Liveblogging Bob Rae at the National Press Theatre

by kadyomalley on Tuesday, December 9, 2008 8:13am - 43 Comments

Liveblogging Bob Rae at the National Press Theatre

… which is starting to become inextricably linked in my mind with the comings and goings of Liberal leadership candidates, y’all. According to the advisory, he’ll be offering up his latest musings on pretty much everything — the state of the race, the state of the economy, the state of what he is now quite cleverly referring to as the “parliamentary coalition” between the Liberals and the NDP, which could be interesting, if hard on the berrythumbs, because if there’s one thing Bob Rae can do, it’s talk. Anyway, check back around 11:00 a.m. 3 p.m. for full liveblogging coverage.

UPDATE: Okay, so now it’s at 1pm. Maybe Ignatieff sent a wolfhound sled to TO to rescue him from the airport lounge, and that’s what finally pushed him over the edge. Don’t worry, ITQ will still be there!

12:41:45 PM
And – we are! Here, that is – at the National Press Theatre, which is slowly but surely filling up with reporters suffering the journalistic equivalent of jet lag after yet another morning of news breaking all over the established (as of, oh, sometime yesterday afternoon) narrative.

Just to make sure everyone is caught up: What we originally thought was going to be Barnstormin’ Bob Rae rallying his troops to the barricades will now be his swan song, at least as far as this leadership race. Barring yet another twist in the plot – and don’t rule it out, y’all; if there’s one thing the last week and a half has taught us, it is that nothing is impossible in the wacky world of Canadian politics – Michael Ignatieff now appears destined to become the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Unless, of course, he is suddenly named as heir to an obscure European principality. It would be just like the Princess Diaries, y’all! (Note to disgruntled grassroots Liberals: Start combing through those lists of succession!)

In any case, we need new theme music. What about “Last Caress”? Too gritty? I await your suggestions in the comment section.

12:51:19 PM
The big question – well, one of the big questions – when did he decide to extract his hat from the ring? Was it late last night, when he got word of the party’s decision on the whole “broad consultative exercise”? Or this morning, when he woke up to the realization that even if he had gotten what he wanted – one member one vote – it likely wouldn’t have been enough? Or was there a fateful discussion between the two ex-roommates that led to a truce? I wonder if we’ll ever know the real story.

12:55:26 PM
At least the earpiece still fails to in any way fit onto my ear. It’s sort of comforting to have something work out as expected amid the chaos.

12:57:47 PM

Three minutes! Okay, that was my three minute warning, not the official word from the gallery, but he’ll probably be on time, right?

12:59:22 PM
He will! We just got the countdown!

1:00:49 PM
Click click click – he’s here! And he’ll make a brief statement, he says, before taking our “positive and searching questions.” Rueful chuckles from the gallery, and then he gets started with a recap of the last few weeks – short version: Wow. That was intense – which led him to make some “tough decisions”. The big one? “I am not a candidate for the interim leadership,” he says – and he won’t be a candidate for the permanent leadership in May. “The national executive will make that decision – who will be leader, that is – and if it is Michael Ignatieff – his friend for many years – he will support him. “He will make a great Prime Minister.” He hopes his supporters will come to the same conclusion, although he wants to see the party move to OMOV for the next leadership contest. Which will be in – oh, two, two and a half years if it follows recent tradition.

1:05:54 PM
A call for reconciliation – aw, it really did sound sincere – and a heartfelt thank you to his constituents, and his wife – and then he opens the floor to questions.

First up: Joan Bryden – again! She always manages to get her hand up first – who wonders whether this will further disenfranchise party members, who haven’t even had the chance to watch a single leadership debate. Rae is surprisingly candid – he admits that he would have loved to be the leader, but it depended on a lot of new members – and a campaign – “which we didn’t have.” He then segues to the issue of the Absent Man of the Hour – Ignatieff – and notes that he will be a formidable candidate, and his leadership is “constitutional, legitimate and appropriate.”

Wait, where is the anger and bitterness? He’s totally not sowing lasting dissent that will tear apart the party for years to come. Hasn’t he paid attention to history?

1:09:41 PM
Another shot at Harper and his fiscal update “that became a suicide note within thirty minutes” and a pledge to work with the new leader however he wants.

