Who knows what it means that Steven Harper appointed John Manley to head a panel on Afghanistan? Moreover who knows what it means for John Manley to have accepted? This is the next play in Harper's book to defuse the increasingly toxic Afghanistan issue, but exactly how is it intended to do so? Is it a deft cut at the Liberals, who might end up seeing one of their party stalwarts backing their opponents? Is it a way to further implicate the Grits in their responsibility for the mission? Or is it simply a stunt that will be spun in all sorts of beneficial ways to the Tories in an upcoming election campaign?
12 October 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think all of the above, Aldous. With the additional fact that John Manley does not, at least based on his commentary during the Liberal leadership convention, like Stephan Dion one bit.
I have always intensely disliked John Manley. It's not just that he looks like a Muppet: it's that he looks like a Muppet, and has about an eight of the brains, tenth of the charm, and none of the empathy of any Jim Henson creation.
Who did Manley support during the leadership? Was it Rae? I remember he and Belinda.ca were the "impartial commentators" from inside the party on television, and I distinctly remember Belinda was giving off a decidedly pro-Iggie vibe, but I now can't remember what corresponding vibe I got from Manley.
And, for the record, I don't "like" or "dislike" politicians anymore. Here's to a postnormative politics.
Post a Comment