Friday, December 02, 2005

Down with handpicked candidates! Part II

Seems this "Allan Cutler was acclaimed because the Tories disqualified his only rival" story has actually been a story since before tonight - I'm surprised no one (that I know of) picked up on it.

Now, this blog has grown a bit more popular than in previous months, probably because of the election. I seem to be pissing off a lot of Tories who are saying some nasty things about me in the comments. Well, like Stephen Harper said, if they're attacking me, I must be doing something right. Take this story for instance - I said that the CBC was reporting it on The National tonight - in fact, I was watching the TV as I was typing. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a link right away, leading some to, shall we say, question my integrity. One even threatened a libel suit! (I feel so special, no one's ever threatened to sue me before.)

Well, there's your proof. I can't find a quote for the riding association head, but the CBC did report it, so I imagine it will be up on their website soon enough. I'll be sure to post it here once I find it. Wouldn't want to be called a liar again!

EDIT: Speak of the devil, there it is. Thanks to HisHighness from Liberal for Life.

Appears Ridell was offered a deal to step down - the Tories would pay his campaign debts for him. When he did step down, the party said there were "no strings attached", and has thus far not honoured their deal.

The riding assocition executive's name is Neil McFadden, who called Harper a "hypocrite". The letter said Harper should not "covertly orchestrate the assassination of other candidates".

There you go, boys. Sue me!


At 12/02/2005 11:55 p.m., Blogger OttawaCon said...

And for your part, this is a much more accurate and fairer statement of the tempest in the tea-cup than your first post.

However, Neil McFadden is not a 'head' - as far as I know, he is on the board, but has no office. He was apparently the only board member who supported Riddell, the other candidate in question.

Secondly, Riddell was not disqualified...this time. He was last spring, long before Cutler was in the picture. I leave it to you to decide if you think the basis for disqualification was reasonable.

Thirdly, Riddell's claim that there was a deal regarding withdrawal is completely unverifiable - the only person to make this claim is Riddell himself, and he damaged his own credibility irrevocably in 2004. I leave it to you to decide if his uncorroborated claim has any basis to be taken seriously.

Fourthly, even if there was such an agreement, are you essentially just acting as his bill collectors over a week-old nomination?

On Ignatieff, I have to disagree absolutely. His views on torture are wholly unacceptable, and an outright rejection of the values for which all Canadians have stood.

The fact that Liberals are spending more time and energy smearing the one genuine hero of the sponsorship scandal than question Ignatieff's views on torture is a sad testimony to where the Liberal Party has arrived.

At 12/03/2005 12:17 a.m., Blogger Clear Grit said...

Well, it would seem to me that his original disqulification was for ridiculous reasons - dressing as a TV character at a costume party? - and the appeal board apparently agreed with me.

Also, simply denying that Ridell's claims lack legitimacy does not prove them false, nor does it mean it's not something that should raise some eyebrows. What's clear here is that he wanted to run, and was prevented by the party from doing so.

As for Ignatieff, I think he's been the victim of quite the smear campaign. Allegations that he's a "Ukraineophobe" are patently false as he's taken great pains to demonstrate, and while I disagree with his views on torture, he has been quick to denounce such attrocities as Abu Ghraib.

At 12/03/2005 12:36 a.m., Blogger OttawaCon said...

It is not at all clear that Riddell was prevented from running - quite the opposite, as he did withdraw his candidacy, a fact he does not dispute.

My guess is that Ignatieff has been a victim of Paul Martin's intolerance of potential rivals. That being said, the casuistry Ignatieff employs to speak of torture leads me to wish him a speedy return to Harvard Yard. He has no place in Canadian public life.

At 12/03/2005 12:48 a.m., Blogger Clear Grit said...

Why on Earth would Ridell withdraw his candidacy if he wanted to run, as he claims he did?

As for Ignatieff's "casuistry", I don't understand why anyone would be uncomfortable with an analytical, rational approach to things, as opposed to emotionalism. I'm quite comfortable with it - I reject emotionalism because it is irrational. Emotional responses to things are devoid, philosophically, of any useful meaning. As an academic, Ignatieff surely understands this.

At 12/03/2005 12:52 a.m., Blogger HisHighness said...

Always a pleasure to help a fellow Liberal against Conservative idiocy.

At 12/03/2005 8:05 a.m., Blogger OttawaCon said...

Riddell probably withdrew because he was about to get beaten like a drum. He suggest he withdrew in expectation of a payment of a consdieration, but does not dispute that he withdrew.

Ignatieff's willingness to rationalize the use of torture is nothing more than academic vocabulary in the service of power - his doctrine of lesser evil ends precisely in the sort of nihilism he claims to eschew.

At 12/05/2005 5:11 p.m., Blogger Dan McKenzie said...

More conservative nomination bs


Post a Comment

<< Home