And why do you always view it as a good thing if there is trouble for the Liberals? Afterall, that simply increases the likelihood of Stephen Harper being in power for longer.
In any event, I'm not really a big fan of Ignatieff - I just view him as the best tool with which to get rid of Stephen Harper. But I agree that he risks ending this session looking weak and indecisive compared to Harper after his performance this week.
Why, Debater? Because I do not see Ignatieff as being ANY different from Harper, nor the Liberals (particularly in their current incarnation) as any different from the Conservatives ... with the one notable exception that at least Harper is more decisive. Getting rid of him and replacing him with Ignatieff would be NO better, a position that has now been fully vindicated by the Liberal voting record over the last few weeks (on C-15, the NDP's other EI bill, etc., etc.).
If I believed otherwise, I'd be a Liberal. Thankfully I gave up that delusion 30 years ago.
ETA: I guess, on the bright side, at least we did not wind up in a coaltion with "Michael Indecisieff" as Prime Minister (term courtesy of a commenter on the hilarious story Ken S linked to above from the Toronto Star). We can at least thank M.I. for that.
I understand what you are saying - you believe that Harper and Ignatieff are the same and I guess that's where you're coming from.
But as we learned in the 2000 U.S. Election when people claimed there was no difference between Gore and Bush, there is almost always a difference between parties and leaders. It is intellectually lazy, not to mention factually inaccurate, to state that 2 parties are the same. There are always differences.
By the way, not all the press are being negative about Ignatieff this week. Jim Travers actually says in today's piece that it is a win-win for Ignatieff whatever he decides: