face Blogosphere Scoop...just released minutes ago from Keith Boag.

The Liberals and the NDP have reached a deal to form a coalition and topple the Conservative government.

According to the CBC, there will be NO deputy prime minister and the coalition will govern for the next 2 1/2 years. The NDP will be invited into the cabinet and be allocated 25% of the seats. The Bloc is not part of the coalition but would have to support it, sources say.

An Unlikely Hero.

2008-11-30T10:02:00.004-05:00

Props to Rev. Rob Oliphant for nailing it in the house on Friday and to Aaron Wherry (Macleans) for this article this morning. Note the first comment by Jerry Jackson in response to the article reproduced below in full as it appears on Macleans.ca

Eulogy for a government?

Rob Oliphant is a slight, unimposing man, one of the rookie Liberals who fill the back row of the opposition side. His is a united church minister with a degree in commerce. He was an advisor to David Peterson’s government in Ontario and Michael Ignatieff’s campaign for the Liberal leadership in 2006. He currently represents the riding vacated by John Godfrey, another slight, unimposing man.

In the moments before Jim Flaherty delivered the government’s economic and fiscal statement, the House was going through the motions of debating the speech from the throne. Oliphant was the last member of parliament to speak in full before the Speaker called on the finance minister. The government benches had been filling as he spoke and were full by the time he finished, but save for a few Liberals in Oliphant’s immediate vicinity, almost no one seemed to notice his remarks. Everything that has transpired since has, of course, reduced him to the stuff of footnote.

But if we are in the final days of Stephen Harper’s government, here was a crushing, if inadvertent, eulogy.

It was not, in the straightforward sense, a complete harangue. “It might surprise the honourable members opposite and perhaps some of the honourable members on this side of the House that I found a number of laudable elements in the speech as it was read. In fact, it was much less brutal than one might have expected following the heated rhetoric of the last campaign,” he said. “Specifically, I was impressed that the government seemed to indicate that, despite all evidence to the contrary, it might actually believe that government can and should be a force for good in people’s lives, and that it is appropriate for government to intervene, act and ensure that our future, particularly our economic future, is protected.”

Though it was a bit of a harangue. “What surprises me about this recognition is that it is simply not even close to what the honourable members on the other side of the House were telling voters during the election, week after week in the recent campaign,” he said. “In fact, during the campaign, the Conservatives ran against incurring deficits and un-budgeted spending while continually denying that Canada was heading toward a recession.”

He continued. “There are two possibilities as to why the government has so radically shifted its position with respect to the economy, and neither of them, frankly, is pretty. First, it is possible that it completely misread the international economic indicators visible to most of us. Second, it is possible that it failed to see that the domestic economic policies followed in their first mandate, policies of irresponsible tax cuts and bloated government spending, have left the government completely incapable of responding quickly or well to the situation. I am talking about incompetence of the highest order.”

He recited some of Mr. Harper’s claims about Canada’s escape from both recession and deficit. “If this was done truthfully but naively, it smacks of utter and complete incompetence,” he figured. “If it is not incompetence, ineptitude or mismanagement, I fear it may be a far more serious problem for the government. If it is not incompetence, it is deception or misrepresentation. The campaign run by the Conservatives was disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.”

And then he got specific. “Voter apathy, civic cynicism and outright disgust with politicians is based on political leaders refusing to say what they mean and, even worse, failing continually to do what they say. Voters are increasingly savvy and are simply tired of politicians telling them what they think they want to hear and then turning 180 degrees and doing something completely different,” he said. “At the core of the Speech from the Throne lies bear the ethical reality that shapes the government. It is a government that will say anything, do anything, promise anything to get elected and simply cannot and will not be trusted by Canadians. The throne speech reveals at its core that the government is morally bankrupt. It has lost its moral compass.”

The denouement was a series of questions. About poverty and affordable housing, arts and education, immigration and diplomacy, soldiers and veterans. Questions, he said, his constituents wanted answered.

“Where is the imagination that is going to help the poor and those who will be displaced by today’s economic reality as it descends upon us,” he asked, “just as the government has emptied the cupboard?”

Moments after, he and everyone else learned just how imaginative this government was willing to get.

1st Comment

Jerry Jackson
Nov 30, 2008 4:36
I donated 1000 dollars to the Conservative Party of Canada this year, and 400 to my local campaign.

What has transpired in the last 72 hours has absolutely disgusted and disillusioned me. At the first Conservative Party Convention (in what seems like a lifetime ago), we were told, and told eachother that we would do it better than the other guys. Accountable government, no tricks, no slimy games, just good governance and a United Right.

We, the grassroots of the CPoC have told ourselves that the compromises in policy were simply a temporary condition necessary to achieve power.

We the grassroots of the CPoC told ourselves that the misgivings of this government in its campaign spending, were simply trumped up allegations, created by vengeful officials at elections Canada and members of the left wing media.

We the grassroots of the CPoC turned a blind eye when government grew under Harper, not shrank as promised.

We of the grassroots watched with awe as the facade finally came crashing down this thursday, and the people we placed in power, were exposed as lying, conniving, inept opportunists, just as bad as the people we removed from power 3 years ago.

I will never donate or volunteer on a campaign so long as Stephen Harper is the leader of the Conservative Party. We have given him four elections, and he has been incapable of inspiring Canadians, passing any of the policies we developed within the party, or taken one step to dismantle the corrupt and bloated institutions of our socialist system.

I will be mailing my card back to Conservative Party headquarters tomorrow.

Conservatives On The Ropes.

2008-11-29T23:21:00.003-05:00

Why The Coalition Has It Right.

2008-11-29T08:42:00.005-05:00

Spending our way out of this mess. This is what the coalition would have us do. While the government instead, would have us believe that denying political parties the $1.95 per vote in subsidies is a prudent way to "conserve" finances.

Although Ignatieff's suggestion that we should all contribute to his campaign to "save democracy" was only slightly self-serving, he was correct in so much as Harper's bid to remove the funding under the guise of fiscal responsibility was nothing more than a sinister attempt to hobble the opposition party at a time when finances are their achilles heel.

But Next Face can offer proof that the coalition will win the support of Canadians and why it is prudent to "spend our way" out of this mess. The numbers don't lie. Of the 10 wealthiest nations in the world, Canada is among the leaders when you compare Debt to income ratio. This chart below illustrating 2007 data confirms it. It also confirms that Americans are living well beyond their means, and this is BEFORE the great bailouts of 2008!

Need more proof? Lets compare the top 10 debtor nations. While this list is made up mostly of our G8 friends and colleagues, Canada does not even make it on the list!

So can we afford to act like reckless Liberals and spend our way out of this mess? Certainly.

Did the Flaherty and Harper get this wrong? Absofreakinlutely.

We are not economists, we are lowly bloggers, and even we can figure out that there is room to do a little infrastructure work here in Ontario or Quebec to generate a little job growth and stimulate us through the next year or two.

Lets Do The Math.

2008-11-29T00:15:00.007-05:00

From the CBC online article earlier today,

"...The opposition is entitled to defeat the government as it sees fit, Harper said Friday, but Dion himself does not have the right to take power without an election. "They want to put in place a government led by one party which received its lowest popular vote since Confederation," he said.
"They want to put in place a prime minister who was rejected by the voters of Canada only six weeks ago."

Ahem... Mr. Harper... lets go back and review the results of the popular vote on October 14th, 2008.

Liberals 3,633,185
NDP'ers 2,515,561
Bloc'ers 1,379,991

The Coalition : 7,528,737
Conservatives : 5,208,796

The Canadian people have spoken.
Bring on the coalition.

Intense Drama In Canadian Politics Today.

2008-11-29T00:01:00.008-05:00

He's back...

...and he's running scared.

Harper moves to avoid political showdown.

Coalition Governments In Canadian History.

2008-11-28T17:15:00.001-05:00

From The Canadian Encyclopedia:

A coalition government includes members of different political parties and normally appears during crises such as war or political breakdown. The fluidity of party lines, the predominance of patronage, and the novelty of responsible government led to several experimental coalition arrangements in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Canada in the 1840s and 1850s. The best known were in 1854 and 1864 (the GREAT COALITION) in the Province of Canada. The former, which united moderate Reformers and Conservatives, was the base for the post-Confederation CONSERVATIVE PARTY. The latter joined CLEAR GRIT Liberals, Conservatives and PARTI BLEU to bring about CONFEDERATION, although it had been dissolved by the 1872 election.
The strengthening of party affiliation and the development of the apparatus of a party system since Confederation have made coalitions more difficult to negotiate. At the national level, the only coalition has been Sir Robert BORDEN'S 1917 UNION GOVERNMENT. Faced with strong opposition to conscription and with other major difficulties during WWI, Borden sought to broaden his wartime political base by bringing several conscriptionist Liberals and other public figures into his government. In the December 1917 general election, this government won a decisive victory over Sir Wilfrid Laurier's Liberals. The Union coalition did not long survive its triumph: the end of the war brought many Liberals back to their old affiliation, while other Unionists supported the new PROGRESSIVE PARTY.

With Borden's resignation in 1920, even the pretense of coalition disappeared. The Union government illustrated the dangers of coalition: after 1917, French Canadians associated coalitions with conscription. Indeed, during WWII, proposals for coalitions or a "National Government" came from those who also called for a stronger war effort and conscription. Since WWII there have been few proposals for federal coalition governments.

At the provincial level coalitions have occurred in western Canada. Manitoba Liberals and Progressives combined in 1931, and in 1940 all the province's parties joined a nonpartisan administration formed to meet wartime demands. In BC a wartime coalition between the Liberals and Conservatives held off the challenge of the CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH FEDERATION. The coalition probably benefited the CCF; it certainly damaged the Liberals and Conservatives, soon supplanted by SOCIAL CREDIT. No coalition has been as successful as the "Great Coalition." Politicians have become so wary of the long-term results of coalitions that they are now most reluctant to introduce them.

What's This?

2008-11-28T10:26:00.003-05:00

Chretien and Broadbent working together behind the scenes to broker a coalition? Harper's plant to cut public subsidies for political parties - a plan to kick the Liberals where it counts while they were down - seems to awoken the giants!

Of course, we would have preferred that the coalition be created AFTER the Next Face of the Party was firmly in place, but we will take Canadian political drama in any form and on any day.

We suspect Mr. Flaherty, is feeling a little stress right about now.

CBC News story here.

New New Deal.

2008-11-24T14:56:00.004-05:00

Upcoming issue of Time apparently features Barak Obama as FDR.

TED. A Must Watch.

2008-11-23T08:56:00.009-05:00

World statistical data on TED like you have never seen it presented before by Dr. Hans Rosling. Take 20 minutes to watch this video. Very impressive data presented in an innovative and thought provoking way. (Watch for the drama around the 4:00 mark)

The site and data studies that Dr. Rosling refers to can be found at : http://gapminder.org/ The X and Y criteria can be changed making for hours of interesting and dynamic graphing.

Click the 'play' button on this one for example to chart the relationship between 'Life Expectancy' and 'Income Per Person' and watch Canada's growth over the past 100 years. A word of warning. This site can become quite addictive.

Two Solitudes.

2008-11-22T08:22:00.005-05:00

Today in the Toronto Star a microcosm of the two issues - the two solitudes - that face the Liberal party over the next few months.

Deborah Coyne writes about opportunity, in Wanted: A Party WIth A Vision Coyne is right in suggesting that there is a Federal vision vacuum, and that the 2008 federal election "...failed miserably to excite Canadians..."

If ever there was an opportunity to captivate and inspire Canadians, it would be now and it could be achieved with a stronger more motivated and visible (where are you Mr. Harper, and can you buy a vision?) national government.

Next, Linda Diebel, writes of the all but concluded Liberal leadership race (Igantieff on the 1st ballot?) and the empty Liberal coffers in Buckets of Blood and Empty Coffers; a headline too severe for our tastes, yes? Here Rae is portrayed as the clear underdog, needing to "...change the channel (on the leadership race)..." to have any chance at catching MI.

Need we remind all that MI led in the first three ballots in December of 2006? Clearly the front runner, there was no appetite then to put him over the top.

What has changed?
Was Harper's second minority enough to bring the delegates together and put MI over the top?
Is Rae's correct when he suggests that this thing is far from over?

Image is a sketch by Barbara Swan - Two Solitudes.
1966

"...The bricks on the wall..."

2008-11-21T01:15:00.004-05:00

We don't want to sound too nostalgic, but watching this made us feel both sentimental and sad as it evokes memories of an era that we have strayed far from.
We wish Mr. Trudeau well and we are quite certain that his time will come.

And Then There Were Three.

2008-11-13T09:17:00.005-05:00

Three left. But with these three, two choices become apparent. A choice between a new, youthful direction or a choice for older, experienced leadership. We remain steadfast in our belief, however, that neither senior candidate, Rae or Ignatieff, can win this thing without one throwing their support behind the other at some point between now and the last ballot. Who will blink first in that scenrio remains to be seen. Will either blink at all? Will Kennedy, Trudeau and Findlay and the like throw their support behind the younger LeBlanc? Will that support make a difference?

The party and the process is stronger this morning through attrition; maybe forced into this narrower field for financial reasons, or maybe the hype is true and one or two of these last three standing has amassed a much broader spectrum of support.

Either way the party's future is more in focus and with fewer to choose from, the direction becomes more defined.

Kennedy Out.

2008-11-12T23:48:00.008-05:00

We have taken the liberty of posting Mr. Kennedy's press statement below.
However, should you not have the time or patience to read it all and if you would rather read a synopsis, Next Face is pleased to summarize the text with the following two sentences:

"...I did not have the money nor the support to run an effective campaign against Michael Ignatieff or Bob Rae and my debt from the previous leadership run became rather prohibitive. Further, I felt that I could not allow myself to be put in a position to - once again - play kingmaker as I would have likely picked the wrong man for the job again and spiraled the party further into disarray..."

We implore Mr. Kennedy to do the right thing and move his support behind either Mr. Rae or Mr. Ignatieff. Show some solidarity, back a strong candidate and do what is right for the party.

Statement by Gerard Kennedy, MP Parkdale High Park on Liberal leadership
Source: Canada NewsWire
Nov 12, 2008 13:58
News release via Canada NewsWire, Toronto 416-863-9350
Attention News Editors
TORONTO, Nov. 12 /CNW/ - "Over the past few weeks I have received encouragement and support from hundreds of grassroots Liberals from across the country to run again for leader of the Liberal Party.

