Scathing Review of Michael Ignatieff

[Keepitsimple]

Outspoken wife of Stephane Dion offers scathing view of Michael Ignatieff

By Sidhartha Banerjee, The Canadian Press

MONTREAL - The outspoken wife of former Liberal leader Stephane Dion has written a scathing letter in which she questions Michael Ignatieff's ability to lead the party out its current woes.

In a note published on her Facebook page and subsequently circulated among party members, Janine Krieber wrote Friday that the party was in full collapse and the future appeared bleak.

A fellow university professor, Krieber said party members were duped by Ignatieff and would have recognized his obvious shortcomings if they'd only taken the time to read his academic writings.

"The party base understood (in 2006) and Canadian citizens are understanding now. Ignatieff's supporters didn't do their homework. They didn't read his books. They contented themselves with his ability to navigate the cocktail circuit," she wrote.

"Some of them are enraged today. I hear: 'Why didn't anyone tell us (about him)?' We told you, loud and clear. You didn't listen."

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091121/national/liberals_krieber_facebook?printer=1

Edited November 22, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[August1991]

Here is the entire post in the original, and with a translation.

Ça fait un an et une semaine que je n'ai pas écrit dans mon blog. Ah! que la présidente est paresseuse. Mais maintenant, il faut faire quelque chose. 

Le parti libéral est en pleine déconfiture, il ne s'en remettra pas. Comme tous les partis libéraux d'Europe, il deviendra une pauvre petite chose à la merci des coalitions éphémères. Pour avoir refusé la coalition historique qui pouvait le mettre à la tête de la gauche, il sera puni par l'histoire. 

Bon, j'en était convaincue au moment où Paul Martin a traité si cavalièrement Jean Chrétien. Ce moment a signé la mort de notre parti. Si les élites de Toronto avaient été plus éveillées, humbles et réalistes, Stéphane était prêt à prendre tout le temps et les coups pour reconstruire ce parti. Mais ils n'ont pas avalé le 26%, maintenant nous sommes à 23%. 

Le temps des choix est arrivé. Je ne veux pas que les conservateurs continuent à changer mon pays. Ils sont en train, doucement, comme n'importe quelle dictature, de transformer le monde. La torture n'existe pas, la corruption est une vue de l'esprit. Avons nous vraiment le bon chef pour discuter de ces questions? Est-ce que quelqu'un peut vraiment écrire toutes ces insanités et nous faire croire qu'il a tout simplement changé d'idée? Pour justifier la violence, il faut avoir réfléchi sérieusement. Sinon, c'est très dangereux. Qu'est-ce qui nous garantie qu'il ne changera pas d'idée une autre fois? 

Tout ceci, la base du parti l'avais compris et le citoyen canadien est en train de le comprendre. Les supporters de Ignatieff n'ont pas fait leurs devoirs. Ils n'ont pas lu ses livres, n'ont pas consulté ses collègues. Ils se sont contentés de son habileté à naviguer dans les cocktails. Certains d'entre eux sont enragés maintenant. J'entend: pourquoi personne ne l'a dit? Nous vous l'avons dit haut et fort, vous n'avez pas écouté. 

J'amorce une réflexion sérieuse. Je ne veux pas donner ma voix à un parti qui risque de finir dans les poubelles de l'histoire. Je regarde autour et il y a certaines choses qui me plaisent. Comme un parti dédié, qui ne conteste pas son chef à chaque hoquet des sondages. Un parti où la règle serait le principe de plaisir et non l'assassinat. Un parti où l'éthique du travail et de la compétence seraient respectés et où les sourires ne seraient pas factices. 

Je ne rêve peut-être pas. 

La présidente 

--- 

It's been a year and one week since I last wrote on my blog. Ah! "la présidente" is lazy. But we have to take action now. 

The Liberal Party is falling apart, and will not recover. Like all liberal parties in Europe, it will become a weakling at the mercy of ephemeral coalitions. By refusing the historic coalition that would have placed it at the helm of the left, it will be punished by history. 

Anyway, I became convinced of it the moment that Paul Martin treated Jean Chrétien so cavalierly. The party died at that moment. If the Toronto elites had been more in tune, humble and realist, Stéphane would have been willing to take all the time and absord all the hits needed to rebuild the party. But they couldn't swallow the 26%, and now we are at 23%. 

