The more things change in the Liberal Party, the more they stay the same, no matter who's the leader.
A Liberal Party can change its leader, but it cannot change its spots.
I guess Liberals, including many Liberals who are women, believe that women stand too little a chance of being nominated, compared to men. So they need to be appointed, according to Liberal dogma. Isn't this a little ironic? After all, if the Liberal Party supposedly wants there to be more women candidates, wouldn't one expect the riding Liberals to nominate them?
Ah, but the Liberal Party is a top-down, dictatorial party. After all, its Leader wasn't nominated, wasn't elected; he was appointed from the very top, himself, disenfranchising Liberal members, taking away their right to choose (just like they don't want Canadians to be allowed to choose how to get their own health care, ie. whether to use a public option or pay for their own private option out of their own pocket, which is actually their right which is denied, as the Obama Regime in America wants to deny Americans).
The Elites in the fancy penthouse up there in the sky, they don't trust the Members. Can't risk having democracy fail to advance Liberal Policy. They didn't want to risk having another person elected to Leader whom they didn't think would be a good choice, so they appointed Michael Ignatieff based on their own perceptions of who might be a good one to take on the strong, formidable Stephen Harper.
The way the Liberal Party looks at women, the way Liberal women look at themselves... it just doesn't seem, well, "right".
It sends all the wrong messages. It seems to say that women can't get nominated in a party that claims to want to nominate lots of women. But, hey, what's more important, the imposition of and brainless acquiescence to Far-Left-Wing political correctness policy... or democracy? Apparently to Liberals, brainless acquiescence is most important, just as it is to Obamites.
The Liberal Party devalues women. And Liberal women who don't realize this... well... those poor women, eh? Good luck getting elected, Token Liberal Ladies. The optics that the Party didn't consider you strong enough to get nominated by your own politically correct Party Members...
ht: Bourque
A Liberal Party can change its leader, but it cannot change its spots.
The 44-year-old Gillis was appointed to the riding due to her strong skills and because the Liberal Party wants at least one third of its candidates to be female, said Liberal Senator David Smith, the party’s national campaign co-chair. Smith said former Liberal Leader Stephane Dion appointed five people as candidates in Ontario for the fall, 2008 election — four of whom were female.
I guess Liberals, including many Liberals who are women, believe that women stand too little a chance of being nominated, compared to men. So they need to be appointed, according to Liberal dogma. Isn't this a little ironic? After all, if the Liberal Party supposedly wants there to be more women candidates, wouldn't one expect the riding Liberals to nominate them?
Ah, but the Liberal Party is a top-down, dictatorial party. After all, its Leader wasn't nominated, wasn't elected; he was appointed from the very top, himself, disenfranchising Liberal members, taking away their right to choose (just like they don't want Canadians to be allowed to choose how to get their own health care, ie. whether to use a public option or pay for their own private option out of their own pocket, which is actually their right which is denied, as the Obama Regime in America wants to deny Americans).
The Elites in the fancy penthouse up there in the sky, they don't trust the Members. Can't risk having democracy fail to advance Liberal Policy. They didn't want to risk having another person elected to Leader whom they didn't think would be a good choice, so they appointed Michael Ignatieff based on their own perceptions of who might be a good one to take on the strong, formidable Stephen Harper.
The way the Liberal Party looks at women, the way Liberal women look at themselves... it just doesn't seem, well, "right".
It sends all the wrong messages. It seems to say that women can't get nominated in a party that claims to want to nominate lots of women. But, hey, what's more important, the imposition of and brainless acquiescence to Far-Left-Wing political correctness policy... or democracy? Apparently to Liberals, brainless acquiescence is most important, just as it is to Obamites.
The Liberal Party devalues women. And Liberal women who don't realize this... well... those poor women, eh? Good luck getting elected, Token Liberal Ladies. The optics that the Party didn't consider you strong enough to get nominated by your own politically correct Party Members...
ht: Bourque