I have come out of these discussions, and the election itself, very energized to help take on the challenges that Liberals face.

The choice for me, however, is whether to embark on yet another significant campaign, or to work on behalf of Canadians more directly.

In the past two and a half years, I have contested an eight month national leadership campaign, subsequently travelled extensively to many other ridings and won a previously unheld riding following what proved to be a very lengthy run-up period.

On a personal level, my young family has already felt the impact of successive challenging campaigns. And, on a practical level, this contest has arisen quite suddenly after the election. Before and during the election, I had put all of my energies into supporting the party and Leader, not maintaining a leadership team.

While I greatly appreciate all of the confidence expressed in me and believe I could have mounted a stronger campaign than last time, I will not be a candidate in this leadership race.

Instead, I will focus on acting for Canadians and the people of Parkdale-High Park at a time of particular need, and on working hard in my riding and elsewhere in the country to ensure the Liberal party is renewed the way it must be for these times.

Canadians need the Liberal Party to be a strong Opposition, inside and outside of Parliament. I believe I can draw on my years fighting rightwing Conservative governments in Ontario to help compel the Harper Conservatives to confront the economic problems the country faces.

I am convinced that I can also help ensure the Liberal party will not be vulnerable to a snap election, by joining with Liberals to rebuild beyond the leadership race. I believe strongly that the parliamentary and membership wings of the party must do their part to ensure we have an open, effective and accountable modern political party ready to fully regain Canadians' trust. A change in a leader alone is not sufficient.

There is a growing recognition of the need for real change following the election. Each of the likely current leadership candidates have already spoken at some length of "renewal" of the party, the main focus of my 2006 leadership campaign.

I look forward to enthusiastically playing my part in moving the Liberal Party and Canada forward."

Ignatieff "...picking up caucus support from Gerard Kennedy."

2008-11-10T21:18:00.005-05:00

If Next Face fan Jane Taber has it right, then we might have some bleeding from the Kennedy camp over to the Ignatieff side. See her Sunday Globe and Mail story here.

"...Mr. Ignatieff is already picking up caucus support from Gerard Kennedy, the insider says. Mr. Kennedy ran for the leadership in 2006 but has not announced plans to run this time."

mississaugapeter, can you confirm or deny?
Is there panic in GK's camp?

Is Kennedy in fact going to run, or is he looking to team up with and support (or be supported by) the young Trudeau as Lawrence Martin would have us believe in his story today?

Here's an idea. What if Kennedy and Trudeau warm up to either Rae of Ignatieff and form an alliance - an inner core as it were - intended to build a long term leadership base that would see either senior candidate lead and mentor the two younger, future leaders? What a concept? Where have we seen this before?

You Have Debt? Then Maybe You Can't Run!

2008-11-07T23:28:00.006-05:00

This could get nasty.

There must be a more diplomatic way of reaching out to some of the fringe (and not so fringe) candidates than legislating them out of contention for having debt from the last campaign. Good to see the Liberals are moving away from the old era of infighting. Way to go boys. Lets find something more contentious to launch the weekend talks with and turn this into a real love-in.

We are all about building a stronger party, fewer candidates, a shorter campaign, but we did not see this coming. There has to be a better way.

"...JOAN BRYDEN
The Canadian Press
November 7, 2008 at 9:22 PM EST
OTTAWA — The Quebec wing of the federal Liberal party is proposing leadership rules that would prohibit prominent MPs from joining the race to succeed Stéphane Dion.

Quebec officials are recommending that anyone with outstanding debt from the 2006 leadership race be disqualified — a rule that would hit Gerard Kennedy and Martha Hall Findlay, who each owe just under $200,000 from their unsuccessful bids.

“No candidate is allowed to run in this leadership race if the said candidate shows any outstanding debt from the 2006 leadership race,” says the Quebec wing in a submission to the Liberal party national executive.

The submission, obtained Friday by The Canadian Press, will be considered by the national executive as it meets this weekend to set the place, time and rules for the leadership convention."

Dan Rather On Corporations And Journalism.

2008-11-07T22:23:00.003-05:00

An Orwellian warning by Dan Rather, courtesy of Link TV.

Gina.

2008-11-07T11:28:00.005-05:00

A three minute video of a new BMW fabric prototype named Gina that has nothing to do with the Liberal leadership race.

It's our blog.
We can do what we want.

Leadership Race Lite?

2008-11-06T23:40:00.004-05:00

Will the cash strapped Liberal party be forced into a low-budget leadership process?

While we agree that the 2006 version was long and drawn out with too many candidates and too many debates, we do believe in a fair and balance and transparent process. We don't believe in compromising the integrity of this debate. We are looking for the best among us. We need to get it right this time.

A less expensive venue? Yes. A shorter process? Certainly.
Limit the number of candidates to serious contenders only? Frankly, if the Findlay's and Volpe's of the world think that they are improving this process and strengthening the party by running this time, then perhaps they didn't get the memo.

According to this Gazette article, "...At least half a dozen MPs made clear they want a focused campaign with a small roster. "I think the fewer the better," said Toronto MP Judy Sgro. "Frankly, I'd like to see the main contenders go in a room, flip a coin and come out and say this is who our leader is."
Toronto MP John McCallum said a short campaign with few candidates would keep costs down.
"From a financial point of view for the Liberal party, and one thing we're lacking is money, the more candidates there are, the more they raise money that might otherwise go to the Liberal party," he said.
Nova Scotia MP Scott Brison said "the more colleagues that are running for the leadership, the less effective we will be on the floor of the House of Commons."

The much anticipated rules of the race and fees for the candidates are to be announced this Saturday. Stay tuned.

Palin Unaware Of Who Is In NAFTA.

2008-11-05T22:15:00.007-05:00

This will make you cringe on two levels.

First, it looks like Palin's lacked even basic social, geographical and political knowledge. Believe it or not, it was WORSE that we thought. According to this Fox report, she didn't know who is in NAFTA and did not know that Africa is a continent.

Second, the fact that Fox admits that they knew this and kept it from the public as "off the record" information and chooses the day after the election to report it as a news story exposes their hypocrisy and confirms their bias.

The Palin smear continues here in today's Newsweek online with an excerpt below :

"...NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

A Palin aide said: "Governor Palin was not directing staffers to put anything on their personal credit cards, and anything that staffers put on their credit cards has been reimbursed, like an expense. Nasty and false accusations following a defeat say more about the person who made them than they do about Governor Palin."

McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign, and aides kept him in the dark about the details of her spending on clothes because they were sure he would be offended. Palin asked to speak along with McCain at his Arizona concession speech Tuesday night, but campaign strategist Steve Schmidt vetoed the request."

Welcome Back America. We Missed you.

2008-11-05T07:26:00.007-05:00

We are inspired, full of hope, and genuinely moved.

For eight years we have been driving our children down to Florida for the summer and for eight years our children have only known Bush's America. They watched our government vote down participation in Bush's war. They saw Bush invade a country under false pretense. They watched as America split itself down the middle into two divisive entities. Through this past decade, I tried to make my children understand that the America I knew growing up had presidents like Kennedy, Carter and Clinton. That that there was a kindler gentler version of their politic that once resonated throughout the world as a positive force for peace; that they can actually inspire with the power of their progress and the strength of their freedom.

Last night, America hit the reset button in a big way. The world is a better place for it and my children will now bear witness to just how positive a force and how great an influence this great nation can be.

Anyone who ever said that they couldn't "because...", can never say that again.
Anyone who ever dared to dream to big, can now dare to dream even bigger.

Welcome back America.
We missed you.

An Obama Landslide.

2008-11-03T19:38:00.006-05:00

An Obama landslide, would be a clear message for change. It would be what the American's need to turn their abysmal foreign image around. It may even keep Michael Moore out of the documentary business for a while. And heck, if he re-opens NAFTA, we may even be able to renegotiate the ridiculous 60% oil trade deal with the US which still baffles us to this day.

But most importantly, just think what an Obama presidency would do to Stephen Harper. It would instantly alter his image to "yesterday's man"; an outdated throw back to the days of conservativism. A man out of step with the trend. A man who pales in comparison to Obama's passion and genuine style.

As an astute colleague said this weekend at a party we hosted, an Obama victory will make Harper look like Diefenbaker did against JFK. Out of step. Out of touch. Put a fork in him.

We all have people we know south of the border. Brothers, sisters, uncles aunts, friends. People we haven't talked to in a while. Lets give them a call. Lets help get the vote out.

Next Face Odds.

2008-11-03T15:20:00.009-05:00

Current Odds as we see them :

Michael Ignatieff 4:1
Bob Rae 5:1
Dominic LeBlanc 7:1
(Manley, the long shot at 8:1 was edited out Nov. 5, 2008)

And before you get all hostile with your comments, we suggest you look back to 2006 and realize that we called Dion with our last "odds" post in October of that year...our crack research staff has their finger on the pulse baby!

Neither Rae nor Ignatieff.

2008-11-02T18:11:00.007-05:00

Neither Bob Rae nor Michael Ignatieff will win this leadership race without one throwing their support behind the other at some point between now and the final ballot.

We all saw this story play out in December of 2006. The two candidates ended up dividing the delegates and forced the "anyone but" movements that played out on the convention floor. When Ray was forced off after the 3rd ballot, and released his delegates instead of walking over to MI, he left it wide open for Dion to be crowned.

MI received 1412 delegate votes after the 1st ballot. over the next 3 ballots, he only managed to increase his tally by 662 of the possible 3403 delegates that split their vote between Hall Findlay, Volpe, Brison, Dryden, Kennedy, Dion and Rae. ONLY 662 of a possible 3403. Similarly, Rae only managed to increase his count by only 398 from ballot 1 to ballot 3. What makes anyone think it will be any different this time? Assuming that MI goes into the convention with a lead after the 1st ballot, there would likely be those who would want to support Rae on a 2nd ballot to thwart MI and we would be right back where we started.

What we need here is a clear front runner. A front runner who can engage a broader spectrum of delegates so as to ward off a polarized delegation. We need a candidate other than Rae and Ignatieff, who would otherwise be a first choice if the two were not in this race to begin with.

Rae and Ignatieff offer a tremendous amount to this debate. They would both elevate the Liberal party and offer a tangible opportunity to beat Harper in four years. That they elevate the party for different reasons is good for the debate. That they do so in relatively equal measure is divisive.

Northern Obama.

2008-11-02T06:47:00.013-05:00

From Douglas Bell yesterday. The comments below his post are of particular interest as they seem to disagree with :
1. The Ignatieff comparison to Obama, and
2. His ability to be re-breanded into an "I-feel-your-pain" style candidate.
IMHO, Don Guy best re-watch the now famous Harper "Sweater Ads" and be reminded that a Merino wool vest and a smarmy smile does not a connection to the "average Canadian" make. These ads failed. The make-over failed. The attempt to re-brand here was transparent and frankly, painful to watch. Here, Harper's image was imbued with the sincerity of an undertaker and Canadians saw right through it.

So it does beg the question: Can you re-brand and wash away a lack of sincerity? Can someone step in and help weave together a candidates connection to the average man? Or is it in fact the real and genuine essence of Obama that our friends to the south have connected with and is it that essence that distinguishes his candidacy from the branded "Maverick" that John McCain tried to become?

Finally, is that what the Liberals are looking for in a new leader? Are they looking for someone who needs to be re-branded from the start? Someone who needs to part his hair on the other side, guard his tone when speaking to single moms, and offer a half smile when asked about foreign affairs as if to suggest a quiet confidence?

If we are going to strive for a Northern Obama, then is it not best that we seek the genuine article among us?

Hallowe'en night. Rae is In.

2008-10-31T22:53:00.011-04:00

We are pleased to announce that Bob Rae has officially thrown his hat into the ring. Fitting because of the three interviews we conducted during the run up to the last race, we enjoyed our time with Mr. Rae the most. We will be re-posting the transcripts to that interview over the coming days.

In the meantime this was another memorable Bob Rae moment. One for the ages and a golden moment in Canadian political history.

How can you not like a candidate who lists Fargo and The Big Lebowski as among his favorite movies on his Facebook page?

We're Back!

2008-10-31T14:42:00.006-04:00

"The rumors of (our) death have been greatly exaggerated".

We are back!
Can you believe it?

What happened? We left you the task of re-inventing the party. We challenged you with our Manifesto. We interviewed the candidates. We brought our own unique brand of journalism to the process, and where did it get us?

We are profoundly disappointed with you. You Liberal types. You delegates who were unable to elect a leader in the first three ballots. You pundits who were unable to discern a real opportunity for Liberal victory from a long shot.

But fear not. We promise to guide you though this process again. To set you straight on the path towards a true visionary, a true leader, and a more likely Next Face of the Liberal party of Canada.

Our crack research and editorial staff will be bringing you more Next Face interviews, inside stories, and varied contributions throughout this leadership run. Come along with us for the ride. It will be at least as much fun as the last one.

BTW, the photograph above was selected for metaphorical reasons. The ship in the background, moving away from the viewer in Coal Harbour, Vancouver is Dion's leadership tenure; fading off into history. The ship is framed by several and varied buildings: some classic, some modern, some glazed and some clad in limestone.

The buildings are your candidates.
Choose one.
Choose wisely.
That is all.

The Next Face of The Liberal Party of Canada.

2006-12-02T18:06:00.000-05:00

Ray Falls Off The Ballot.

2006-12-02T15:01:00.000-05:00

Bob Ray has released his delegates and is NOT walking over to Ignatieff. Over the course of the day, Ray has drawn 6 of the 8 candidates to his side but it was not enough to stop the Kennedy/Dion partnership.

Smitherman goes to Ignatieff.
Brison and Sgro go to Ignatieff.
Bevilacqua goes to Dion.
Dryden goes to Dion.

Third Ballot Results.

2006-12-02T14:45:00.000-05:00

Dion 1782 (37%)
Ignatieff 1660 (34.5%)
Rae 1375 (28.5%)

Gerrard Kennedy to Dion.

2006-12-02T12:15:00.000-05:00

This will make things very interesting.

The anyone but Rae campaign begins. Can he deliver his delegates?

Will Ignatieff - sensing no further growth - join Rae and become the king maker?

Our hat goes off to Kennedy for his position on the 'Nation' motion.

Ken Dryden to Rae.

2006-12-02T12:03:00.000-05:00

Ken Dryden (and Lloyd Axworthy) move to Rae.

And with this ends a remarkable run by Mr. Dryden.

Another time maybe.

Next Face has always felt that this great Canadian would have made a fine leader and an excellent Prime Minister.

Second Ballot Results.

2006-12-02T11:55:00.000-05:00

Ignatieff 1481 (31.6%)
Rae 1132 (24.1%)
Dion 974 (20.8%)
Kennedy 884 (18.8%)
Dryden 219 (4.7%)

Rae and Ignatieff.

2006-12-02T11:39:00.000-05:00

Nice touch. Felix and Oscar are re-united on the floor as we await the results of the second ballot. Rae has done the best job reaching out on the floor throughout the convention.

According to MI, they exchanged these words :

"Friendship matters more than politics...we will work together to win the next election"

Classic Chretien.

2006-12-02T11:26:00.000-05:00

From : Chretien's bluntly assess Martin reign
By ALEXANDER PANETTA

"...Chretien, who won three straight majorities in 1993, 1997, and 2000, says he misses the people in the party but has been happy to move on after more than 40 years in politics.

On Martin :
"(when) asked if he had anything to say about Paul Martin's performance as prime minister. "He didn't win," Chretien told a crowd of reporters. "I would have preferred it if he had." "

On 'Nation' :
Chretien treaded carefully when asked about the Conservative government's motion recognizing the Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada. Chretien noted that Tories themselves don't seem to agree what the motion means.

They were a bit confused," Chretien said.
"Maybe one day Mr. Harper will tell us what it means and I'll comment then. . . I'm for clarity. You know me, I love clarity." "

On The Convention :
Chretien was asked who he was pulling for.
"A good leader," he replied.
He was asked: What characterizes a good leader?
"One who wins elections."

First Ballot Results.

2006-12-02T09:43:00.001-05:00

Ignatieff 1412 (29.3%)
Rae 977 (20.3%)
Dion 856 (17.8%)
Kennedy 854 (17.7%)
Dryden 238 (4.9%)
Brison 192 (4.0%)
Volpe 156 (3.2%)
Marth Hall Findlay 130 (2.7%)

Scott Brison to Rae.

2006-12-02T09:43:00.000-05:00

Martha Hall Findlay to Dion.

2006-12-02T09:42:00.000-05:00

2006-12-01T20:42:00.000-05:00

8:43pm
Michael Ignatieff.
It is his to loose. I don't think anyone hit the grand slam and the door is open for MI to nail this.
His intro video is the best yet. His brother speaks to this arrogance myth. They even address the anyone-but-Ignatieff-campaign. Even Ruby makes an appearance on the video!

Who chooses this man's ties. Consistently bad choices. He looks composed and relaxed and speaks slowly. Tonight is the night the Liberal party begins again. He thanks the campaign workers. Building a better Liberal party.

His intonation - at times - sounds remarkably like Mike Myers doing Dr. Evil.

We must be the party of hope. He is a dramatic contrast to Rae. A lot more French. Much composed and paced. Speaks to the environment and climate change and future generations.

Lets win some seats in Alberta!

An equality of people rooted in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Really MI? Really? Except - you mean - for the Quebec nation, who apparently deserve their own special status among other Canadians. I thought this was double speak. It was hypocritical. You cannot tout the Trudeau vision of Canada and undermine it in the same breath.

CTV's Lloyd Robertson just cut off their broadcast in the middle of MI's speech and went to regular programing - unbefreakingleavable. Back to cpac - at least they are still running it.

If we become the party of hope, no one will defeat us. Give me the chance to inspire and to make you proud I will give you victory. MI joins Dion as a candidate unable to manage his time and is cut off by the fascists running the music and the microphones.

MI delivers the best speech of the night. Is it enough to overcome the "anyone but campaign?"
Time will tell.

2006-12-01T20:12:00.000-05:00

8:12pm.
Bob Rae.
Rae goes with a mike and without a net. On the cuff. No teleprompter. From the heart. Talking directly. Starts with 2 Rabbi jokes. Wow. This is dramatic. Very gutsy for Rae. This delivery could make or break him tonight. Gutsy move.

Very proud to work on Federalism for Mr. Chretien. Very pleased when McGuinty asked him to help on education. Very proud to have worked on the Red Cross and mistakes made. Had great opportunities. Faced victories and moments of great loss and came out as a stronger and better person. Happy to take on the Air India challenge from Mr. Martin.

This is about the country. About our love for Canada.
So far this speech is great on name dropping but weak on policy and passion.
We get the message. We know that the Liberal party is not as important as much as Canada is important. But the party needs to be united and together and strong or we will not succeed.

Vision into politics. Raes vision. Canada's vision is "of the world"? Resolution of conflict is just as important as anything. He struggles here - could have used a teleprompter.

He honours Chretien for the decision to NOT follow Bush in to Iraq to a rousing ovation.

He sees a Canada where every child is hungry for knowledge and not for food. A Canada of fiscal responsibility. I have learned that lesson. A Canada that is polluting less now not in 20 years. Not just green in general but green in particular. Recognize a Quebec that is strong that is open to the world, open to the future, and not due to the Bloq, but due to the people of Quebec.

OUCH - a Stephen Harper vegetable joke. YIKKES! that was so politically incorrect. We love it!

The Rabbi joke again. Gives props to Mr. Turner as a great leader of the opposition.
Canada first, Canada last, Canada always.
Thank you and goodnight.

OMG - this was the most original leadership speech ever. Not sure it worked. But it was gutsy, gutsy, gutsy. Bob Rae unplugged.

Volpe to Rae.

2006-12-01T20:04:00.000-05:00

8:04pm.
Next Face Scoop!

2006-12-01T19:38:00.000-05:00

7:38pm
Gerrard Kennedy.
Justin Trudeau introduces GK. Nice touch. He looks strong. Give this man 3 years in the House and he could own this country. Big ovation for GK. (Geez, no offence GK, but My father used to give haircuts like that in 1959 for $2.75 at the King Edward Hotel in downtown Toronto.

One Canada. United. A Conservative government is pitting Canadians against Canadians for their own gain. Stephen Harper is salivating at the chance of a Conservative government. We will not let that happen.

I learned how to deal with Mike Harris and we threw out the Tories in Ontario in 2003. I know how to beat Stephen Harper.

Kennedy wades into foreign policy but frankly without much credibility although I will say that GK can deliver a speech. He is clear and effective and has good passion. But only in english.

Just like the Dion's performance before him, I am starting to think that the best thing about this speech is the intro...

The concerns of Quebec are the concerns of Canadians. A new Liberal agenda will win back the support in Canada. "...I will be proud to be the first Liberal leader born and raised in Western Canada..." See I have trouble with this...but I digress.

Integrity, hard work. We will win back the faith off Canadians by earning it. Canadians fair and generous but they are keeping an eye on us.

Listen to the "quiet noises." Lets profoundly unify this Country.
Merci beaucoup.

GK delivers the best speech so far. He will not win tonight, but he will always have our respect for his position earlier this week in the 'nation' debate.

2006-12-01T18:37:00.000-05:00

6:35pm
Ken Dryden.
Ken opens to a huge ovation and tries to make up to Montreal for the "Nation" vote by starting in French and reminding them that they said 'no' to the influences of America and the English language. Ken speaks to several coast to coast experiences along the way from Signal Hill to Inverness to Kelowna. The theme is "unbelievable". Quebec fought the fight against influences for "...all of us." Us together.
Ken speaks French for about 20% of the speech and does a great job with it. We are a good country. We are about inclusion, about a real chance. Is Mr. Harper worthy of this Canada? Not even close, Ken says. An echo of the US is how the Conservatives see Canada. Pinched, ungenerous and divisive. This is a country, not an ideology. 10 Provinces, 10 Childcare agreements.

Another place another time and Ken Dryden would have made for a terrific Prime Minister. Too bad really.

7:10pm
Stephane Dion.
Dion is introduced with the Foo Fighters, Times Like These. "It's times like these you learn to love again, its times like these you live and live again..." Awesome song selection. Looks like Dion is trying really hard for a Next Face endorsement! Glen Pearson introduces Dion and speaks strong to the environment and the 2nd place finish of the Green Party in London, Ontario. Excellent introduction. By far the best yet.

11 years ago, Jean Chretien invited me to deliver and I delivered to my prime minister. 2 years ago Paul Martin invited me to deliver and again, I delivered to my prime minister and to my country. The direction Stephen Harper is taking Canada in is wrong. It is not helping the Canadian people.

"...There is more culture in a bowl of yogurt than in this Conservative government." This my friends, is the line of the night so far.

Repeats his Three Pillar Approach strategy. Canada with 33 million people consumes as much energy as the continent of Africa with 800 million people. We need to be part of the solution. The world needs Canada. Canada will not fail the world.

The door to door rebate thing was weak. Really. is that vision? Is that not beneath him for this venue? Is this what we are looking for in a leader of a nation? Door to door rebates for energy efficient appliances? You lost me there Stephane and your speech writer should be demoted for that one.

Stephane did not do well with his timing as the music came up to signal his time is up and it made for a rather awkward finish. Ignatieff approached him as he left the stage and offered his hand.

Delegate Speech Summary.

2006-12-01T18:14:00.000-05:00

Friday, December 1, 2006.

5:10pm
Martha Hall Findlay.
"Leadership is meant to inspire not to control"
She declared that she would stay on for the 1st ballot...

Brison.
Pretty disjointed actually. Not a lot of passion..
Attacked Harper. Heavy on the Environment.
As he left the stage. he was greeted by Rae who likely made a pitch for 2nd and 3rd ballot support.

6:10pm
Volpe.
Arrived to Tom Cochrane's "Life Is a Highway" Apparently Joe wants to ride it all night long.
He gave the best speech of the three so far stressing his immigrant roots and finding a place for visible minorities in Canada as equals. Joe has been spreading the word at the convention that HE will be the king maker this weekend. Not likely but it is just like Joe to go down fighting.

As Joe left the stage - camera pans to Bob Rae working the crowd again - this time glad handing with Dalton (i must be lost) McGuinty.

Sixteen.

2006-11-27T23:57:00.000-05:00

Navdeep Bains
Don Bell
Raymond Chan
Joe Comuzzi
Ken Dryden
Hedy Fry
Jim Karygiannis
Diane Marleau
Bill Matthews
Maria Minna
Dan McTeague
Scott Simms
Paul Steckle
Andrew Telegdi
Garth Turner
Joe Volpe

The Titanic is Turning.

2006-11-27T16:26:00.000-05:00

In the past 5 minutes Harper has lost an Intergovernmental Affairs Minister and Ken Dryden is helping to nail the rudder back on to the S.S. Liberal with this statement. Thanks to Mark Watton at nottawa for the text.

Special thanks go out to Gerrard Kennedy for inspiring his party.
Hang on to your hats boys and girls this is going to be one crazy week.

AP Takes On Chantal.

2006-11-27T15:34:00.000-05:00

This deserved its own post. Our friend and regular contributor to Next Face, AP posted this comment today and responded to Chantal Hebert's November 27th column in the Toronto Star. (CH's text is italicized, AP's in bold)

A response to Chantal Hebert (I apologize for the length):

Today may go down as the worst day in the life of Gilles Duceppe as leader of the Bloc Québécois.

The expected adoption by the House of Commons of a Conservative motion recognizing that Quebecers make up a nation within a united Canada is likely to blunt one of the most potent weapons left in the sovereignist psychological arsenal.

You can’t have it both ways, Ms. Hebert. You can't argue that on the one hand, what separatists have always wanted was a recognition of the Quebecois nation and then on the other hand, when they get that recognition, argue that it puts an end to their grand plan for an independent country. That is simply illogical.

Is Mr. Duceppe wrong when he argues that this motion is historic because Canada has finally recognized the Quebec nation and he looks forward to other countries following suit?

As for the distinction between the Quebecois and Quebec, I would like to point out that Messrs. Charest, Duceppe and Boisclair have never made the distinction between Quebec and les Quebecois. In fact, On November 12, 2006 Premier Charest told reporters that "For us, Quebec is a nation”. One will note that the premier was not making a distinction between les Quebecois and all Quebecers. For him it is one and the same.

Moreover, the latest incarnation of the separatist movement in Quebec, especially after the embarrassing remarks of Jacques Parizeau following the referendum defeat, has valiantly tried to persuade whomever would listen that the separatist project includes every person in Quebec -- not just francophones.

With respect to Ms. Hebert, the Quebecois/Quebec defence of the motion is a distinction without a difference.

There is not one federalist leader on Parliament Hill and in the National Assembly who will not find it easier to make the case for Canada in Quebec on the strength of this motion.

Interesting choice of words, “the case for Canada”. I have yet to hear a federalist premier of Quebec make the “case for Canada”. Was Robert Bourassa’s goal of creating a Canada modeled on the European Union supposed to pass for, “the case for Canada”?

I dare say that premier Charest used to make the case for Canada when he was the leader of the Progressive Conservative party. At least there was some poetry in the words he used. Of course now that he is premier of Quebec he is uncomfortable taking about Canada in non-economic terms and he can’t finish a speech without reminding his listeners of all that he was able to extract from “le federal”.

It would nice to hear a prime minister of Canada say, “for us Canada is a nation, period.” Of course no leader will do that because they are frightened. Frightened of offending the federalists in Quebec, who we are told are having a hard time of it there. Apparently they are greeted at the door at election time much the way Jehovah Witnesses are greeted at the door at Christmas time.

Moreover, this presupposes that every federalist in Quebec supports this motion. I suspect that what Ms. Hebert wished to write was that every federalist leader on Parliament Hill will find it easier to make the case for Canada in French Quebec.
Well that may be the case “in Quebec” but there will be a political price to pay for this outside Quebec.

Its adoption also makes the possibility of another referendum more remote, even if the Parti Québécois comes to power after the upcoming provincial election.

If I had a dollar for every time we have been told that finally we have put the final nail in the separatist coffin I would be a millionaire.

And it is the result of a gross miscalculation on Duceppe's part.

Only a Pollyanna would say that Mr. Duceppe miscalculated. Prior to his motion the Liberal party was the only federalist party in disarray over this issue; now after one week the usual tensions in the country have surfaced among federalists.

