Bob Rae did an extraordinary thing today, and put the Liberal Party’s interests, and the country’s interests, ahead of his own.

He has done so graciously, showing complete respect and support for Michael Ignatieff. My respect for Bob was already extremely high—it just went even higher. And we are now all able to rally, 110% behind Michael Ignatieff.

It is critically important that we listen to ALL members of the Liberal Party. Now that “leadership” is off the table, we need to hear from liberals across the country as we focus on the real task at hand: Canada, and an the economic crisis we are now in. At any time, but particularly at a time like this, Canada needs a government we can trust, and a Prime Minister we can trust. Right now we have neither. With Michael Ignatieff, we most certainly will.

A note about Stéphane Dion. This has been a very difficult time for a man of impeccable honesty and integrity. His legacy will include having lead the actions that have, over the last few weeks, shown to Canadians the real Stephen Harper, who is now damaged beyond repair in the eyes of Canadians. He has throughout his time as Leader of the Liberal Party, in the face of personal, nasty and misleading attacks, responded only with respect and civility—qualities in extremely short supply in politics today. He has done his best to bring substantive policies to the table, rather than resort to cheap, attack sound bites. But finally, this past week, he has had to withstand attacks on his loyalty to this country. For Stephen Harper and the Conservatives to call into question that loyalty, to use words like “traitor” and “treason” for a man who spent a decade spilling blood, guts, heart and soul for the sake of Canadian unity, who accomplished what no one thought could be done in creating the Clarity Act—was appalling. This was the lowest I have ever seen Canadian partisan politics go. Not only can Stephen Harper not be trusted, but he has seriously diminished the office of Prime Minister.

Thank you, Stéphane, for everything you have done for this country, and for the example of dignity, honesty, integrity, respect and civility that you have provided.

Martha

And some additional comments following today’s caucus:

“When Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff embraced it was hard to keep a dry eye. It was just an extraordinary moment. It was sincere . . . Everybody is united now.”

As usual, Martha strikes the right tone.

Since it became apparent that Michael Ignatieff will be the Liberal Party of Canada’s undisputed princeling, I’ve been thinking quite a bit about lesser evils.

Having just witnessed the public demolition of an accomplished and decent man, Liberals are frantically searching for a candidate able to trade blows with an unscrupulous Prime Minister. To challenge a man whose only ultimate objective is the complete evisceration of his political opponents, it is now clear that the Liberals require a leader possessed of a degree of ruthlessness suitable to this unenviable task. Whether or not Michael Ignatieff will prove sufficiently Machiavellian to challenge Stephen Harper on his terms remains to be seen.

Ignatieff has never been my first choice. In 2006 I preferred Stephane Dion. This time around, I had hoped for Dominic LeBlanc – a long shot – or failing that a Bob Rae victory. But the Liberal Party seems to have bowed to the inevitable, so I find myself with little choice but to to do the same. He is, after all, the lesser evil.

In this spirit, I offer to our newly coronated leader earnest congratulations, and the  the same kind of sincere, unconditional support his supporters have provided Stephane Dion over the past two years.

This about sums up my feelings on the subject.

Leblanc was the honoured recipient of this blog’s Officially Meaningless Endorsement , so this move is quite disappointing.

Since the entire leadership selection process now appears uncertain, I doubt I’ll bother to make yet another endorsement. Martha was always my first choice anyways.

Bah.

To review, the paper endorsed Harper in last election, claiming:

Whatever you think of him, the Stephen Harper of today is not the Stephen Harper of 2004 or earlier. The “firewall” temperament has largely subsided, despite the odd recurrence on matters such as artists who choose free expression over popularity. He is in better control of his emotions. He is smart enough and adaptable enough to recognize that his tendencies toward pettiness and hyper-partisanship hold him and his party back.

A mere seven weeks later, however, this same editorial board is evidently of the opinion that Mr. Harper should resign, for the very same reasons dismissed in their endorsement:

Gaining the trust of others has never come easily to Mr. Harper. Often he appears to be motivated only by partisanship. His tendency to gratuitously lash out at his opponents and others who cross him makes him a difficult figure for many Canadians to warm to. These traits are a barrier to inter-party co-operation – a necessity for any minority parliament to succeed.

…

By hinting that the replacement of Mr. Harper as Tory leader could lessen the crisis, the Liberals would make clear that they are not engaged in a mere power grab – and allow themselves time to resolve their own leadership issues. If the Conservatives accepted that proposition, they could demonstrate that personal interests were secondary to those of the country. Both parties, in other words, could behave like adults.

Luckily, I doubt many Canadians based their decision in the last election on the prescient political acumen of the Globe and Mail editorial staff.  Though the paper can be excused for not predicting last week’s turn of events, their complete and utter misreading of Stephen Harper raises the question of why they bothered endorsing a specific candidate at all. Some sort of mea culpa is certainly appropriate here, but of course entirely unlikely.

Editorial comment is a valuable edition to political discourse, but the practice of newspapers endorsing any one party or individual should likely be consigned to the blue box of history.

Can the Conservatives still save themselves? Speaking after the Prime Minister’s announcement, Bob Rae argued that Stephen Harper was the problem, while Stephane Dion suggested that the coalition needed to see “monumental change.”

Just a thought…

Some brief thoughts:

I don’t agree with this decision, but I do accept it. I support the Governor General and do believe Her Excellency took all relevant factors into account before making what was in her view the correct decision. Those of us who support the coalition should not stoop to attacking the integrity of Canadian institutions, as some on the other side have recently done.

Still, this is a bad precedent. The Prime Minister is frustrating the will of the House, which should not be grounds for prorogation.

The Conservatives are about to blitz the public with a massive public relations campaign. The coalition’s task just became much more difficult. Unity is now more important than ever.

Update: Garth Turner has written a fantastic post on the whole situation.

That said, my personal and completely inconsequential view is that the prorogation should be refused.  Prorogation should not be a tool for the government to avoid the judgement of the House of Commons. In response to the Prime Minister’s request, the Governor General should indicate she will grant a prorogation immediately, once the PM has demonstrated he has the confidence of the House. As former Governor General Ed Schreyer points out:

“Any group that presumes to act as government must face and receive periodically the support and confidence of Parliament, and if it is somehow avoided or evaded, then clearly the will of Parliament is being thwarted and frustrated, and that cannot be tolerated for long,”

If Stephen Harper still believes he has the legitimacy to govern, he should prove it.

“The opposition wants to overturn the results of the last election.”

No, Stephen. Either you fundamentally do not understand how parliament functions (which might explain some of your recent behaviour), or you are simply lying. The opposition is not trying to overturn the results of the last election. Rather, they are working within them to form a government which enjoys the confidence of the House.

And then there was this:

“Tonight’s Canada’s government will use every legal means necessary to prevent a coalition with the separatists.”

No matter how many times this lie is debunked, Harper keeps repeating it. The Bloc is not in the coalition. They have agreed to support the coalition on confidence motions. Interesting, though, that the French version of Harper’s speech uses the term sovereigntist while in English he uses the term separatists.

But really, this is what most of us expected.

(h/t Red Tory)