What has happened to the Liberal Party under Ignatieff's leadership?
The cracks are beginning to show. While other party leaders are out and about, Ignatieff has been nowhere to be found for the past while.
Now staunch Liberal backers such as Lawrence Martin are getting very anxious as we approach the later part of the summer, and the enevitable will there, or will there not be, an election this fall. There will, of course, be no election this Fall, unless the Liberals have a death wish.
Will the Liberals' strategy of roll-no-dice work?
A good many in the party want to reboot, but senior strategists remain unmoved
Some things are starting to worry some Liberals.
1. The economy isn't sinking. It won't propel them to power.
2. The Harper Conservatives aren't going to defeat themselves.
3. Liberals can't win by trying to be all things to all people. Paul Martin tried that.
4. Michael Ignatieff isn't capturing the public imagination, as earlier hoped.
A good many in the party want to reboot - and they want to do it now. The initial idea was that the combination of their new leader and a brutal recession would lead them back to the promised land. Being proactive wasn't necessary. But the economy is rebounding earlier than expected. Stephen Harper is back on his feet. Liberal polling numbers have stalled. Media reviews are unflattering.
There is concern the Liberal leader is risk-averse. Mr. Ignatieff, some worry, is still thinking things through - something intellectual types are inclined to do. In their wisdom, these leaders see the complexities of the issues, the grey zones, the competing shades and they hedge. Vague imagery results.
What to do? Get out some bold policy initiatives, many in the party say. Give the leader definition. Give Canadians a vision. Roll the dice.
But it's not about to happen.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/will-the-liberals-roll-no-d...
It must be contagious. Another one is worried as well.
Michael Ignatieff hurt by his own tactics
There are two basic political rules that rookie leaders break. One warns against taking a position that can't be abandoned without severe damage or high risk. The second, related to the first, cautions against cornering an opponent unless the purpose is to force a fight on advantageous terms.
In roughly six months of on-the-job training, Michael Ignatieff has savaged those axioms. The result is that a party that should be riding high is down in the dumps. It's squandered an opinion poll lead and lost the swagger that carried caucus through spring and toward yet another early election.
Part of the problem is politics is unforgiving as well as not easily mastered. Worse, it's at least as complex as chess and cruelly punishes new players by discounting their experience and success before abandoning real for elected life.
Putting Conservatives "on probation" is a prime example of what happens when a tactic is too clever by half. Instead of putting pressure on the Prime Minister, it creates a periodic test the Opposition leader can only pass by forcing what may be an untimely election.
Ignatieff compounded the error by ignoring Rule 2. Threatening to bring Conservatives down before Parliament's summer recess was only sound as long as Liberals, and particularly their leader, were ready for a campaign. They weren't and Stephen Harper shrewdly called the bluff, sending two parties in different directions.
There are two basic political rules that rookie leaders break. One warns against taking a position that can't be abandoned without severe damage or high risk. The second, related to the first, cautions against cornering an opponent unless the purpose is to force a fight on advantageous terms.
In roughly six months of on-the-job training, Michael Ignatieff has savaged those axioms. The result is that a party that should be riding high is down in the dumps. It's squandered an opinion poll lead and lost the swagger that carried caucus through spring and toward yet another early election.
Part of the problem is politics is unforgiving as well as not easily mastered. Worse, it's at least as complex as chess and cruelly punishes new players by discounting their experience and success before abandoning real for elected life.
Putting Conservatives "on probation" is a prime example of what happens when a tactic is too clever by half. Instead of putting pressure on the Prime Minister, it creates a periodic test the Opposition leader can only pass by forcing what may be an untimely election.
Ignatieff compounded the error by ignoring Rule 2. Threatening to bring Conservatives down before Parliament's summer recess was only sound as long as Liberals, and particularly their leader, were ready for a campaign. They weren't and Stephen Harper shrewdly called the bluff, sending two parties in different directions.
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/665630
Second only to Rachel Marsden's twitter feed, the most vitriolic, irresponsible, mean-spirited, out-of-touch Canadian conservatives write on Free Dominion.
Yet that's exactly the place where Conservatives - disappointed by Harper - are talking to each other about voting for Ignatieff.
It's a sure sign of the dramatic shift to the right going on in the Liberal Party that staunch elements of the conservative movement are seeing the Liberal party under Ignatieff as a welcome home for their issues and a vehicle for their agenda.
A few snips from Iggy's new right wing fan club:
"I think Ignatief "gets" the oil sands. Time will tell if he "gets" the rest of western Canada. If he does, people will switch their vote."
"I'm not so sure he'll turn out to be the same NDPlite PM as Trudeau."
"If he does exceptionally well, he may just get my vote."
"I really think that Iggy is a traditional Liberal - which means balanced bugets, debt repayment, and cuts to social spending in much the same manner as pre-Pearson, he strikes me as very much like Chreiten or Laurier."
North Report, you seem to have an obsession with this subject and often post multiple threads on it every day. While I agree with you that Ignatieff definitely needs to start defining himself and his policies with more substance if he is too succeed, I think you are exaggerating the extent of the problem and not focusing enough on the challenges that face the other leaders and parties as well.
well, I read all 6 pages of that thread, which was painful. Did not touch marsden's twitter feed, *gag*.
And yes, there is a small minority there who would vote Liberal, if all things aligned, but perhaps they are the "soft soaping" Liberal plants that can be viewed everywhere across the political forum world, that seem to be growing daily. And yes it does somewhat indicate, to a certain extent, how far right the Liberal Party has moved.
I found it interesting when one stated if the Liberals apologized for NEP, they would now vote for them and so would everyone in AB.
Are apologies all that it takes?
If Ignatieff can attract Conservative voters away from Harper and to the Liberals, that will be viewed as a victory for him.
WTH? Why does anyone have to focus on anything they don't want to? get a grip.
Are apologies all that it takes?
Gee I hope not-- Don't think Atleo will find that an acceptable idea.
No...I do not think so either, not by a long freaking shot.
Let me get this straight.
Ignatieff rejected pulling the plug on Harper, and discrediting Harper when the economy was in recession, and instead decided to wait. Wait for what? For the Bank of Canada Governor, to say the recession is ending, and allowing Harper to get the credit.
From a liberal supporting paper no less. And some people still think there will be an election this Fall.
Good times spell bad news for cautious Liberals
Instead of blaming Conservatives for job losses, misjudging the deficit and mismanaging the economy, Liberals would have to fall back on the weaker, more nuanced and less evocative argument that it was the Official Opposition that forced a reluctant government to open the stimulus floodgates.
None of that would matter so much if Liberals hadn't been overly confident Conservatives, with a lot of help from the recession, would defeat themselves. Gripped by the same hubris that convinced the party it could afford Stéphane Dion, Liberals failed to give Canadians reasons to vote for Ignatieff, not simply against Harper.
Foolis
Instead of blaming Conservatives for job losses, misjudging the deficit and mismanaging the economy, Liberals would have to fall back on the weaker, more nuanced and less evocative argument that it was the Official Opposition that forced a reluctant government to open the stimulus floodgates.
None of that would matter so much if Liberals hadn't been overly confident Conservatives, with a lot of help from the recession, would defeat themselves. Gripped by the same hubris that convinced the party it could afford Stéphane Dion, Liberals failed to give Canadians reasons to vote for Ignatieff, not simply against Harper.
Foolish as the failure to establish themselves as a compelling alternative now seems, lying low is appealing to Liberals still nursing bitter memories of what happened when Conservatives made Dion and his policies the ballot question. But that doesn't change the urgent new reality confronting the party. Carney has indirectly started the clock ticking for an autumn campaign that Ignatieff and Liberals are still far from ready to contest.
h as the failure to establish themselves as a compelling alternative now seems, lying low is appealing to Liberals still nursing bitter memories of what happened when Conservatives made Dion and his policies the ballot question. But that doesn't change the urgent new reality confronting the party. Carney has indirectly started the clock ticking for an autumn campaign that Ignatieff and Liberals are still far from ready to contest.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/671778
I wonder what the Liberal Party's position on the Arctic is.
So Harper is first out of the gate here once again.
I doubt that Ignatieff will be interested in an election this Fall, as it appears Harper will mop the floor with him.
Canada unveils Arctic strategy
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/26/arctic-sovereignty.html
Link doesn't work
Thanks remind, it is now fixed.
Sounds like they are trying to deflate Iggy's visit to Gatineau as a press release there is not much there other than the seal pelt thing.
I guess the Globe's Laghi doesn't read the news if it's not in the Globe & Mail. He might want to try checking out the Bloomberg.com website.
With eyes on fall vote, Tories tutored in electioneeringParty meets Monday for update on vote preparations and employment insurance update
One senior party member said that Conservatives feel increasingly buoyant. The Liberals, who had been holding a lead of about a half-dozen percentage points through most of the spring, have fallen back to parity with the Tories, numbers that party members believe may persuade Mr. Ignatieff to hold off on an election.
Still, the Tories have made a number of moves suggesting they are preparing just in case. The party has, for example, begun nominating candidates in larger numbers.
"We're not fully nominated yet - but we're certainly north of 200," said a party official. There are 308 ridings.
The party's chief fundraiser, Irving Gerstein, has also sent out two separate letters seeking donations of $60 on each occasion.
"Money was supposedly earmarked for a pre-election campaign fund and it was suggested funds would be used to develop communications collateral," said a Conservative who received the solicitations.
Although the Tory doesn't believe the climate is right for an election, the Conservatives do believe that Mr. Ignatieff may not have the stomach to again support the government and that it will be left to the NDP and the Bloc to decide whether to bring down the government. Some Liberal MPs have become increasingly restive about keeping the government alive, arguing that it makes their party look weak and doesn't allow for differentiation with the government.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/with-eyes-on-fall-vote-tori...
Unsolicited advice for Michael Ignatieff
Because, you genius, for the one guy you've just pleased, you've made an enemy of every other candidate. What will poor former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler think, for heaven's sake? Cotler keeps threatening not to run again but hangs in hoping for the holy grail - becoming justice minister again, the job for which he as born. So he gets up one fine Saturday morning and learns from the gossip columnists that the grail has gone, evaporated, disparu, his hopes as dead as John Cleese's parrot. And what other Liberals are receiving promises that haven't yet been leaked? Question: How many resentful candidates and caucus members can there be? Answer: All that believe a lucky few have gotten commitments they themselves have not. Heckuva way to build the new team, eh?
Just about everybody in Canada has warned Iggy that he can't afford too many more goof-ups. He can't keep conducting himself as if he personally knows how the political game in Canada is played since he hasn't a clue. Yet the first person singular reigns in the Liberal party. Ignatieff continues, apparently unilaterally, making decisions that have made him look foolish - putting the Conservatives on probation, threatening yet again to force an election he can't risk fighting, surrendering his demand for EI changes without getting a single change, having no policy on any issue whatsoever.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/unsolicited-advice-for-igna...
Well you can always count on Caplan to piss someone off whether it be the Liberals like this time or the NDP other times.
What did Iggy do to Cotler?
Well it sounded like he had aspirations to be justice minister again but apparently Ignatieff has offered the position to Oppal. Just what Canada needs in the House of Commons, another lawyer and a judge. WTF.
And what has Ignatieff offered to Paul Zed who supposedly is running in Saint John. I cant help but think that Zed was involved somehow in that Telegraph Journal Harper smear. I wonder what Zeds reward will be.
If Ignatieff falls flat in the next election (ie. anything less than 25 seats in Quebec and another Tory minority), then perhaps he'll try and convince people the left wing (or indeed, any ideological current) of the Liberal Party sill exists. Until then, he's just minding the store. He already cut off his nose on the EI reform issue, a golden oportunity he talked to death and then all but conceded to Harper anyway.
My initial prediction was an election in March '10, and it seems to be getting later by the day...
Oh that is right Ignatief did offer the justice minister job to Oppal, I had not thought of the implications of that little action, and what a slap in the face it would be for Cotler.
Well actually I would say to all Canadians, having experienced Oppal's inabilities and actions in BC.
Oppal is indeed an idiot, and didn't even handle the RCMP taser death inquiry correctly. No way should he be considered for Justice Minister over Irwin Cotler.
And how should Oppal have handled it.
Im not disagreeing with you, but lets have some substance to back
up what you are talking about.
Not a bad idea. Maybe after the next election the Liberals will give up the ghost. Fat chance.
Harper's Great White Hope?Speaking of not new, it must have been music to Mr. Harper's ears to hear Ed Broadbent thunder, "What modern Conservatives and Liberals have done is not only to reject the political legacy of the CCF and the NDP, but they have also rejected part of the political legacy of Lester Pearson, John Diefenbaker, Pierre Trudeau and Bob Stanfield...." And, I'll bet the Prime Minister didn't even take offense when the old social democrat war horse said, "There's been a straight line from Paul Martin to Stephen Harper, and don't let the Liberals tell you otherwise...There's a fiscal link from the Liberals of the 1990s to Mr. Harper, and anyone who thinks there isn't is off in cloud cuckoo land."
Let's face it: The stronger the Dippers and the more they eat into the Liberal vote, the greater the chances that Stephen Harper and his family will continue to enjoy their chef's fine food and that great view overlooking the Ottawa River after the next election, notwithstanding the Conservatives being supported by a mere 36 per cent or so of Canadians. Plus he'll have the power to name senators and judges and fly around the world in his own jet meeting interesting folks like Barack Obama, if not Bono.
It took numb-skulls on the centre-right three consecutive Chrétien victories to figure out that they had to unite their forces if they hoped to form government again. Now, with Michael Ignatieff hugging the centre and playing doppelgänger to Mr. Harper, it's beginning to look as though it will take dim-wits on the centre-left at least as long to figure out their path to victory. In fact, after striking out on their coalition coup - an embarrassment that you'll not hear mentioned by the speechifiers at this weekend's meeting - it might take them even longer.
Sure, Mr. Harper will not achieve a majority Conservative government; as long as the Bloc remains strong in Québec, no party will. Still, being in power atop three successive minority governments has its rewards: just ask Lester Pearson. True, Stephen Harper is no Lester Pearson. But, unless he comes up with a new game plan, it's looking less and likely that Michael Ignatieff will ever get the chance to show whether he can measure up to that standard.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/harpers-great-white-...
