Thursday, August 17, 2006

Orchard

I think I've made it pretty clear in the past that I really dislike David Orchard. He's socially conservative. He's against gun control. He advocates that we more than triple our military spending. He's got some very odd foreign policy positions. Most of all, the virulent anti-free trade and anti-Americanism that he and his supporters display grates on me a lot (mainly because I find the Liberal Party far too prone to anti-Americanism in the first place).

I've always felt that one of the strengths of the Liberal Party was that it's a big tent party. I think it's great that over the past few years, people like Keith Martin, Scott Brison, and Bob Rae have decided to join that party. I think it's great that people like Marc Garneau and Michael Ignatieff chose to run for the Liberals. However, I think there is such a thing as subtraction by addition. Quite frankly, Buzz Hargrove's endorsement didn't do the Liberals any favours last election. And I think the party is better off without Pat O'Brien or David Kilgour, than it was with them.

This is my roundabout way of saying that I've never been very happy about David Orchard being a Liberal. And I wasn't happy to see him signing up his kool aid drinkers to Liberal memberships before July 4th.

So this brings us to Orchard's endorsement. As others have pointed out, a candidate's supporters do not necessarily reflect the views of the candidate. And every Liberal (and non-Liberal for that matter) is free to endorse whomever they want. If Carolyn Parrish decided to endorse Michael Ignatieff tomorrow, you can't really hold that against Michael.

But, at the same time, I don't think Michael Ignatieff would "welcome" her endorsement. And I don't think we'd see a quote from Michael like:

"Carolyn will play a very important role in the campaign. We didn't discuss yet which role it will take, but I'm very pleased she's coming to the team,"


Orchard's supporters are loyal and will certainly follow him to Dion. So that will mean a few extra hundred votes in Western rural ridings. But the real question is what the cost will be to Dion? Orchard demanded no less than a signed written agreement the last time he supported another candidate. There were specific policy demands. While there may be no written deal this time, I think it's naive to expect that David Orchard doesn't expect something in return. And I think this will likely leave a lot of people uneasy. As an example, here's an e-mail about Orchard I received from a well respected individual:

"Fuck, Orchard is an appalling pickup for Dion. Has Dion stopped supporting trade, or has Orchard stopped opposing it? Either way, somebody isn't looking like a man of conviction. My mild preference in this race is Dion; after this week I'd be likelier to drop him for Rae."


Obviously, Dion has done a cost-benefit analysis and feels that Orchard's support will do more good than harm. Every campaign which hopes to win is going to have to cut a deal they don't want to between now and the final ballot in Montreal. And, to be perfectly honest, as much as I dislike Orchard, I can't say I really blame Dion for this. Despite the glowing media reviews, he's desperate for first ballot support and Orchard will deliver a few delegates in Saskatchewan. But I think there is a downside to this for Dion and if I were supporting him, I certainly wouldn't sell this as anything other than what it is - a necessary evil.

17 Comments:

  • Good analysis, CG. Orchard is so anti-free trade and anti-American that people easily forget that there was indeed a good fit on many issues for him in the Conservative Party.

    That being said, it's not clear to me just how many delegates he can actually produce. Leadership campaigns get access to a lot more membership forms at a time (which must be returned before more can be issued) and individuals only get a handful (which must be returned before more can be issued). Given that he would have no support in the existing membership to bring to Dion, it is not clear to me that his admittedly large contingent of supporters translates into very many members. And only members vote. So I'd be surprised if his endorsement will result in many delegates frankly.

    So if there are few delegates, will it be worth the odd coupling and the negatives for Dion?

    Well, Orchard will bring organizers and that is key for both getting the vote out and for fundraising, the latter being the big issue I think for Dion.

    Plus it gives Dion some good news (sort of) today and a sense (if only a sense) of a bit of a building of momentum. Momentum is going to be key for any winner.

    The baggage that comes with Orchard is high but not overwhelming so, like you said, maybe a necessary evil for Dion.

    But I really really hope Dion (or any other candidate later on) haven't done any conservative-style dealmaking for leadership.

    Ted
    Cerberus

    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 2:46 p.m.  

  • Yeah, what could Dion do.
    If Orchard came and said I want to support you, you can't really turn him away.
    But if other teams lobbied Orchard that means that Dion did too.
    What did Dion say to get him on side.
    Lobbying means questions were asked and at the mimimum assurences were given.
    My alternate candidate to support is now firmly Ken Dryden.
    Dion will have a tough time getting me to ever consider him now.
    I still like him a lot but... what was said? Why is Orchard there?

    By the way I heard that 5 liberals went to meet with Bob Rae at Higherground in Calgary yesterday at noon. Open event everyone invited. 5 showed up. 200 showed for Iggy last time he had an open event.
    Yep Rae is gaining...
    (can anyone confirm those numbers the person who told me five may have had an axe to grind)

    By Blogger Aristo, at 3:09 p.m.  

