Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Things Not To Say To Kick Off Leadership Campaigns

"Sometimes when you're sending a quick e-mail, you don't really think about the content of it,"


  • Think about the party Brison, not your own personal ambition. You would be maybe the youngest Finance Minister ever in a new Liberal government...that's better than leader of the opposition.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:50 a.m.  

  • Honestly, I think this will sink any chances of a Liberal comeback for a while. This story isn't about Brison... it's going to be about how many other Liberal cabinet ministers were questioned by the RCMP? What else did they know before the 23rd of January?

    I think when this RCMP report is made public in a couple of months, it will be hard for people to forget.

    I think one of the most incriminating things was when the transcript of Brison's conversation showed he msg'd the guy the day after and said "U Happy?" and the guy wrote back "I can not express the joy"... I mean thats pathetic. After you leak information, you check up to make sure the guy you leaked it to was pleased.

    Fact check: BRISON YOU WERE A SENIOR CABINET MINISTER, not some buddy off the street. Man what a dumb move!

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 8:07 a.m.  

  • Get real, Liberals!

    Harper and his New Tories are doing a wonderful job of slow-motion implosion in the ethics side, which Harper rode to victory on.

    The next leader of the LPC should not have any baggage which Harper can campaign against.

    Brison will make a good target for the New Tories who successfully imported the US neocon “framing” tactic during the recent election. They framed the election as a rejection of corruption, with Harper being Mr Clean. And they won on that framing. Imagine how Harper would frame Brison …. The New Tories would hang two millstones around his neck: either he was involved in tipping a banker off about the income trust change, or he was incredibly incompetent for a senior cabinet minister in exchanging those kinds of emails with a banker. In both instances Harper will claim that is is “business as usual” with a Liberal Party which clearly has not learned anything from the spanking administered to it by the voters. Either tag probably will be enough for Harper to resurrect his Mr Clean image, and move on to a minority government.

    Stronach has the weakness that she takes away from the LPC the ability to hammer Mr Clean on his MP-switcheroo tactics and arrogance in claiming imperial powers as prime minister. She also is a relative newcomer to the LPC and open to claims of Liberal-of-convenience. So she, too, is highly vulnerable to New Tory framing.

    Get real for another reason: the way Harper is carrying on, another election could come well before the LPC have chosen a new leader. In that case, guess who will choose the leader he wishes to run against? You got it – Mr Clean. Imagine the framing opportunities if he can go through a list with Brison and Stronach on it and hammer away at them as his chosen targets! Be handing him a majority government on a platter.

    Politics is about power, and about reality, as much as about idealism. It is foolish to start off the next campaign (against a US-style perpetual campaigning party such as the New Tories now are) by making yourself vulnerable.

    Time to move on to other candidates, who come to the table with less baggage or no baggage. The next Liberal leader should be the Mr or Ms Clean, in contract to a tarnished Harper.

    Time for Brison and Stronach to gracefully exit from the leadership contest.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:20 a.m.  

  • Curiositykilledthecat,

    Your post was hilarious! Definitely Brison and Belinda should get the hell out of the race. I don't see an election anytime soon unless Harper wants a majority. Liberals need to get our act together and fast. That means we need to find someone charismatic, energetic and fresh. Sure, I have no idea who that is but I bet there is someone out there.

    Its just not Brison

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 9:41 a.m.  

  • So, who are your suggestions for Leader then?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:52 a.m.  

  • You bought 'em (Brison and Belinda) with cabinet appointments. You own them. They are perfect Martinis...ambitious narcissists. Ha, ha, ha...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:04 a.m.  

  • Scotty is done. I bet he endorses Belinda.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:31 a.m.  

  • Poor Dion, He comes to Calgary to get some copy on Calgary Grit and he gets overshadowed by Brison Still.
    Cmon CG what about the Dion leadership tour yesterday, he had at least three events, lunch, U of C and Calgary Centre, what did you think? Is he the guy?
    You must have seen him at one of the events.
    How was it, who were the key/prominent Liberals at the lunch, where was it what was served?
    Cmon we are counting on you!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:48 a.m.  

  • Dion was in Calgary yesterday. Three events.

    You want feedback? You'll have to go wake up the poor blokes who showed up for the event.

    Go Volpe! Go!

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 10:50 a.m.  


    Try to answer the skill testing question.

    By Blogger NO BS 4 LIBS, at 11:17 a.m.  