Close to 40% for Harper, in an IR poll released Friday nite, that's what has happened.
Is this brain trust, or brain dead
You're doing one hell of a job Iggy.
Ignatieff's Bay St. brain trust
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/ignatieffs-bay-st-b...
So they think the centre of the universe peeps are going to sell Ignatief to Canadians, eh?!
Good job boys, you got him nicely down in the polls already.
Not a good omen for the Ignatieff-led Liberals, as there is no bigger fan of the Liberals than this guy in the press. This is a devastating attack on Iggy. Is it over before it even begins for Canada's newest political nobility
Michael Ignatieff's curiously wasted summer
The failure to develop a coherent critique of the government has left Liberals wondering what is going on
Some days, the Liberals claim the Harper government hasn't spent enough public money on the recession. But they voted for the Harper budget, whose deficit has since exploded. Would the Liberals really recommend a budgetary deficit above the anticipated one of $50-billion? Where would that leave their other critique that the Conservatives have been reckless with the public purse?
On other days, the Liberals suggest the stimulus money should be rolled out ever faster. This is a purely political critique, rather than a seriously substantive one, since it takes time to make sure money is well spent. As it is, a whole lot of the stimulus money will be spent next year and the one after that, when the economy won't need the public money.
The economic centrists in the Liberal caucus know that taxes should be raised in the next few years to drive down the deficit and avoid years of red ink. But they dare not say so, because they fear the Conservative counterattack. So they say nothing. Indeed, so seared were Liberals by the bad public reaction to their carbon tax in the last election that they won't put anything forward before the election.
Mr. Ignatieff is going off to China, a good thing in itself, but wrong from a timing perspective. The Liberals thought they had the Conservatives somewhat vulnerable for mishandling relations with China, but with four senior Conservative ministers having recently visited that country, the potential critique has weakened.
Elections are won at home, on domestic issues overwhelmingly. If there's one area where Mr. Ignatieff doesn't have to burnish his credentials, it's having an international perspective, because he lived overseas for so many years. He'd be much better off attending barbecues in Ontario and Quebec than visiting Beijing and Shanghai. Get elected and go fast to China, but get elected first.
Stephen Harper had scarcely been outside Canada before getting elected. Canadians think they are great internationalists, but they are not at all.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/michael-ignatieffs-curiousl...
The Ignatieff Liberal fans definitely do not want to view this, although the Bob Rae supporters might.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb9kR1XHh3o
I think Bob Rae is a much more articulate and charismatic speaker than Ignatieff and would have made a better leader in many ways. He is also more compassionate and more progressive and closer to what the Liberal Party should represent.
Unfortunately, because he was Premier of Ontario, the baggage of that has remained around his neck and may prevent him from ever becoming leader.
"He is also more compassionate and more progressive and closer to what the Liberal Party should represent."
Talk is cheap which the liberals love to do - but liberals just don't do the walk. Many old time liberals are stuck in a "time warp" of the Trudeau era. It left the building a long time ago but they keep thinking that when everything is fine - the libs will enact those "promised progressive policies/programs."
Not going to happen folks.
I think Bob Rae is a much more articulate and charismatic speaker than Ignatieff and would have made a better leader in many ways. He is also more compassionate and more progressive and closer to what the Liberal Party should represent.
Unfortunately, because he was Premier of Ontario, the baggage of that has remained around his neck and may prevent him from ever becoming leader.
Bob Rae
I don't think Bob's health will permit him to run for leader.
However in Bob we have the one of the only Liberal MPs who has spoken for the plight of people whose rights have been trampled on by the Project for a New American Century.
This is a stretch I admit, but I figured if Bob could have taken the Liberal leadership we would have had a Democratic Coalition government by now. NDPers may not like Bob, but at least he would have been a devil they knew.
IMO the best bet for renewal in the Liberal Party will come from Domenic LeBlanc. Yet on the other hand, the Liberals may be permanently doomed.
As the NDP soaks up centre-left voters the Conservatives will get centre-right voters to stop the NDP. This pair of trends is positively radioactive for the Liberals.
"As the NDP soaks up centre-left voters the Conservatives will get centre-right voters to stop the NDP. This pair of trends is positively radioactive for the Liberals."
Sounds like fun!!
Susan Riley is one of the few Ottawa columnists that puts out a reasonable political column. I usually enjoy her comments because she is frequently on the money as she is here, although I find it bizarre she is being published in that POS better known as the National Post.
Ignatieff's big problemHe has some renown as a champion of human rights. Why didn't he condemn Hamid Karzai's recent endorsement of an edited version of a law that still treats Afghan women as chattels? Why didn't he draw attention to Harper's sudden low profile on the same issue? And if he did speak out, see above: the need for a quick response team to get the message out.
He has been criticized elsewhere for missing a chance to defend Canadian health care in the face of the raging debate in the United States, for failing to exploit his personal ties with the Obama regime, for remaining mute on the harmonized sales tax - a federal initiative that Harper is trying to blame on the provinces - or the outrageous official indifference to Canadian citizens who find themselves in trouble abroad.
Lesser Liberals have squeaked about some of these issues. And no one wants to hear the chorus of complaint about everything which is the opposition leader's sorry duty. What the country needs -those who are thoroughly fed up with Harper's cramped vision, at least - is intelligent demolition of Conservative nostrums accompanied by optimistic and generous alternatives.
This is usually described as "policy" - and the clamour for marketable and distinctive Liberal positions is building and will be heard again next week in Sudbury as Liberals hold their pre-session caucus. This will eventually lead to a glossy booklet which will be released amid much fanfare then forgotten - unless it contains something truly novel (like a Green Shift), in which case it will be mercilessly eviscerated by rivals.
It isn't "policy" the Liberals need, not in the narrow sense, but a different approach to the country and its problems - less hostile, hidebound and divisive than Harper's. Bob Rae embodies elements of that more "liberal" approach, so does Manitoba NDP Premier Gary Doer, U.S. President Barack Obama, even, on good days, Quebec Premier Jean Charest. So did Jean Chrétien, notwithstanding his authoritarian streak and animus towards separatists.
But does Michael Ignatieff? He appears culturally (fashionably) liberal and temperamentally conservative - but, mostly, diffident. Diffidence can be a charming personal trait, but a political liability -especially when your opponent is a human blow torch when aroused, fiercely single-minded, utterly convinced of his own rightness, ruthless in incinerating stumbling rivals.
And no amount of aggressive staff work can cover confusion at the centre. After all these months, Ignatieff remains an enigma - either undecided on key issues, absent, or a conservative trapped in the wrong party. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1951806
I'm curious what the Opposition has to say aren't you? Harper has been campaigning against Iggy from the get go with his made in America stuff or lived in America. Can you take the Canuck out of the Canadian? I think not. Harper would sell out to American Big Business in a New York Second and its been wasted advertising dollars as Harper's leadership is Iffy to say the least. Now its the Liberals turn. And the NDP I'm certain.
Oppal, someone has got to be kidding its Opps they did it as innocent citizens end up dead on Vancouver's street so heading up Canada's justice system with former BC MLA who failed to get re elected because of his Poor performance as justice minister needs more thought.