  • Obviously Dion needed Orchard's supporters but he should have gone about it quietly. A press conference might not have been the best plan.

    The leader-post today says that Orchard is considering running as a Liberal next time around. I can't wait for that.

    By Blogger Zac, at 3:37 p.m.  

  • This agreement is centred on the fact that both agree on the importance of environmental and sustainable-economy issues.

    Obviously the two don't agree on a number of other issues, such as NAFTA, gun control, same-sex marriage, Kosovo, etc. I don't think that any of the leadership candidates agree with Orchard on those issues.

    Imputing any of Orchard's views to Dion based on his endorsement is just spin, just like it is illogical to impute Paul Szabo's views on same-sex marriage and stem-cell research to Ignatieff, or Werner Patels views to Kennedy.

    This is just one environmentalist endorsing another.

    By Blogger rob, at 3:50 p.m.  

  • What a nightmare it was when we had to deal with this fake farmer.

    Oh well, he's YOUR problem now. But I am sad that Dion considers this a coup.

    By Blogger Joan Tintor, at 5:03 p.m.  

  • There is nothing wrong with David Orchard being a Liberal. There are several sitting MP's with more right wing views than he has. Rural organic farmers are a little quirky. So what, get over it. I don't share a lot of his views, but I can tell you he is a nice man who is polite and pleasant to talk with. He also isn't full of himself and was respectful to female speakers at the King Edward Accord, which more than I can say for a lot of Liberal men. We need a rural and western perspective in the Liberal Party and quite frankly, the fact that he was never Reform and left the Conservatives when they joined the Reform means he's really no more socially Conservative than lets say Steckle or Comuzzi, or Chamberlain, and less socially conservative than say Wapple or Telegdi etc. If you think he shouldn't be a Liberal, then you might as well go after about 20 sitting Liberal MP's.

    By Blogger S.K., at 5:53 p.m.  

  • Ha ha leoptr -- nice one!

    If you think he shouldn't be a Liberal, then you might as well go after about 20 sitting Liberal MP's.

    Too true, too true. The Liberals and the Conservatives are pretty much tied for assholes.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 7:04 p.m.  

  • Look at SB talking sense.

    By Blogger Peter Loewen, at 8:06 p.m.  

  • CG -

    if you can orchestrate Jean Lapierre coming on board for Stephane, I think we have a winner!

    Orchard should give Mel Hurtig a call, I say.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 8:36 p.m.  

  • sb; Yeah, there are a few Liberal MPs who I wouldn't mind seeing step down either.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 9:10 p.m.  

  • thomas; I tend to think pulling out of NAFTA right now would be just about the worst economic decision any government could make.

    Obviously it isn't a perfect deal, but when Canada lives on exports more so than any other country in the world, free trade is a logical thing to have. And when 86% of our trade is with the US, it makes sense to have a trade deal with the US.

    And it's not even so much the NAFTA as the anti-americanism shown by a lot of his supporters. Whenever I see them (more, now than before, because he's a Liberal), they have various props, usually involving US flags, which really are just silly.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 11:49 p.m.  

  • Wow, Day's Nightmare - I really appreciate your post. I've had zero opinion pretty much on the whole thing, but you may just have swung me. Terrific typing, that. Thanks.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 12:37 a.m.  

  • As a Dion supporter I am okay with his endorsement if it is strictly on environment and national unity, but if he asks for any demands in return for support from Dion, I will yank my support.

    Anyways I think he is a traditional conservative in the sense of John Diefenbaker who like David Orchard was socially conservative, but quite anti-free trade and anti-American, while very pro-British (Orchard less so, although a staunch supporter of the monarchy).

    I too find the anti-Americanism in the Liberals sometimes excessive. I think we need to find a balance between maintaining good relations, but at the same time keeping our independence. I find the Tories on the other hand we too pro-American. I do support free trade, but I oppose any deeper integration. A European Union style organization just won't work between two countries of such unequal size. It only works in Europe since there are 25 countries, some small, some big, but no one country dominates the EU.

    By Blogger Monkey Loves to Fight, at 10:51 a.m.  

  • I wonder if Trudeau would be welcome in the Liberal Party of today? Doubtful, if Ignatieff is considered the "new Trudeau" by the rank and file Liberals, as he appears to be by the execs. Plainly said, Ignatieff is an apologist for American excess.

    Remember, the Liberals have been for (1911) and against (1988) free trade. Why the vehemence directed against someone who takes an historical Liberal position? Like the reaction of the Tories to Orchard, it must be something else.

    In fact, its very akin to the eastern reaction to Diefenbaker -- another prairie outsider.

    By Blogger Simon Pole, at 7:43 p.m.  

  • Oh Simon Pole, you wish it was as easy as, "He's a Western outsider"...

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 3:55 p.m.  

  • Ah, Joe Green how's that tinfoil hat fitting you?

    By Blogger Chris, at 5:12 p.m.  

  • By Blogger Unknown, at 9:51 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home