Castanet

The announcement of Justin Trudeau as a candidate for leader of the Liberal Party is sure to bring about much debate as to whether he has the prerequisite experience to be the "leader" of the party. My observation of politics today is that [regardless of the party involved] experience and demonstrated leadership ability doesn't seem to make much difference to those selecting their leaders. Charisma played a pretty huge part in getting Pierre Trudeau the leadership and the subsequent election of his party to power. The Obama story is the same thing. He sure didn't come to office because he had a wealth of experience as a leader or CEO of a huge company or any such baggage. He is a strong orator and said what the people wanted to hear during his campaign. Maybe the same thing will happen in the younger Trudeau's pursuit of the Liberal Party leadership. Surrounded by the right people, a good speaker with charisma can win in politics and that fact has been proven time after time. On the other hand a proven great leader with vision and intelligence, but lacking pizazz and charisma doesn't survive a nano-second in this day and age. Robert Stanfield comes to mind as an example. Trudeau will add some spice if nothing else.

Meh the way I look at leadership in politics is that it doesnt take much in the way of leadership to get one *bleep* to follow the other down the drain. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter which one leads, eventually they all disappear, and we get a whole new batch. Sometimes a few of the more determined turds stick around a little longer than we'd like and we have to giver another flush.

Chretien was a two flusher, so is harper and frankly Trudeau will hopefully gone on the first flush like Dion/ignoramus (thats how you spell his name right?). I think mulclair will stick around and be a two flusher too it's pretty unfortunate.

Yes, aside from the charisma, subtle machismo and willingness to cause *bleep* (that's sometimes a good thing in politics), I don’t see much substance in him. Mind you, take a look at how young he still is. Perhaps he is making this move far too soon and this will be the fatal mistake in his political career.

People love politicians with a familiar name. Thats all he is counting on.

He could not be any worst than last 2 leaders.......... Stéphane Dion & Michael Ignatieff.

See how easy it is to convince people with attack ads.

GordonH wrote:He could not be any worst than last 2 leaders.......... Stéphane Dion & Michael Ignatieff.

I disagree. He could be as bad as Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who was the single worst Prime Minister in Canada's history.

no, the single worst PM was Brian Mulroney!

Logitack wrote:..., the single worst PM was Brian Mulroney!

when it comes to malfeasance, he was the Gordon Campbell of federal politics.

Remember the "old" Trudeau? A $0.69 cents dollar. (Called the Canadian peso) The National Energy Plan? Just to name 2 items?

Personally I'm willing to give any "new face" in federal politics a chance, because the "old faces" seem to be so corrupt that it's time for a change IMO.

I'm tired of all the scandals, the "old boys" clubs, and the old, worn out way of doing things. A "new face" with some fresh ideas may be just the solution we need. It certainly can't be any worse than what we've had over the past few years.

Charisma in a leader is a good thing if it results in people taking a renewed interest in how their country is governed. Canadians have become far too complacent about what their government is up to these days, and maybe a change in leadership will cause people to begin to wake up and start paying attention again. It certainly can't hurt.

I'm willing to listen to what Mr. Trudeau has to say, and not let the "sins of the father" (percieved or otherwise) influence my decision.