Ignatieff's self test

Oleg Bach · May 24, 2009

I am not convinced that he is ready to govern. I am sure he thinks he can but that is not the same thing. He has the brains, but he does not have much political experience. This maybe a problem, then again it may not.

Why do we all assume because he taught at Harvard that he has brains - these institutions of higher learning some times turn out twits with great memories - what we have to look at is does he have the hard won maturity and wisdom that do not neccesarily come from studing the works of others. Is he an original or just a parrot of theory.

Jerry J. Fortin · May 24, 2009

His educational background is part of it, but you need to look at what he has done since graduation. He has an interesting work history, diverse as well as successful and lucrative. He is capable, but is he ready?

waldo · May 24, 2009

so... Harper's walk in the NCC snow was all about "influencing Canadian public policy"... firewalls and welfare states... hee haw!!!
Absolutely. Context is everything. His NCC comments were in reference to the damage that the Liberals have done to this country over the past 40 some years. Now, instead of complaining about it, he's doing something about it. The Alberta firewall was a necessary and valid sentiment at the time, that led to the rise of the Reform party, and the Conservatives to the government. It was commentary, then action. Clear, and consistent.

yes - clear and consistent... perhaps you could clarify that Harper distinction between Alberta and Canadian values.

"We don't need a second Liberal party. Westerners, but especially Albertans, founded the Reform/Alliance to get "in" to Canada. The rest of the country has responded by telling us in no uncertain terms that we do not share their 'Canadian values.' Fine. Let us build a society on Alberta values."

Topaz · May 24, 2009

Absolutely. Context is everything. His NCC comments were in reference to the damage that the Liberals have done to this country over the past 40 some years. Now, instead of complaining about it, he's doing something about it. The Alberta firewall was a necessary and valid sentiment at the time, that led to the rise of the Reform party, and the Conservatives to the government. It was commentary, then action. Clear, and consistent.

Last 40 years. Did you ever read Stevie Cameron book, "On the take"- corruption,crime and greed of the Mulroney years??? Mulroney says its all lies but he NEVER sued her, I wonder why?? Perhaps more would come out?? The past years of Harper is some what silmilar to Mulroney's.

waldo · May 24, 2009

@keepitsimple - sorry to burst your (and capricorn's) bubble... for your pleasure I confirmed the presence of party influence by highlighting the manner in which Stephen Harper was lured away from the NCC through the influence of, oh my, "party organizers". I had a rather large guffaw when, in retort, I read the suggestion that because the Harper luring occurred in Canada it couldn't be compared to the assertion being made within the OP... apparently, Conservatives don't like having their hypocrisy pointed out to them.

capricorn · May 24, 2009

Perhaps more would come out??

Perhaps we should keep Schreiber testifying at the enquiry for a few more years. He keeps saying he has more to divulge. Who knows, he may come up with new and interesting tidbits. He seems to know a lot about dead people. We haven't got to the bottom of that yet.

The past years of Harper is some what silmilar to Mulroney's.

Any examples to offer in support of your statement?

Oleg Bach · May 24, 2009

The more and the longer this little old German weapons dealer has to devuldge - the longer he can stay out of some prison cell in Hamburg.. :rolleyes:

capricorn · May 24, 2009

You're right Oleg. We're dancing to his tune.

Keepitsimple · May 24, 2009

@keepitsimple - sorry to burst your (and capricorn's) bubble... for your pleasure I confirmed the presence of party influence by highlighting the manner in which Stephen Harper was lured away from the NCC through the influence of, oh my, "party organizers". I had a rather large guffaw when, in retort, I read the suggestion that because the Harper luring occurred in Canada it couldn't be compared to the assertion being made within the OP... apparently, Conservatives don't like having their hypocrisy pointed out to them.

Putting Conservative "hypocracy" aside, I was hoping you would make your thoughts clear on how Ignatieff actually came back to Canada. Do you think he would have come back if the backroom boys had not coaxed him to? All the evidence seems to support the fact that he would have stayed in the US. What are your honest thoughts?

Edited May 24, 2009 by Keepitsimple

capricorn · May 24, 2009

@keepitsimple - sorry to burst your (and capricorn's) bubble... for your pleasure I confirmed the presence of party influence by highlighting the manner in which Stephen Harper was lured away from the NCC through the influence of, oh my, "party organizers". I had a rather large guffaw when, in retort, I read the suggestion that because the Harper luring occurred in Canada it couldn't be compared to the assertion being made within the OP... apparently, Conservatives don't like having their hypocrisy pointed out to them.

Harper has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for the riding of Calgary Southwest in Alberta since 2002. Earlier, from 1993 to 1997, he was the MP for Calgary West. He was one of the founding members of the Reform Party, but ended his first stint as an MP to join, and shortly thereafter head, the National Citizens Coalition. In 2002, he succeeded Stockwell Day as leader of the Canadian Alliance (the successor to the Reform Party) and returned to Parliament as Leader of the Opposition. In 2003, he reached an agreement with Progressive Conservative leader Peter MacKay for the merger of their two parties to form the Conservative Party of Canada. He was elected as the party's first non-interim leader in March 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper

Stephen Harper was an elected politician well before he joined the NCC. Ignatieff had zero experience as a politician before Liberal kingmakers lured him back to Canada, ending his self imposed 34 year exile. Harper's experience was all gained in Canada. There is absolutely no parallel in how Harper and Ignatieff entered politics.

Jerry J. Fortin · May 24, 2009

What point are you trying to make? What difference does a political entrance make to the citizens of the nation?

capricorn · May 24, 2009

What point are you trying to make?

The point I made was that the circumstances on how Harper and Ignatieff entered politics is not comparable. waldo seems to think differently.

What difference does a political entrance make to the citizens of the nation?

Citizens make up their own minds individually according to their own opinions on this question. From the comments I have read on various blogs, some are bothered by Ignatieff's lengthy absence, some are not and some just don't care one way or another.

Jerry J. Fortin · May 24, 2009

Fair enough, yet the relevance of your or perhaps Waldo's escapes me.

It makes no difference where they come from, because so far they all seem to be cut from the same cloth. Seem is the operative word. Granted there are differences between the partisan factions, and their origins as well, but in all cases these folks go into politics for their own reasons. The citizens have made no desire known to these politicians what we demand from them. Apathy is the real boss and the largest demographic in the nation by far.

The truth is that once elected these representatives have the run of the house and do as they please. They do not make legislation that curtails their activities and they do not make legislation that provides and realistic public accountability. These are the folks that we ALLOW ourselves to be represented by.

capricorn · May 25, 2009

Fair enough, yet the relevance of your or perhaps Waldo's escapes me.

Relevance to what. If you followed the discourse between waldo and me, the relevance of the exchange is pretty clear.

It makes no difference where they come from, because so far they all seem to be cut from the same cloth. Seem is the operative word. Granted there are differences between the partisan factions, and their origins as well, but in all cases these folks go into politics for their own reasons. The citizens have made no desire known to these politicians what we demand from them. Apathy is the real boss and the largest demographic in the nation by far.
The truth is that once elected these representatives have the run of the house and do as they please. They do not make legislation that curtails their activities and they do not make legislation that provides and realistic public accountability. These are the folks that we ALLOW ourselves to be represented by.

The generalities you present are common sentiments. Except I would say that apathy is not a demographic. Apathy is often the result of a feeling of helplessness in the face of perceived inability to change something with which we disagree.

Jerry J. Fortin · May 25, 2009

Relevance to what. If you followed the discourse between waldo and me, the relevance of the exchange is pretty clear.
The generalities you present are common sentiments. Except I would say that apathy is not a demographic. Apathy is often the result of a feeling of helplessness in the face of perceived inability to change something with which we disagree.

What I meant to suggest was that the largest demographic in Canada is the apathetic voter. All others stacked up are still a minority in comparison.

capricorn · May 25, 2009

What I meant to suggest was that the largest demographic in Canada is the apathetic voter.

Voter turnout at the federal level sits at about 60%.

An estimated 59.1 per cent of Canadians cast votes in Tuesday's general election — a figure that appears to be a record low in the history of Confederation.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2...er-turnout.html

I don't know how many of those voters are apathetic. Apathy would be better ascribed to the 40% who do not vote. In that group, some are just too lazy to get out and vote. Regardless, the low turnout of voters is cause for concern.

capricorn · May 25, 2009

The past years of Harper is some what silmilar to Mulroney's.

Any examples to offer in support of your statement?

I didn't think so.

Edited May 25, 2009 by capricorn

Dave_ON · May 25, 2009

I just hope that if Ignatieff is to be PM - that he acturally matures and grows up - he has not reached adulthood quite yet - nothing worse than a 16 year old proud book worm in the body of a 60 year old man - I just hope he is a late bloomer. So far he still suffers from the affliction of institutionalization and the lazy comfort that disease provides.

It truly mystifies me that you hold education in such contempt. I find this academia phobia to be rather odd and I'm curious as to how you arrived at it. Perhaps you could illuminate me on your POV. You seem to imply that education narrows the mind when it has quite the opposite affect on a person. Combine this with the fact that he has travelled widely and he has experience to back up his education.

On the one hand you have Ignatieff who has an impressive academic resume, plenty of life experience and the fact that he has been exposed to other cultures and ideas abroad. Then on the other hand you have Harper who has an MA, limited to no travel experience and has roughly 15 years less life experience. IMV Mr. Harper can't compete on a strictly "qualified" level, nor does he have the charisma or amiable effervescence that Ignatieff does. I guess I'm failing to see how Harper has the upper hand in any sense on Ignatieff. Keep in mind that except for political junkies like us that frequent these types or forums, policy and prudence play a negligible part in the average voter’s decision. It's all about image, polish and presentation. Given that Mr. Harper now has a political record in office, and the fact that Ignatieff doesn't need a lot of polish, I believe Mr. Harper's in for one heck of an election campaign.

Alta4ever · May 25, 2009

It truly mystifies me that you hold education in such contempt. I find this academia phobia to be rather odd and I'm curious as to how you arrived at it. Perhaps you could illuminate me on your POV. You seem to imply that education narrows the mind when it has quite the opposite affect on a person. Combine this with the fact that he has travelled widely and he has experience to back up his education.
On the one hand you have Ignatieff who has an impressive academic resume, plenty of life experience and the fact that he has been exposed to other cultures and ideas abroad. Then on the other hand you have Harper who has an MA, limited to no travel experience and has roughly 15 years less life experience. IMV Mr. Harper can't compete on a strictly "qualified" level, nor does he have the charisma or amiable effervescence that Ignatieff does. I guess I'm failing to see how Harper has the upper hand in any sense on Ignatieff. Keep in mind that except for political junkies like us that frequent these types or forums, policy and prudence play a negligible part in the average voter’s decision. It's all about image, polish and presentation. Given that Mr. Harper now has a political record in office, and the fact that Ignatieff doesn't need a lot of polish, I believe Mr. Harper's in for one heck of an election campaign.

Those who can't, teach.

jdobbin · May 25, 2009

Those who can't, teach.

Is it any wonder why Tories are so out of touch when they attack teachers?

Dave_ON · May 25, 2009

Those who can't, teach.

Please, not a contextualy bereft adage. I have no recourse to deal with such an overwhelming, well thought out and exposited POV.

Alta4ever · May 25, 2009

Please, not a contextualy bereft adage. I have no recourse to deal with such an overwhelming, well thought out and exposited POV.

Do you not have any sense of humour?

Dave_ON · May 25, 2009

Do you not have any sense of humour?

Absolutely, hence the sarcasm above.

Wild Bill · May 25, 2009

Absolutely, hence the sarcasm above.

"Them's as can't teach, administrate!"

Sorry. Cheap shot, I know. Too many years of seeing parallels in 'Dilbert' with my places of employ.

I have both teachers and CUPE members in my family. I feel sorry for them. What strikes me strongest, however, is how they seem to think that their workplace environment is the 'norm' for all places everywhere. They have little or no idea that they actually work in a unique environment.

Going from Dion to Ignatieff was at least a step up in common sense intelligence. Still, the Liberals do seem fixated on having an academic as their leader. My experience has been that academics rarely have any first hand experience with much of anything. They feel it's enough that they've "read the book" and can teach it in a very articulate manner.

That sort of perspective, or rather lack of it, can get you into deep trouble.