The time for choices is now. I don't want to see the Conservatives continue to change my country. They are, slowly, like any dictatorship, changing the world. Torture doesn't exist, corruption is a fabrication. Do we really have the right leader to discuss these questions? Can someone really write these insanities and lead us to believe that he simply changed his mind? In order to justify violence, he must have engaged in serious thought. Otherwise, it's very dangerous. How can we be sure that he won't change his mind one more time? 

The party grassroots had understood all of that, and the average citizen is starting to understand it too. Ignatieff's supporters have not done their homework. They did not read his books, consult his colleagues. They were satisfied that he could be charming at cocktails. Some of them are outraged now. I am hearing: Why did no one say it? We told you loud and clear, you didn't listen. 

I am starting a serious reflection. I will not give my voice to a party that will end up in the trashcan of history. I am looking around me, and certain things are attractive. Like a dedicated party that doesn't challenge its leader at every hiccup in the polls. A party where the rule would be the principle of pleasure, and not assassination. A party where work ethic and competence would be respected and where smiles would be real. 

Maybe I'm not dreaming. 

"La présidente."

G&M

It's a remarkable diatribe, with various tangents. I'll choose one.

----

Kleiber refers to the European practice of coalition governments. She suggests that the federal Liberal Party can only survive as part of a coalition.

IMV, Canada is not a European country. We are North American. We Americans approach compromise (and much else) differently from the way Europeans do. Frankly, I think the Canadian method is far better than the European method and the violence of European history is my evidence. (The term Civilized Europeans is an oxymoron.)

Kleiber is European and Dion was raised by a French mother. I think that one of Dion's problems was that he didn't connect well with ordinary Canadians.

With all that said, I think that the federal Liberal Party is far from dead. It has just had some bad leaders. There are many Canadians, French and English speaking, in the West and the Maritimes, who want to vote Liberal.

Edited November 22, 2009 by August1991

[Gabriel]

Hi Keepitsimple,

Thanks for the link, it's an interesting which I will fully read later. Although slightly tangential, I'd like to share how my impression of Ignatieff has changed since I first saw him on the political scene. Aesthetically, he's strong. He's tall and thin and looks good. He's also clearly intelligent and well=spoken, with a reasonable amount of charisma (more charisma than Harper, IMO). These are the first qualities of him I noticed. Actually, the presence or lack of these qualities is always the first think I notice on virtually any politician. I really though this guy could be a force to be reckoned with. As time went on, however, and I payed some attention to his "positions" on various issues, it became clear to me that he is a not a man of principle. He's been wishy washy, small-minded, hyper-partisan, and just plain wrong on so many things I've seen him talk about. He reminds me a lot of Mitt Romney in that regard - a politician who initially looks like he's got the tools to be forceful, but can't capitalize due to a complete lack of fire. If you've got no integrity and no principles, it can seriously damage in the public eye. To me, I can't stand Ignatieff anymore. I've got not respect for him. I do, however, think he isn't finished yet. Although I don't think he'll ever make himself a serious leader, if he can somehow get inspired, develop strong and intelligent positions on issues that matter to Canadians, drop the hyper-partisanship and obsession with insignificant issues in order to claw at the government in order to drum op the support of his radical left-wing base, he might just resonate with intelligent and reasonable Canadians. I don't think he's got it in him, though, you can't "find" integrity and passion. You've either got it or you don't. And since he doesn't have it, and he knows he doesn't have it, he's had to find political consultants and disappear from the public eye for awhile in an effort to remanufacture himself into something he isn't - a leader with a message.

I'm wondering if other intelligent, reasonable, and middle-of-the-road Canadians feel the same way about Ignatieff. Looks like he's got some of the attributes necessary to be a strong leader, but he's missing the main attribute - leadership based on principle and integrity.

[waldo]

Looks like he's got some of the attributes necessary to be a strong leader, but he's missing the main attribute - leadership based on principle and integrity.

care to speak to the foundation of your unprincipled, lacking integrity summation?

