The reviews are in - Non-Lib Edition

Last night I pointed out the angry reaction from some Lib supporters to the fact that their own party's MPs torpedoed a motion supporting family planning. But just in case anybody thought the concern was only an internal Lib issue of caucus solidarity, let's see what other commentators have had to say about the train wreck.

Dr. Dawg:

Liberal nonentities John McKay, Paul Szabo and Dan McTeague don't care if Third World women die. Some don't give a damn one way or the other. And Liberal "leader" Michael Ignatieff couldn't do a thing about it.
...
Talk about the gang that couldn't shoot straight. What a toxic mixture of malevolence and incompetence.

Greg uses the incident to add to Canada's political vocabulary:

Iggy

Definition: Noun. A very dull fellow. A loser. Usage: "That fellow over there just lost a vote on his own party's motion because he couldn't even deliver his own caucus. What an Iggy."

And then adds this followup:

Harper is sharpening his teeth, getting ready to feast on more Liberal lamb. If you think I am being too harsh, take a look at this headline. When they start making jokes, comparing you to your failed, hopeless predecessor, you are in big, big, trouble.

Fern Hill:

Just when I was developing a smidge of respect for the Liberals...

Just when I was not quite so despairing of Opposition cooperation...

Well. That shows me, I guess. Women's rights, here as in the Excited States, are always negotiable. At least for Liberals.
...
You look like absolute, complete idiots, Liberals. You couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery. And the Cons are crapping their pants laughing at you.

Devin Johnston:

Whatever the reason, the lesson learned today is that the Liberal Party of Canada remains fertile ground for socially conservative politicians. To the extent that the Liberal Party brands itself as socially progressive, its social conservative caucus will be a constant public relations nightmare.

And via Twitter, Kady O'Malley:

(M)ust agree with other observers: that was a stunning example of utter Liberal disorganization in the House.

Update:

More Kady:

Happy Weekly Caucus Day, everyone! Well, unless you happen to be a Liberal, of course, in which case today's outing will likely do little to boost your respective or collective morale. Let the festival of bitterness, recrimination, and inevitable leaking of the high- and low lights of today's meeting begin!

You also might want to take note of the scheduled vote after Question Period; as some of your MPs have apparently forgotten exactly how the seemingly uncomplicated process of standing up at the right time actually works, you might want to do a few practice runs to avoid future embarrassment.

And Alison:

Blue Dog Liberals: Banner day, assholes
...
1) You voted against stopping a $¼-million government subsidy to an asbestos lobby group.

2) You dogwhistled about abortion in your maternal health initiative for developing countries "wedge" motion but were too afraid to actually include the word.

3) You used the "wedge" motion - intended to smoke out the Cons - to give your own party a very public wedgie, losing the final vote: 144-138.

Update II:

catnip:

It should have been a simple thing: present a motion to force the Cons to take a formal stand on supporting maternal health initiatives (ie. contraception) in advance of the upcoming G8 meeting - a reaffirmation of Canada's foreign policy stance for the past 25 years.

But the Liberals, who introduced the motion, managed to defeat their own motion.

This, after catching the Cons in their own roller coaster of confusion over the policy last week and on the heels of Bev Oda laughingly calling the policy "anti-American". (Apparently, being against former and regressive Bush administration policies equals anti-Americanism to the spectacularly dull and ineffective Ms Oda).

And the Cons also believed that even talking about contraception was some sort of slippery slope to re-opening the debate about abortion - which wasn't even on the table.

Yet, the Liberals still managed to embarass themselves.

David Akin, featuring an unnamed Lib MP:

The motion was defeated 144-138. Had the absent Liberals showed up to vote in favour, it would have easily passed. Remarkably, there was, after the vote, much confusion about whether or not it was a whipped vote. Some said, yes, they'd been whipped. Others, like B.C. MP Keith Martin - he was there and voted in favour of the motion -- did not know it was a whipped vote until told it was by reporters this morning.