1:11:24 PM
Another reporter tries to trap him into contradicting Ignatieff over the coalition – hasn’t the leader presumptive been less “categorical” about its future? Has he not indicated that Harper should “continue to govern”? (Uh, not that I can recall.) Rae reiterates his intention of working for the coaliton within the caucus, and dismisses the question with a wave of his folksy rhetoric.

1:12:58 PM
Isn’t this antidemocratic, another reporter asks. Rae doesn’t worry about “last year’s snowstorm” – he’s all about renewing the party, and ensuring a strong base. “We’re going through some extraordinary times,” he reminds us – the statement, the coalition, the prorogation – these were all events that happened very quickly. Yeah, we were there. We know.

As for the looming January vote – does he think they should bring down the government, come what may? “There are two reasons why we believed last week – and I believe this week” that the government must be brought down: Harper’s inability to play nicely with others, or “the democratic front” and his lacklustre response to the economic crisis. “That’s why I say ‘Time’s up, chump,” he notes, his trademark twinkle back in his eye and his vote.

As for whether he would have stayed in the race if it had gone to OMOV? Sure – but this is, after all that, just politics. It’s not the end of the world – and when he found out the party’s decision this morning, his way was clear. “It was the right thing to do,” he notes.

1:19:32 PM
Aw, I love Cranky Bob. Asked what the party is losing by not having a race, he snorts, ‘It is what it is’ – and notes that he knows we’re just trying for a clip of him saying something else, but he won’t be do that. Well, the Conservative Party’s ad agency will be disappointed in his restraint. He sort of practices media metarelations – he doesn’t just dodge the trap questions, he points them out, and disarms them.

1:22:42 PM
More mostly unsolicited praise for Ignatieff – he’s intelligent! He’s endlessly curious! He knows philosophers and ordinary people! He “likes the idea of Canada”! There’s your attack ad, Little Shop of Tories!

1:24:15 PM
Asked about money, he manages to work in a pitch for donations to retire his leadership debt. Maybe they should put him in charge of fundraising. He has that effervescent air that makes it seem like he’s not just asking you for money.

1:24:40 PM
“Suck it up” is his advice to Liberals and NDP MPs that are balky about working together after fighting each other for so long.

Was his past life as an NDP premier a problem for his leadership? Oh, come on, is sort of the upshot: the Tories have been going after him since the mid-70s. He has a long history of fighting “right-wing Tories” – although he likes them as people. He even has had breakfast with them! That tangent cracks up the room. “Hope you can use that for something,” he grins.

1:29:53 PM
Will he run in the next election? Of course – he loves being an MP – “and I look forward to going to your retirement party, Roger,” he snerks at the aforementioned Roger Smith, who asked the question.

Oh, and he hasn’t talked to Ignatieff yet today. Make of that what you will (and I know we all will.).

1:31:22 PM
More coalition questions – coalition if necessary, not necessarily etc. Rae points out that, actually, we did end up with conscription – and he thinks it will be easier to work towards consensus with a leader.
“We’re going to be the most boring political party to cover ever,” he promises. All love, no venom.

Aw, where’s the fun in that? I hope some other party is willing to pick up the slack.

And with that, he sails off – not into the sunset, but to a caucus Christmas party, which is likely to be a considerably more festive occasion than otherwise would have been the case.

Bookmark and Share
  • Just visiting

    Pressure pushing down on me
    Pressing down on you no man ask for
    Under pressure – that burns a building down
    Splits a family in two
    Puts people on streets

    People. On our streets.

    - JV

  • Wascally Wabbit

    Nice of Potter to throw that little gem in below – and then lock up comments!
    Considering the source – and the rationale – adding the comments lockdown – is Potter trying to out-Coyne Coyne?

  • John D

    I demand soundtracks to all future posts!

  • Harvey

    Ya know, I really don’t think Rae is the right choice for leader. He’s a great guy, probably one of the most gifted politicians there is, but just not the right choice right now.

    However, he is totally bang on about how this leadership selection process is going.

    It’s seems like the Liberal Party has embraced illegitimacy in everything we do.

    We are now the party that tried to change the government based on constitutional legalities without any moral legitimacy.

    And now we pick our leaders, future prime ministers, in backroom meetings without even bothering to let party members have a voice – let alone a say. But don’t worry, because we’ve got every constitutional right to do it this way.

  • Sophie

    I second John D. Let’s start a petition.

