Iggy may have isolated himself over the last few months from the other campaigns. And, as such, he is less of a threat to win. If Iggy is less of a threat, my question is this: has the anybody but Iggy movement been replaced with the anybody but Rae movement recently?
This question is only relevant following Iggy’s latest errors (from a very long list), including the Nation resolution. This has definately cost him if not eliminated him. Rae has made fewer errors and has run arguably a near flawless campaign. Does this make Rae more of a threat to the other candidates than Iggy? Is Iggy officially off the "critical threat charts”. Can an anti-Rae movement be fuelled by desperate campaigns who might bluff that they will make Iggy a contender again if anyone considers supporting Rae?
My point is not whether Rae should or should not be supported. My point is that this possiblity sounds like the Liberal party’s version of the game "hand-grenades". This seems too dangerous to be anything but an extreme survival strategy by candidates with nothing to lose ... candidates with a belief that gains can only be made via pre-emptive strikes.
Candidates should only be bluffing to do what they are seriously prepared to do, unless selling out for personal gain comes easily to them. Could it be that Liberals will end up with a Leader borne under conditions further tainted by destructive self-interest and ambition? Where would be the promise for the future?
No comments:
Post a Comment