Ignatieff and political suicidal?

[Mr.Canada]

Following a morning strategy meeting, Liberal MP Ken Dryden said that the party would continue to make its case that the Conservative government is not moving in the right direction for Canadians.

He said the polls change nothing and that the Liberals will continue to vote against the government at every opportunity.

Source

Ignatieff, after getting his lowest numbers yet 28% to Harpers 41% still wants to continue down this road of pressing for an election.

I'm not sure who's to blame here. Is it Ignatieff's handlers? Is it Ignatieff himself?

Someone must have told him that this is political suicide to continue down an unpopular road.

Is he thinking that Canadians will just wake up one day and exclaim "You know what honey, I'd really like an election, that Ignatioeff is sure rubbing off on me"?

It's almost tot he point where I feel sorry for the guy but then I think that he must read the papers daily and see that his vote against the government is unpopular. So then I wonder why is he doing it?

Is it is own ego that's getting in the way?

[KeyStone]

Ignatieff, after getting his lowest numbers yet 28% to Harpers 41% still wants to continue down this road of pressing for an election.

I'm not sure who's to blame here. Is it Ignatieff's handlers? Is it Ignatieff himself?

Someone must have told him that this is political suicide to continue down an unpopular road.

Is he thinking that Canadians will just wake up one day and exclaim "You know what honey, I'd really like an election, that Ignatioeff is sure rubbing off on me"?

It's almost tot he point where I feel sorry for the guy but then I think that he must read the papers daily and see that his vote against the government is unpopular. So then I wonder why is he doing it?

Is it is own ego that's getting in the way?

The problem is that Ignatieff assumes that the common masses are blitheringly stupid.

So, he expected us to believe that it was just coincidence when the brief Liberal lead in the polls, just happened to coincide with the Liberals decision that they could no longer support the government. His feeble grasp at power, for no reason other than wanting power was so transparent to Canadians, that they punished him in the polls.

Now, he is painted into a corner. If he suddenly decides that he can put up with the Conservative government for a while longer, then it's going to be pretty obvious that his ability to support the Conservatives has a direct correlation with how the Liberals are doing in the polls.

Of course, he can pretend to be taking the principled position while the NDP backpedal and pretend that they suddenly think the Conservatives to be quite reasonable. But, if the NDP change their minds on supporting the Conservatives, it's going to be interesting to see how the Liberals spin the fact that they will once again support the Conservatives.

[Keepitsimple]

The rot in the Liberal Party goes much, much deeper than we see from street level. Ordinary Canadians see the Liberals in terms of their elected officials. The real power in the party has always been behind the scenes, in the backrooms and corridors, in the shadows. The infighting of Chretien and Martin and prior to that Chretien and Turner have overtime created warring back room and shadow cabals. Now we have Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff. The party has been at war with itself for a long time. That's why John Manley and Frank McKenna would have nothing to do with the Liberal leadership. It is clearly evident to all but the most rabid Liberal partisans that the party and brand is in need of long term repair - grass roots revitalization - a purging of old forces. It cries out for a strong, steady leader. To use words from Churchill, this is the beginning of the end. The purging and bloodletting must reach it's conclusion and only then can Liberals say it is the end of the beginning.

[M.Dancer]

Ignatieff is confident that the Liberals can assume the mantle of "The Opposition" hoping that The Conservatives won't introduce a bill with a poison pill. This way when anm election does come they can say that either the NDP or the Bloc are in bed with the Conservatives while tghe Liberals were putting their jobs on the line.

A good strategy so long as the Conservatives hold power for at elast another 12 months....futile if they don't.

[Topaz]

All you Harper supports are really too nice to Iggy, why not come and tell us how you really feel! I believe part of the problem is the Libs aren't communicating enough with the public and I think they should have their questions lined up in question period, so Canadians that are watching can see how good the Tories are in their personal attacks and avoid answering a direct question. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1314645/

[madmax]

Ignatieff, after getting his lowest numbers yet 28% to Harpers 41% still wants to continue down this road of pressing for an election.

Please don't start so many threads on the same subject.

[Keepitsimple]

All you Harper supports are really too nice to Iggy, why not come and tell us how you really feel! I believe part of the problem is the Libs aren't communicating enough with the public and I think they should have their questions lined up in question period, so Canadians that are watching can see how good the Tories are in their personal attacks and avoid answering a direct question. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1314645/

The article reveals more of the same academic drivel from Mr. Ignatieff:

Other things are in the works: fresh initiatives on environmental policy, a thinkers conference planned for January. Similar conferences helped the party redefine itself when Lester B. Pearson and Jean Chrétien were in opposition.

A "thinkers conference".....wonder how muct thought went into that one.

[Alex Moore]

All you Harper supports are really too nice to Iggy, why not come and tell us how you really feel! I believe part of the problem is the Libs aren't communicating enough with the public and I think they should have their questions lined up in question period, so Canadians that are watching can see how good the Tories are in their personal attacks and avoid answering a direct question. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1314645/

While i definitely agree that libs are not communicating. I would think Ignatieff's biggest problem is that after 6 years (I believe) in canadian politics and becoming head of historically canada's most successful political party he still remains an obscure figure. I keep saying this but what exactly does ignatieff intend to do if elected?

[Triple M]

I find it interesting that Ignatieff has position his party as the official opposition once again but there isn't much focus on this. While he opposes Harper at every step he forces Mr. Layton in an uncomfortable situation where he has to support the Conservative Government. In the long run this strategy might actually work; how long can NDP supporters stand by and watch their guy support the “Evil Harper Neo-Con reptilian kitten eaters”.

[kimmy]

I appreciate your enthusiasm, Mr C, but how many threads to we need on one topic?

You're starting to seem like an infomercial, and that doesn't make people want to consider your opinions. It makes them want to change the channel.

-k

[Mr.Canada]

I appreciate your enthusiasm, Mr C, but how many threads to we need on one topic?

You're starting to seem like an infomercial, and that doesn't make people want to consider your opinions. It makes them want to change the channel.

-k

There's what? A handful of people from all across Canada who post here regularly, I don't think anyone here will be changing anyone's mind en masse.

No one's going to go to their friends and say, I'm not voting Tory because of what this guy Mr.Canada said on some forum on some website. That sounds absurd.

I have a straightforward style that some people don't like. I always think why should I use 10 lines to say something when 1 will do. I hate it in my professional life when people blather on and on and on just to say something.

I read a story, think it makes the opposition look bad or the Tories look good so I post it here and write my thoughts about it. I'm sure this is the thought process of many people here.

I find that when I write longer posts with eloquent prose people don't respond to it and I'm after an audience so I keep it short machine gun like bursts and it seems to work much better. People read and respond to my posts. People also have ADD in todays world and cannot stomach having to read much more than a couple paragraphs, I try to cater ot that and give them what they need and take away the fluff.

Hrm maybe I should start a you tube channel with the days political news on it with my commentary of coarse. One guy from Waterloo I believe makes thousands a month just sitting in front of a white sheet reading the news and has thousands of subscribers...thanks kimmy.

[kimmy]

No, you won't change peoples' views or reach a huge audience on this website.

This is a small community, and you should consider whether you're acting like the sort of person people would like to have in their community. If this was a dinner party, you're the loudmouth guest who talks constantly. It's boorish. In the first 10 to 15 threads on the main page, 5 of them are threads you started to talk about the declining popularity of Ignatieff and/or the Liberals. Do you really need 5 threads for the same topic?

-k

[Mr.Canada]

No, you won't change peoples' views or reach a huge audience on this website.

Precisely, so who cares honestly. As I've stated maybe 20 people a day come here to post, what do I care what these people think about me? I don't know them personally nor am likely to at any time in the future. This website is about political gossip really. If a poster doesn't like my style of writing they don't have to read it, no ones forcing them to read my posts.

I was speaking with another member here and I have been making an effort to not personally attack posters like I used to and I think I've been successful in that endeavor.

This is a small community, and you should consider whether you're acting like the sort of person people would like to have in their community. If this was a dinner party, you're the loudmouth guest who talks constantly. It's boorish. In the first 10 to 15 threads on the main page, 5 of them are threads you started to talk about the declining popularity of Ignatieff and/or the Liberals. Do you really need 5 threads for the same topic?

-k

I don't eat with or hang out with people who have dissimilar morals, ideals and politics to my own. Most of the people we hang out with or let our kids play with are from the Church or from the KoC. We prefer to insulate ourselves from the proclivities of secular society in regards to our social lives and those of our children.

If people are responding to my topics then yes I think that they have a valid place. If they didn't posters would let them die.

The way I see it is Conservatives need to band together to destroy the parties who don't conform to our ideals or at least render them useless. Not bicker amongst ourselves, the enemy is greater than me or you, the enemy is out there waiting for us to turn on each other. We must be united and ready...always ready.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[ToadBrother]

The way I see it is Conservatives need to band together to destroy the parties who don't conform to our ideals or at least render them useless. Not bicker amongst ourselves, the enemy is greater than me or you, the enemy is out there waiting for us to turn on each other. We must be united and ready...always ready.