[Riverwind]

I think people put too much emphasis on the leader of a political party. I don't think it makes much difference most of the time and the Liberals would have tanked no matter who was in charge because the electorate has decided that they are OK with the governance offered by the CPC at this time.

You see the reverse in BC where the NDP is surging ahead but it has nothing to do with the leadership or eveb NDP policies. It is simply a case of the people realizing that the Libs are getting too comfortable in power and a house cleaning in order. The votes go NDP by default because they are the only government in waiting.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Politics in Canada is starting to change. Negative or attack politics are now common. Leaders are under heavy scrutiny, and scandals are more common. In the case of Iggy, I think the Liberal Party is now facing some challenges to be sure, but this woman is simply spouting off. Who is she? The wife of a former leader, the very first Liberal leader not elected as Prime Minister. Talk about legacy, the Dion's simply don't want that distinction and would actually campaign to kill the party rather than have it stand. Hard to believe? Just think about it.

[Gabriel]

care to speak to the foundation of your unprincipled, lacking integrity summation?

I don't have any desire to get into a serious exchange with you (I find you a ridiculous poster 99% of the time) about this issue, but I'll indulge your request briefly. What quickly comes to mind is Ignatieff's fake outrage over the entire body-bag fiasco - clearly proving that he is a small man desperate for any fake controversy. He'd rather mouth off about nonsense then tackle real issues. I also recall him making allegations of possible war crimes being committed by Israeli during the recent military operations in Gaza - complete switch from his previous positions on such issues before he became a political "leader" in Canada. This proves that he has no principle and will say what he thinks he needs to say to appeal to his radical base. I also recall him criticizing the Harper government for acting too slowly and not spending enough on the "stimulus package", while by all accounts Canada was weathering the financial storm better than most other countries. He was unable to give credit where credit was due. If anything, Harper wasted money in those efforts in order to try to buy votes - GM, for example. These are just handful of examples that comes to mind.

[kimmy]

Krieber refers to herself as "The President"? Out of curiosity, what is she president of? Was she writing this in some official capacity, or is this simply a self appointed position... "President and Only Member of the Stephane Dion Fan Club", or the like?

As to this...

For having refused the historic coalition that could have placed it at the head of the left, it will be punished by history.

...if she thinks the Liberals are being punished for not doing that coalition that would have made her husband Prime Minister, I think she's out of her mind. I think the Liberals are, to a point, being punished for even considering that coalition. I think Canadians would have punished the Liberals to a merciless degree if they had actually gone through with that and made her husband our Prime Minister after we spat on his grave just 2 months earlier at the polls.

Being part of "the historic coalition that could have placed it at the head of the left" would have been a disaster... because Canadians do not want the Liberals to be part of "the left" at all.

-k

Edited November 22, 2009 by kimmy

[punked]

Krieber refers to herself as "The President"? Out of curiosity, what is she president of? Was she writing this in some official capacity, or is this simply a self appointed position... "President and Only Member of the Stephane Dion Fan Club", or the like?

As to this...

For having refused the historic coalition that could have placed it at the head of the left, it will be punished by history.

...if she thinks the Liberals are being punished for not doing that coalition that would have made her husband Prime Minister, I think she's out of her mind. I think the Liberals are, to a point, being punished for even considering that coalition. I think Canadians would have punished the Liberals to a merciless degree if they had actually gone through with that and made her husband our Prime Minister after we spat on his grave just 2 months earlier at the polls.

Being part of "the historic coalition that could have placed it at the head of the left" would have been a disaster... because Canadians do not want the Liberals to be part of "the left" at all.

-k

Correct me if I am wrong but in french President can simply mean leader. While in English it is more a formal title so it does not translate well here.

[Gabriel]

I think people put too much emphasis on the leader of a political party. I don't think it makes much difference most of the time and the Liberals would have tanked no matter who was in charge because the electorate has decided that they are OK with the governance offered by the CPC at this time.

You see the reverse in BC where the NDP is surging ahead but it has nothing to do with the leadership or eveb NDP policies. It is simply a case of the people realizing that the Libs are getting too comfortable in power and a house cleaning in order. The votes go NDP by default because they are the only government in waiting.

