So Ryan won over the NDP or at least stacked the hall and won. The maverick journalist has shown that he has an organization and knows how to mobilize. Not bad for a guy who never considered politics as a career and who up until the last week or so did not know where his partisan compass would take him.
Now the big fight. The Conservatives have a name on the ballot. Thats it. In case you have not heard the name is Merv Wisemen. Appointed, no nomination contest. The Liberals are running Siobhan Coady for the third consecutive time and the Greens are running former NDP candidate Ted Warren. It should be an interesting contest.
This is where the devil is in the details or perhaps lack of details. The Progressive Conservatives now have a viable choice in St. John's West. Do they elect a person who they have helped trounce twice before or support a well know Newfoundland nationalist who walks the talk. Will Dion's neglect of the Newfoundland files of the past come back to haunt Coady not that PC's have a choice? Probably not, she seems to all ready have a lock on the PC machine. That said if I were Cleary, I would be seeking out the the Osborne machine! It is a real people mover.
There are other things to consider as well. Like the fact that the devil is in the details and ABC is not that defined. Does Coady support Walter Noel if Jack Harris is the ABC pick? Will there be official ABC picks or just whisper campaigns. Certainly Jack Harris will be supporting Cleary and other NDP candidates? It could get quite messy. I am waiting for Walter Noel to have a hissy fit. I predict Noel will get less than 15% of the popular vote on election night. The real question is does he implode before that or do throw another election night temper tantrum.
Seriously, the emergence of Ryan Cleary changes the dynamics in St. John's West. What was Coady's by default is now up for consideration. Perhaps Westcott picked the wrong St. John's seat. If the Conservatives had a decent candidate they might have had a chance in St. John's South - Mount Pearl.
(ps. Slight correction : Original read Cleary is not the New Democratic , should have been is now. Thanks Greg for picking it up)
Your bad spelling has produced a factual error.
ReplyDelete...but of course, spelling doesn't matter in a blog, right? :^)
Greg:
ReplyDeleteThanks for picking up that not for me. Never even read it over before i pushed out the door with kids for school/
Who said spelling does not matter?I I don’t sweat the small stuff but I am making an attempt to watch what I type a little more. If it were a perfect world these little things would not happen.
I'll save that for people getting paid to look for missing commas and the like! Blogs are made for speed and timeliness, not for polished “ready for publication” stuff.
I still can not find those CD's.
You just keep telling yourself that ;^)
ReplyDeleteREAD IT before hitting send. Even if you're not getting paid your credibility is ALWAYS on the line.
...and you're welcome :^)
Greg
For the record , can you explain why Merv Wiseman is not a credible candidate?
ReplyDeleteLets see why is Mervy not a credible candidate for the federal conservatives.
ReplyDelete1. Nobody knows him. The name is familiar but why?
2. He is a Conservative
3. He tried to join the Williams Team just a few months ago when he sought a nomination and lost in Baie Verte. Loved Danny than, hates him now? What is up with that.
4. He is a Conservative!
5. He is desperate to get elected. Many are called and few are chosen. He keeps getting called by only chosen when no one else wants it. A bit of a credibility factor. Did he not announce he going for the PC nod in Bellvue in the last election and drop out.
6. He is a Conservative
Far be it from me to defend Merv Wiseman - I've criticised his ideas enough in the past - but at least you could fairly and accurately present the substantive reasons you don't think he's a credible candidate, at least without the belittling "Mervy" thing.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, since you are lately an advocate of some kind of non-partisan thing, it's odd for you to be slagging off someone for being a partisan.
If being partisan - Merv's been a Provincial Conservative for a while - is not credible then all the candidates you are endorsing in this election have the same flaw.
Second, as a Provincial Conservative, he may or may not "hate Danny". Some do. Some don't. The problem with this comment is that you are essentially making a totally unfounded personal attack on the guy. Maybe you know something the rest of us don't; if so then share it. When did he say that he "hates Danny".
Otherwise this looks like a sleazy personal attack and if you didn't mean to make a sleazy personal attack, you shouldn't say those sort of things. It goes back to the credibility thing.
Third, this isn't about Danny, well at least not for those of us who don't describe ourselves as being like Nicholas Chauvin. Electing representatives has nothing to do with whether or not one loves or hates a particular party leader. It's about finding the person you believe is best suited to represent you and make decisions on difficult subjects.
Of course, if the guy is a Conservative - as you indicated several times - and that makes him an incredible candidate (not credible), then you are evidently arguing that all Conservatives are not credible. That would include Danny and all the rest. If you really feel that way, then why would "hating" Danny be a problem.
Fourth, be sure to explain your view of Conservatives to all the Conservatives working on Jack's campaign. I am sure they'd love to hear your views: Conservative = not credible.
Fifth, it's kind of odd for you to be slagging a guy off for running, not getting elected and then running again somewhere else. Many people do it. You yourself did it at least once, if memory serves. That doesn't make you incredible. It is to your credit for trying.
I means it not like you tried for one party, then got recruited by another and lost the nomination and then later on switched to yet another party only to turn around and attack the crowd you first wanted to run for.
Ed:
ReplyDeleteI hope that Merv reads these comments. One never knows when the federation of agriculture might have some work to offer.
Wisemen has been out looking for seats for a while now. It does not matter the party or the level.
Ask him. He has even approached the provincial NDP in the past.
As I said many are called few are chosen. The bells just keep ringing for this guy.
He is a name on a ballot. That is it. I am not saying he has not been a credible and effective representative for his industry but his eagerness to get elected has had him shopping all over the place. It is well known. Merv Wiseman and Herb Davis in Burin St. George's make a good pair.
That is what hurts his credibility.
But that isn't what you wrote.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course in classic fashion, when your arguments are skewered you simply shift off to something else.
Thanks, ultimately, for defining a lack of credibility as being someone who shops around to a bunch of different parties. he'd probably say he was just free of the shackles of the partisan political system.
Ed:
ReplyDelete1. Running around trying to find ways to become a candidate for a bunch of different parties is worth looking at. This fella wanted to run as an NDP a few years ago, a PC in the last provincial election and than sought a PC nomination a few months ago. Now he is running as a conservatives in a campaign that has set its sites on the Premier and the party he supported enough to run for just last month. That is hardly normal behavior! That is a person who has an urge to run with no ideological compass what so ever. It is one thing to feel strong enough about issues or the contribution one can make to public life to offer to run for a party that reflects your positions and quite another to whore yourself around looking for a poster to place your name on.
To me that speaks to his credibility.Perhaps not to you.
As for freeing the shackles, you have to wear them to cut them off.