[Zipperfish]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

The mighty Liberal Party has been reduced to a third Party rump. But really they had four buffoons as leaders in a row. Chretien, Martin, Dion and Ignatieff. These guys, all four of them, were at odds with their MPs. Now Bob is saying, yup, that happened. They're in pretty bad shape but at least Bob says he's listening.

Buffoons? Yeah, not so much.

Chretien managed the separatism file well and kept us out of the Iraq Debacle. For those two reasons alone, he should remembered as a good Prime Minister. He also ruled during at time of almost unparalleled prosperity, during which it became common to see Canada, or cities in Canada as being among the most desirable places in the world in which to live.

Martin and Dion were also effective politicians--Martin, obviously, for his stellar duty as Minister of Finance, and Dion primarily for his work on the Clarificaiton Act.

And you can call Ignatieff a poor communicator, an aloof leader and many other things, but certainly not a buffoon.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Zipperfish wrote:

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

The mighty Liberal Party has been reduced to a third Party rump. But really they had four buffoons as leaders in a row. Chretien, Martin, Dion and Ignatieff. These guys, all four of them, were at odds with their MPs. Now Bob is saying, yup, that happened. They're in pretty bad shape but at least Bob says he's listening.

Buffoons? Yeah, not so much.

Chretien managed the separatism file well and kept us out of the Iraq Debacle. For those two reasons alone, he should remembered as a good Prime Minister. He also ruled during at time of almost unparalleled prosperity, during which it became common to see Canada, or cities in Canada as being among the most desirable places in the world in which to live.

Martin and Dion were also effective politicians--Martin, obviously, for his stellar duty as Minister of Finance, and Dion primarily for his work on the Clarificaiton Act.

And you can call Ignatieff a poor communicator, an aloof leader and many other things, but certainly not a buffoon.

Way, way too political and not enough good sense. The Liberal Caucus rebelled on Chretien for what was called "the democratic deficit" and voted with the opposition at one point. Chretien went into denial and threatened to call a snap election, run against his own party, which would have entirely screwed the country. You miss all that?

[Zipperfish]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

Way, way too political and not enough good sense. The Liberal Caucus rebelled on Chretien for what was called "the democratic deficit" and voted with the opposition at one point. Chretien went into denial and threatened to call a snap election, run against his own party, which would have entirely screwed the country. You miss all that?

Yes, actually I did. The "democratic deficit" isn't peculiar to Chretien. Just ask Gordon Campbell out here. Being a party leader is herding cats. And as a leader, if you're not on the hot seat for being a "Mr. Dithers" then you're on it for being a dictator.

As for as tussles he had with his own party, that's small potatoes in contrast to his success against the separatists, keeping us out of a disastrous war, and the years of unparalleled prosperity we had under him. And don't forget we dodged the last economic meltdown, by and large, due to the foresight of the Liberals in regulating the banking sector.

Take your revisionism somewhere else.

[Bruce_the_vii]

You are right Chretien had a lot success and that being a leader is difficult. All leaders make mistakes eventually. These recent Liberal leaders made some bad ones and now the party is at 34 seats. You can revise their standing if your a fan.

[Caelon]

Zipperfish wrote:

Chretien managed the separatism file well and kept us out of the Iraq Debacle. For those two reasons alone, he should remembered as a good Prime Minister. He also ruled during at time of almost unparalleled prosperity, during which it became common to see Canada, or cities in Canada as being among the most desirable places in the world in which to live.

Martin and Dion were also effective politicians--Martin, obviously, for his stellar duty as Minister of Finance, and Dion primarily for his work on the Clarificaiton Act.

And you can call Ignatieff a poor communicator, an aloof leader and many other things, but certainly not a buffoon.

Chretien did have several notable accomplishments. He also ruled his party with an iron fist, which I believe he needed to do in order to keep a cohesive party. He had the advantage of a fractured right opposition between the Reform and the Conservatives that allowed the party to achieve succesive majorites. He also managed to maintain the western alienation started under Trudeau. Overall as a leader he does not deserve to be grouped with the others.

Martin does. As Finance Minister during prosperous times he managed to curtail government spending and reduce the deficit albeit by unloading a lot of expense back to the provinces. As a leader he was not as successful. Being nicknamed Dithers is indicative of his ability. During the election campaign everytime he was quoted in the press he had a new first priority. I lost track of how many first priorities he had to meet after the election. He also had to fight a consolidated right wing party intead of two splitting the vote. Overall I would have to give him a solid fail as a leader.

Dion had several accomplishments under his belt prior to being named leader of the party, but as a leader he did not hold his party together nor did he resonate with the majority of voters. Not holding the party together is what gives him a fail as a leader.

Ignatief has the credentials and is undeniably intelligent. Again he could not hold the party together and the knives in the ranks were ready to stab him in the back. So like his two predecessors his term as leader was quite short. Another fail.

The reality of our party system is to remain leader you must have a firm control on your party (in other words a dictator) plus be successful in getting MP's elected. Missing either one and your time is limited.

As much as people have detested Chretien and Harper, both men have met the two conditions.

[Zipperfish]

Caelon wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Chretien managed the separatism file well and kept us out of the Iraq Debacle. For those two reasons alone, he should remembered as a good Prime Minister. He also ruled during at time of almost unparalleled prosperity, during which it became common to see Canada, or cities in Canada as being among the most desirable places in the world in which to live.

Martin and Dion were also effective politicians--Martin, obviously, for his stellar duty as Minister of Finance, and Dion primarily for his work on the Clarificaiton Act.

And you can call Ignatieff a poor communicator, an aloof leader and many other things, but certainly not a buffoon.

Chretien did have several notable accomplishments. He also ruled his party with an iron fist, which I believe he needed to do in order to keep a cohesive party. He had the advantage of a fractured right opposition between the Reform and the Conservatives that allowed the party to achieve succesive majorites. He also managed to maintain the western alienation started under Trudeau. Overall as a leader he does not deserve to be grouped with the others.

Martin does. As Finance Minister during prosperous times he managed to curtail government spending and reduce the deficit albeit by unloading a lot of expense back to the provinces. As a leader he was not as successful. Being nicknamed Dithers is indicative of his ability. During the election campaign everytime he was quoted in the press he had a new first priority. I lost track of how many first priorities he had to meet after the election. He also had to fight a consolidated right wing party intead of two splitting the vote. Overall I would have to give him a solid fail as a leader.

Dion had several accomplishments under his belt prior to being named leader of the party, but as a leader he did not hold his party together nor did he resonate with the majority of voters. Not holding the party together is what gives him a fail as a leader.

Ignatief has the credentials and is undeniably intelligent. Again he could not hold the party together and the knives in the ranks were ready to stab him in the back. So like his two predecessors his term as leader was quite short. Another fail.

The reality of our party system is to remain leader you must have a firm control on your party (in other words a dictator) plus be successful in getting MP's elected. Missing either one and your time is limited.

As much as people have detested Chretien and Harper, both men have met the two conditions.

Great post.