Simply put the war is on again between the Pierre Trudeau “one Canada” crowd and the Joe Clark “community of communities”/Brian Mulroney “distinct society” crowd. Gilles Duceppe will sit back, watch and then pounce.

All it will take is another motion on Duceppe's part to ask the House that this new status of Quebec be constitutionalised. He will then chortle with delight when Canadians, quite rightly, balk. Another humiliation in the making!

When the Bloc decided to bring the issue of Quebec's national character to the floor of the Commons last week, it fully expected to wreak havoc in federalist ranks.
In his worst nightmares, Duceppe never imagined that the Prime Minister would pick up the gauntlet or that the other parties would rally behind him..

I’m also sure that in his wildest dreams Duceppe would never have expected that a prime minister of Canada would concede that Quebec is a nation. That has always been a gigantic stumbling block. Remember how he berated Paul Martin in the leaders’ debate for not agreeing that Quebec is a nation – Quebec, not Quebecois – and how Quebec was not better and not worse than Canada, just different. Well now Duceppe has all that.

What Boisclair did not say is that the adoption of the motion will make it harder for his party to stage another referendum — or at least one that it can be confident of winning.

Quite simply, this is wishful thinking on Ms. Hebert’s part.

In the debate over Quebec's future, symbolism has always trumped division-of-power issues. Until this motion, the sovereignists had entered that field with the advantage.
Without the failure to enshrine Quebec's distinct status in the Constitution in 1990, there would not have been a second referendum or a close vote on sovereignty in 1995.

Now Ms. Hebert is engaging in historical revisionism. The Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords were more than just symbolism. There were real changes proposed to the Canadian constitution. Those opposed argued that those changes would further decentralize one of the world most decentralized countries. Those arguing in favour of the accords, in effect, said that the amendments were no big deal and the distinct society provision was just symbolic. Sound familiar?

The sense that Canada is so wary of Quebec's aspirations that it cannot recognize its fundamental nature continues to fuel the sovereignty movement, despite its two consecutive referendum failures.

Quebec’s aspirations – whether separatist or soft nationalist – have never been simply to be recognized for its specificity by a government of Canada. It has always been about a devolution of powers, more money from Ottawa and the ability to do what it wants, when it wants, wherever it wants.

Today's motion — symbolic as it may be — amounts to cutting off that fuel line.
It also places Canada on the leading edge of the international debate on federalist arrangements.

Does she really think Prime Minister Tony Blair is looking at this issue with glee? Do you think that Vladimir Putin will look to this resolution as a way to deal with the various nationalist groups in Russia who seek independence? Again this is wishful thinking on Ms. Hebert’s part.

Today, the Bloc will vote for a federalist motion that stands to deflate its cause, an extraordinary twist in an unexpected saga.

If she thinks the Bloc is just going to pack up and go home she is naïve. The Bloc will use this motion to their advantage; much like a jujitsu master uses the apparent strength of an opponent to his advantage.

In the past, the party has voted against parliamentary motions dealing with the recognition of Quebec's national character.

After the referendum, sovereignist MPs opposed a Liberal resolution that called on the federal government to take Quebec's distinct character into account in its decisions.

But this is different. The distinct society concept was a federalist idea borne out of the desire for a constitutional reconciliation.

From the start, sovereignists dismissed it as an anemic reflection of Quebec's reality.

Hmmm. I also recall that Lucien Bouchard was outraged at the Calgary’s declaration that called Quebec “unique” even though that was the same word used in Quebec's Declaration of Independence leading up to the 1995 Referendum (remember those two lovely documents). The point is that no self-respecting separatist is going to just give up dreams of an independent Quebec because of this motion.

In short Ms. Hebert is doing spin for a prime minister who wants Canadians outside of Canada to think that not much has changed because of this motion but wants Quebec federalists to think that everything has changed. So which one is it?

Sorry, Ms. Hebert, on this issue, you are wrong.

Posted by AP | November 27, 2006 2:02 PM

Chantal We Salute You.

2006-11-27T12:15:00.000-05:00

This is one awesome journalist. Her insights are tremendous and the unique angle from which she approaches a debate like this is often unexpected.

I did not see this one coming. Apparently, Duceppe has been humiliated.

Chantal we salute you.

The Petition.

2006-11-26T22:17:00.000-05:00

Please click here and sign the petition.

Nation. A Definition.

2006-11-26T10:09:00.000-05:00

From the Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language. Canadian Edition.

na-tion n.
a body of people recognized as an entity by virtue of their historical, linguistic or ethnic links; a body of people united under a particular political organization, and usually occupying a defined territory. (F. fr. L. natio, nationis)

Rudderless.

2006-11-25T16:00:00.000-05:00

Liberal Canadians dumbfounded by the events of the past few days have been asking themselves : Why won't Rae or Dion or Kennedy or Dryden stand up and counter the Harper motion? Why won't they stand up for the majority of Canadians who would oppose this new definition of Canada and Quebec?

Where is the leader for the rest of the country? Where is the leader with a sense of history and identity? Where is the leader who would rather advocate on behalf of a just society for all Canadians than offer up 'nation' to a Bloq party who represent a minority of Quebecois, who in turn represent a geographic and sociological minority within Canada?

Well the reasons are becoming increasingly clear to me and I can summarize it this way: Mulroney strategized, Stephen Harper pounced, Bill Graham flinched and the rest as they say is Canadian history.

The minority Conservative government effectively trumped the Liberals and in the context of Canadian politics have done so in dramatic fashion.

What we are left with, just days before the Liberal convention, is a party in shambles. A party forced now - after the vacuous and giddy showing by interim Leader Bill Graham - to abandon 40 years of 'just society' in favour of a hasty and reactionary drive-through brand of nationhood arrangement for Quebec.

One has to ask oneself, what would have happened had the Graham led Liberals not have stood in applause in the house as Harper read his motion? What would have happened if the majority of Liberals took their lead from a most unlikely savant - Jimmy Karygiannis - who today stands as the only member of the Liberal party who can look in the mirror and not see a reflection of a broken, beaten member of the opposition.

Today Mr. Karygiannis is the only member of the Liberal party worthy of centre stage at the convention this coming weekend...and yes I can't believe that I just wrote that.

But more to the point and in response to the original question, what would have happened if Mr. Graham had not led his sheep to slaughter?

First one could argue that had the Liberals not sold out on the Trudeau vision of Canada then either Mr. Rae, Mr. Dion or Mr. Kennedy would have become the new Liberal leader and in opposing the motion would likely have received the support of Canadians in the next Federal election. Instead what we now have is a group of leadership candidates who are left standing in wonder as they line up to endorse the motion for fear of reprisal from their own party who stood in unison save for one Mr. Karygiannis.

Second, one could argue that Harper's motion would have resulted in the end of his government if it was met with bewilderment by the Liberals in the House with puzzled expressions and asses firmly planted in seats. Such a gesture could have secured for the history books yet another brief Conservative Prime Ministerial tenure rivaling those of Charles Joseph Clark and Avril Phaedra Douglas Campbell.

Had the Liberal MP's been reminded by their interim leader that this same Mr. Harper may not be qualified to steer this ship and that this same Mr. Harper voted against Jean Chretien's Distinct Society motion on November 29, 1995 and that this same Mr. Harper described Pierre Trudeau as a "...promoter of unabashed socialism", then maybe with some effort they could have solicited a resounding Liberal and bipartisan outcry from Victoria to Calgary to Halifax and St. John's which could have secured an end to Mr. Harper's government.

Instead we are left with a hollowed out carcass of candidates made up of a rudderless group of yesterdays men (and woman). A group so shallow in their conviction and so clueless of the implications of their actions that in their confusion, they have actually managed to right the listing ship Igantieff and somehow turn his leadership loosing blunder on nationhood into a visionary treaty perversely in line with this new and instant just-add-water Conservative vision of two nations in one.

And so the nation turns. And it does so at the hands of a man who only 16 years ago became an executive assistant to the Reform Party's star - and only - member of parliament, Ms. Deborah Grey, after loosing his bid to win a riding in the Federal election in 1988 by a wide margin.

And all this, my fellow Canadians can all be attributed to two things. First we can thank Paul Martin for appointing Bill Graham to a position that he foolishly thought would be free of any significant leadership requirement and in doing so left the door wide open for Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Harper to exploit the party and in turn the redefine the nation.

And lastly we can point to the hubris of the Conservative Party, aka the Reform Party, aka the Canadian Alliance. Mr. Harper's braggadocio combined with the self-importance of Mr. Mulroney have made for a stew of superciliousness the potency of which this country has never seen and may never see again.

Harper's Nation. "...It's simple."

2006-11-25T08:55:00.000-05:00

Transcripts of Harper's Montreal scrum on Wells' site today.

This is a must read.

Harper is rolling the dice. Plain and simple. He is hoping to convince Canadians that this is merely a symbolic gesture - not a constitutional amendment, and as such it will give Quebec little or no power beyond what already exists.

At the same time he is trying to convince Quebec that the resolution is so potent that it virtually undermines the Bloq's reason d'etre, when he states that "...and it’s now up to the Bloc to explain their position and their reason for being in Ottawa." He is taunting them; trying to make them look foolish. My God this man is brilliant. We have underestimated the depth of his reasoning.

He taunts them further with "...In a way I have to give the credit to the Bloc Québécois, which asked Canada’s Parliament to take a position on les Québécois. They asked for recognition, and now there will be recognition. It’s simple."

It's simple? Mr. Harper actually believes that this is simple.

Actually Mr. Harper you had another option. Ignore the Bloq's request, or vote down their motion when tabled. Was your "simple" plan to restore support in Quebec for Mr. Muroney's party worth selling Canada down the river?

From John Ivison, National Post, November 23, 2006:
"...Harper needs to maintain his 10 seats in Quebec to remain in government and this motion may offer the same stimulus to Tory polling numbers that his open federalism speech in Quebec City gave during the last election. Quebec Cabinet ministers remain very confident that the party's position in the province will improve dramatically before an election, particularly if a major fiscal balance package is included in the next budget."

Mr. Chretien where are you? Mr. Dryden can we have a few words? Mr. Rae? Mr. Dion?...Hello?

If there is no leader among us who will stand up to take this on for us, then the PMO needs to hear from all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. He needs to hear that he is not our voice on this subject and that he has dreadfully underestimated all peoples of Canada and their interests with this motion.

Canadians and the Québécois are not that stupid and this is not that simple.

Rolling The Dice. Again.

2006-11-24T20:30:00.000-05:00

This 'Nation' debate is killing us. In so many ways it has sent us into a tailspin. It has blindsided us beyond belief. Never in a million years would we have thought that :

a. A Liberal leadership candidate would have entered into this debate during a leadership drive, let alone one that has been absent from the country for 30 years.
b. A minority government whose grasp of power is tenuous at best would have introduced such a motion in the House.
c. That that same 'temporary' minority government - who is all but sure to call an election in the spring - would have received unanimous support in that same House from the 'temporary' leader of the Liberal party and everyone else in attendance.
d. That Mr. Mulroney would once again be involved in what is now his third attempt at writing himself into the history books as it relates to the Quebec issue.

Mr. Mulroney? What does he have to do with this you say? C'mon. Surely you don't think that this whole initiative is the brainchild of Mr. Stephen Harper? The same Stephen Harper who just 16 years ago was a parliamentary aide for the Reform Party's star (and only) member of parliament, one Ms. Deborah Grey?

No no no my friends, this is June 12 1990 all over again. Some of you were too young to remember that fateful First Minister's conference; the words quoted to Mr. Mulroney in the Globe and Mail that day, referring to the conference as, "...the day I'm going to roll all the dice."

Proof? you need proof? Well let us look at the time spent by the 'temporary' government on this issue before tabling it in the House this week? Have you seen the releases prior to? Have you seen the coverage on the matter on their official web site? Have you seen Mr. Harper call a press conference on the subject? Has the 'temporary' leader consulted the Premiers of Canada on the issue?

Where is the planning? Where is the preparation? Where is the spin?

There is nothing. Nothing to speak of.

The 'temporary' government led by the former aide to the Reform Party's star (and only) member of parliament, one Ms. Deborah Grey, has done nothing on this issue except...wait for it...roll the dice.

Mr. Harper is sitting at his table in Casino Canada. He is sitting right next to his mentor who is teaching the former aide to the Reform Party's star (and only) member of parliament, one Ms. Deborah Grey how to roll the dice and gamble in a high stakes game of chance.

Why? Because of a dream. Yes, Mr. Mulroney woke from a dream with a grin from chin to chin last January. A dream so profound and so beautiful that he could barely contain himself. In that dream Mr. Mulroney was standing on a stage in Quebec City behind and between Mr. Harper and Mr. Charest who were seated in a very formal setting. It was the spring of 2007. There he stood, flashes clicking and television lights hot and bright as he bore witness to the 10th signature being added to that glorious document that was the brainchild of his foe and nemesis, Pierre Trudeau.

Finally he would broker the deal that eluded him, and write his place in Canadian history. Finally he could erase his memory of Clyde Kirby Wells and bury Elijah Harper's feather six feet in the ground.

Only one man can wake us from this nightmare. Only one man can speak to the slippery slope that we are soon to slide down. Only one man has been conspicuous in his silence. Where is he? It is time that he come out of his self imposed exile and speak to the people of Canada.

It is time to hear from Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

12 Days & Counting.

2006-11-22T13:46:00.000-05:00

12 days and counting to the demise of Next Face.

Yes, yes...we know...but all good things must come to an end. We started this blog a few days before the election back in January to further the leadership debate and we think it has been a very successful run.

But alas, on
December 4, 2006 we will be turning the lights out on this noble initiative.

We do plan to post extensively leading up to and throughout the convention with on-the-floor insights from our inside sources. Of course we will also be posting our comments on the convention results.

While we are sad to see this baby go, we are reminded of a quote on the subject
by John Ronald Revel Tolkien:
"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens."

The Essay.

2006-11-22T09:36:00.000-05:00

Ok we'll bite.

Here is the intro to the essay circulating among the Liberal faithful. With thanks to James Curran for forwarding it to us. We have not had the benefit of reading the entire 29 page document yet but we are impressed with the initiative.