A functioning democracy doesn't work when the opposition, and opposing views are, as you seem to want, destroyed. In short, your opinion is in direct opposition to one of the key notions of a functioning democracy. I realize that most ideologues like yourself are just autocrats in pretty dresses, so I applaud you for showing just how much you despise real democracy.

[Mr.Canada]

A functioning democracy doesn't work when the opposition, and opposing views are, as you seem to want, destroyed. In short, your opinion is in direct opposition to one of the key notions of a functioning democracy. I realize that most ideologues like yourself are just autocrats in pretty dresses, so I applaud you for showing just how much you despise real democracy.

Now that's calling the kettle black. Almost everyone on this site who opposes the Tories does so out of partisanship and ideology even if the Harper government does something good they still trash it. I think a lot of people who are political junkies are ideologues they would have to be. I root for my team and want my team to win at all costs and sure I'd love the Tories to be in power forever but that isn't reality. Obviously the Liberals will return to power at some point and I know that but that's not to say I can't have some fun at their expense in the meantime.

[ToadBrother]

Now that's calling the kettle black. Almost everyone on this site who opposes the Tories does so out of partisanship and ideology even if the Harper government does something good they still trash it. I think a lot of people who are political junkies are ideologues they would have to be. I root for my team and want my team to win at all costs and sure I'd love the Tories to be in power forever but that isn't reality. Obviously the Liberals will return to power at some point and I know that but that's not to say I can't have some fun at their expense in the meantime.

I've voted Conservative in the past, and would again if the guy who keeps getting the Tory nod (and who keeps winning) wasn't a quack and hyper social conservative. Even if he didn't run again, I also don't like Harper, so until they pick a leader more to my liking, I'll park my vote elsewhere. I'm no fan of the Liberals, but if its a toss up between Harper and Iggy, I'll pick Iggy. Now if you guys were to put someone like MacKay in charge, well, that might be a little different.

I don't belong to any party. I owe no one my opinion, and my political views are shaped by my own philosophy, and not by what some jackass at party HQ tells me I should think.

[Mr.Canada]

I've voted Conservative in the past, and would again if the guy who keeps getting the Tory nod (and who keeps winning) wasn't a quack and hyper social conservative. Even if he didn't run again, I also don't like Harper, so until they pick a leader more to my liking, I'll park my vote elsewhere. I'm no fan of the Liberals, but if its a toss up between Harper and Iggy, I'll pick Iggy. Now if you guys were to put someone like MacKay in charge, well, that might be a little different.

I don't belong to any party. I owe no one my opinion, and my political views are shaped by my own philosophy, and not by what some jackass at party HQ tells me I should think.

Uhm Harper isn't a social conservative. He quit the Reform party in 1997 and left politics until 2000 because social conservatives were having too much influence on party policy. They were getting away from fiscal responsibility and focusing too much on so con values and direction so he left.

I think people are listening too to what the Liberals have said in the past and what the left as a whole are saying now and taking it as truth.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[jdobbin]

Uhm Harper isn't a social conservative.

So he doesn't support a new abortion law if he has a majority? He won't bring back the death penalty? He won't stop stem cell research?

And why are you voting for him again?

[ToadBrother]

Uhm Harper isn't a social conservative. He quit the Reform party in 1997 and left politics until 2000 because social conservatives were having too much influence on party policy. They were getting away from fiscal responsibility and focusing too much on so con values and direction so he left.

The problem is that I don't believe that. The precise reasons for him quitting Reform in 1997 are far murkier than the official picture, but at least, in part, it was because of a substantial falling out with Manning, and Manning, while never explicit (he's too much of a gentleman) has afterwards always be gently critical of Harper.

I think people are listening too to what the Liberals have said in the past and what the left as a whole are saying now and taking it as truth.

The Liberals have plenty of social conservatives on their side, though they tend to be quieter these days than they did in the dying days of Chretien's reign. But it goes further than social conservatism, and its heart, I think Harper is a shitty PM. Yes, he's a very skilled political manager, there's no doubt about that. Yes, he's a clever strategist (though sometimes too clever for his own good). But the country has hardly flourished under his tenure. Whatever particular strengths are in the Canadian financial system as compared to the other major economies were there prior to Harper becoming PM.

[Mr.Canada]

So he doesn't support a new abortion law if he has a majority? He won't bring back the death penalty? He won't stop stem cell research?

And why are you voting for him again?

I'm a social conservative for sure but Harper isn't. Nope I doubt Harper would touch abortion or gay marriage or any of that jazz. Harper is the closest thing available to what I value so he gets my vote. I like a lot of things the Libertarian Party and Christian Heritage Party says too but they aren't a realistic option.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Mr.Canada