Mendalla said:
Does Wynne really think fighting Brown in court rather than on the campaign trail is going to help?
It isn't going to hurt.
There is a lesson that the Ontario Conservatives have failed to learn over the last few elections and Wynne, taking Brown to Court, is counting on Brown not having learned the lesson himself.
The lesson, in simple form is, "shut the hell up losing from ahead is easy to accomplish."
Just because the province may be tired of bumbling Liberals doesn't mean that they actually want to hop back in bed with mean Conservatives.
Nobody needs to sell Ontarians on the fact that the Liberal ship is a mess. It is very well known. What Ontarians need to be sold is that there are alternatives that aren't worse and so far the Ontario Conservatives have failed to find a salesperson who can actually deliver that message.
Brown, in shooting his mouth off (actually following the lead of another MPP) demonstrated that truth doesn't matter. The MPP in question got a similar letter from Wynne's lawyer and he offered a formal apology. Anybody remember that MPP's name without resorting to google? Maybe if he was your MPP you do. At any rate nobody is talking about him running his mouth off which is in his best interest when he has to defend his seat.
The longer this goes on the only hope Brown has is the case being dismissed or Wynne fails to prove the case. Brown's only defence is that he was telling the truth (and he wasn't) or that no reasonable person would have believed him.
Mendalla said:
While I do think he crossed a line with his remark and should have apologized, suing over what is really a political spat seems like a counterproductive waste of time to me.
Which is fair opinion. I wonder though, how many women and gays who have been bullied in the past are going to interpret events.
Mendalla said:
It certainly isn't going to help her come next spring and could be played against her if Brown's team do it right.
It can only be played against her by Brown if the case is dismissed or he proves that he spoke truly (not) or so outrageously that no reasonable person would have believed him. That being the case he would have been upfront and apologized even spinning the apology so that the blame was not for what he so foolishly stated but for the fact that people foolishly believed him.
But apology is politically dangerous during the campaign because the one big question mark is his reputation for fair weather voting.
If you think that the other leader can't be trusted with the truth you have to demonstrate that you can be trusted with it and his stupid comments and refusal, thus far, to own them demonstrates that he cannot be trusted with the truth either.
And in politics the devil you know generally wins over the devil you don't.