The New Treason of Old Ideas
by Alfred Apps *
“When was it less than treason for a man to go with the drift of things?” Robert Frost

Canadians from outside Quebec have always had difficulty understanding Quebec and most of their political leaders have never much worried about that. The easier path to power has always been to play to Anglophone voters who want a Canada where Quebec is kept firmly in its place just one more undifferentiated province like all the others. Michael Ignatieff has assaulted the indifference of Anglophones everywhere by saying he is open to accepting the idea of Quebec as a ‘nation’ within Canada, but only if, as and when the rest ofCanada is ready to do so. In response to Ignatieff’s candour and a similarly-oriented resolution passed recently by an overwhelming majority of federalist Liberals from Quebec –one that meekly seeks ‘official’ recognition of Quebec’s national character if, as and when the conditions are right -some serious political sensibilities have been aroused. Fear is now afoot that sacred Liberal doctrine on constitutional matters has come under serious attack. For Quebec’s nationalist wolves are not only at the gate again. They have come in federalist clothing. The long-slumbering ghosts of Charlottetown and Meech have been rudely awakened. Even Trudeau’s gravediggers have begun their work. Michel Ignatieff believes that Quebec is a nation within Canada! How could the frontrunner for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada say such a thing? Is he mad? Is he just a brazen opportunist, recklessly courting the Quebec vote without regard to the political consequences for Liberals in the rest of Canada? Is he just another egghead theorist, so wildly out of touch ordinary voters that he isblind to the risk he is taking? Does he not know that this sort of talk can only play right into the separatists’ hands?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Apps' email included the following note setting up the essay :

Dear Friends:

Many of you, knowing that I am both a strong support of Michael Ignatieff and an unrepentant devotee of Pierre Trudeau's vision of Canada, have enquired how I reconcile their two perspectives on the question of 'Quebec as a nation within Canada'. I was inspired to do so when, by happenstance, I ran into Justin Trudeau on November 1, 2006 in Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport in Montreal. This was immediately after he had been reported in the press as saying "nationalism is an old idea" but prior to his remark that Ignatieff was "intelligent but not wise". I was able to engage him in discussion on the Quebec question for 15-20 minutes. In the course of that, I was struck by two things: the shallowness of his arguments were and how tenaciously he held on to them. After completing my own reflection, I have come to the conclusion that Pierre Trudeau, were he alive today, would endorse Michael Ignatieff's view and dismiss that of his own son.

The attached essay is rather long but, I hope, will prove useful to the current debate. I hope you will take the time to read it and look forward to receiving any comments you might have. Please feel free to forward it along to anyone who you think might find it useful.

Needless to say, the contents of the paper are my opinion only and ought not to be attributed to Michael Ignatieff or to the Ignatieff Campaign

We will be happy to email the entire essay to any of you who would care to read it.
Email us at nextface@rogers.com.

State Funeral Approved.

2006-11-22T09:29:00.000-05:00

From The Candian Press - Ottawa
"The House of Commons unanimouisly approved a motion yesterday asking the government to offer a formal state funeral for the last Canadian veteran of World War 1."

There are three surviving veterans (two of them still Canadian citizens). The petition received over 90,000 signatures.

Trudeau and Ignatieff.

2006-11-19T23:41:00.000-05:00

This appeared last week courtesy of

cyberpresse.ca

Justin Trudeau s’en prend à Ignatieff
Presse Canadienne
Montréal

Justin Trudeau estime que Michael Ignatieff manque de la «sagesse nécessaire» pour succéder à Paul Martin à la tête du Parti libéral du Canada (PLC).
Dans une entrevue diffusée lundi à l'émission Dominique Poirier en direct, sur les ondes de RDI, le fils aîné du défunt premier ministre Pierre-Eliott Trudeau dresse un portrait peu flatteur de M. Ignatieff. «(..) Ignatieff, il est un peu partout, il se contredit, il n'a pas la clarté que mon père a pu avoir», déclare Justin Trudeau, qui

In Linda Diebel's feature on Michael Ignatieff in today's Toronto Star, there was more than a passing reference to the candidate and his comparison with Trudeau. Diebel puts an end to the comparisons once and for all as she describes how the Harvard University Professor was wooed home by Ian Davey who later introduced him to senior Senator David Smith. Together the two along with Igntieff's agent Michael Levine, agreed he "...would make a great Prime Minister."

Diebel writes: "To some extent, all political leaders are inventions, creations of their handlers" York University political economist James Laxer wrote recently on his blog. "The Ignatieff case takes this to the point of absurdity."

This is a far cry from Trudeau's motivation and early days as a Liberal minister. On the Trudeau alliance with his partners in crime Gerard Pelletier and Jean Marchand, Lester Pearson - who in a sense recruited the men from Quebec to shore up his support there - wrote "These were the sort of men I was looking for; men of quality and standing in Quebec, men who inspired both some admiration and some fear."

Next Face found a rather obscure reference to Ignatieff while reading Trudeau's Memoirs this summer while on vacation in Florida.

Next to this photograph is the following caption :

"Amid unusually comfortable surroundings at the London School of Economics I chatted with Michael Ignatieff, son of the distinguished Canadian diplomat George Ignatieff."

It is the only Ignatieff reference in the book. Like a riddle taunting us in DaVinci Code style, Trudeau leaves us this image in his Memoirs on page 41 alongside some other obviously meaningful pictures of himself with his son Sasha and his friend Gerard Pelletier. Would Trudeau have agreed with Justin's characterization of the Liberal leadership candidate?

What would Trudeau have made of Ignatieff's Quebec nation concept?

What we do know is that in 1993 Pierre Trudeau wrote:
"...I never denied the existence of the French-Canadian nation; nor do I deny the aboriginals led today by Ovid Mercredi the status of nation in the sociological sense. What I rejected well before the advent of neo-nationalism of the 1960's and reject still today is the doctrine that claims that every sociological nation must have political sovereignty and independence. If we were to promote the political independence of every sociological nation around the world, the planet would soon be torn by countless conflicts among ethnic and linguistic groups, each demanding sovereignty from the country in which it constitutes a minority."

Dion. 4th Ballot?

2006-11-14T03:00:00.000-05:00

Has it become Dion's race to loose? Is all but wrapped up? Only a brilliant Rae tactical move or an Ignatieff miracle could undermine what some are calling the inevitable.

Many scenarios and many pundits floating theories these days but few are speaking to an intangible that may be the most compelling to date : Liberal DNA.

Dion represents the only one of the three with deeper roots in the party. While those roots are only 10 years deep, he is family, and delegates not sure who to swing to after Ballot 1, 2 or 3 will more often than not tend to

go for family feeling that:

a. He deserves it.
b. He is the easier choice.
c. He is less controversial.
d. He is...well...family after all, and
e. He has been a good soldier.

One should not underestimate the power of the Liberal family. The tendency to reward the good soldier. We heard that term several times over the campaign from Dion and twice in our interview with him. There is a reason to drive that point home: it speaks to the Liberal DNA factor.

And while we are sure that this time will be different and that this time the Party will re-invent itself, Dion's election represents that re-invention but within a safer framework: a family model. This scenario is not unlike the Trudeau nomination or the Turner and Chretien nominations. Each different degrees of a new direction but each under the banner of Liberal DNA, sired from Lester Pearson's stable of soldiers.

Dion on the fourth ballot?
The Liberal Party could do much much worse.

Paul Wells. Right Side Up.

2006-11-13T19:58:00.000-05:00

It has been an incredible run since our first post in January of this year where we tried to make sense of the almost certain results 48 hours before the election. We were angry with Martin then; angry with what the Liberal party had come to represent to Canadians. But we took that anger, channeled it and called it Next Face. With the help of AP, our co-host and regular contributor we posted the Next Face Manifesto. Not long after, we identified 3 candidates that we thought had the best chance to take the Liberal Party down the road to salvation: Ignatieff, Dion and Dryden. Later and after some debate we added Rae. In early April we began espousing the virtues (and shortcomings) of the four candidates. The rest as they say is history.

What followed was unexpected and remarkable: Exclusive articles written for Next Face by Sheila Copps along with some insightful emails exchanged between the former Deputy Prime Minister and the blogger, exclusive interviews with Dion first, then Dryden and lastly Rae, a mention in the Toronto Star sending us over 2,000 hits in one day and later a few hundred words in the Globe and Mail courtesy of Jane Taber's Notebook.

Then of course, there was the Kinsella nod with the addition of Next Face to his blogroll.

But as a fitting end to this year long journey our best memory was still ahead of us and it came together by way of a phone call from AP to me while I was in the midst of a renovation project. It seemed AP - who is among the most learned Liberal scholars and perhaps among the most naturally gifted political talents never to have yet appeared on a political stage - was reading the recently released Right Side Up. The Fall of Paul Martin and The Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism by Paul Wells when he came across a reference to our (sometimes not so) humble little blog. On page 275 Mr. Wells refers to Next Face and our interview with Ken Dryden and takes liberty with the transcripts for that interview, turning a portion of it into a pretty funny poem. (For the actual transcripts to the Three Part Dryden Interview see our Archives on the right for June and July.)

The reference in Right Side Up reads something like this :

"...Ken Dryden, the former hockey goalie and minister seems to have captured many Liberals' affection by transforming himself into a kind of balladeer of Liberal self-regard. His speech has begun tumbling out in urgent haikus of wounded virtue, and the Liberal crowds I've seen proceed to eat it up. Here's an excerpt of an interview he gave a blogger named Arnone, whose Next Face is one of dozens of Liberal blogs that have sprung up since the leadership race began. Transcribing Dryden's comments as prose didn't seem to do them justice. Here's the way they seemed to want to order themselves...

Unhappy
a found poem by Ken Dryden.

That is what is so disturbing about the Conservative government.
It is so small.
It is so pinched. It is so
ungenerous.

It is so unhappy.

It is a government that is so about now and so about me.

And "now" and "me" are so important but we want tomorrow to be part of it and not just now.

And we want our neighbour to be part of it and not just me.

And we feel better if both are a part of it and I don't think that is what the Conservatives offer.

(End of poem)

Wells goes on to say that one of the surprises in the Liberal race is the fact that its only poet is a "...lumbering ex-jock..."

We will be reading the book this week having made our 35 dollar contribution to the Paul Wells retirement fund while at Indigo last night.

Canada's Last Great War Veteran.

2006-11-11T12:00:00.000-05:00

Lets make this happen.

Sign the petition at :

www.dominion.ca/petition

Foo Fighters. Wow.

2006-11-11T01:09:00.000-05:00

November 7th we took the junior apprentice to see the Foo Fighters for his birthday at the ACC in Toronto. They played a one hour acoustic set in front of what looked like a near sell out crowd.

They were absolutely awesome. Crazy good. Probably the best live set of music played in Toronto since Bruce Springsteen was here in 1984.

It was so good that we decided not to stay for the main act - Bob Dylan - for fear that he would bring us down and wreck the buzz created by David Grohl.

The decision to leave was met with ear to ear grins by both the apprentice and his cousin who could not wait to get home and would have preferred to spend the weekend cleaning their rooms than sit through 2 hours of "...an old incoherent guy..."

Turns out that we were not far from the mark as is evidenced by Billy Harris' review in the Toronto Sun the next day :

Distant but dignified. Dignified but distant....This may invite the wrath of multitudes, but Bob Dylan is not the most compelling live act, visually speaking....There aren’t many performers famous enough to attract Foo Fighters as an opening act, but Dylan is one of them....Foo frontman Dave Grohl engineered a truncated version of the acoustic concert his band played at the Hummingbird Centre mere months ago....Grohl last night got a standing ovation for his solo run at Best Of You, but he admitted he initially had left the song off the ACC setlist. “I didn’t know if I wanted to scream at people for four minutes, it might freak them out,” Grohl said. “But then a friend of mine said, ‘Dude, they’re Dylan fans, come on.’ ”

Current Odds.

2006-10-20T22:22:00.000-04:00

Stephane Dion : 3 : 1
Bob Rae: 5 : 1
Michael Ignatieff: 5 : 1
Ken Dryden: 18 : 1

It is looking more and more like it is Dion's to loose. More on this in days to come...

Mats Sundin. 500 Goals.

2006-10-18T22:25:00.000-04:00

We heard about Mats Sundin scoring his 500th NHL goal earlier this week while we were here in Sweden. Absolutely awesome! Mats - who is under appreciated by the Toronto media - has now earned a place among the hockey elites joining only 33 (or is it 34) others in that category.

He is easily one of the greatest Leafs of all time and one of our all time favorite hockey players.

Jet lagged and dreary eyed, I am going to see if I can name the other 500 Goal scorers by heart so here goes : Pierre Turgeon, Jaromir Jagr, Brendan Shanahan, Joe Nieuwendyk, Joe Sakic. Those were the last 5 to do it I think. The rest in no apparent order : Brett Hull, Bobby Hull, Frank Mahovolich, Guy Lafleur, Jean Beliveau, Maurice Richard, Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier, Gordie Howe, Mario Lemieux, Stan Makita (such an under-rated player), Phil Esposito (another major under-rated player), Dale Hawerchuk, Dave Anderchuk, Dino Ciccarelli, Joe Mullen. That's 21. Who else...ah...ummm...Marcel Dion, Luc Robitaille, Lanny McDonald (yes, thats right), Steve Yzerman, Pat Verbeek, Jarri Kurri. That's 27.

There are 6 more (maybe 7).

Who knows the rest?...go ahead and try to finish my list but you CAN'T use google because I could have done that too.

First 5 people to get the rest win a spot in the Next Face bragging rights hall of fame.

Göteborg, Sweden.

2006-10-15T23:05:00.000-04:00

It is absolutely beautiful here. The drive from the airport was not unlike the fist few miles from Vancouver to Squamish up the Sea to Sky Highway, except there was no sea to see. And come to think of it, there was no sky either. (Is it always so overcast?) Well the Swedish and Canadian landscapes are similar. In fact if Canada had an older brother, it would be Sweden.

Göteborg averages only one to two hours of sunlight a day at this time of year so I am sure living here would be an adjustment.

Svenska ostron och smetana!
Tobias.

A Challenge to the Michael Ignatieff Camp. Second Notice.

2006-10-15T10:46:00.000-04:00

Has Next Face been snubbed? If we have, we are in good company considering Rae and Dion and Kennedy were also snubbed in the last debate. We would like to give Mr. Ignatieff the benefit of the doubt and repost the request below originally posted on September 27, 2006.

On the heels of our highly successful interviews with Mr. Rae, Mr. Dryden and Mr. Dion who generously gave their time to answer our questions, we are putting out a similar challenge to the good people who are assisting in the Ignatieff campaign.

We would like to call on Mr. Ignatieff and his staff to accept our request and arrange for a 30 minute phone call between the candidate and Next Face. We will record the conversation and post it on our blog for all to digest. We offer complete disclosure with complete transcripts of the interview. (No spin and no sound bites at Next Face!)

The outcome of the interview could have a bearing on our ranking and ultimately on the fact that we still remain non-committed heading into the final 2 months. After similar interviews with Mr. Rae, Mr. Dryden and Mr. Dion, the feedback from all three organizations was very positive and the response from the blogging community was tremendous.

Contact us at : nextface@rogers.com

We look forward to a response from the Ignatieff camp and will post a status report as we hear back from them.

Chantal Gets It Right. Again.

2006-10-14T11:04:00.000-04:00

Chantal Hebert writes a great column. Today's Toronto Star article is no exception. It is a terrific assessment of Harper's current polularity in Canada and in particular in Quebec where he is all but dead in the water. "...Tories would be hard pressed to get their 10 Quebec MP's re-elected, let alone win new seats. Their current standing is a full eight points below their score int he last election.".

This in spite of the fact that the "...Prime Minister has had the stage almost exclusively to himself all summer and that he has been pounding away at new policy announcements since the return of parliament...(and)...despite the fact that the Liberals are still leaderless..."

Next Face is all but certain that Team Mulroney has something up their sleeve to resurrect the flailing Quebec support in time for the next election. Nothing short of a full withdrawl of our troops could save him now. While nothing would surprise us, what we do know is that we are dealing with a well oiled and cunning operative here and although Chantal's comments ring true, the Blue Machine ain't dead. Not by a long shot.

Super Weekend. The Real Story. Part One

2006-10-02T16:13:00.000-04:00

The first real story behind the weekend delegate round up was how few delegates Ken Dryden managed to win over in British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec.

In all three provinces, Joe Volpe - who has run one of the most unfortunate campaigns in recent Canadian history; dogged by negative media attention at every turn and even fined by his own party 24 hours before the delegates were to begin voting - beat Ken Dryden and by a convincing margin.

In total in British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec, Volpe 'out-delegated' Dryden by a margin of 104 to 36.

Absolutely remarkable.

The french language issue notwithstanding, Ken Dryden may go down as one of the better Liberal leadership candidates who was passed over in favour of other more media savvy and - some may say - better managed challengers.

Delegate Summary Courtesy Of Liberal.ca

2006-09-30T08:06:00.000-04:00

We tried to hook this flash file up directly but Blogger will not allow the upload.

This link will have to do :

Super Weekend Delegate Results Ticker

(You will need Flash 8 to read it)

Have a super weekend.
Choose wisely.

A Good Soldier.

2006-09-23T13:02:00.000-04:00

Reading a story on Dion in the Toronto Star this morning, reminded us of a post we had in mind for the summer but never did get to. So here it is.

One of the things we did this past July while on the beach in Florida was read through Trudeau's Memoirs. In that book, we noted his reference to both Jean Chretien and John Turner as "Good Soldiers". In both instances the references were placed to suggest that in spite of Trudeau running roughshod over Chretien and Turner at separate times during his tenure and for different reasons, that the ministers would forgive the overzealous Prime Minister because they were "Good Soldiers".

We heard this reference again in the interview we conducted with Stephane Dion earlier this summer. Twice Mr. Dion referred to himself as being a good soldier and this time it was related to his decision to not make issue out of the Chretien / Martin feud; that he would rather have continued on as a "good soldier" for the greater good of the party.

And so this morning after reading Robert Benzie's column in the Star, it comes up again. Dion is quoted as saying "...I have been in this party...10 years as a minister and I have always been a good soldier."

There are two things that come to mind when looking at this term. First, we agree that Mr. Dion is 'proven' as it relates to "...how much i'm able to be loyal to my leader and I think loyal to my party." He is likely the candidate with the most tangible link to the Liberal party's past even though that link only spans 10 years.

But this seemingly redeeming trait can also be seen by some as a link to the parties old ways, and as such could detract from the candidates search for a broad appeal. That is to say, that a lot has been made through this long (LONG) leadership race and its quest to bring forward the candidate who will invigorate, reinvent and reposition the party come December. If it is Dion's intent to tie himself to the past by way of his record as a 'good soldier', is he not effectively evoking the spirits of old-boys-clubs and entitlement? And more to the point, who is this claim being made to? Who is left to make this connection and hand over the torch?

I thought the days of Pearson to Trudeau to Chretien are behind us. (With apologies to Mr. Turner).

I thought the Liberal party was trying to put those days behind them.

Ken Dryden In Maclean's.

2006-09-22T11:26:00.000-04:00

We read Ken Dryden's story in the September 25, 2006 edition of Maclean's while on a Via One train back from Montreal this week. We thought he did an excellent job with the article entitled : Quebec and Canada, Our Common Story.

My favorite lines :
1. "...Countries become what they think they are."

2. "...All of us are struggling with how to make a bordless world work. Canada has moved down this path more successfully than anyone."

3. "...Is Quebec a "nation"? To me this isn't about legal definition...Just so long as the official "definers" don't make you think you can't be part of Canada as well. You are. Because just as Canada has been shaped by Quebec, so has Quebec been shaped by Canada."

4. "...We have shaped each other sometimes in spite of each other. Together we have created something unique."

Igantieff And The Second Ballot.

2006-09-20T09:40:00.000-04:00

On the front page of the Globe and Mail this morning you will find a story by their Ottawa Bureau Chief, Brian Laghi; IGNATIEFF CLINGS TO SLIGHT LEAD, the headline reads. But the real story in this article is the second ballot support which appears to be strongest for Rae and Dion and less so for Ignatieff.

Even more compelling is the idea that as a third choice (or on the third ballot) it is Stephane Dion who leads both Rae and Ignatieff. That fits in well with Next Face's prognostication. When all is said and done, it is likely Dion (or Dryden) who will be the safe haven for delegates once the dust settles on the Ignatieff and Rae battle. That is to say, a safer, more centrist personality - less plagued by controversy - will likely see the ground swell support in the 3rd and 4th ballots.

At least that is how we have seen it and it appears that the Globe/CTV poll that Laghi references in his article might concur.

But wait, the news for Dryden gets even better. That is unless the Globe editors messed up on this one. The very last paragraph of the same story reads like this :

"...But overall the public gives Mr. Dryden - who also has the highest name recognition - the first ballot lead with 18 per cent, trailed by Mr. Rae at 14 per cent, Mr. Ignatieff at 7 per cent and Mr. Dion at 6 per cent."

We Love This!

2006-09-20T07:15:00.000-04:00

From: raydaze@hotmail.com
Subject: Rae Plants a Mole
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:30:56 -0300

Earlier today we received a series of anonymous emails linking us to this great story by

Steve Janke

.

We love this stuff!
A must read for all you conspiracy theorist.

This is exactly what we were asking Dryden and Rae about when we discussed their multiple ballot strategy and how they are hoping to pull candidates over both in the run up and on convention day.

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

1968 All Over Again?

2006-09-18T12:16:00.000-04:00

Here is the latest estimates from : http://democraticspace.com

CANDIDATE RIDINGS ESTIMATE 4312

IGNATIEFF 1183 27.5%
KENNEDY 659 15.8%
RAE 649 14.9%
DION 532 13.4%
BRISON 325 8.2%
VOLPE 448 8.1%
DRYDEN 305 7.7%
HALL-FINDLAY 173 3.6%
FRY 38 0.8%

...and from Wikipedia, here are the 4 ballot results from 1968 :
First ballot:
Trudeau 752
Hellyer 330
Winters 293
Martin 277
Turner 277
Greene 169
MacEachen163
Kierans 103
Henderson 0
Spoiled ballots 24
Total votes cast 2390

Second ballot
Trudeau 964
Winters 473
Hellyer 465
Turner 347
Greene 104
MacEachen 11
Spoiled ballots 15
Total votes cast 2379

Third ballot
Trudeau 1051
Winters 621
Hellyer 377
Turner 279
Greene 29
Spoiled ballots 19
Total votes cast 2376

Fourth ballot
Trudeau 1203
Winters 954
Turner 195
Spoiled ballots 13
Total votes cast 2365

Next Face Top Ten.

2006-09-16T17:11:00.000-04:00

Top Ten Reasons Why Warren Kinsella just added
nextface@blogspot.com to his blogroll:

10. Because my older brother was good friends with
John Stewart - a great guy - who briefly played guitar
for the Viletones during the late 70's, early 80's.

9. Because Next Face had the cohones to actually ask
Ken Dryden the now infamous 'Kinsella' question about
being 'dull', in their interview with the candidate
back in August.

8. Because that infamous question is now legendary
after it, along with Mr. Dryden's response, was
written up by Jane Taber in her Weekend Notebook in
the Globe on Saturday, September 9, 2006.

7. Because even Mr. Kinsella is amazed that an
architect in Toronto who has a full time job traveling
the country on business and has no political
affiliations whatsoever and no connections to the
Liberal party was able to secure one hour interviews
with Dion, Dryden, and Rae by virtue of his charm and
wit.

6. Because in spite of Kinsella's lame question for
Bob Rae, we asked it anyway.

5. Because by adding us to his blogroll, we will
promise to give him another shot at a question for
Michael Ignatieff who will be interviewed soon on Next
Face.

4. Because he might have a slow news day coming up
and he could fill a post with a kind mention of our
thought provoking and decent little blog.

3. Because although Taber's coverage in the Globe was
a coming of age moment for us, we would not get
through our pubescent phase until we get a Kinsella
endorsement.

2. Because Ken Dryden's staff referred to us as a :
"...fresh and respectful contribution to the
blogosphere." and we agree with them.

1. Because he knew it would mean a lot to us.

With our thanks to WK.

Current Odds.

2006-09-15T12:08:00.000-04:00

Stephane Dion : 5 : 2
Bob Rae: 3 : 1
Ken Dryden: 5 : 1
Michael Ignatieff: 7 : 1

Current Odds reflect the following :
1. Dion's strong debate performance. But it was more about what he did not say...by not entering into this looming debate bewteen Rae and Ignatieff on the 'nationhood' of Quebec as Ignatieff defines it, Dion should remain clear of the fall out and become the clear front runner in this race heading into the fall. That is if he can keep certain exhuberant bloggers from hurting his credibility further...

2. Rae was our odds on favorite earlier this month but he cannot win a debate with Ignatieff on the Constitution. Not because he lacks the skill, but because from that debate there can be no winner. As Sheila put it, the only winner in that debate are the Conservatives.

3. Substantially lifted by the recent poll, Dryden is in the drivers seat. Those who hear him one on one come away with a profound respect and a sense that this is THE decent candidate that could take on Harper and win this thing. He could easily find himself ahead if he can go into the convention with potent lineup that includes say... the political equivalents to Guy Lafleur and Steve Shutt by his side. (Read...say, Martha Hall Findlay and Gerrard Kennedy)

4. We think that by opening the Constitutional debate, that Ignatieff has sealed his fate. We think we need to say no more that what Sheila has alread said, except to add that whoever came up with the idea to drop that bomb at the debate in Quebec may have been the same advisor who penned the now infamous Martin bomb in his last debate with Harper on the notwithstanding clause. Too bad. It could have been a good run...

Sheila Copps Gets It.

2006-09-13T21:26:00.000-04:00

Outstanding perspective today in the Toronto Sun courtesy of Sheila Copps. (Loyal readers will know that we have never hidden our love for Sheila who wrote exclusively for Next Face earlier this year).

Sheila's column is aimed at Ignatieff and the 'C' word. Her perspective as the former Deputy Prime Minister with years of Cabinet experience is very interesting to say the least.

Frankly we are amazed that Ignatieff's 'Nation' comment has not garnered more media attention. Sheila on the otherhand clearly gets it. Here is a portion of Sheila's column :

Sheila Copps, The Toronto Sun. Wednesday, September 13, 2006
‘C’ Word Rears Its Ugly Head
By SHEILA COPPS
...Ignatieff may have just sealed his own political fate. Constitutionalists join think tanks; populists win conventions.

Let’s ignore for a moment that “nation” has different meanings in French and English. When was the last time a Quebec City cab driver bemoaned his province’s status as a non-nation? How often does the constitution (or lack thereof) actually register on the radar screen in Rimouski or Riviere du Loup?

The inclusion of a constitutional nation within Canada is the work of a political theorist with little sense of Liberal history and less understanding of the country. Leadership candidate Stephane Dion, who has never had a problem with the concept of Quebec as a nation (in the French meaning of the word) wisely recommended against a constitutional amendment. So did Bob Rae, whose rise to the top job in Ontario was partially prompted by a Meech backlash.

Ignatieff’s decision to plow right into a constitutional furrow indicates one of two things. His campaign is flagging and needs a good controversy to fire it up. Or his professorial theories override good sense.

Either way, his handlers should help him with some historical perspective. Constitutional debates leave Tories smiling.

Next Face Real Time. The Quebec Debate.

2006-09-11T08:26:00.000-04:00

September 10, 2006.
3:01 pm
The Introductions.
Rae looked competent and comfortable
Dion finished off in english and said, "...i'll do the right thing for your environment and the right thing for your wallet!" This sounded too much like a Capital One commercial. "What's In Your Wallet?"
Ignatieff. Did he say what I thought he said? Did he end by saying, "Quebec will be your nation and Canada will be your country!" Is that what I heard?
Dryden speaks french! At least he managed to pull it off in the intro. We'll look to the debate for more evidence that this monkey is off his back. Dryden said - quite effectively - "We failed you as a party" and "We need you", obviously referening to the Quebec voters, and stated that the Conservatives are "...not your party"
Kennedy mentioned the withdrawl from Afghanistan.
Marth Hall Findlay. Walked in front of the podiums and took a hand mike for her delivery which was effective. She also won this round by declaring : "...We want a leader who we can trust to take action and get things done...a personal compass...(with) core values...(to) invigorate this party and re-inspire Canadians." Well done MHF.

3:07 pm
The Debate.
Rae unfortunately draws Volpe and Bennett. No where to go here for BR.
3:19 pm
Ignatieff draws Dion. Ignatieff's hand gestures are distractingly similar to Trudeau’s.
Dion is strong. He is in his element drawing a question about energy and technology. Drawing big applause. Ignatieff leaves to cheers.
3:36 pm
Dryden draws Brison and Kennedy. Dryden is speaking french! But his comments are rather enemic suggesting a limited range but well done nevertheless!
Dryden lucky to draw Brison. Brison's french makes Dryden sound like Francois Mitterand. oh oh...wait for it...Dryden and Brison squaring off in French. The French language has seen better days. Dryden looks relieved as he leaves the stage, but not more than Brison who can't get off the stage fast enough.
3:49 pm
Marth Hall Findlay draws Fry and Volpe. This is my chance to break for a sandwich. MHF is very strong in her passionate plea (in english) to have NATO clarify our role in Afghanistan.
3:57 pm
Dion draws Rae and Dryden. The Quebec Question. This should be good.
Would you consider it a priority to gain Quebec's consent. How would you proceed if at all?
Dion First. We are better united. We (Quebecer's) are very good Canadians. Some of us need a push! - but we are good Canadians.
Rae next. I do NOT want to go back over this issue. The ideal constitutional agreement is...like a dream. Important to focus on practical issues, health jobs etc. We CANNOT have another constitutional failure.
Dryden. He is speaking French! The history of Canada is the history of the two nations (together).
Dion speaks to big applause. He says "humbly" that he is the one to lead this charge.
Rae next. Suggests that Quebec as a nation, as a distinct society - suggests he is not sure how to define the (relationship). It is dangerous to change the Constitution. Negotiation is difficult.
Dryden talks about the history of a scoiety with understanding of attitudes. To live and let live. For a bi-lingual contry to survive and function.
4:06 pm
Ignatieff draws Brison and Bennett. Who picked the tie for Ignatieff? Poor choice. Who set up the lighting for the debate? Poor execution. Yawn.
4:15 pm
Dion draws MHF and Kennedy. Question about immigration and "social cohesiveness". Who writes these questions? Yawn. Dion scores by quoting Laurier, "The right of immigrants are the rights of all citizens." Nice job Stephane. MHF reminds us all that Canada is the most successful example of a pluralistic society in the world (because) of it immigration (policies).
4:24 pm
Dryden draws Bennet and Fry. With respect to the five time Conn Smythe trophy winner and six time Stanley Cup Champion, it may be time for another sandwich. He is doing a fine job, however, with his french. By December he may actually be able to pull this off.
4:34 pm
Ignatieff draws Kennedy and Volpe. Question on Nafta, Softwood, Trading of goods and services etc. Again I say, who writes these questions?
4:44 pm
Rae draws Brison and MHF. Question on daycare. I bet Dryden was ready for this question. MHF refers to the Dryden daycare plan to much applause. Rae agrees that Dryden did a great job. Rae attacks the Harper 'non-plan'.

4:52 pm
Conclusions.
MHF. Again she goes with the hand mike and walks the stage. Refers to herself as "The daring choice". Dares us to be inspired.
Kennedy. Immigration, equality. The Canadian Advantage. Little to no applause.
Dryden. Our country was born in difference. A society of tolerance. We are defined by (what we have in) common. We are a global nation. Generous applause.
Brison. It is an advantage for Canada to have a strong (and) distinct Quebec. I will defend the values of Quebec because I share them.
Dion. We need a leader with vision, an action plan and the capacity to convince Canadians in english and in french. Our plan will be ready with a simple vision. Help me make Canada a sustainable economy. Great applause.
Fry.
Ignatieff. Other candidates said that the constitutional question is too difficult but WE HAVE TO DO IT! We have to find solutions. Together we can build a good country.
Rae. Goes to the hand mike. MHF-style. We cannot promise things if we are not sure that we can be able to do it. I tried to quit politics but I cannot do it. This is my life! Is it just me or did Rae just go right after Ignatieff. This could get interesting.
Volpe.
Bennett.
5:06 pm
End.

Summary.
Terrible format. Terrible questions. Terrible lighting. Too many candidates too little time. When will the 5 or 6 fringe candidates realize that it is time to do what is best for the party and drop out.

The winner of this debate? Dion.
As we have predicted, he is the candidate that might slide up the centre after Rae and Ignatieff face the 'anyone but' campaigns, or suffer under the weight of this constitution showdown touched on in their statements today.

Next Face In The Globe and Mail.

2006-09-09T09:46:00.000-04:00

National coverage for Next Face this morning, September 9, 2006 courtesy of Jane Taber's Notebook. Page A7 in the Globe and Mail.

The Rae Interview. Part 3.

2006-09-08T09:00:00.000-04:00

In this the third of three parts, we ask Mr. Rae about his roommate at the University of Toronto and his ongoing relationship with Mr. Ignatieff, the Liberal/NDP accord of 1985 with David Petterson, and how Prime Minister Bob Rae would govern differently then Premier Bob Rae.

Part 3 of 3.
NF. Is it true you were roommates with Michael Igantieff?

BR. Yes indeed. That’s true.

NF. And that was while you were at the U of T (University of Toronto) ?

BR. Yes

NF. The question I have for you then is who was the Felix Unger and who was the Oscar Madison?

BR. (Laughs)…(Laughs)…We were both…ah… models of good cooking and pristine house keeping….and I don’t think either one of us was Felix or Oscar.

NF. Now, now, you are not getting off that easy, I need some dirt for my blog…

BR. (Laughs)…well you are not going to be getting any dirt from me…(laughs)

NF. Was it an enjoyable situation?

BR. Totally.

NF. …and so I gather from that, that you have a relationship that will transcend this leadership race?

BR. I certainly hope so. From my perspective we do. I have known Michael for a long time and he is a fine fellow. I certainly did not go into politics to do anything…ah…other than to say that. We have some disagreements, yes, there are areas politically where we don’t necessarily see things the same way, but he is a person of integrity and ability and he has been a very good friend to me so I will leave it there.

NF. Was there ever a suggestion or a wish by either of you – at that time (as roommates at the University of Toronto) - that either of you would be in this race, in this fashion crossing paths in this remarkable way?

BR. I don’t think so. I mean we were both very interested in politics, but our careers took very different paths (with) a lot of ups and downs between then (and now). Michael went off to Harvard, and then went to the UK, I went to the UK and then our paths crossed again in Cambridge, Massachusetts for a few months, in 1973 and then we had seen each other in different places over the years. We corresponded and spent time together and…but I certainly never anticipated this I don’t think anybody could have anticipated this ... I think either one of us is surprised that the other is running and that’s life, I think that this is just the way it is…

NF. If there was another minority situation in parliament, with you as leader of the Liberal governent, would you consider another Liberal NDP accord like the one you signed in 1985 with David Petterson?

BR. I think what happens in the future is very much affected by the number. I really don’t think there is any point in predicting what will happen because it will depend entirely on what the representation is in the House of Commons. I’ll leave that to the political scientists and to other who might speculate on things…ah…but what happened in Ontario in 1985, was a product of a couple of things, one was the 42 year Tory government, the other one was the right wing nature of the (then) government, and the third was the arithmetic which produced a particular result. I don’t think we have any way of knowing what the result of the next election is going to be or what number will flow into the House of Commons from that.

NF. We are nearing the end of our questions, one more philosophical question perhaps that you could help me with. Do you believe that Liberalism (should compel) democratic nations like Canada to help oppressed peoples emancipate themselves?

BR. (Pause) I don’t think that democracy comes out of a barrel of a gun very effectively. I think the fact of the matter is that people have to find their way in the world. I think under international law, the world has a duty to intervene in situations where genocide is on order or where people are at a level of oppression where they desperately need some sort of intervention, or where there is a risk of security in the world. Ah…but you have to be very careful as to the consequences of that…the fact of the matter is that the intervention in Iraq, was first of all to stop the “weapons of mass destruction” which were never found. In the case of Afghanistan, it wasn’t the duty to protect that got the countries involved…I think we all recognize now that the Taliban government, because of the nature of that government, because of how they behave, poses a risk to the security of the world. But we then have to recognize that there then is a question of how long, and what are the consequences of the underlying realities of those countries and I am a great believer that essentially the solutions to so many of the conflicts in the world are ultimately not military but political and you then have to worry about making sure that the military intervention doesn’t simply take over, and that the impact of the intervention itself has to be understood. That is why recommending intervention has to be done with great, great care and it is not easy to do.

NF. Lastly, I guess I would like to ask you how Prime Minister Bob Rae will govern differently than Premier Bob Rae?

BR. Well, I think it is a decade later in a life. It is a different set of circumstances and I think you learn from experience. Some things would be the same. I learned very quickly in government that you have to make decisions – to govern is to choose and you have to do it in a way that encourages people to perform and do their best and you also have to take a personal interest in making sure that things are on track and that governments are going in the direction that they are going in. There is a sense of realism about the limited number of things you could do and a realization that implementation is everything. Making sure that things get done and get done well is absolutely critical.

I am very proud of the fact that I was Premier of the Province of Ontario. I know in my heart that a lot of the things the government did were good and that it was a tremendously positive experience. It would also be bizarre if coming out of that experience, that I would say that I wouldn’t change a thing, that I would do the same all over again. You learn from your experiences.

End of the interview.

Current Odds.

2006-09-06T20:51:00.000-04:00

Bob Rae: 3 : 1
Stephane Dion: 3 : 1
Michael Ignatieff: 4 : 1
Ken Dryden: 6 : 1

Current Odds reflect the following :
1. Bevilacqua (and surely some of his right leaning delegates along with him) moves over to the Rae camp improving his already strong odds. More strength as a result of his performance during the Next Face interview. (Look for Part Three coming soon.) This is a veteran politician. A well spoken and intelligent alternative who in spite of his provincial skeletons could go toe to toe with Harper - both noses bloodied - and come out on top.
2. Ignoring the plagiarism debacle for a moment, Stephane Dion's strength is his seasoned political presence and youthful enthusiasm. We also like his 3 pillars message. If he has a weakness it might be the overzealous bloggers that will say or do anything to get his message out.
3. We like Ken Dryden a great deal. Frankly we think when the dust settles and the possible campaigns to prevent an Ignatieff or a Rae election rise to the surface, it could come down to Dryden and Dion. But his vision for "A Big Canada" may be too big for some to digest. Did it hit the mark? Time will tell, but our feeling is that momentum is waning in this camp. He needs to make a significant announcement in October or November and go into the convention with a head of steam.
4. Big re-launch today. Still, he seems more prone to polarize (rather than unify) the delegate population. At least that is the sense in the blog community. A Next Face interview cannot be far off and that might make all the difference. At least to us anyway.

The Rae Interview. Part 2.

2006-09-05T22:35:00.000-04:00

In this the second of three parts, we ask about the unification of the left, the legacy of Pierre Trudeau, and the recent loss of Canadian lives in Lebanon.

Part 2 of 3.
NF. So did you struggle with the idea of the move (to the Liberal Party) since 2000?

BR. Well I think it is clear to anyone who has read my books that I was not happy with where I thought the NDP was, where I thought it was going, and so I have no hesitation at all to say that throughout my time in politics that I have conducted myself in a way that is quite compatible with a great many things that the Liberal party stands for.

So I did not go though an instant conversion in 2006 if that is what you mean, it is pretty clear…that I have been talking about a necessary change in Canadian politics.

Most of the Social Democratic parties around the world had made the big transition in accepting the realities of the marketplace and the NDP had not made them…so no, I was not struck by lighting on the road to Damascus.

NF. Does the Left need to unite in a similar fashion to the right?

BR. I think I don’t want to get caught up in a long and tortured discussion about coalitions. I think the fact of the matter is that if the Liberal party is successful in renewing itself and if it is able to come up with a coherent approach to public policy, I think the Liberal party will become a home of a great many people who - in the past and recently - may have voted for the NDP or voted Greeen. It is a simple fact of life that unless we can attract those people and attract them in sufficient numbers to be the clear alternative, then we will not be able to defeat Mr. Harper. If we can attract sufficient numbers and if we can unite people under the Liberal banner then we can succeed.

I think we have to focus in that way and … that is the way for us to proceed.

NF. We take a great deal of delight in speculating over future coalitions and what could happen in (the weeks leading up to ) this convention. Given the endorsement you received from Mr. Bevilacqua and given Mr. Brison’s comments yesterday, could you suggest or would you agree that the “anyone but” campaign has already begun?

BR. No I don’t think so I think it is still early to conclude that one way or another. I certainly feel very strongly tha this is an open process and that everyone will be assessed and that the delegates are not going to be delivered on a plate by anybody. Many of them need to make up their (own) minds on who their second and third choices are when their first choices don’t make it to the finish line. It is arithmetic. It is (about) choices. Certain people will vote on the first ballot, and then people will have to decide on subsequent ballots on where they are going to go.

I think if you look at the history, for example, of the Ontario Convention, you can have candidates going over to one person or another but not necessarily bringing all of their people over. That is the reality of our time. We live in a non-deferential world. So perhaps with all due respect to my friends in the "blogosphere" it is not that easy to predict exactly how this thing is going to work out because it really depends on the chemistry of the moment and how people are going to feel about the choices available to them, recognizing that not everyone is going to be able to vote for their first choice.

NF. In our case you might want to hope that our blogging was correct because way back (in May of this year) we predicted that Bevilacqua was going to become the Kingmaker in this thing once he aligns himself with a candidate, and no one was more surprised than me when he aligned himself with you. As he was one of the more right leaning candidates (in a race) where almost all declared that they were leaning left and we thought that whoever he aligned himself with might be able to deliver the ‘right’ vote…and if we are correct, you may be the one who (is crowned)…as it were…

BR. Well I think what is interesting here is that a lot of the chemistry is built based on personal respect and perspective among the candidates and the same thing is true of delegates. They will be going where there heart is or where their head is as time goes on. I think a lot of this right left stuff is not very persuasive. I mean Maurizio and I – if you look back again – after I wrote the book, The Three Questions, he was one of the first people who picked up the phone to call me about the Three Questions and he thought a lot of the perspective in there was quite fascinating and very important, so I don’t think a lot of this “right left” stuff really helps, I think we need to go beyond that to look at the underlying issues.

NF. Scott Brison described Michael Igantieff as “…Gaffe prone…” the other day. Do you care to comment on that?
BR. No.
NF. Okay. Ah…(Laughs)
BR. (Laughs)

NF. As leader of the Liberal party, how will you deal with the legacy of Pierre Trudeau, who for many seems to shadow everything the party does.

BR. Well as you know I have written about this, in the book one of the chapters, “Trudeau’s Shadow". I suppose of the candidates running I was the only one to serve in the House of Commons with Mr. Trudeau. I was on the other side but we were together on the question of the Constitution and I am actually the only (candidate) running who voted for the Charter. I go back to the convention of 1968 with Mr. Trudeau and I don’t think there is any question that he has had a profound impact on the country and on our sense of values and perspective. I disagreed with him on some questions. We had some very vigorous debates and arguments (but) I have always had a great deal of respect for him and I don’t think there is any question that he is a great man and that he has had an enormous impact on the country on its sense of itself and on its identity and I am very proud to have know him.

NF. If this convention was held in August, some would say that foreign policy may have dictated who won this thing. How would your position on the loss of Canadian lives in Lebanon been different than Mr. Harper’s if you where running the country at this stage?

BR. Well I think the first thing is that you come at this from a perspective of saying things very clear. The first point is that terrorism is unacceptable. There is no other position that one needs to take with respect to terrorism except that it needs to be resisted. The second thing is that the Middle East - and Canada’s position in it – come from a long history of understanding that Canada has voted in favour of resolutions at the UN which have recognized Israel’s right to exist with its secure borders and boundaries, that we think Israel should be able to thrive as a country in the Middle East; that we also recognize that Lebanon is entitled to its sovereignty and the Palestinian people are entitled to a country and Canada’s position has been very clear. I don’t see a contradiction in those things. I think that we have to be able to say complete sentences about what is going on and I think that from the beginning the Prime Minister of Canada should be doing everything he can to avoid a humanitarian crises and doing everything he can to avoid loss of life. That is not being weak willed, it is a matter of being intensely realistic about the risks of escalation and the need for us to be concerned about the consequences of actions just as we are concerned about the justification. To be specific, Israel has the right to defend itself, no one in public office in Canada should deny that for one second.

The question then becomes what is the best way for that to happen? I think that what we are getting to now is that the conclusion is that Lebanon needs the assistance of the world in order to deal effectively with the growth of a private army within its midst. That is to the benefit of Israel, it is to the benefit of Lebanon and I think that is the kind of position we should be taking in this country and I think the Prime Minister of Canada should always be somebody who is talking thoughtfully and compassionately about the human impact that this has on all the countries involved.

Part three features what we think is one of the best questions ever asked of a Liberal leadership candidate. Stay tuned.

The Rae Interview. Part 1.

2006-09-04T09:00:00.000-04:00

In this the first of three installments, Mr. Rae discusses the Next Face Manifesto and he rejects our two election strategy scenario. He also responds to a question sent to Next Face by Warren Kinsella on why he refused Jean Chretien's past invitation to join the Liberal Party.

Part 1 of 3.
NF. Mr. Rae how are you sir?
BR. Fine how are you?
NF. Are you familiar with our blog, Next Face?
BR. Yes, I have just read your Manifesto.
NF. Care to comment on it?
BR. I think its great. I agree with you.
NF. That’s nice to hear.
BR. I guess I disagree with the (use of the term) “inquisition”. That part of it…you know I don’t like inquisitions...
NF. (Laughs)
BR. (Laughs)
NF. Maybe to strong a choice of words?
BR. Yes, you know I would go slow on “inquisitions”…(Laughs)

NF. (Laughs) Can we jump right into the formal portion of this interview?
BR. That’s fine.

NF. Next Face has remained vigorously non committed as it relates to the Liberal leadership candidates, though we have stated that we believe there are 4 of you that are best suited to take on this job…Yourself, Mr. Dion, Mr. Dryden and Mr. Ignatieff….having said that I would like to start by declaring a conflict of interest as it relates to this interview – as I did with Mr Dryden - as you represent the only past non – liberal candidate that ever received my vote in your bid for Premier in Ontario...

BR. (Laughs)…okay…

NF. ...and while I am pleased that I backed your win , I am happier I guess that you have changed parties…I may require a little less therapy to deal with that decision, now that you are a Liberal.

BR. Okay…(Laughs)

NF. I have some philosophical questions that I need to deal with, so you have read the Next Face Manifesto, and you have commented on that. In our Manifesto we stated that the next leader of the Liberal party should be fighting for the kind of Liberalism that has been lost over the years, that the Liberal party at its core where they should be progressive and reformers really came to represent the status quo and the party must rediscover its idealism and energy…do believe this to be the case?

BR. Well I think we should recognize that a lot of good things were done in the last 13 years and that the Chretien Martin years were years of great achievement. When we talk about getting the countries fiscal house in order, focusing on education and learning, getting going on the innovation agenda, signing Kyoto and the Kelowna accord from Mr. Martin, there were a whole bunch of things that are worthy of respect and attention by Canadians but I do think that inevitably a leadership convention like this one - particularily following an election defeat - is a chance for the party to renew itself and to give the party membership a chance to really talk to the leadership candidates about the kind of party they want, the kind of country they want to have, and it is an opportunity for renewal and I think if you go back to the history of the party, to the turn of the century, the Liberal party was the kind of party that believed strongly in accountability, believed strongly in reform, believed strongly in policies for the public good, and taking on the Tory establishment and I think that is a very fine tradition from which to start.

NF. I think it is that turn of the century government for me is an ironic (comparison) given how accountability became one of the contributing factors to the recent Liberal defeat and here we are 100 years later struggling with that and (with the Liberals) on the other side of that fence.

What (in your opinion) does the Liberal party need to do to win this next election and do you not agree that a 2 election strategy is more likely given Mr. Harper’s focused and seemingly well organized government?

BR. No. Not at all. I don’t think that you can ever go into an election doing anything else but trying to win and trying every possible way of ensuring that we do win. The one big thing we know about public opinion is that it shifts, it is constantly changing and shifting and there are reasons for that it is because events are happening very quickly around the world and I think the Liberal party would be making a huge mistake if they felt that, well they would not win this time and maybe they can win the next time. In every campaign we focus on the possibility if winning and that is what we should do now.

NF. We invited guests to recommend questions and we have one from Warren Kinsella who asks : Jean Chretien has written that he offered you many opportunities to work for him, but you refused and remained a New Democrat. Why?

BR. Actually Mr. Chretien is right. He did offer me many opportunities to work with him and I did. I worked with him very closely on the Forum of Federations, I worked with him very closely on the Security Intellligence Review Committee where I was an appointee of Mr. Chretien. He offered me many chances to perform acts of public service for which I am very grateful. It is however only true that there was one election, only one opportunity where Mr. Chretien offered me a chance to run and that was in the year 2000 and at that point my kids had still not graduated from high school, they were still at home, and I felt that it was not a good time for me to get back into federal politics and I am sure that Mr. Kinsella and everyone else would understand that these are decisions that are a combination of personal reasons and other reasons and I don’t think I failed any test of public service in the last decade. I think I have done a great deal for my country and the fact that one of them was not running for political office (in 2000)...you know I have run many times for political office and I know what is entailed and I made a decision in 1996 that I was going to focus my life on my kids and it is what I wanted to do as a parent and I made that decision and I think it was the right decision for me and I am now ready to return to the challenges of public office.

There is a lot more to come. In Part 2, Rae discusses the NDP's failure to make the necessary changes to accept the "realities of the marketplace" and offers up his opinions on uniting the left. We try to get the Liberal leadership hopeful to comment on Brison's refering to Ignatieff as "Gaffe Prone", and we discuss the "shadow of Pierre Trudeau."

Rae Interview Complete.

2006-08-31T18:03:00.000-04:00

It is in the can!

The interview is over and it covered a wide range of issues from Mr. Rae's policy position in the Middle East to what it was like sharing an apartment with Michael Ignatieff while attending the University of Toronto.

And speaking of Michael Ignatieff, can that interview be far off? Mr. Ignatieff represents the last of the 4 Next Face candidates in line for an interview and in due course we will offer up that challenge. In the meantime, we are scheduling a second interview with Mr. Dion (with a greater focus on foreign policy) which we hope will take place over the next few weeks.

We will post the Rae interview in three parts begining later tomorrow.

Rae Responds to Next Face.

2006-08-21T07:29:00.000-04:00

We received an email from Rae's people within minutes of our post on Sunday repeating the interview challenge. We will contact them today to discuss the interview with Next Face. More on this as we firm up the details.

A Challenge to the Bob Rae Camp.

2006-08-16T10:16:00.000-04:00

On the heels of our question and answer opportunity with Mr. Dryden who so graciously gave us over an hour of his time to answer questions (including the now infamous "Kinsella Question") , we would like to offer up a challenge :

We would like to call on Mr. Rae and his staff to accept our request and arrange for a 30 minute phone call between the candidate and Next Face. We will record the conversation and post it on our blog for all to digest. The outcome of the interview could have a bearing on our ranking and ultimately on the fact that we still remain non-committed heading into the late summer. After similar interviews with Mr. Dryden and Mr. Dion, the feedback from both organizations was very positive and the response from the blogging community was tremendous.

Contact us at : nextface@rogers.com

We look forward to a response from the Rae camp and will post a status report as we hear back from them.

50 Years of Canadian and American Leadership. Again.

2006-08-15T22:47:00.000-04:00

We were asked to repost this and we are happy to do so. (One of the more clever posts from Tobias, our Head of Research and Political History). Enjoy.

Have you ever looked at the last 50 years of leadership in the United States and Canada and noted the similarities? There have been Conservative and Liberal trends on both sides of the border, which seemed to coincide with each other almost as if planned or destined.

Lets begin:

From 1948 to 1953
St. Laurent and Truman. Both Liberals. Both share an 'A, U, R, N', and 'T' in their names.

Coincidence? we say not.

From 1957 to 1960
Eisnehower and Diefenbaker. Both Conservatives. Both had 4 syllables. Both end in "ER".

Wait. It gets better.

From 1963 to 1968
Pearson and Johnson. Both Liberals. Both names had two syllables. Both end in 'SON'.

From 1968 to 1984
Seemingly - no similarities during the Trudeau era, in part due to the long Trudeau Liberal tenure in the face of the Conservative Nixon/Ford era in the USA. It was no secret Nixon hated Trudeau and with good reason. Their names had very little in common and Nixon did not like bucking trends... But wait. During this period and for a short time during 1979 and 1980, the trend realigns itself to see Clark and Carter take office. Both start with a 'C'. Both share and ‘A’ and an ‘R’.

All is right with the world again.

From 1984 to to 1992
Reagan and Mulroney. Both Conservatives. Remember the disturbing rendition of "When Irish eyes are smiling..." ?.
Lets leave it at that.

From 1993 to 2000
Chretien and Clinton. Both Liberals. Both start with a 'C' and end with an 'N' and share an 'I'.

What does it all mean?

Aside from having nothing to do after reading my Saturday morning paper and needing some content to post, maybe nothing. But we should watch carefully to see who takes office after Bush’s all but certain defeat in 2008 and look for clues in the name. If it sounds anything like Dryden, Ignatieff or Dion, then we have found the Next Face of the Liberal party of Canada.

Or maybe...Rae and Gore? Both Liberals (kinda), Share an 'R', share and 'E', one syllable, both like blue ties, both jesture with their left hands.

Hmmmmmm...

Rae On The Move!

2006-08-14T13:59:00.000-04:00

Bevilacqua the king maker? Were we right in our Post of May 22, 2006?
Ok, so we thought it would go down at the convention and not in August, but were we far off?

By our count, given Rae's 'leftist' roots and Bevilacqua's 'rightist' position, Maurizio's decision to endorse Rae nicely swings Rae back towards the centre which is where we think one needs to be to pull in the two sides on this leadership debate.

The Volpe contribution fiasco notwithstanding, this is the most explosive bit of news to hit this race so far.

Those playing along at home might want to refer to the Dryden interview where Next Face made mention of this very thing when posing the question of strategy to the candidate. We have felt all along that the interaction among the candidates and the posturing for support among them was as important as the race itself.

They can't all win this thing and they would do well by taking heed of this advice. Get the word out. Merge, align and strengthen. Leave the strongest three or four standing and head into the convention with the best among us firmly positioned to raise the bar in this debate.

Well done Mr. Bevilacqua! This is a great move on your part. The race (and indeed the party) is stronger as a result of your decision.

No point in revising our current odds.
Mr. Rae was posted at 4:1 yesterday (in what could only be seen as remarkable intuition on our part) and remains the frontrunner.

Next Face Disappointed.

2006-08-14T08:43:00.000-04:00

In spite of the pressure to endorse a candidate since its inception in late January of this year, Next Face remains undecided. We have taken a significant amount of time off this summer. To say we did so as a respite from the Liberal leadership race would be a lie. But it has been a terrific time for us to step back and assess things as they stand with 3 1/2 months to go in the race.

However...with respect to recent foreign policy we can no longer remain silent. We can no loger sit back and accept this void where once stood the likes of Pearson and Trudeau. That is to say that while we expected that the Harper government would cower in the face of the obvious injustice that has seen a family of 8 Canadian citizens slaughtered in their home and a UN outpost bombed resulting in another Canadian casualty, what we were not prepared for was the lack of vigorous opposition-style-prose and Pearson-esq vision from the short list of viable Next Face candidates; Dion, Dryden, Ignatieff and Rae.

To say we are disappointed would be an understatement.

We think it might be time to resume our campaign to interview the two remaining candidates and ask the tough questions on foreign policy. It is from those questions on foreign policy that a real leader could emerge.

Either that, or we continue to fall prostrate to this remarkably amemic leader who is steering the good ship Canada in a direction unseen for many many decades; a direction so unCanadian that we remain astonished to think that we have come to a point in our history where we think that our role is to ignore the plight of our citizens abroad.

With respect to the larger issue in the Middle East, both sides are right. Both sides are wrong. We have heard the arguments. We do not pretend to have it all figured out. We will leave that debate to other bloggers with much more energy and knowledge. One thing is for certain though, someone needs to tell the Emperor that he is in fact not wearing any clothes.

Canada's response to this issue has been a monumental misfire.

It has set our image back decades. We are no longer a just society who protects and looks to prop up other peoples who seek the same social justice. We have neither defended, protected, supported or sought justice.

To that end, look to Next Face to put those demands in the form of questions to the leadership hopefuls over the coming days.