For sheer nastiness, few candidates in the last federal election could top Vancouver East Liberal Shirley Chan.
Chan blamed her defeat on anti-Liberal sentiment “stirred up by provincial governments in B.C. and Ontario.” And it’s doubtful that Gordon Campbell did the Liberal brand any favours.
But that doesn’t explain how Libby Davies’ margin ballooned from 3,397 votes in 2000 to 12,722 in 2004. That sure didn’t happen to New Democrats elsewhere in B.C.
A more likely explanation? Voters got to know Shirley Chan. And not the nice Shirley walking so peacefully through that park with Ujjal and Dave in the Liberal TV ad.
Chan proved herself a mean, vicious piece of work who sank lower in both polls and tactics as the campaign progressed. As the Globe and Mail reported, “she accused Ms. Davies, a lesbian, of wasting taxpayers’ money by flying her ‘girlfriend’ around the country under a parliamentary program the gives travel rights to partners and spouses of MPs.
“Ms. Chan also chastised the incumbent for living in co-op housing despite having an MP’s income of more than $100,000.” She glossed over the difference between market-value and subsidized housing — the same slur launched so often against Jack Layton.
And her blog accused Davies of supporting child pornography — the same slur that caused the Liberals such outrage when the Conservatives aimed it at them.
The blog itself is worth a second glance as a measure of just how foul the Chan campaign became. And it’s an object lesson — along with that 12,722-vote margin — on how there’s a crucial difference between going negative and going berserk.
