False information leads to PM's attack on Ignatieff

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Speaking in L'Aquila, Italy where he is attending Group of Eight meetings, Harper launched an attack on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

He slammed Ignatieff for claiming that Canada is at risk of losing its place in the G8 because powerful nations could form a new group and leave Canada out -- a claim that Ignatieff never made.

As I've said before, some of the PMO staff don't seem to be on the on the ball lately.

Harper is attending state functions and funerals and his people are not keeping him informed of funeral protocols, photoshoots and giving him the wrong information.

All of these things should be where Harper shines on the national and international stage. The Opposition doesn't have to do a thing when such mishaps happen.

Here is the Roger Smith clip.

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/g8-summit/#clip192104

He is saying that staffer's job is in jeopardy.

Here is Rae's response:

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/g8-summit/#clip192119

Edited July 11, 2009 by jdobbin

[Moonbox]

The problem is that nobody but us will take notice, because not enough people pay attention to politics to care.

[jdobbin]

The problem is that nobody but us will take notice, because not enough people pay attention to politics to care.

You think?

It is the trivial that people often focus on. How do I know? The downloads of the videoclip of the Leblanc funeral number 500,000. That is higher than what the original broadcast.

[Fortunata]

Harper shouldn't be taking domestic politics to international forums, as the CPC has more than in just this instance. And if he weren't so quick to hop on the attack wagon at every given opportunity he might not look the fool now. Nice that this has come back to bite him.

[jdobbin]

Harper shouldn't be taking domestic politics to international forums, as the CPC has more than in just this instance. And if he weren't so quick to hop on the attack wagon at every given opportunity he might not look the fool now. Nice that this has come back to bite him.

Such events are usually a gimme in terms of showing leadership and appearing above the fray. Harper was handed a load gun and decided to use it. Even if the information was true, the press conference was the wrong place to launch an attack.

[Topaz]

He probably wished he had a wafer to put in his mouth rather than his foot!!!

[Moonbox]

You think?

It is the trivial that people often focus on. How do I know? The downloads of the videoclip of the Leblanc funeral number 500,000. That is higher than what the original broadcast.

You're right, but this is trivial and unexciting. I'm not defending Harper, I'm just fairly certain this won't really be talked about much and it will be hard for the Liberals to make a big deal out of it. A smart LPC would say something

along the lines of, "Do you want a Prime Minister who uses foreign functions to spread lies and try to score points rather than score points for Canada as a whole?"

I really don't see it happening.

[capricorn]

The problem is that nobody but us will take notice, because not enough people pay attention to politics to care.

This is true. Average Canadians are more intrigued with the media stories about whether Michael Jackson was murdered or died of an accidental drug overdose.

Of course, this doesn't excuse Soudas screwing up and the PM's resulting screw up. The PM apologized to Ignatieff and I think this will be good enough for those Canadians who bothered to pay attention to this embarrassment. That said, I think Soudas should be fired. Surely Harper can find a more competent press secretary.

But on a slow newsday, it's fun watching the media and rabid partisans milking this for all it's worth.

[jdobbin]

You're right, but this is trivial and unexciting. I'm not defending Harper, I'm just fairly certain this won't really be talked about much and it will be hard for the Liberals to make a big deal out of it.

The problem for the Tories is that Harper made his gaffe more talked about than the good things the conference presented for him and for Canada.

It reinforces the idea that Harper would rather attack than bask in statesman-like atmosphere a G8 conference represents.

[jdobbin]

Of course, this doesn't excuse Soudas screwing up and the PM's resulting screw up. The PM apologized to Ignatieff and I think this will be good enough for those Canadians who bothered to pay attention to this embarrassment. That said, I think Soudas should be fired. Surely Harper can find a more competent press secretary.

It goes back to my argument that staffing remains a problem for Harper and the ministers. Partisans seem important than hiring competent organizers and researchers.

A good staff can ensure a minister, first or otherwise, is at events on time, knows the protocols, appears statesman-like and reaches out to all the people instead of just the base. Whenever Harper is at an event like a G8 meeting, he should be acting like electioneering is the furthest thing from his mind.

[Machjo]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

As I've said before, some of the PMO staff don't seem to be on the on the ball lately.

Harper is attending state functions and funerals and his people are not keeping him informed of funeral protocols, photoshoots and giving him the wrong information.

All of these things should be where Harper shines on the national and international stage. The Opposition doesn't have to do a thing when such mishaps happen.

Here is the Roger Smith clip.

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/g8-summit/#clip192104

He is saying that staffer's job is on jeopardy.

Here is Rae's response:

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/g8-summit/#clip192119

Even if his staff had given him the right information, even if Ignatieff had said that, seeing that no reporter had even asked him about it, why did he bring it up abroad in public? Cheap partisanship at its lowest. Honestly, I think Harper is the most partisan PM Canada's ever had.

[capricorn]

Even if his staff had given him the right information, even if Ignatieff had said that, seeing that no reporter had even asked him about it, why did he bring it up abroad in public?

I don't think it was incorrect for Harper to raise the matter while still at the G8 because the quote he was reacting to related to Canada's representation within a potential future G8-type body, made while he was still at the G8's location. Here's the quote.

“It is really important that Canada be on top [of] this because otherwise … somebody will come up with the idea of creating an entirely new group. A group that would certainly include key countries like China and India, but no particular reason why it would include Canada.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1213930/

I don't think a reporter need have asked a direct question for Harper to have raised the matter.

Cheap partisanship at its lowest.

At the time he believed those were Ignatieff's words. Do you think any other PM wouldn't have done the same?

------

I would add that Ignatieff accepted Harper's apology graciously. That is to his credit.

[jdobbin]

At the time he believed those were Ignatieff's words. Do you think any other PM wouldn't have done the same?

At a G8 summit? I can't think of any. As I said, these are times you want a PM to be statesman-like and leave the electioneering behind

------

I would add that Ignatieff accepted Harper's apology graciously. That is to his credit.

It is. Hopefully, Harper will try to keep from jumping to conclusions or electioneering when he is at these national and international events.

[ToadBrother]

Such events are usually a gimme in terms of showing leadership and appearing above the fray. Harper was handed a load gun and decided to use it. Even if the information was true, the press conference was the wrong place to launch an attack.

I've said it time and time again. Harper treats politics like a game. He's like the Bobby Fischer of politics, in some ways a brilliant strategist, but in other ways and insufferable a**hole.

Well, he made a fool of himself, and I think it's time he start finding some new staffers. What is it with Tories and bad staff anyways? Are they such a band of goons that they can't get anybody with half a brain? Nixon got better advise than this.

[madmax]

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/g8-summit/#clip192104

He is saying that staffer's job is on jeopardy.

Ouch...but it is a rather large mistake and it will be a learning exercise that that staffer would not likely make again after suffering the loss of his job.

Edited July 11, 2009 by madmax

[Machjo]

I've said it time and time again. Harper treats politics like a game. He's like the Bobby Fischer of politics, in some ways a brilliant strategist, but in other ways and insufferable a**hole.

Well, he made a fool of himself, and I think it's time he start finding some new staffers. What is it with Tories and bad staff anyways? Are they such a band of goons that they can't get anybody with half a brain? Nixon got better advise than this.

I don't think it's got anything to do with Tories per se, but with Harper specifically (and my MP, also a Conservative, unfortunately). And we can't blame his staff either. Sure they feed him info, but it's up to him to use it appropriately. Personally, if my staff encouraged me to engage in partisan politicks, I'd sack it.

In the end it all comes down to the candidate. Some are so non-partisan that they even run as independent candidates and remain independents in Parliament. Arthur comes to mind in that category. These are the ideal candidates, and any riding should be thankful to have one.

Next in line are partisan candidates who are capable of self-censoring their partisanship to at least some degree. Scott Reid, a Conservative amazingly enough, comes to mind in that category, and perhaps Ignatieff to some degree too.

And finally we have those who are so hopelesly partisan that they just can't help taking a shot at the opposition at every opportunity. Our PM falls in that category, unfortunately.

[capricorn]

Next in line are partisan candidates who are capable of self-censoring their partisanship to at least some degree. Scott Reid, a Conservative amazingly enough, comes to mind in that category, and perhaps Ignatieff to some degree too.

And finally we have those who are so hopelesly partisan that they just can't help taking a shot at the opposition at every opportunity. Our PM falls in that category, unfortunately.

Then I guess it would shock you to know that Ignatieff took potshots at conservatives and the PM in a recent speech delivered in the UK.

