Q&A with the Ardvark

Since entering the race for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada I have deluged with questions of all types. Today I will try to answer a few of the more popular questions.


Why are you doing this?

It was not an easy decision on my part, but after having watched as a few party insiders decided amongst themselves who the next leader would be, all without the say of the card carrying members who really are the backbone of the party, I knew that I had to do something for those that were left out of the process. Fairness of process and the principles of democracy should not be trampled by anyone, particularly a few party elite who think that they know better than those members they claim to represent, in the rush to get "their" guy into the leaders chair.


Why you? I mean, after all you are/were a conservative.

A good question and one I get asked all the time. Having conservative leanings does not disqualify someone from the leaders job. If it did we would not currently have Michael Ignatieff as our interim leader, but unlike Michael I am at least honest about it.


But your were a conservative blogger, why do you think the Liberals would accept you as their leader?

I do not think that my political past will really matter that much or be that detrimental to my leadership bid. After all Bob Rae who was a former NDP premier found a home in the party and he was able to finish 3rd at the last convention and we cannot forget about Brison, Stronach, or even Garth Turner who were all accepted with open arms in the party. I mean if someone like Keith Martin who was in the Reform Party, a party that many liberals still think was more evil than Satan, can be accepted into the fold than I think I have an honest shot.


What are you offering in the way of policy or changes needed in the LPC?

This is still be worked on but having entered this process it is plain to see that in some aspects the party is broken. We cannot have a few backroom has been glory boys deciding who should be chosen as leader. It is not good for anyone and makes us look like we are running some kind of local waterbuffalo lodge rather than a national political party. A one member one vote strategy is very much needed to protect the interests of everyone in the party and give the power back to those that really matter, the card carrying members.

What about other policy?

As I said this is being worked on diligently, but off of the top of my head I can say today that Michael and I share many of the same ideas.

Michael supports the budget. I support the budget.
Michael is in favour of our mission in Afghanistan. I also support the Afghan mission.
Michael wants to support the 'most vulnerable' in our society. I also wish to support the most vulnerable in our society.
Michael supported Israel in the recent conflict. While I would rather see peace in the region, I support Israel's right to defend itself.
Michael has written positively on the use of torture in certain situations. I, um err. Actually I am against torture which I guess makes me even more liberal than Michael is and is another reason as to why I would make a better choice than Michael for leader of the party.


That's it for today. Keep those cards and letters coming.