  • Word to the wise: "No baggage" easily wins the prize for worst possible criterion in choosing a leader. "Baggage" is what you get when you've done something with your life. When he came to Ottawa in 2001, Stockwell Day had no baggage at all. When he won the leadership in 1990, Chrétien had so much baggage he needed a separate train car to carry it all. He was radioactive in Quebec. And he won three majorities, increasing his Quebec vote every time at bat.

    Ernie Eves had no baggage. Camille Thériault was Frank McKenna without the baggage. I could go through a list of baggage-free losers and baggage-toting winners (Reagan! Clinton! Al Gore: Clinton without the baggage) as long as your arm, but there's no point. The "no-baggage" armies never learn. That's because they're not carrying a lot of baggage either.

    Here's another word for baggage: experience. You're right. Can't have that.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:21 a.m.  

  • Anonymous asked The Cat for suggestions on who should be a leader.

    The Cat does not buy a pig in a poke.

    Anyone running for leader and potential prime minister of Canada should spell out exactly what his or her platform is, as this will be the most likely platform of the LPC in the next election.

    I need to know:

    • where you stand on the major issues;
    • whether you understand anything about framing (if any candidate cannot recite Don’t Think About An Elephant by heart, he or she is dead meat against the New Tory neocons),
    • what are your top 5 priorities, and
    • why voters should vote for the LPC with you as leader.

    If you have not addressed the democratic deficit, including proportional representation, then you would be less of a candidate in my eyes. There is a problem with votes in Canada not having value, and any prime minister worth his or her salt should address that problem in a proactive manner.

    So, let’s see those programs, candidates, and then Liberals can start comparison shopping and a vigorous debate about the relative merits of individual candidates and where they will take the party and the country.

    So far we have seen simplistic will he/will she win? type discussions. In other words, up to now the LPC seems to be running a beauty competition rather than the selection of the next prime minister.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:22 a.m.  

  • Wellsey!

    There is good baggage and there is bad baggage.
    Insider Trading = Bad Baggage
    Not Graduating University = Bad Baggage

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:29 a.m.  

  • Cat at 9:22am,

    The leadership race may seem superficial thus far but I think some of the candidates have political experience or written opinions so you get a sense of where they are coming from. The key question is where is she/he going from here? First of all, we need to know who is actually going to run. If there are 10 candidates like some reports suggest, this will not be helpful for Liberals trying to get a sense of who is a stand out, especially if we have a Nov/06 convention. I am hoping for 6-7 candidates and some clear outlines of where they want the party and Canada to go next.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:17 p.m.  

  • Supposedly Brison was not one of those who was told by Goodale about the income trust changes. But what if somebody whom Goodale told went on to tell Brison. For instance, what if a PMO staffer, let's call him "Mike", told Brison about the proposed changes that he'd been briefed about. Would "Mike" be guilty of breaking any laws in that he told somebody who then told somebody else who was able to make money off this information? Or would culpability fall strictly on Scott's head, with "Mike" being in the clear because Scott, himself, didn't make any money off the information "Mike" passed on.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:42 p.m.  

  • Mr Wells
    This is simplistic dualism.
    Baggage vs no Baggage
    John Turner = Baggage
    Pierre Trudeau = no baggage (this is perhaps arguable)
    Brian Mulroney = No baggage
    Paul Martin = Baggage
    Harper (perhaps just carry on baggage)
    I think the issue is rather what kind of baggage and if they packed it themselves and kept it in their sight the whole time so that no one could slip a bomb in it.
    Also is it old baggage that can blow appart on the luggage belt exposing your questionable choice of undies for all to see.
    Or is it new baggage with wheels and a handle that can get you out of trouble quick and is easy to manuver even with a brick in the bottom.
    Gee I guess I agree that baggage should not be a defining issue but I think certain types of baggage suggest that the inspectors are going to be eyeing you as they slip on the rubber glove and really who needs that, because it rarely ends in Hugs and Puppies

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:46 p.m.  

  • Pauls Wells makes a very needed point.

    I'm already hearing from various Liberals that "Dion is a non starter because the Clarity Act will hurt the Liberals in Quebec" or we can't have Ignatiff because horror of all horrors he had the audacity to write a few books with some idea's in them!

    A leader needs a past history of taking an actual stand on something. Or else we wind up someone like Stockwell Day who had no history and turned out to be a diaster or we get another a Paul Martin, someone who spent a decade trying to take every possible stand on every possible issue and offend no one.

    Look how that turned out for us.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:49 p.m.  