And so the Liberals ended up with some tremendous egg on their face.
...
Privately, Liberal MPs said that the 90-minute caucus meeting was not a happy place with MPs directing their frustration at Ignatieff, his staff, and party whip Rodger Cuzner. It would have been Cuzner's job to make sure all of his MPs knew it was a whipped vote and to make sure they were all in their seats and ready to vote "Aye". Ignatieff would not say what punishment would be in store for the Liberal MPs who did not vote the way they were supposed to, saying only that Cuzner would decide on that.

"We look like fools," one Liberal MP said privately.

The reviews are in - Liberal Supporters Edition

I'll post later to document the reaction from those of us who aren't in the Libs' camp. But to start with, let's take a look at what Libs themselves are saying about their self-sabotaged motion on family planning.

James Curran:

Today Liberals Failed Women

There's something I never thought I'd never hear myself write. To make matters worse, I had to hear our leader say -over and over again- "it's a 25 year policy". Point being, if we feel that strongly about it, why wasn't this causcus (sic) whipped to support our own motion which was non-binding????????????? What a slap in the face to women every where.

Steve V:

Not A Great Moment, Let's Just Say

This (train wreck) sums up today's motion on maternal health from the Liberal perspective. I know, I'm being to (sic) kind.

bigcitylib in response:

By the way, the exploding whale is also an excellent graphic for this kind of situation.

Scott Tribe:

(W)hen you have an important motion going forward in the house and you’re trying to make a point, it is not good planning or foresight to put the motion out there on the House of Commons voting schedule when you don’t have the votes or aren’t sure if you have the votes (consider that even if the 3 Liberals who had voted ‘no’ had abstained instead, we still would have lost the motion by 3 votes).

It may not mean much in the overall scheme of things since the government would have ignored this anyhow.. but it’s rather embarrassing optics.

More to come - at least, assuming the whole mess isn't quietly disappeared by other Lib supporters.

Update: The above may well be all for main posts - as the only other Lib supporter post on the subject looks to completely miss the point. (Yes, "if you want a government that doesn't play politics with such issues and that will unabashedly say yes to family planning support, we all know what we need to do": vote NDP, since one national party can actually be trusted to have some principles in the area.)

But CfSR does offer up another comment worth highlighting:

How the Hell does the Liberal caucus screw up an argument that basicly (sic) comes down to the Harper Tories being more eager to defend George Bush than poor women?

Really. How? And how do we fix the caucus?

Again, though, the better answer looks to be that the Libs are far beyond fixing.

Update II:

HarperBizarro doesn't want to name party names (framing the problem as being with the "opposition" rather than the Libs), but this much seems beyond doubt:

This is not an Ignatieff problem. It is far broader and deeper and older than his leadership.
...
It is time for those who cannot be 100% Liberals to go to another party. It would be preferable to face a majority Tory caucus and be able to stand for progress at all times, than to have to withstand the bullshit of yesterday.

And see also The Scott Ross:

Hours before the vote on a motion calling on the government to include "the full range of reproductive health options” in its international maternal and child health initiative, MP Lise Zarac said in response to the Conservative Party's planned opposition to it, "Once again, the government is putting its socially conservative ideology ahead of the best interests of women and girls."

However as votes were cast, and it was seen that three Liberal MPs opposed the motion as well leading to its defeat, Ms. Zarac must have realized just how social conservatives can be, as they haven't just stuck to their party, they've joined others.

Update III:

Life in Moderation:

How can we, as people of the Western industrialized world (especially as Canadians), continue to claim our progressive knowledge on issues such as health care when working with people in developing nations, when even our own government is stuck in a swamp of decades past. This makes me sick to my stomach.

Shame, especially on those Liberals who either didn't show up for the vote, or abstained from voting.

And an unnamed Lib MP:

Clown city.

Lowering the bar

Truly, I thought that Lib committee members' inexplicable vote along with the Cons and Bloc to keep using public money for asbestos promotion would at least be the party's most embarrassing example of useless opposition for the day.

I stand corrected.