Monday, December 04, 2006
Dion, Stelmach: Reaction from Adversaries
The Conservatives, who it has been suggested were caught unprepared for a Dion victory, were quick to post a reaction on their site. Interestingly enough, it gives most prominence not to his record as environment minister (where he is extremely open to attack) but to the fact that he was a member of cabinet during the sponsorship and HRDC scandals. I am intrigued - if this heralds a strategy of attacking Dion's integrity, I will be very curious to see how it works. My guess would be not well.
They do eventually get to his record on the environment, however, noting that "Dion’s record was so bad, he earned a sharp rebuke from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development". But no sooner do they make this point than they move on to attacking is alleged lack of respect for provincial jurisdictions. I am very curious as to what they're basing this decision on - perhaps the Clarity Act, brainchild of, in part, Stephen Harper? They close with an irrelevant cheap shot at his rebuke to Michael Ignatieff during one of the debates - "Do you think it's easy to make priorities?", trying to paint him as directionless.
Frankly, I find it odd that the Conservatives would choose these areas to attack him on. I would be very surprised if they manage to paint Dion as either lacking integrity or as being a ditherer, both of which are very much at odds with his public image. I would also be surprised if the completely inaccurate image of Dion as an arch-centralizer takes root. There is certainly traction to be gained in attacking his record as environment minister, but you have to doubt that that traction is the Conservatives' to gain, given their own dismal record on the file.
The New Democrats do a little better. They attack Dion for his record as environment minister, which is exactly what they should be doing - to the extent that Dion poses a threat to the NDP, it's through his ability to convince New Democrat voters that a vote for him is, on the environment file, just as principled as one for the NDP and substantially more pragmatic. They also quote him as supporting the mission to Afghanistan, which is half-way there - but for some reason they avoid accusing him of flip-flopping through his later (quasi-) opposition to the mission.
Before they get to either of these, however, they point to three of his supporters in his leadership bid - Bryon Wilfret and Charles Hubbard, who oppose same-sex marriage, and Paul Steckle, who opposes abortion. If they are trying to imply that Stéphane Dion opposes same-sex marriage or supports the criminalization of abortion, this is scant evidence (it's also about the only evidence that exists, since he is guilty of neither offense). If this is not the NDP's intention, I confess that I am curious about what they *are* trying to establish.
Subsequently, they highlight his opposition to a number of private member's bills - NDP motions to prohibit replacement workers in federal workplaces, a motion on mandating more stringent fuel efficiency in cars produced for use in Canada, and a Peter Stoffer special on improved benefits for the families of fallen firefighters. Besides the fuel efficiency motion, which works to detract from his credibility on the environment, I don't see any of these doing much harm. Doing even less harm do I see the fact that, as pointed out from the New Democrats, Dion missed votes on the Kyoto protocol and the Kelowna Accord while campaigning for leader.
(If you were wondering, the NDP hasn't taken down the speech in which Jack Layton says that Dion is "distinct from his principal opponents in being a committed Canadian and a man of principle and conviction.")
The Greens are still too busy celebrating their second place showing in the recent by-election in London to have any comment on Dion, but Elizabeth May was quoted yesterday as saying "I was hoping Stephane would win from the start. He's a wonderful, sincere person of integrity and commitment to issues that matter to me. How can you argue with that? He shouldn't change, he is what he is, and we shouldn't want our politicians to be massaged into something they aren't. We worked well together in the past -- this is totally cool."
The most interesting reaction, as far as I'm concerned, is that of the BQ, which took the high road, with Gilles Duceppe quoted as saying "Dion started well-back in this race, but he new how to rally the support necessary to win it. Such qualities will make him an impressive adversary during the next federal election in Québec." This is unlikely indicative of much of anything, but I found it interesting that the party that is actually supposed to loathe Dion is pulling the most punches.