The speech took potshots at conservatives of the past (“there is such a thing as society,” Mr. Ignatieff said, rebutting Margaret Thatcher's famous phrase) and the present, referring directly to Stephen Harper: “In December,” he said, “the current Prime Minister sought to survive a constitutional crisis of his own making by playing region against region and language group against language group. In our country, this is a dangerous game.”

He also addressed the issue of attack ads, saying, “In our country, a politics that arouses ethnic and regional resentment, creating wedges in order to mobilize a conservative base vote, is playing with fire.”

Not many of Mr. Ignatieff's former London associates would have pictured him on a podium, engaged in partisan debate. “I don't think anyone foresaw him strutting across the stage of international politics,” said Mr. Loader, who was one of the creators, 20 years ago, of the BBC's live culture program The Late Show . He hired Mr. Ignatieff as one of the four hosts, and the former academic quickly “became the good-looking intellectual one. He was quite well-known, he had a reputation as something of a cultural polymath.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1214237/

Ignatieff is not above lobbing partisan jabs.

----

And an interesting side note about Ignatieff's supposed popularity in the UK.

Mr. Ignatieff's return to London this week to give the annual Isaiah Berlin Lecture was greeted with approval by a largely Canadian audience at the National Liberal Club.

The British press chose to respond with an echoing silence.

Only one British reporter showed up to cover the speech. Asked where his colleagues were – and whether British readers might not like to know what had happened to their favourite charismatic, war-zone-visiting intellectual – the reporter shrugged and said, “I don't think too many people here care about Canadian politics.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1214237/

I'm thinking wounded ego here. Perhaps a lesson in humility? It's something all politicians should experience.

[jdobbin]

Then I guess it would shock you to know that Ignatieff took potshots at conservatives and the PM in a recent speech delivered in the UK.

Yes, in a speech to the other liberals about the meaning of Liberals. He wasn't at an international event representing Canada and electioneering on the podium by calling out the Opposition.

Harper seems to stand alone in that. I can't recall too many prime ministers doing that, can you?

Ignatieff is not above lobbing partisan jabs.

At a partisan event, yes.

----

And an interesting side note about Ignatieff's supposed popularity in the UK.

I'm thinking wounded ego here. Perhaps a lesson in humility? It's something all politicians should experience.

Who's wounded ego? I don't know that Ignatieff made a big deal of not getting attention of the British media. He certainly doesn't look like he courts the media internationally like Harper does (or at least the FOX network).

The British seem quite insular. What else could explain the national sensation of British Big Brother?

[tango]

This is the most agreeable thread I've ever seen on here.

I think to sum up what I read,

Ignatieff and Harper can both play gutter politics in international arenas,

But Harper's the PM and the G8's the G8, and he took it to new low levels

on bad information.

I'll bet it was Harper's error and the polhack will pay.

Harper doesn't have advisors, only informants. imo

[jbg]

Ouch...but it is a rather large mistake and it will be a learning exercise that that staffer would not likely make again after suffering the loss of his job.

I think staffers need to be careful before disseminating information that is likely to be acted upon promptly because of its time-sensitivity.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

This is the most agreeable thread I've ever seen on here.

I think to sum up what I read,

Ignatieff and Harper can both play gutter politics in international arenas,

But Harper's the PM and the G8's the G8, and he took it to new low levels

on bad information.

I'll bet it was Harper's error and the polhack will pay.

Harper doesn't have advisors, only informants. imo

Harper has many advisors, he just doesn't listen to them.

[tango]

Harper has many advisors, he just doesn't listen to them.

That's because he doesn't hire them for advice - only to provide information. He decides what info to use, and how, by himself. Now the staffer will bite the dust for Harper's own bad judgment.

A strong leader surrounds himself with strong people. A weak leader surrounds himself with yes-men. Harper is the latter.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's because he doesn't hire them for advice - only to provide information. He decides what info to use, and how, by himself. Now the staffer will bite the dust for Harper's own bad judgment.

A strong leader surrounds himself with strong people. A weak leader surrounds himself with yes-men. Harper is the latter.

All true. The Canadian public is becoming aware of this now as well.

[jbg]

All true. The Canadian public is becoming aware of this now as well.

Would Ignatieff, Layton, Duceppes or May be any better?

[tango]

I think staffers need to be careful before disseminating information that is likely to be acted upon promptly because of its time-sensitivity.

Oh the staffer will pay.

I think a Prime Minister should be careful before disseminating inappropriate partisan information when he's representing Canada, not the CPC.

Whether the information is accurate or not is irrelevant.