And don't you just love Harper's Hated Sales Tax, you know the HST? Canadians hate it. I read today the receission is over in BC and thought these guys are the out to lunch bunch, the recession is over? Apparently the l% growth was a indicator its over. Did you know China is in the Red? That is an indicator that it is far from over.
What about Canadians Health as Canada is not prepared for a pandemic and it could get real ugly for Canadians as Harper has other priorities like helping big business to the average stiffs paycheque? Did you know the NDP would have won the last election if Campbell hadn't lied? I knew it and was certain if the public knew the true state of affairs Campbell was a goner. I still think he is. Can you imagine a pandemic during the Olympics? No, because it would be over before it started.
As the NDP soaks up centre-left voters the Conservatives will get centre-right voters to stop the NDP. This pair of trends is positively radioactive for the Liberals.
You can say that again.
Isn't it about time Canada had a real Official Opposition, instead of the Liberals, who have voted 79 times to support the right-wing assault by the Harper Cons on Canada's little guys and gals.
According to Sgro, on last night's late news, Iggy allowed them to be bullied.
As the NDP soaks up centre-left voters the Conservatives will get centre-right voters to stop the NDP. This pair of trends is positively radioactive for the Liberals.
You can say that again.
Isn't it about time Canada had a real Official Opposition, instead of the Liberals, who have voted 79 times to support the right-wing assault by the Harper Cons on Canada's little guys and gals.
It would indeed be nice to have a real Official Opposition. You have to go back to the pre-Laurier era to recall a time when the Liberal Party was so utterly bereft of effective leadership (or any potential leaders waiting in the wings for that matter)
This is definitely LOL-worthy:
Yesterday, in explaining why it is that he wants an election, Michael Ignatieff offered the following:[...]
Stephen Harper has been prime minister for four years, and he's never visited China. We'll be there next week. After that, we'll plan a trip to India.
That's where we need to be as a country - if we want to secure markets for the next generation of our exports - if we want to compete with the best in the world - if we want to get out of the trade deficit the Conservatives have created, the first in thirty years.
Less than 24 hours later, CP reports:
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is cancelling a week-long trip to China due to his self-declared threat of a fall federal election, The Canadian Press has learned.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/radwanski/china-is-so-yesterday/article1273448/
I don't often agree with WK but this time...........
Warren Kinsella explains how we can all "see the corpse of Michael Ignatieff's vaulting ambition"
This is from Warren Kinsella's blog, March 27, 2006:
"It is not very often that one gets to witness a "leadership frontrunner" immolate his own candidacy so blithely, so recklessly, but if you click here and you peer inside, you will see the corpse of Michael Ignatieff's vaulting ambition. He is done - and if he isn't, he should be. Now, it is true that I objected to the learned professor before reading this essay, posted over the weekend on Pierre Bourque's site. I objected to the manner in which his supporters trampled on democracy in a Toronto riding - literally locking out opponents. I objected to his support of George W. Bush's illegal war in Iraq. I objected to the fact that he mocked Canada (Link dead) during the three decades he was abroad, and that he likened Israeli policy to the fascism of apartheid. I objected to what I perceived to be breathtaking arrogance - calling Canada a "herbivorian boy scout" one day, then jetting up here to run it the next. And then came this essay. Below I have culled a representative sampling of some the things Ignatieff says about torture in his just-published tour de force. His Kool Aid drinkers - and he has many already, rest assured - will bombard me with emails, braying and screeching that I quoted him out of context. But the fact is that they are his words ..."
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/19/...
A poster left this message with links:
Kinsella really pretty much hits the nail on the head. As much as it can be argued that a Liberal Government would be more in touch with Canadians not in this case. See more on this at www.policycentre.ca/.../4 and at www.policycentre.ca/.../the-unbearable-jeffery-simpson
enjoy
Ignatieff was never the right man for the job. The only reason I have heard that people support him was because he had a good chance of winning. It was not because of his compassion, or his patriotism, or his ideas.
Here is what we know:
1) He's really only back in Canada because he thinks he can be the Prime Minister. Look, you don't have to live in Canada all your life to lead it, but someone who hasn't lived here in 20 years, doesn't love it enough to lead the country. Sorry.
2) He's not a people person. I have heard this time and time again, from Liberal insiders, who say he's pretty much dismissive of all but the most important people. Unless you are bringing in big cash, or you have a PhD, don't expect to get a word in with Ignatieff.
3) He doesn't seem to have any ideas. Then again, Harper didn't have any ideas either, and that seemed to work for him. Just sit back and criticize everything the opposition does, and make wild claims that you could have done much better. Well, it's easy to recognize mistakes after the fact, but let's hear the criticism when decisions are being made.
It seems that the Liberals don't want to follow the likes of Dion or John Tory, by coming up with ideas and getting them shut down.
The 'grass roots' that the Liberals tries to embrace aren't regular people - they're pandering patsies all looking to be part of the Liberal entitelment machine. Their ideas aren't reaching out to the average person - the only focus groups are Liberal sycophants who don't want to ruffle any feathers by shooting down someone else's ideas.
The whole party needs to be rebuilt. There are few people with passion left, and mostly a lot of people vying for their own taste of power, or some sort of preferred treatment if their candidate of choice gets elected.
Nope Ignatieff is not the man for the job, but then neither is the Liberal Party the party for the job, we can see that they are not just by their inserting Iggy, and their flailing about currently.
Should they get to the brass tacks of helping Canadians, as opposed to jockeying for power and a place at the feeding trough, it could be a different story.
But that is doubtful in the extreme, it is the way they are, and have been for decades now. The posturing mask has just been removed.
However, they could still be forced by the public in this government setting, to bring in needed reforms and measures. One would thinkj they would do it, if only to try and put their mask back in place.
We know that should an election happen, they would be in shambles, and Harper would have full control even if he would only get another minority.
Maybe Canada needs a Lula.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8253318.stm
In the heat of the 1964 Saskatchewan election, CCF leader Woodrow Lloyd characterized the Liberal campaign strategy as "hucksterism, the kind of sales attempts that one usually associates with useless pills, second hand cars, and body deodorants."
This is where the Kinsella camp could take the good professor if he is not more careful.
Unsolicited advice for Michael Ignatieff
Because, you genius, for the one guy you've just pleased, you've made an enemy of every other candidate. What will poor former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler think, for heaven's sake? Cotler keeps threatening not to run again but hangs in hoping for the holy grail - becoming justice minister again, the job for which he as born. So he gets up one fine Saturday morning and learns from the gossip columnists that the grail has gone, evaporated, disparu, his hopes as dead as John Cleese's parrot. And what other Liberals are receiving promises that haven't yet been leaked? Question: How many resentful candidates and caucus members can there be? Answer: All that believe a lucky few have gotten commitments they themselves have not. Heckuva way to build the new team, eh?
Just about everybody in Canada has warned Iggy that he can't afford too many more goof-ups. He can't keep conducting himself as if he personally knows how the political game in Canada is played since he hasn't a clue. Yet the first person singular reigns in the Liberal party. Ignatieff continues, apparently unilaterally, making decisions that have made him look foolish - putting the Conservatives on probation, threatening yet again to force an election he can't risk fighting, surrendering his demand for EI changes without getting a single change, having no policy on any issue whatsoever.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/unsolicited-advice-for-igna...