  • There is also the dangerous baggage of questionning your ideologies... Remember Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach both ran for the leadership of other right wing parties, can we really trust these individuals to hold the core small 'l' liberal values to heart. That will also be a defining issue for leadership. The juggernaut principle really worked strong but along the way they forgot to be liberals (especially this campaign)... we now have an opportunity to pick a leader who hasnt, perhaps we should??
    I too will be looking at where ALL the candidates (when they finally announce) stand on the major issues, what their top 3 or top 5 governing priorities are (people remember 3s and 5s) and what are their core values.
    Looking forward to an open, fair and meaningful leadership race!!
    Just my thoughts...

    By Blogger UofO Liberal, at 1:22 p.m.  

  • Didn't Bubba Clinton give Belinda some of his baggage? Maybe in today's Liberal Party, that is what will pass for "royal jelly".

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:31 p.m.  

  • Wells makes a valid point about experience (which is why I'd be very cautious of someone like Ignatieff who has zero political experience).

    But, you can't just ignore the baggage thing completely. Harper's past cost him the 2004 election and certainly hurt him in 2006. As much as I love a guy like Allan Rock, he's just too tainted to be leader right now. Someone like Dennis Corderre who is tied up in Adscam (tenuously albeit) would be a BIG mistake right now too.

    Ideally, you'd get someone with experience who isn't tied to scandal at all. The LPC will need someone who is squeaky clean right now since ethics, above all else, is what hurt them in the last election.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 1:57 p.m.  

  • happeningfish - I'll throw up some stuff on Dion later today.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 1:57 p.m.  

  • Yo, Manitoba Liberals,

    Apparently, Michael Ignatieff has been scheduled as the ONLY keynote dinner speaker at the Manitoba annual mtg On April 21(provincial mtg. but will function like a federal mtg because unlikely to be a federal mtg. in Manitoba before the leadership convention).

    The recent Nova Scotia mtg. also originally had Ignatieff on the agenda as their keynote speaker but in the spirit of fairness re: the upcoming leadership race, he was replaced with a neutral speaker.

    I suggest we get on the phone as Manitoba Liberals and ask that Ignaiteff also be replaced with a neutral speaker at the Manitoba mtg. The leadership campaign will be in full swing by the time this mtg. occurs and one candidate should not be given any preferential treatment.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:58 p.m.  

  • no bs 4 libs: you need another name. You're making the same mistake as the C.R.A.P party did two elections ago. Did anybody else read that website and think who the hell are these "nobs for the Liberals?"

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:59 p.m.  

  • it does not matter which crook or liar the liberals pick it will lead to a conservative majority it is fun watching each new canadate implode though.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:33 p.m.  

  • For UofO Liberal-- the top 3 priorities of the Liberals will be;
    1. get Adscam up and runing to pay off the horrendous Liberal Party debt
    2. Make sure the next in line to the party leader is appointed to the the Royal Mint, along (of course) with all HIS or Her entitelments.
    3.Make sure there are several Pizza Business's close by that can make a $138.00 Pizza for 3

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:34 p.m.  

  • Winnipeg Grit,

    Alcock will make sure Ignatiff is dumped for the provincial meeting. We will proably get Goodale in his place.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:53 p.m.  

  • "Word to the wise: "No baggage" easily wins the prize for worst possible criterion in choosing a leader. "Baggage" is what you get when you've done something with your life."

    Paul is of course right. So, Brison has a bit of baggage now. Big deal.

    So he thinks Mulroney is the greatest PM of all time - that's so 3 years ago.

    And he supported the war in Iraq? What good Tor...I mean Liberal didn't?

    Missle Defence? Just adds character to his candidacy - at least he's got some beliefs.

    Scott Brison, if nothing else, the man knows how to use a blackberry.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:59 p.m.  

  • Does anyone know when Scott is getting married?

    That could be a really good way to put this all behind him - make a big Hollywood-style splash with a wonderful celebration.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:04 p.m.  

  • Scott,

    U Sad?

    By Blogger Don, at 3:31 p.m.  

  • At his Vancouver reception, Brison stated something to the effect that he was married or was in the process of getting married, I can't remember which. He did praise the same sex marriage bill for making this possible. I distinctly remember the three representatives of the Earnscliffe Strategy Group applauding very loudly when he said this.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:40 p.m.  

  • I know he fell in love with someone in Public Works by the name of Maxime.

    It can't have happened yet. Surely the first former Cabinet minister to gay marry would be news, no?

    Too bad. He could score a major publicity coup with a big-media wedding ceremony.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 3:49 p.m.  

  • I'm fairly sure Ignatieff won't be the only speaker at the Manitoba convention.