Provincially, none of the Liberals, New Democrats, or Alberta Alliance have much to say about Premier Ed, which isn't all that surprising - they probably don't know anything about him either. In a departure from the federal scene, it's the Greens who have a comment, even if they don't know how to pluralize.
|
The Conservatives, who it has been suggested were caught unprepared for a Dion victory, were quick to post a reaction on their site. Interestingly enough, it gives most prominence not to his record as environment minister (where he is extremely open to attack) but to the fact that he was a member of cabinet during the sponsorship and HRDC scandals. I am intrigued - if this heralds a strategy of attacking Dion's integrity, I will be very curious to see how it works. My guess would be not well.
They do eventually get to his record on the environment, however, noting that "Dion’s record was so bad, he earned a sharp rebuke from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development". But no sooner do they make this point than they move on to attacking is alleged lack of respect for provincial jurisdictions. I am very curious as to what they're basing this decision on - perhaps the Clarity Act, brainchild of, in part, Stephen Harper? They close with an irrelevant cheap shot at his rebuke to Michael Ignatieff during one of the debates - "Do you think it's easy to make priorities?", trying to paint him as directionless.
Frankly, I find it odd that the Conservatives would choose these areas to attack him on. I would be very surprised if they manage to paint Dion as either lacking integrity or as being a ditherer, both of which are very much at odds with his public image. I would also be surprised if the completely inaccurate image of Dion as an arch-centralizer takes root. There is certainly traction to be gained in attacking his record as environment minister, but you have to doubt that that traction is the Conservatives' to gain, given their own dismal record on the file.
The New Democrats do a little better. They attack Dion for his record as environment minister, which is exactly what they should be doing - to the extent that Dion poses a threat to the NDP, it's through his ability to convince New Democrat voters that a vote for him is, on the environment file, just as principled as one for the NDP and substantially more pragmatic. They also quote him as supporting the mission to Afghanistan, which is half-way there - but for some reason they avoid accusing him of flip-flopping through his later (quasi-) opposition to the mission.
Before they get to either of these, however, they point to three of his supporters in his leadership bid - Bryon Wilfret and Charles Hubbard, who oppose same-sex marriage, and Paul Steckle, who opposes abortion. If they are trying to imply that Stéphane Dion opposes same-sex marriage or supports the criminalization of abortion, this is scant evidence (it's also about the only evidence that exists, since he is guilty of neither offense). If this is not the NDP's intention, I confess that I am curious about what they *are* trying to establish.
Subsequently, they highlight his opposition to a number of private member's bills - NDP motions to prohibit replacement workers in federal workplaces, a motion on mandating more stringent fuel efficiency in cars produced for use in Canada, and a Peter Stoffer special on improved benefits for the families of fallen firefighters. Besides the fuel efficiency motion, which works to detract from his credibility on the environment, I don't see any of these doing much harm. Doing even less harm do I see the fact that, as pointed out from the New Democrats, Dion missed votes on the Kyoto protocol and the Kelowna Accord while campaigning for leader.
(If you were wondering, the NDP hasn't taken down the speech in which Jack Layton says that Dion is "distinct from his principal opponents in being a committed Canadian and a man of principle and conviction.")
The Greens are still too busy celebrating their second place showing in the recent by-election in London to have any comment on Dion, but Elizabeth May was quoted yesterday as saying "I was hoping Stephane would win from the start. He's a wonderful, sincere person of integrity and commitment to issues that matter to me. How can you argue with that? He shouldn't change, he is what he is, and we shouldn't want our politicians to be massaged into something they aren't. We worked well together in the past -- this is totally cool."
The most interesting reaction, as far as I'm concerned, is that of the BQ, which took the high road, with Gilles Duceppe quoted as saying "Dion started well-back in this race, but he new how to rally the support necessary to win it. Such qualities will make him an impressive adversary during the next federal election in Québec." This is unlikely indicative of much of anything, but I found it interesting that the party that is actually supposed to loathe Dion is pulling the most punches.
Provincially, none of the Liberals, New Democrats, or Alberta Alliance have much to say about Premier Ed, which isn't all that surprising - they probably don't know anything about him either. In a departure from the federal scene, it's the Greens who have a comment, even if they don't know how to pluralize.