Well you can always count on Caplan to piss someone off whether it be the Liberals like this time or the NDP other times.
Who's to say whether the 'Norwegian Blue' might have vacated it's perch, if asked politely? The point is that Justin Trudeau won in Papineau, against Vivien Barbot, a formidable candidate.
Seems that Canadians have always preferred to stick with the devil they think they know instead of throwing their lot behind an unknown entity that is clearly in disarray. In Ignatieff's case, the liberal strategy of propping up a freak show of an individual by a party that is so out of tune with what the public wants in a leader has completely failed. Successively presenting Dithers, Dion and Iggy figurines as representatives of their vision is indicative in itself of a party whose only strategy is to superimpose it's own inner stupidity and careless ambition upon the country, instead of building a movement based upon the electorate's need. In struggling and wasting time with their own oblivious back room intrigues, for growing numbers of voters their crass ineptitude has become all too obvious.
Seems that Canadians have always preferred to stick with the devil they think they know instead of throwing their lot behind an unknown entity that is clearly in disarray. In Ignatieff's case, the liberal strategy of propping up a freak show of an individual by a party that is so out of tune with what the public wants in a leader has completely failed. Successively presenting Dithers, Dion and Iggy figurines as representatives of their vision is indicative in itself of a party whose only strategy is to superimpose it's own inner stupidity and careless ambition upon the country, instead of building a movement based upon the electorate's need. In struggling and wasting time with their own oblivious back room intrigues, for growing numbers of voters their crass ineptitude has become all too obvious.
"Ambition, "stupidity" and "intrigue" pretty well sum up the LPC, since the turn of the millenium (probably longer, but why go back that far?). Their leader continues to claim 'non-confidence' in the Government, but refuses to bring it down (preferring to prop up his chief adversary on a "measure for measure" basis) because he fears the public's lack of confidence in his own leadership. Canada has matured, in the last 30 years, to the point where it confidently rejects prodigal elitists who present themselves as champions of some mythological value system that never really existed. Canadian politics is non-academic, despite what the carreer intellectuals say. It's bedrock populism that wins elections. Ralph Klein on a bender would get more votes for the LPC than Iggy on a good day. Enough said.
I know two things about Canadian politics: 1) Obituaries are often written quite prematurely; 2) The biggest audience for media pundits is media pundiits.
I know two things about Canadian politics: 1) Obituaries are often written quite prematurely; 2) The biggest audience for media pundits is media pundiits.
You're probably right, on both counts. I just don't see how Iggy can pull out of his tailspin.
He can't - essentially he is not of the people or for the people - unless you count the few who represent power, privelege and petroliam behind the throne.
So when Iggy tries to make a pitch for national childcare, first nations, public health care, environmental concerns - it's a joke - his personal narrative contracts these pitches - and brings into relief the credibility of the liberals in these policy areas.
But he is the libs choice so - so what?
Time to move on and go with the real progressive choice - and I'm not losing any sleep over that.
He can't - essentially he is not of the people or for the people - unless you count the few who represent power, privelege and petroliam behind the throne.
So when Iggy tries to make a pitch for national childcare, first nations, public health care, environmental concerns - it's a joke - his personal narrative contracts these pitches - and brings into relief the credibility of the liberals in these policy areas.
But he is the libs choice so - so what?
Time to move on and go with the real progressive choice - and I'm not losing any sleep over that.
This is a thread about Iggy's leadership, that's why it's being discussed here.
Scary.
Political storm whips good ship Grit
http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/michael_dentandt/2009/11/16/...
Michael Dentandt is a flatulent fibbing fascist. Please stop with the constant links to the scurrilous scribblings of imbeciles and ignoramuses, NR.
Michael Dentandt is a flatulent fibbing fascist. Please stop with the constant links to the scurrilous scribblings of imbeciles and ignoramuses, NR.
He is also a mediocre writer, at best.
I know two things about Canadian politics: 1) Obituaries are often written quite prematurely; 2) The biggest audience for media pundits is media pundiits.
You're probably right, on both counts. I just don't see how Iggy can pull out of his tailspin.
Politics is a funny thing. It isn't founded on tangibles so mountains can shrink to molehills over night and vice-versa. The drop in Liberal support does not represent an antipathy toward Iggy. Rather it represents an antipathy toward another election which Iggy claimed he was striving for. That support, then, could swing back Iggy's way at any moment.
Iggy, actually, has been fairly smart. In a year, he an engineered his leadership, raised cash, and has managed to throw off the Dion albatross of having to back Harper's legislation to avoid an election. He has paid a price in the opinion polls for that, but it isn't an insurmountable price. What is interesting now is reading that some in the Liberal brain trust believe Iggy should be out on the road whether than in the house. What stupidity.
Having finally gotten to play the role of the official opposition, he will now vacate the spotlight to attend office parties and ribbon cuttings? DOH!
They deserve to lose.
Having finally gotten to play the role of the official opposition, he will now vacate the spotlight to attend office parties and ribbon cuttings? DOH!
They deserve to lose.
Ya, I just don't get this either, Harper apparently is going to be gone for over a month, and I for one had expected Iffy to use this moment to shine in the HoC QP at least...unless they are expecting that Iffy's attendance at these things will provide national press to circumvent Harper's exposure publically he while trots around the globe, slipping on stages....
Yup, Ignatieff is shining all right. He is shining his flashlight into the aytss.
I don't know who this Kennedy Stewart is - but he's right about Ignatieff, just wrong about BC
Doomed Ignatieff Broke Political Golden Rule
Michael Ignatieff provides an example of a golden rule breaker. Ipsos polling shows that when Ignatieff officially took over the Liberal Party in May, 2009 it had the support of 36 percent of Canadians. Stephen Harper’s Conservatives were in free-fall, plunging from 46 percent support in December, 2008 to 33 percent in May, 2009. While the Liberal support was not quite high enough to guarantee a majority, trends were certainly in Ignatieff’s favour.
Thus in May, 2009 Ignatieff faced a real choice of whether to force an election or continue to keep propping up the Conservative minority in Parliament. The Liberals had won back many Canadians, but the Liberal election machine was not yet revved to full capacity. Moreover, Ignatieff and his team were new to the job and perhaps feeling they needed more time to settle in. Everyone was thinking the new Liberal leader would be crazy to force an early summer election. As we now know, Ignatieff balked, waiting for even bluer skies.
What now seems clear is that this was Ignatieff’s best and only shot to become prime minister. Now it is Liberal support that has collapsed. The Liberals currently enjoy support from a mere 24 percent of Canadians, just five percentage points ahead of the Jack Layton’s NDP. The Conservatives are at 37 percent.
By dithering and declining, Ignatieff is now doomed to slide off into oblivion. He won’t go quietly though and perhaps still thinks he can somehow recover. But he can’t and won’t, and will probably have to be forced out by another leadership hopeful in yet another Liberal party coup d’état.
http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/communityofinterest/archive/2009/11/21/doomed-ignatieff-broke-political-golden-rule.aspx
Kennedy Stewart ran for us in Vancouver Centre in 2004 and got 32% of the vote. I don't know what you mean about him being wrong about BC. He's a prof at SFU.