    In Alberta, it sounds like Bill Graham will be the keynote and they'll give all the other leadership candidates a "panel discusion" or something like that in the afternoon.

    That's really the only fair way to do it.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 4:09 p.m.  

  • grey wall,

    Upon consideration of your suggestion I came to the conclusion that I like my name even more than I first thought. As BS and SB (that's BS backwards) are both 'nobs', I think the triple meaning of my name is a little funnier than the double meaning I had thought it had.

    Good on ya for pointing that out!

    By Blogger NO BS 4 LIBS, at 4:11 p.m.  

  • Didn't even hear the Libs were coming to town CG... I'll be sure to bring my airhorn.

    "when your sending a quick email you don't really think about the content of it"

    If thats the case, why the half dozen follow-up's on the 24th, published on Kinsella's site.

    And why send the original in the middle of a cabinet meeting.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 4:42 p.m.  

  • I think "dumping" Ignatieff from speaking engagements is pretty much the opposite of "fairness." Other candidates are just as able to arrange their own, that's just a silly approach.

    His (anonymous) detractors seem to think he's a "boring professor," so they oughtn't worry, you would think.

    I wish everyone would be a little more fair-minded about all of the candidates, and make an effort to go out and see as many of them as possible in the (many) months we have to decide this thing.

    And for god's sake, everyone who makes an anonymous slam makes every single other candidate look dirty, including the one you support. The Tories can chime in and pretend to just be detractors of this or that party and laugh their heads off while we fight - do we want that?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:56 p.m.  

  • Last comment is mine, accidentally signed an "other" comment with url/url instead of "name/url"

    By Blogger Jason Townsend, at 4:58 p.m.  

  • I just called the office for the Manitoba Liberal Party and told them I am very disapointed that they are taking sides by having Iggnatieff as the only speaker.

    I was told that changes will be taken to ensure that all leadership candidates have a fair chance to be heard.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:22 p.m.  

  • Anonymous 10:42


    My education in this area goes back about fifteen years and stems from the US (CFA program). But the essence of the rules should be similar in Canada.

    You do not have to profit from tipping. The benefit could be entirely reputational and you'd still be in breach of insider trading rules.

    In this case, if Brison knew of the coming legislation, he ought to have known it was material in that it was information that would have a material impact on market prices. Brison indicates as much in his email to the recipient. The information was certainly not for public dissemination until it could be done so fairly in order to ensure all market participants had an equal opportunity to use the information. Brison worked at Yorkton Securities and should be aware of insider trading rules. Regardless, ignorance of the law is not an excuse yada yada.

    And don't let CIBC's remark that they investigated themselves and found no suspicious trading activity sway you. It is entirely plausible that Brison's friend was wise enough not to personally act but to relay the info to accomplices at other firms (that wouldn't exhonerate him but would at least make the trail more nebulous). If true, and I was one of those guys at another firm, I'd definitely employ my Gordon Gecco defence and hope the authorities do not suspect I've been too willfully blind. Remeber in Wall Street Bud Fox tips Gordon Gecco about the outcome of an investigation in an aviation accident. Bud knew the result because his dad (ironically the movie's hero and champion of the little guy) participated in the investigation by virtue of his position as union honcho. The information passed from Bud's dad (Martin Sheen) to Budd was material and non-public because it was favourable to the airline and would be announced publicly via a press release. In essence this was the first violation of insider trading rules in the film yet that little fact seemed to have escaped Oliver Stone. Now that Bud has the info he has a choice: He can sit on it and do nothing - in which case he would be not be in breach. Or he can use it to benefit himself - which he does. He informs Gordon Gecco that a favourable decision has been reached and that the stock will rally when the news is released. Gecco asks him how he knows. Foxx refuses to say how other than "I just know". Here Bud is buttressing his reputation with Gecco. So now we have Bud and his dad both in breach of insider trading rules. But what of Gecco? Ironically, he's clean. He just met Bud and took him at his word. Anyway, Oliver Stone has never been criticized for letting facts get in the way of his thesis.

    That's what I believe may have happened here. Brison knew of the decision as did probably way too many people. He spilled it to his pal at CIBC who was smart enough to spread the word without actually trading personally. It is plausible but not necessarily easy to prove. We'd first need to determine if Brison indeed knew of the MOF decision. If so, he's cooked. His pal at CIBC will be cooked too if his passed it on.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:31 p.m.  

  • Let's not forget where Brison worked on Bay Street--Porkton Securities where offshore boyo Scott Paterson was king--until he was exiled by the OSC and his Yorkton partners.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:00 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home