  • Alan

    “I demand soundtracks to all future posts!”

    “I second John D. Let’s start a petition.”

    Will the petition have a sound track?

  • http://www.macleans.ca/feschuk Scott Feschuk

    I don’t agree with your assessment of the morality of the coalition, Harvey, but you’re bang-on about this leadership “vote.” If it stays on this course, the Liberal party will rue the day it picked a leader this way. Rue, I tell you. Rue!

  • http://tigerathome.wordpress.com The Tiger

    Will the petition have a sound track?

    How about “I Want It All”?

  • Erin Weary

    I don’t understand why a party whose base is disappearing faster than Jack Layton’s chance at becoming Minister of Industry would want to short circuit the membership drive associated with a leadership race…

  • http://www.macleans.ca/feschuk Scott Feschuk

    Erin: It’s a medical condition known technically as “not smartness”

  • Ti-Guy

    What’s Stephen Harper been up to in the last few days?

  • Sophie

    I was all psyched on Sunday about Domenic LeBlanc and the possibility of OMOV…. I was actually considering joining the Liberals.
    There’s a medical term for what proved to be temporary insanity, isn’t there?
    AH, yes.
    Naivety.

  • archangel

    For Scott Feschuk and all all those demanding a sound track, here is Polka-rue with Polkadot Shorts (in honour of the PM’s fashion sense I suppose).

    Copy and paste the link to marvel at this virtuoso musical achievement.

    (http://www.tvokids.com/framesets/polkaroo.html?page=songs/song2.htm&bgColor=666699)

  • Peter

    Ti-Guy: “What’s Stephen Harper been up to in the last few days?”

    Probably working on the budget, and…..you know………….governing type stuff. I do want to thank you Grits though, for giving him the time to do so. Normally, politics would occupy part of his time and distract from running the country, but when your opponents have poured napalm over everything and insist on playing with matches, best just let them continue.

  • http://www.macleans.ca/feschuk Scott Feschuk

    How dare you, Peter? HOW DARE YOU? Why I’d have a good mind to come over there and teach you a lesson with my fists of fury if only you weren’t so — what the word for it? — correct.

  • Erin Weary

    Dr Feschuk with another solid diagnosis. Now if only the patient would take its medicine…

  • Erin Weary

    Oops… http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081209/Liberals_leader_081209/20081209?hub=TopStories

    Now crowning Michael, King of England… errr… Massachusetts… errr… Canada!

  • Ti-Guy

    Probably working on the budget, and…..

    I didn’t ask for a guess then a rant about Liberals from a dyspeptic Conservative…it was a question directed at people who report things.

  • Erin Weary

    Oops….ctv. DOT SEE EH /servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081209/Liberals_leader_081209/20081209?hub=TopStories

    Now crowning Michael, King of England… errr… Massachusetts… errr… Canada!

  • archangel

    Ti-Guy,

    It could be that Stephen Harper has been busy hiring Bourque to shovel innuendo about Ignatieff and the Liberals.

  • Ti-Guy

    Well, we’ll never know, since Canada doesn’t have reporters anymore. Just stenographers.

  • John D

    Nuthin’ says party renewal like a coronation

  • Tam

    Yes, please explain this Bourque character. His site is certainly pro-Harper, obsequiously so. Who is he, what’s in it for him? just the $$?

  • Sisyphus

    Bourque, indeed. Senior sources within the Conservative leadership are denying persistent reports that the Prime Minister is in seclusion undergoing intensive therapy in anger management. He has also been prescribed strong psychotherapeutic medication. There are isolated reports of the Prime Minister being resistant to therapy which, in addition to the chemical restraint, requires the occasional application of physical restraints in order to allow therapy to continue. Passers-by have reported howls of anguish in the environs of Parliament Hill – usually in the dead of night. Investigation by Ottawa police have ruled out the Liberal HQ as the source.

    Follow-up reports to, er, follow.

    Bourque, indeed.

  • John D

    Yes, please explain this Bourque character. His site is certainly pro-Harper, obsequiously so. Who is he, what’s in it for him? just the $$?

    He is definitely a Conservative shill, but it’s mostly about the money for him I think (It’s a win-win). Check out his affiliate links for books at “massive discounts.” The guy will do anything for a buck – I mean really, a news website that sells headlines?

From Macleans