Hi Riverwind,

I disagree strongly with your statement. How can you deny that the face of the party is a huge factor in determining its success? While there are circumstances in elections where there are strong factors beyond the public perception of a given political that influence how the people will vote, the leadership of a party is always important. Of course public perception of a party can be damaged beyond the scope of its leader (the Republican brand in the USA most recently, for example), but I must reiterate that the leadership of the party is the probably the most significant factor in shaping the vote. Look at the most recent Republican ticket - McCain and Palin. How could they possibly defeat the presence that Obama had? Obama's presence and charisma (and intelligence) eclipsed that of McCain and Palin combined.

I think in Canada the leader of the party is only slightly less important than in the USA, because of course we don't vote directly for our PM. This still doesn't diminish the huge impact a leader can have on public opinion. That being said, of course a strong leader must be combined with an intelligent platform that resonates with independent Canadian voters.

Bottom line - you're grossly underestimating the influence that a charismatic and intelligent leader can have in shaping public opinion.

[Riverwind]

I disagree strongly with your statement. How can you deny that the face of the party is a huge factor in determining its success?

What affects people is the narrative placed on the leaders - not the actual leaders. The leaders themselves don't have a huge amount of control over the narrative that gets placed on them because it depends more on what people want than what the leaders do. For example, the recent rehabilitation of Harper's image from 'vindictive control freak' to 'level headed manager' has nothing to do with what Harper has done. The change happened because people wanted a 'level headed manager' in uncertain times and Harper was available to fill the role.

How could they possibly defeat the presence that Obama had? Obama's presence and charisma (and intelligence) eclipsed that of McCain and Palin combined.

Obama's appeal largely stemed from the direction of the public narrative. i.e. people wanted change and Obama was leading the only party that could offer it. I doubt the election outcome would have been different with Hillary as the candidate.

Bottom line - you're grossly underestimating the influence that a charismatic and intelligent leader can have in shaping public opinion.

If you looked at my post you should note that I said 'most of the time'. There are occasions where a leader can create the role that he/she fills but most of the time the leaders are simply acting out the role imposed upon them. Edited November 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[Gabriel]

What affects people is the narrative placed on the leaders - not the actual leaders. The leaders themselves don't have a huge amount of control over the narrative that gets placed on them because it depends more on what people want than what the leaders do. For example, the recent rehabilitation of Harper's image from 'vindictive control freak' to 'level headed manager' has nothing to do with what Harper has done. The change happened because people wanted a 'level headed manager' in uncertain times and Harper was available to fill the role.

I strongly disagree with you. Although the image of a leader can often be shaped by narratives created by outside forces (i.e. the media, the opposing parties, supporters, etc), the leader him/herself greatly influences this narrative. Misstatements, strong speeches, positive/negative soundbites, all come from the mouth of the leader. I think the weaker the leader, the greater the influence of external forces in shaping the image of him/her. In terms of Harper, he doesn't strike me as particularly passionate/charismatic. I find this leaves him slightly more vulnerable to those who seek to mischaracterize him. For example, we all remember the absurd "hidden agenda" advertisements that were on TV with the evil-looking black and white images of Harper - clearly pandering to the extremist base of the Liberal party. I found Harper somewhat vulnerable to this because in public, he doesn't seem to have the strongest personality. That being said, I prefer Harper's demeanor to the fake outrage of Dion and other left-wing politicians. The stronger the personality of the leader, the less likely he/she is of being misrepresented by outside forces. The opposite is also true. Anyways, I disagree with you.

Obama's appeal largely stemed from the direction of the public narrative. i.e. people wanted change and Obama was leading the only party that could offer it. I doubt the election outcome would have been different with Hillary as the candidate.

I disagree. Obama's appeal came from Obama. Of course he had certain advantages which he capitalized on, primarily the disaffection of much of the American public with the current trends in America occurring under Republican leadership. I also strongly disagree with you that Hillary would necessarily have won. I'm not sure you've got your finger on the pulse of politics with respect to this issue.

If you looked at my post you should note that I said 'most of the time'. There are occasions where a leader can create the role that he/she fills but most of the time the leaders are simply acting out the role imposed upon them.

Sure.

[Riverwind]

Misstatements, strong speeches, positive/negative soundbites, all come from the mouth of the leader.

All leaders say positive and negative things. What determines their success is whether the public chooses to focus on the good ones or the bad ones. Have you noticed that many leaders are described as 'telflon' because stuff which should destroy them simply rolls off them? That is because the public chooses to ignore the bad because they want to have that particular party in power at that time. It has little to do with the leader - they are often simply the warm body that happens to be in the leader's seat at the time. After a while the public tires of the same old and the teflon wears off an previously ignored issues become significant. This is what is happenin in BC.

In terms of Harper, he doesn't strike me as particularly passionate/charismatic.I find this leaves him slightly more vulnerable to those who seek to mischaracterize him.

A lack of charisma is an asset if people want pramatic, stay-the-course, government. Also, I think charisma is often mistaken for 'selling change'. i.e. any leader who promotes to change things will usually come across as 'charismatic' if people what the change being offered. A leader who promotes stay the course will rarely be considered 'charismatic'.

I disagree. Obama's appeal came from Obama. Of course he had certain advantages which he capitalized on, primarily the disaffection of much of the American public with the current trends in America occurring under Republican leadership.

And Hillary would have been able to tap into that same disaffection but the reasons provided after the fact would have been different. I think Obama's rather underwhelming performance as a leader since he was elected is evidence that Obama is not controlling what the public think of him. Edited November 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[Gabriel]

All leaders say positive and negative things. What determines their success is whether the public chooses to focus on the good ones or the bad ones. Have you noticed that many leaders are described as 'telflon' because stuff which should destroy them simply rolls off them? That is because the public chooses to ignore the bad because they want to have that particular party in power at that time. It has little to do with the leader - they are often simply the warm body that happens to be in the leader's seat at the time. After a while the public tires of the same old and the teflon wears off an previously ignored issues become significant. This is what is happenin in BC.

Let's not be silly, not all leaders are equally prone to gaffes. To use the Obama example again (as I think he is a good example of a strong personality that was able to greatly influence his own narrative), Obama made very few gaffes. The only ones I can remember at this time were his willingness to meet with tyrants without precondition (a gaffe that only reaslly resonated with those of us with brains, as the extremists on the left would love nothing more than to extend love to Ahmaedinejhad and Kim Jog Il), and more importantly, his "spread the wealth around" statement. There's no doubt that Obama is careful and meticulous with his statements. On the other hand, look at fools like Joe Biden who are literally unable NOT to say something stupid in a 2 minute conversation. Bottom line - it's a gross oversimplication to state that "all leaders say positive and negative things" without recognizing that there are great variations between the vulnerability of differing leaders to gaffes.

A lack of charisma is an asset if people want pramatic, stay-the-course, government. Also, I think charisma is often mistaken for 'selling change'. i.e. any leader who promotes to change things will usually come across as 'charismatic' if people what the change being offered. A leader who promotes stay the course will rarely be considered 'charismatic'.

Perhaps, but I still think a lack of charisma opens a leader up to being defined by outside forces, most notably his/her critics and opponents. You're making a huge mistake by assuming that charisma is attached or is derived from his/her message. Charisma is independent from one's message. If anything, charisma can enhance the efficacy of the delivery of a leader's message. In all seriousness, you're dead wrong on virtually everything you're saying here. Are you arguing simply for the sake of arguing or do you genuinely believe what you're saying in this thread? You'll be hard-pressed to find any serious political analyst (or reasonable person) who agrees with your perspective of how unimportant the leader is to success of a party.

And Hillary would have been able to tap into that same disaffection but the reasons provided after the fact would have been different. I think Obama's rather underwhelming performance as a leader since he was elected is evidence that Obama is not controlling what the public think of him.

Perhaps, but Hillary would not have been a guaranteed victory. She has about 10% of Obama's power, presence, and influence. I also think women are at a disadvantage when running for such high leadership positions as I feel like we've associated many of the qualities that we want in a leader with the male gender, for better or for worse.

Again, I think you're dead wrong on virtually everything you've said. I do agree with you that Obama has been very underwhelming. If I was an American, I would have voted for Obama, and I would now be extremely disappointed.

[Argus]

It's amusing that Dion repeats the same mantra Coderre initiated about "toronto elites". I'm starting to think some of these Quebecers are using "toronto elites" as a code word for "Dirty Anglos." Quebec has pretty much controlled the Liberal Party since Trudeau's ascent to power, after all, and they must resent the hell out of that power having moved on.

In fact, she talks about the "Toronto elites" being out of touch, and then goes onto show that the "Montreal elites" are even more out of touch by whining about Ignatieff not going for that three stooges coallition with the used car salesman and the guy in the funny plastic cap.

So if both the Toronto elites and the Montreal elites are out of touch with the country - and that consitutes pretty much all of Liberal Canada, what hope is left for the Libs?

Edited November 23, 2009 by Argus

[KeyStone]

It's hysterical to see this woman ranting about how shortsighted it was for everyone to criticize her husband when there was a hiccup in the polls. She then goes on to bemoan the lack of unity the party had when her husband was leader.

Then as soon as Ignatieff has a hiccup in the polls, she brings out the knives herself. Does she not see the irony?

The supporters of Ignatieff liked him for no reason other than his chance at winning. No one liked his people skills, his vision, or his record. But, the Liberal party has been filled with 'supporters' trying to broker there way back into power, whose only vision is power, not a better Canada - and they all seem to be drawn to Ignatieff.

His strategy so far seems to be to come up with no policies, and simply wait for Canadians to realize how very suave and sophisticated he is, so that he can continue the entitlement of the Liberals.

[capricorn]

Mike Robinson, Liberal strategist, was on Power Play tonight commenting on the Facebook entry by Dion's better half. He said that since stepping down as leader, unlike Janine, Stephane has conducted himself with dignity. Fact is, not much has been heard from Dion. In Liberal circles, does dignified conduct mean keeping your trap shut about the woes facing the party?

[Gabriel]

More evidence of Ignatieff being a liar without integrity - I watched him in question period today accusing the government of attacking Colvin's reputation. This is a common criticism from the left on this issue, and it is a complete lie. The government has *never* attacked Colvin on a personal level or criticized his character. The government has only attacked the value of his testimony given the fact that it is all based on four interviews with Taliban detainees who may or may not have been apprehended by Canadian forces. Iggy is as much of a liar as some of the leftist in this forum, at least with respect to this issue.

Anyways....

[madmax]

More evidence of Ignatieff being a liar without integrity - I watched him in question period today accusing the government of attacking Colvin's reputation. This is a common criticism from the left on this issue, and it is a complete lie.

This is something stupid that Harper used to engage in.

[Moonbox]

It's hysterical to see this woman ranting about how shortsighted it was for everyone to criticize her husband when there was a hiccup in the polls. She then goes on to bemoan the lack of unity the party had when her husband was leader.

Then as soon as Ignatieff has a hiccup in the polls, she brings out the knives herself. Does she not see the irony?

I laughed my ass off when I read this article in the newspapers. This woman is nothing but a crybaby sore loser. Her husband SINGLE HANDEDLY tanked the Liberals because he was an incoherent wuss-bag and now she's blaming Liberal misfortunes on Ignatieff? True, Ignatieff may not have done anything to fix the problem, but you should blame the idiot who dug you into hole first before you start attacking the guy trying to dig you out.

Also, I too am starting to really get a chuckle out of the term "Toronto Elite". I mean, it's unfathomable that the LPC's power wouldn't be centred in Qwebec like it has for the last 30 years. It's not like most of their support comes from Toronto or anything. After how poorly Dion did, I would say any change is good change.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Moonbox

[Keepitsimple]

......but you should blame the idiot who dug you into hole first before you start attacking the guy trying to dig you out.

Former Liberal supporters were anxiously awaiting Ignatieff's arrival......to the extent that as soon as he took over, the Liberals and Conservatives were soon neck-and-neck in the polls and sometimes even ahead. He benefitted from the relief of having Dion gone. Liberal supporters were ready to embrace Ignatieff and others were ready to listen. He had a chance to lead the party - to surround himself with the right people - to take their advice - and to articulate what Liberals stand for. He has failed miserably on all fronts. He has dug his own personal hole. Martin, Dion, Ignatieff.....three strikes and you're out.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Jerry J. Fortin]

How or why is it over yet? He hasn't even had the job for a year! He hasn't run in an election as leader! In my view folks are going off a tadd early...........