A Liberal MP was secretly recorded saying that he thought party leader Justin Trudeau had a �bozo eruption� when he declared that anti-abortion candidates won�t be allowed to run for the Liberals.
Since Confederation, the backbone of the Liberal Party in Canada has been Roman Catholicism. I don't know what young Justin thinks he has to substitute for that historic support but alienating all of the adherent Catholics in Canada with one pronouncement is a "Mega-Bozo" eruption.
I agree with John Mckay on this one. Trudeau's stand is a huge mistake and an extremely rookie one IMO. The Liberal party is in no position to be exclusive at this juncture and excluding a huge number of potential candidates on a single issue is more than just a little flub.
I hope he does something to retract his statement. Some people think life starts at conception and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them feeling that way.
Him saying, "Oh, I won't even sit at a table and discuss facts with someone like that", demonstrates to me how out of touch he is with his party.
I think he forgot the part where he is supposed to build support, not push it to other parties.
Also, there a a substantial number of people who given the option, wouldn't vote for a party that supports abortion but very few who wouldn't vote for a party unless every single member supports abortion so I have no idea what he aims to accomplish.
Given how secular most Roman Catholics in Canada, the US, and Europe have become over the last half-century I highly doubt that most of them take their political orders from the priesthood or the Vatican anymore. The bishops might be enraged but the majority of the Catholic laity probably isn't.
JT's proving himself to be quite imperious, even moreso than his old man was. Any party leader should have the right and responsibility to say yay or nay to candidate selections. Selection may be a democratic process but the leader should still be able to negate it if he/she feels the chosen candidate is potentially damaging to the party. If Danielle Smith had veto power over the riding associations she could have refused to accept Allan Huntsperger as a candidate and avoided the "lake of fire" bozo eruption altogether, and Alberta could conceivably have a Wildrose government in power right now, which would have completely negated all the nonsense from the Redford interregnum from happening at all.
Policy's different though. If JT is imposing it from the top-down, in a manner that even Stephen Harper doesn't, then he's not doing himself a favour. Tom Wappell was pro-life and served as a loyal Liberal for years. He was a fairly common-sense guy as far as Liberals go and being a pro-lifer didn't make him an enemy of the party. It's the wrong path to go if JT is trying to eliminate these kind of people from the party.
Yeah not a big fan of the top down approach, but there's two fundamental, trans-partisan truths that need to be kept in mind:
Parties out of power always profess to "do things differently." However once in power, the approach always has been very "top down." In my opinion, that's probably because that is the approach that works best to stay in power. Not saying it's good or bad; just saying it works.
Secondly, abortion can rip apart a caucus faster than a pack of wolves can rip apart a carcass. Harper did the same thing when his anti-abortion MPs got uppity. It's a toxic issue.
The toughest job of a party leader is probably when populist nonsense infects the caucus and triggers an internal crisis. Say what you will about a couple of bozos like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell in the GOP, but I bet both of them would admit in a second (if they could do it in public without committing career suicide) that they wish they'd never ever heard the words "Tea Party". I could understand why JT would want to get rid of pro-lifers if they were an incipient threat to the Liberals. But they're probably such a tiny minority in the party that he could have successfully ignored them altogether for the entire term of his leadership and not suffered any internal consequences from it at all. Even Stephen Harper's been successfully stymieing social conservatives for years and he's none the worse for it for the most part.
"andyt" said I wonder if Harper would allow someone with a strong anti-oilsands stand to run? Strongly pro-Palestine? Any number of issues. I doubt it.
Has he mentioned they wouldn't be? Of course not, just wishful thinking on your part. But the Trudeau has spoken aloud about Liberal members not having views different from "Dear Leader".
From shiny pony to bozo erupter in a few months. Keep going kid. Tell us some more of your theories on how not getting enough special treatment causes terrorism, and how Quebec should run Canada.
I hope he does something to retract his statement. Some people think life starts at conception and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them feeling that way.
Him saying, "Oh, I won't even sit at a table and discuss facts with someone like that", demonstrates to me how out of touch he is with his party.
I think he forgot the part where he is supposed to build support, not push it to other parties.
Also, there a a substantial number of people who given the option, wouldn't vote for a party that supports abortion but very few who wouldn't vote for a party unless every single member supports abortion so I have no idea what he aims to accomplish.
I hope his reign is short.
JT's proving himself to be quite imperious, even moreso than his old man was. Any party leader should have the right and responsibility to say yay or nay to candidate selections. Selection may be a democratic process but the leader should still be able to negate it if he/she feels the chosen candidate is potentially damaging to the party. If Danielle Smith had veto power over the riding associations she could have refused to accept Allan Huntsperger as a candidate and avoided the "lake of fire" bozo eruption altogether, and Alberta could conceivably have a Wildrose government in power right now, which would have completely negated all the nonsense from the Redford interregnum from happening at all.
Policy's different though. If JT is imposing it from the top-down, in a manner that even Stephen Harper doesn't, then he's not doing himself a favour. Tom Wappell was pro-life and served as a loyal Liberal for years. He was a fairly common-sense guy as far as Liberals go and being a pro-lifer didn't make him an enemy of the party. It's the wrong path to go if JT is trying to eliminate these kind of people from the party.
Parties out of power always profess to "do things differently." However once in power, the approach always has been very "top down." In my opinion, that's probably because that is the approach that works best to stay in power. Not saying it's good or bad; just saying it works.
Secondly, abortion can rip apart a caucus faster than a pack of wolves can rip apart a carcass. Harper did the same thing when his anti-abortion MPs got uppity. It's a toxic issue.
I wonder if Harper would allow someone with a strong anti-oilsands stand to run? Strongly pro-Palestine? Any number of issues. I doubt it.
Has he mentioned they wouldn't be? Of course not, just wishful thinking on your part. But the Trudeau has spoken aloud about Liberal members not having views different from "Dear Leader".