Attacking Ouellette could spark blowback

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 25/09/2014 (4042 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

An endorsement by a powerful and influential lobby is supposed to be a good thing for a political candidate. And it usually is, unless the people doing the endorsing overestimate both their influence and their role.

So it was this week when an endorsement by the United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg (UFFW) began to go sideways on both the union and the mayoral candidate being endorsed, front-runner Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

On Monday, shortly after Wasylycia-Leis got the UFFW nod, rival candidate Robert-Falcon Ouellette issued a statement suggesting the union’s endorsement and accompanying ground support may violate campaign-finance laws. Ouellette said he wanted to ensure all of the materials — including the gold “Fire Fighters for Judy” T-shirts the union members wear on the campaign trail — were being included as expenses by the Wasylycia-Leis campaign.

It wasn’t a game-changing story, but it was clever campaigning by Ouellette. By challenging the endorsement, he converted the story from a Wasylycia-Leis win to one about how much influence a union has in the former NDP MP and MLA’s campaign, something she would rather not have voters consider.

This story wouldn’t have gone much further if only Alex Forrest, the UFFW president, had not been asked to respond to Ouellette’s allegations. Forrest noted all materials and services in kind are charged to the campaign of the candidate they are endorsing.

Forrest went further: “It just goes to show why (Ouellette) is not considered a legitimate candidate,” Forrest said. “He just doesn’t understand the complexity of the process. We don’t need someone like that to be mayor.”

Forrest was certainly entitled to defend his union from allegations of impropriety. He is not entitled to question the legitimacy of Ouellette’s campaign just for getting in his grill.

Is it fair to bring up legitimacy as an issue in this campaign? The better term here is viability and, yes, it’s a fair issue.

There are seven names on the mayoral ballot in this election, but not all have met the threshold for a viable campaign. It’s why entertainment agent Michel Fillion — the least active of all candidates — has been the odd man out at mayoral forums. He is legitimate, having met the requirements to be on the ballot. But he is not viable.

By any reasonable standard, however, the other candidates are viable. Any third party choosing to endorse a candidate would be well advised to be respectful of those they didn’t endorse. By attacking other candidates, those third parties run the risk of undermining their endorsement and perhaps affecting the outcome of the election.

By now it’s apparent Ouellette has become a bit of a sensation in this election. With no political experience, he has sparked a great deal of emotion among his supporters, and with good reason; he is a genuinely charismatic figure. That makes him a flashpoint other candidates need to avoid. The UFFW spat is a good case in point.

Some of those most wooed by his persona reacted angrily and, turning to social media, labelled Forrest and his union as racist. And for a moment, it appeared briefly Ouellette concurred.

Late Tuesday night, Ouellette’s official campaign Twitter account endorsed a tweet accusing the UFFW of being racist. “Thank you for uncovering the truth,” the Ouellette campaign Twitter account posted.

(Full disclosure: The author was also identified as an offending party in a racist campaign against Ouellette. This was based on the fact I put Ouellette on a list of “fringe” candidates in July when, quite frankly, he had not campaigned much yet. He has not been referred to as a fringe candidate since.)

When contacted, a Ouellette spokesman said the tweet, now deleted, was the work of an overenthusiastic volunteer, and while they object to Forrest’s comments, they are not “racist.”

The tweet from Ouellette’s official account was a stupid, impetuous overreaction. It does, however, point out there is peril for both the UFFW and Wasylycia-Leis in this matter.

This story reveals the pragmatism at work in the UFFW endorsements. The union is more concerned about picking a winner, and getting concessions, than the ideology or affiliation of a particular candidate. In this case, whether the next mayor — as Forrest said in August — will build more fire stations.

However, that pragmatism can be a burden for the lucky candidate if applied indiscriminately.

Forrest must realize the only threat to Wasylycia-Leis’ front-running support comes from Ouellette, the only other serious candidate in the race palatable to centre-left voters. Creating any sympathy and momentum for him can only serve to hurt Wasylycia-Leis.

Political endorsements always carry both risk and reward. Right now, the UFFW is clearly demonstrating the former part of that equation.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca