What has happened to the Liberal Party under Ignatieff's leadership?

106 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Fri, 2010-07-02 23:14

st_zed

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.

Fri, 2010-07-02 23:26

#103

cruisin_turtle

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.

Fri, 2010-07-02 23:32

#104

Stockholm

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.

Fri, 2010-07-02 23:42

#105

Doug

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.

Sat, 2010-07-03 11:57

#106

Maysie

Closing for length.

Pages

Topic locked