He's still wrong about BC.
Oh, you mean about Carole James? I'm too far away to have a feel for that. He's right about Ignatieff's timing though. In fact, it's increasingly looking like by walking away from the coalition Iggy walked away from his only chance to be sworn in as prime minister. It won't be long before the Liberals start second-guessing him on that one.
Here's another academic view from the West. Winnipeg is still considered part of Western Caanda isn't it. ;)
Who is john conway anyways
A political mess from top to bottom
Canada's politics are depressing at every level. No wonder more and more Canadians are disengaging, shrugging, yawning, and saying, "I've had it with all this B.S.!"
Even people like me, political junkies who delight in probing polls and assessing how the votes will break in close seats, are in despair. There is no moral or ideological foundation in our politics, particularly among the Liberals and New Democrats. On the other hand, Harper's hard right position is clear and firm. Perhaps that is part of his otherwise inexplicable attraction to so many Canadians -- he actually stands for something he clearly believes in. The same goes for the Bloc -- they want a sovereign Quebec, typically take strong social democratic positions, and have no ambitions to govern in Ottawa. Few of our Liberal and NDP politicians in Ottawa seem to believe in much or to stand for much -- except the pursuit of power and the holding of office for its own sake. Staking out a position on principle and adhering to it come hell or high water, or fighting aggressively for your version of the public interest seem passé, an historical curiosity. Whether one looks at the parlous state of our politics at the national, provincial or local levels, there is little to hang on to -- except the uneasy feeling that in this new feudalism of late capitalism our ranting and ravings amount to just so much white noise. The business lobby rules and, by all appearances, growing numbers of people have acquiesced in that ugly reality: "so was it in the past, so is it now, and so it will be evermore, amen."
Liberal Leader Michael Igntieff could have taken Stephen Harper down in a fall election. As the new leader, he was on the upswing among voters. The Liberals were taking off in the polls, even in Quebec to some extent. The Bloc and the NDP were on side. Layton had boxed himself in by declaring he could not support Harper, and the Bloc keeps voting against Harper at every chance.
But Ignatieff got greedy. All indications were that a fall election would lead to a minority Liberal government. Ignatieff wanted a majority and gambled that the up-tick in Liberal support was a trend that would continue, giving him a majority in a future election. Meanwhile, Ignatieff embraced most of the essentials of what Harper was doing, even in that dismal and illegal barbarism in Afghanistan. Oh, he wanted improvements here and there, and nitpicked, but proposed no fundamental difference in approach to governing Canada. To avoid an election, Ignatieff was forced to support Harper in the House against the Bloc and the NDP. Big mistake. Layton and the NDP heaved a sigh of relief, since the soft NDP vote, especially in Ontario and British Columbia, would have stampeded to the Liberals to defeat Harper.
When Ignatieff tried to engineer an election for early winter, it was too late. Already the Liberals were falling in the polls. Such an election would probably have returned a Harper minority. Layton had suddenly discovered a reason to support Harper in exchange for some help for the unemployed. Fearing an election polarized between Harper and Ignatieff, and the loss of many NDP seats, Layton propped Harper up against the Liberals and the Bloc. Inadvertently, Layton also saved Ignatieff from humiliation.
The most recent polls suggest the Ignatieff phenomenon may have collapsed, at least for now. The Tories have a 10-point lead over the Liberals and, at 38 per cent, Harper is in majority territory. Harper drools for an election now. The NDP has enjoyed a slight up-tick, but remains mired in its core vote territory. Ignatieff and the Liberals are at a dismal 29 per cent, Dion territory, and Harper's approval rating is twice that of Ignatieff's.
Any lessons here? Both Ignatieff and Layton have no core principles -- both voted to keep Harper in power. For that, many Canadians who want to be rid of Harper (a healthy majority, by the way) will not easily forgive them. Harper is beaming, hungering after that majority that has eluded him. On the upside, whenever Harper's numbers in the past moved into majority territory, widespread fear of the prospects of a Harper majority took hold among the public and his numbers fell back down.
So we are back to the politics of polls and opportunism. One can expect no inspiration from Ignatieff or Layton, who all too eagerly sleep with the enemy whenever it's profitable.
Whatever happened to democracy? We seem to have misplaced it.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/a-political-mess-from-top-to-bottom-70689657.html
A cranky academic. I guess he just ran a rather unsuccessful municipal campaign against a progressive candidate in Regina and got whumped.
Yeah, Harper has strong beliefs. Nothing he'll openly admit to in public, but he does have them--we call them his hidden agenda.
Harper has strong beliefs. So what? Is that supposed to be some sort of crime?
Who doesn't have strong beliefs, a lot of which is hidden by whoever is in politics, Tell me that?
Since when can any politician openly say what he/she really thinks.
Harper has been honest about his distain for this country on occasion...
Harper has strong beliefs. So what? Is that supposed to be some sort of crime?
Who doesn't have strong beliefs, a lot of which is hidden by whoever is in politics, Tell me that?
Since when can any politician openly say what he/she really thinks.
Why does he hide his beliefs? Why does he lie about his beliefs (i.e. Canada's involvement in Iraq)? Why don't we talk about his religious beliefs? Is he an end timer ala Sarah Palin? If he is, that's important. Harper muzzles his caucus, hides his beliefs, and carefully manages communications because he know the core values and beliefs that he holds and the members of his part hold is abhorrent to most Canadians. And he will impose them should he get a majority.
The Alliance Church places an intense focus on the need for personal salvation, emphasizes the importance of leading a "holy" life and encourages spiritual healing, says Goff.
The denomination also stresses that Jesus Christ's return to Earth is imminent, says the evangelical specialist, who was raised in the Alliance Church.
Alliance Church rules, like those of other evangelical denominations, strongly oppose homosexual relationships, describing them as the "basest form of sinful conduct."
The Alliance Church is also tough on divorce and holds that Christians who have been adulterous do not have a right to remarry.
The denomination's leaders, in addition, oppose abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, the use of marijuana and ordained female clergy.
When Trask told his suburban Calgary congregation during a recent Sunday sermon about RockPointe's mission to be "relentlessly focused on the lost," he was reflecting the Alliance Church's belief in the need to rescue non-Christians from damnation.
Stephen Harper's faith
Another remarkable and marvelous week for the Liberals.
Sponsorship player gets two years in prisonhttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/sponsorship-player-gets-two-years-in-prison/article1370440/
'Let Donolo Let Iggy Be Iggy!'
Listening in on BC's Grits this weekend, as they gathered in Whistler to drink and argue about how to revive their falling party.
Cold facts, hot debate
A record storm buried Whistler in early-season snow, and set a chilly backdrop for a provincial convention that marked several low points in the federal party's fortunes.
Nationally, the Liberals fell to 24 per cent in an Ipsos-Reid poll released on Saturday, the lowest point since Ignatieff became leader last December. Those poll numbers reinforced the party's dismal third-place finishes in four byelections only two weeks ago.
In B.C., membership in the federal party fell last year to about 9,000 souls, from a high of more than 70,000 earlier this decade. And B.C. voters returned only five Liberal MPs to Ottawa in last fall's national election. Two of those squeaked back into office by razor-thin margins: Ujjal Dosanjh by 22 votes, and Keith Martin by only 68 votes in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
These facts cast a chill over the Whistler gathering, and fueled heated debates that raged through the barrooms and hospitality suites of the Westin Resort and Spa.
For while party leaders maintained stiff upper lips and spoke of winning back three or four seats in the next federal election -- ridings in Burnaby, Surrey and the North Shore were named among those most likely to return to Grit control -- riding executives and campaign strategists worried privately that the party would be lucky to return even three MPs next time around.
Dosanjh's Fraser River riding, where Chinese-Canadians comprise 45 per cent of the population and Indo-Canadians another 13 per cent, was viewed by many as particularly vulnerable. The Conservative Party has been aggressively courting immigrant voters for the past few years, and those efforts appear to be paying off.
"A lot of Chinese-Canadian voters have left the Liberal Party," said one strategist with experience in Vancouver South. "And they're never coming back."
http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/11/23/IggyBeIggy/
Letting Iggy be Iggy seems like the last thing they should do!
Munroe has a curious sense of humor. His reelection bumpf read like an X-files poster: "I Believe in Craig Munroe." And when asked about the bickering that seemed to pervade the convention's backrooms, he compared the Liberal Party to a Seinfeld skit.
Yes, the party is like a Seinfeld skit. Much like the show, it's a party about nothing filled with a bunch of selfish people.
Harper writes the rules, wins the game
Harper's ample manoeuvring room is measured by Ignatieff's fumble of this week's other hot potato, the harmonized sales tax. Forced to choose between good economics and bad politics, Ignatieff opted for both by supporting the Conservative plan and then failing to score beckoning points.
While risking voter wrath by supporting B.C. and Ontario Liberal premiers, Ignatieff wasted an opportunity to shape a clear, compelling narrative. He could have told Canadians that Conservatives have so mismanaged federal finances that Liberals must again face up to the realities they confronted in the '90s when balancing budgets. Ignatieff could have said that Harper is now using the HST to raise taxes because he ignored economists by twice cutting the GST.
Instead, Ignatieff failed to control the microphone or manage the clock. His rationale left voters guessing and his caucus divided. Rather than begin the mantra that will carry the party through the next campaign, Ignatieff pushed the mute button on the core message that Liberals, not Conservatives, have the experience, discipline and determination to better manage tough economic times.
For Liberals, comparing Ignatieff's performance to Harper's is rapidly becoming an exercise in despair. They can see that the Prime Minister is dominating national debate, essentially uncontested. They know that, with Parliament just days away from a long winter nap, Harper is running down the clock on troubling questions about stimulus spending and what politicians knew about Afghan prisoner abuse.
Destructive as it is to what remains of democracy, that's how politics is now played and won
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/734849--travers-harper-writes-the-rules-wins-the-game?bn=1
Does Ignatieff have what it takes to win?
Liberals say they're confident in new OLO chief of staff Peter Donolo, but aren't so sure about their leader, who one MP compared to the naïve politician Bill McKay in the 1972 movie The Candidate.
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/ignatieff-12-7-2009
Nope, failing to show Canadians that they where different than the last group of incompetent Liberals, the recent stance on the registry and now the debacle of supporting HST lost them a ton of votes on those two issues alone. They screwed up all by themselves, Harper didn't even have to break a sweat.
Maybe Kinsella hasn't left after all.
Ignatieff's Liberals sink to a new lowhttp://rjjago.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/liberals-sink-to-a-new-low/
I approve of Ignatieff.
That is all.
[run but you can't hide if you post on the inteeret this means you eft, cc rw]
How braindead can the Liberals be!!!
Oh, Liberals: Did you learn nothing from the puffin incident?
Before we get to Orders of the Day, let's take a brief moment to do a double take and roll our collective eyes at what appears to be have been a serious lapse in judgement over at Liberal.ca headquarters. Sometimes last week, someone -- oh, let's call it an overzealous web designer -- chose to include this astonishingly tasteless submission in an online gallery of Stephen Harper-themed photo manips as part of a Copenhagen-themed contest, which solicited supporters to send in images all the various places and moments in history in which the prime minister would rather find himself than at this week's climate change conference.
PnP viewers may recall that I actually mentioned the Liberals' photoshop challenge during last week's Bloggerheads, and pointed out that, while some of the entries were clearly all in good fun, there was always the risk that it could backfire if any of them could be seen as an unfair attack on the prime minister as a person. Of course, at the time, I was thinking more of something along the lines of this entry, and not, you know, pasting the prime minister's face into the infamous Ruby-Oswald photo -- as Oswald, even -- because really, who could possibly have predicted that something like that would make it through even the most cursory moderation process? Lesson learned. As far as the reaction, from what I've been reading in the blogs and on twitter, not even Liberal supporters are defending this one. Probably because it's pretty much indefensible. Seriously, y'all, what were you thinking?
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2009/12/oh-liberals-did-you-le...
Now here's a classy guy.
Ignatieff is refusing to apologise for the Oswald/Harper assassination photos on the Liberal website.
What an absolute moron.
The federal Conservatives are calling on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to personally apologize to the prime minister for some pictures that appeared on the Grits' website.
http://www.cfra.com/?cat=3&nid=70024
Now here's a classy guy.
Ignatieff is refusing to apologise for the Oswald/Harper assassination photos on the Liberal website.
What an absolute moron.
The federal Conservatives are calling on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to personally apologize to the prime minister for some pictures that appeared on the Grits' website.
http://www.cfra.com/?cat=3&nid=70024
Well, what's to apologize for?
Ignatieff is on the record as supporting "targetted assassinations".
At least he's being consistent for once.
You'd think the Liberals would remember what an offensive photograph of Chretien did to Kim Campbell's chances in '93.
Oh, that's right, Iggy wasn't Canadian that year.
Hey, North Report - Once again with the hate-talk-radio links?
Either give it up or get lost, please.
At least he's being consistent for once.
The thing is, Harper would really be more of a Jack Ruby type...eliminating inconvenient people on the orders of mysterious conspirators.
i guess the afgan torture news is a bit too hot and something clearly needs to replace it... lets make a big deal out of some stupid picture on a website, verses dealing with the question of canucks involvment in torture in afganistan which includes our current gov'ts complicity while stonewalling any discussion on it... great!
Yea, let's not make a big deal out of absolutely disgusting pictures put on the main Liberal Party of Canada website by Liberals in an attempt to belittle and discredit the Conservatives. Very impressive. Sure makes one want to vote Liberal, doesn't it. God forbid people like that ever get their hands on the levers of power.
If this crap was on the CPC website media would be puffin.
The CPC won't be able to change the channel on the Afghan detainees. And since we are in an LPC titled thread, it would be helpful if the LPC leader wasn't an advocate for torture (lessor torture of course). Its that same logic and stupidity of creating a level of acceptable torture, or condoning torture in hopes of achieving a security goal that has allowed governments to think that Torture was going to be overlooked. Torture became popular under the BUSH administration and their wasn't a whole lot of condemnation from any Canadian government from 2001 to present. Just turn a blind eye.
The problem with the CPC is they wrongly believed no one would care and that people would consider all Afghans terrorists (worse then the Nazis) and therefore ok to torture.
The history of Afghanistan demonstrated that torture was going to be a problem for Western forces but there was no plan from Canada.
Ignatieff is the wrong leader at the wrong time. Perhaps if Bush was still around, he might look like a moderate. The LPC went from the hapless Dion, ( I wouldn't call him left, but I would consider him lost), to the far right Ignatieff.
What happened on the LPC website was plain dumb. However, those responsible have yet to respond responsibly. And that may give the story life for another day or two.
Considering the Globe is calling this the year to forget for the Liberals. We haven't hit Dec 31 yet... still more bad news ahead for the ship that is adrift.
lol... i take it you don't like the liberals? how would you like to be tortured under a conservative leadership while not being allowed to talk about it??? just let me know when harper wants us to do the goose step.. until then, i'll settle for flying crap on the internet...
with leaders like harper or ignatieff, canucks are seriously screwed...
Yes, the grey zones are especially broad for Liberals.
I should have done this long ago. I just looked up the famous speech where Ignatieff says "we Americans." Was it an isolated error?
Hardly. He uses "we" in that sense 81 times in that one speech.
Example: "One reason we need to think seriously about adopting lesser evils is that, in a War on Terror, we simply cannot adhere to the existing rule of law as written. If we do, we inevitably will give terrorists the advantage."
And "To defeat terror, therefore, we will be compelled to traffic in evil, i.e., strategies like indefinite detention of suspects on lower standards of probable cause, coercive interrogations that fall just short of torture, targeted assassinations of terrorist suspects, and even preemptive war. Sadly, the issue is not whether we are going to do these things — America is doing most of them already. The issue is whether we can do these things, yet keep them under democratic control to ensure that America does not lose the soul and substance of its free institutions."
The CPC won't be able to change the channel on the Afghan detainees.
I think they just did.
Will Ignatieff last the summer - I have my doubts.
Is this Michael Ignatieff's last stand?
It's hard to think of a figure in public life even roughly comparable in stature to Michael Ignatieff. British people often know him as the Booker prize-nominated novelist, academic-celebrity and host of the highbrow-ish Late Show. His contentious theories on nationalism and democracy feature on politics students' required reading lists. And, for a brief period just over a year ago, he was the man hailed as "Canada's Obama", an impossibly charismatic and heavyweight political leader, set to recreate Canada's 1968 golden era of Trudeau-mania, his gravitas and glamour blasting away Stephen Harper's gloomy and John Major-ish reign over a minority Conservative government.
Now, it looks like he may not last the year as Liberal party leader, and speculation in the Canadian press has implied that even the Liberal party - one of the two, historic national parties - may disappear itself. Earlier this month, a former aide to Ignatieff revealed that the party had held talks to merge with the NDP, the other main progressive party in opposition to Harper's Conservatives. More than simply a coalition to oust the Tories, this would entail the disappearance of the Liberal party itself.
And while one of the preconditions of the merger talks was apparently that Ignatieff remain leader of any new Liberal-NDP party, Ignatieff's grip seems to be slipping on his old, existing party. To much embarrassment, a recent poll revealed that Ignatieff currently ranks third among voters' choices for Liberal party leader. It seems that perhaps, among his many guises and achievements, Ignatieff has failed to be something meaningful for Canadians themselves.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/24/michael-i...
Her Majesty attempts to limit her exposure to the Iggy failure cooties
Iggy isn't looking to bad as soon the Liberals reclaim their seat to victory as Harper has just gotta go as Canadians repeat history and Conservatives find themselves all but obsolete in the next election. Its a given as I must have been a little bored as to bother to try to point it out as certain North Report will be at it again. Which way will they go?
Harper shows the world what Canadians are made of blood and guts during G20 to start as Canada's police state is full force and the world's eyes are on Canada. Oh Canada, is it safe as police are a brutal force to deal with as RCMP are said to be murderous lot in BC as Polish traveler finds himself on a slab? And then like rubbing salt in to an open wound Harper spends a billion Canadian dollars to bring on the message spending must be cut. Just not for the Conservatives as tax payers pick up the bill. And from East To West the message is the same stop the HST as tax payers say as consumers they have little to spend and in the prairies beefed up Oil Sands exploration takes its lot on the environment as its raining and its pouring and western crops are swamped.
CBC reporting that Iggy has just had a conversation with HRH.
Slow news day as if anyone cares.
Do you think she called him "Iggy"?
NO...she commanded a lady-in-waiting to call him that for her.
Ignatieff to the Liberal party today is what John Kerry was to the Democratic party in 2004. The similarities are stunning. Both challenge an extreme right winger in office and try to oust him by outrightwinging him! Both represent a minority of their party's grassroot supporters. Both stand for nothing, are weak, boring and get defeated in spectacular fashion. Iggy is the Canadian version Kerry playing out 6 years later.
Kerry still came within 2% of winning! He also won his own party's nomination fair and square
But Kerry lost because of his timidity and his deference to the Right. Noboby wants a candidate who acts like his party's core values are embarassing.
And that's what he has in common with the Igster(the difference being, of course, that the Liberal Party of Canada doesn't actually HAVE any core values).
Is anyone as embarassed as I am, when the canadian MSM (here's looking @ u t-star) calls iggy an "academic" or an "intellectual"...???
i watched maude barlow's g20 speech on youtube, and now there is women who perfectly and honourably defines the canadian academic tradition as i know it/remember it.
i don't think MI has ever been that centre... i think he's always steered to the rite, and now he's swerving to the right b/c it makes him more popular among a certain set.
when the media gives his little soundbites as "news" i automatically supress my gag reflex. maybe it's just me though.
Doesn't teaching in a higher education institute qualifies one as an academic? Didn't he write a book? Among academics you will find some of the best people on the planet and also some of the worst. Just like you find dumb criminals and others with a very high IQ.
Anyway, back to excusing John Kerry's election results coming within 2% of Bush's vote, don't forget that Bush is the most incompetent president in American history. In 2004 his war was at its worst. A Democratic candidate should have beaten Bush by 30 or 35 points. It took a unique man like Kerry to give Bush another mandate. If these are one's hopes for Iggy then the standards are very very low.
I think there is some very creative retrospective re-writing of history with regard to 2004. As extraordinary as it may seem Bush had about a 50% approval rate all through 2004. In fact in the Spring of 2004 the conventional wisdom wasn that he would win in a landslide and that the Democratic nomination was not worth having. Back then 9/11 had happened only 3 years before, the economy wasn't much of an issue, the Democrats were still stigmatized as being "soft on terrorism" etc...and the war in Iraq was still supported by a slim majority of Americans. Kerry had his strengths and weaknesses as a candidate - its not clear to me that any of the other contenders for the Democratic nomination would have done any better.
It's generally really hard to beat a president after his first term. Look at the sort of twin economic and foreign-policy disasters it took for Jimmy Carter and George Bush I to lose. A really good Democratic campaign in 2004 might have done it but it was still an uphill battle.
Closing for length.