What do you think of Ad about Ignatieff's family?

[Topaz]

This is getting really stupid topic, you either take Michael on his word or you don't. When Harper came out and said the Harper family have mental health issues that run in his dad side of the family, no one made a big deal about it. So leave Michael family alone and judge Michael on his performance.

[punked]

This is getting really stupid topic, you either take Michael on his word or you don't. When Harper came out and said the Harper family have mental health issues that run in his dad side of the family, no one made a big deal about it. So leave Michael family alone and judge Michael on his performance.

Which word though? The one he wrote in a Book many years ago or his new family history the Liberals told him would be good for his run at PM. That is the question isn't it?

Harper never ran on his family, he never brought them up, Layton the samething. Neither of them would make it an issue because they don't think it right to use your family to try and win an election.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Iggy was played, and that is that.

[bloodyminded]

Very common with Lefties to attack anything American, even remotely connected.

You really haven't seen the Conservative attack ads, playing on anti-Americanism?

Perhaps the Liberals and Conservtaives--yes, even your heroic Conservatives!--are two sides of the same coin.

Edited March 21, 2011 by bloodyminded

[madmax]

He wisely avoided showing his two wives

Dare we go to the Harper Wife Rumours of 2010?

http://forums.weddingbells.ca/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2921491

The whole family nonsense was stupid on the part of the Cons. Why must they be devoid of Brains now that they are the party of power?

[kimmy]

So, I haven't got to the part of the book that explains how the Ignatieffs went from English millionaires in the early 1920s to broke-ass Canadians in the late 1920s. Any predictions? Anybody want to ruin the surprise for me?

You really haven't seen the Conservative attack ads, playing on anti-Americanism?

Perhaps the Liberals and Conservtaives--yes, even your heroic Conservatives!--are two sides of the same coin.

Calling somebody an American isn't really an insult as far as most people likely to vote Conservative are concerned.

A lot of people who might be considering voting Liberal, on the other hand, seem to think Americans are Terrible People. Who knows, it might scare some votes in Action Jack's direction.

Personally, I find this sort of politicking unappealing. But, if he does want to wrap himself in the flag, then it's fair for his opponents to point out that he's compared that flag to a beer label in the past, if they can prove he did so.

The whole family nonsense was stupid on the part of the Cons. Why must they be devoid of Brains now that they are the party of power?

Wait, what? Which party just released an ad called "My Family" explaining how his family's history makes him sensitive to immigrants and working class Canadians and so-on?

Why is it that a few days ago the Liberal crowd here at the forum wanted to talk about Ignatieff's terrific family background but now it's "we should stick to the issues, harumph!"

-k

[Saipan]

The whole family nonsense was stupid on the part of the Cons.

They brought it up???

Why must they be devoid of Brains now that they are the party of power?

And why do most liberals still beat their wives. This is 21st Century!

Edited March 21, 2011 by Saipan

[bloodyminded]

So, I haven't got to the part of the book that explains how the Ignatieffs went from English millionaires in the early 1920s to broke-ass Canadians in the late 1920s. Any predictions? Anybody want to ruin the surprise for me?

Calling somebody an American isn't really an insult as far as most people likely to vote Conservative are concerned.

The only time I've ever noticed that "the left" is "anti-American" and "the Right" is not...is when people state it on political debate sites such as this one.

It is totally unrelated to my lived reality, in which much "anti-Americanism" is nothing of the sort, but merely criticism of the foreign behaviour of the most powerful nation; and in which genuine anti-Americanism (which is real enough) is a trivial matter, albeit quite inaccurate about our neighbours; and in which there is no distinction between conservatives and liberals in how they talk about the United States. None at all.

Except when it comes to foreign policy...in that case, certainly, the Left is much harsher. Also, more apt to be closer to the truth.

At any rate, this alleged distinction between conservatives and liberals is pretty much non-existent...outside of anonymous debate forums, in which righties like to inform me that I "hate Aamerica." They're the same people who educate me that I"m a communist, that I hate the Jews, and that I despise myself. Stupid assertions even at first blush.

But that is not "anti-Americanism."

A lot of people who might be considering voting Liberal, on the other hand, seem to think Americans are Terrible People. Who knows, it might scare some votes in Action Jack's direction.

Vanishingly few people genuuinely believe that Americans are terrible people. It's not an issue. It's a political fiction, devised by those who are mortally offended by critiques of American power. There's also that bizarre little Left-obssession we see often enough, notably by a few mouth-breathers on this very forum.

Personally, I find this sort of politicking unappealing. But, if he does want to wrap himself in the flag, then it's fair for his opponents to point out that he's compared that flag to a beer label in the past, if they can prove he did so.

I don't even think the attack ads are untrue. They use only Ignatieff's own words, after all, and I'm still waiting for the vaunted "context."

However, the ads are incredibly cynical; and if Conservatives don't really feel this way....it begs the question of their honesty and integrity in using it to repel "liberals" from Iggy's brand.

If they don't "believe" in anti-Americanism...maybe they shouldn't use it to try to get elected. Just saying.

I suggest that, on some level, they feel a certain antipathy to Americans themselves. And like I said, that's just ignorance.

Edited March 22, 2011 by bloodyminded

[madmax]

Wait, what? Which party just released an ad called "My Family" explaining how his family's history makes him sensitive to immigrants and working class Canadians and so-on?

-k

I see no value in defending the ill thought actions of the Conservative Attack adds.

Each to their own.

[capricorn]

Wait, what? Which party just released an ad called "My Family" explaining how his family's history makes him sensitive to immigrants and working class Canadians and so-on?

It's interesting to note that all the family members Ignatieff talks about are deceased. Why aren't family members still living not mentioned? It's as if the immigrant saga he recounts ends with him.

[Shakeyhands]

It's interesting to note that all the family members Ignatieff talks about are deceased. Why aren't family members still living not mentioned? It's as if the immigrant saga he recounts ends with him.

Why does it matter and why do you care?

[Topaz]

Let's NOT sweat the small stuff! There's more important things going on in government than talking about Michael's family. Canada is involved in another war, we have a government in contempt and all the other scams and schemes this government has produced within the five years. I just hope and pray the Tories don't get a majority because QP will be a big state of disaster. The three opposition parties may as well go home and let Harper take Canada the wrong way, on a one way street.

[Saipan]

Why does it matter and why do you care?

Iggy wants us to care.

[Saipan]

we have a government in contempt

What are the SPECIFICS?

[Shakeyhands]

What are the SPECIFICS?

Don't be daft. Pick up a newspaper, all of the information can be found there. If picking up the paper proves to difficult, there are plenty of threads here to explain it to you. Read slowly if you like.

[Saipan]

Don't be daft.

Don't be dumb.

Pick up a newspaper, all of the information can be found there. If picking up the paper proves to difficult, there are plenty of threads here to explain it to you. Read slowly if you like.

I take you don't really know.

[Shakeyhands]

Don't be dumb.

I take you don't really know.

Please let meknow when you want to have a serious discussion. Until then, keep up your two trick pony show.

[bloodyminded]

What are the SPECIFICS?

Toadbrother has spelled it out perfectly, in a non-partisan way. Check it out.

[Keepitsimple]

Here's a column by everybody's favourite - Ezra Levant . He's a difficult guy to warm up to.....but it really is true - why is Mr. Ignatieff trying to re-write history? Perhaps his own sense of entitlement is so great that he just can't really understand what it is to "have nothing". In any event, he has no one to blame but himself in trying to make his family out to be poor immigrants. Heck, it's all right there in his books.

Why is Iggy trying to revise history?

By EZRA LEVANT, QMI Agency

Ignatieff told CTV his "family lost everything in the Russian revolution. They started over again in Canada. They came here with nothing."

But according to Ignatieff's own book about his family, The Russian Album, that's just not true. Ignatieff's family weren't regular Russians. They were high-ranking ministers in the government of the czar. They're aristocracy, actually -- Michael Ignatieff himself is a count, a title he will pass on to his son,Theo, and so on.

The Ignatieffs were powerful players in the czar's dictatorship. When the Russian revolution succeeded, the Ignatieffs fled the country.

But like so many, they were able to squirrel away money. The Ignatieffs fled to London in 1919, where they had $25,000 waiting for them in a bank. That's worth more than $2 million in today's currency. The Ignatieffs lived there for nine years before moving to Canada in 1928.

Why is Ignatieff trying to revise his family's history to make them sound like poor working class shlubs?Why did he say his dad came herewith nothing -- when in fact his family were the equivalent of multi-millionaires?

Ignatieff is desperate to come across as a regular Joe. But did he really think no one would notice the contradiction between the new airbrushed story, and the one he described in his family autobiography?

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/ezra_levant/2011/03/21/17707481.html

[bloodyminded]

Here's a column by everybody's favourite - Ezra Levant . He's a difficult guy to warm up to.....but it really is true - why is Mr. Ignatieff trying to re-write history? Perhaps his own sense of entitlement is so great that he just can't really understand what it is to "have nothing". In any event, he has no one to blame but himself in trying to make his family out to be poor immigrants. Heck, it's all right there in his books.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/ezra_levant/2011/03/21/17707481.html

I think Levant nails it: it really does come down to the (not uncommon) wish to present himself as a "regular joe," which is stupid and unnecessary.

See, very few people give a good goddamn about the social position of pre-political Harper or Layton. It's not a major issue, and shouldn't be. They don't paint their previous lives and family histories in any mythologized way (at least not to my knowledge). Ignatieff might have taken note of this; for some reason, he did not.

Whether Ignatieff's backstory is about politics, or mere self-mythologizing, it is ridiculous and pointless. If not counterproductive.

[Molly]

I think you could search a long time to find anyone who doesn't honestly believe that they are a Regular Joe, no matter how absurd such an assumption is.

Just this past weekend, I met a young fellow who described himself as just a regular small town boy...

The 'small town' was Port Credit, and no one had to get close enough to see the whites of his eyes to pick him out as an urban silver spoon! In this small town he couldn't have been more (clearly) esoteric if he'd painted himself green and walked on stilts.

[bloodyminded]

I think you could search a long time to find anyone who doesn't honestly believe that they are a Regular Joe, no matter how absurd such an assumption is.

Just this past weekend, I met a young fellow who described himself as just a regular small town boy...

The 'small town' was Port Credit, and no one had to get close enough to see the whites of his eyes to pick him out as an urban silver spoon! In this small town he couldn't have been more (clearly) esoteric if he'd painted himself green and walked on stilts.

True enough. I have no doubt that the New England aristocrat--George W. Bush--honestly thinks himself Regular Joe-Texan.

At any rate, I still wish the Liberals would pick someone else. Who the hell wants to see the Conservatives remain the Government?

[capricorn]

At any rate, I still wish the Liberals would pick someone else.

Me too. Does Ignatieff really think he will draw me to him by using expressions like "the Ignatieff I am", "wait a cotton pickin' minute", "spending like drunken sailors", etc? And how often will I have to listen to him refer to the PM as "that guy"? In addition, I expect a PM-in-waiting to address Canadians in a manner befitting addressing a group of adults. I am not one of his students and neither are other Canadians.

Who the hell wants to see the Conservatives remain the Government?

No doubt there will come a time when the Conservatives expend the capital they have built with me. I will then need a strong alternative to give them the heave-ho. In view of my political leanings, if not the Liberals I have nowhere to go.

[bloodyminded]

In view of my political leanings, if not the Liberals I have nowhere to go.

A common conundrum, yes.

[Keepitsimple]

No doubt there will come a time when the Conservatives expend the capital they have built with me. I will then need a strong alternative to give them the heave-ho. In view of my political leanings, if not the Liberals I have nowhere to go.

That's the reality of most Canadians. Very few people are die-hard Conservatives or Liberals. Very few people have paid dues and actively involved themselves with a party. Traditionally, both parties have been so close to what Canadians view as the political center that it's "the times" that cause people to tilt one way or the other. In my younger days, I voted for Trudeau because I wanted something fresh and less stodgy. I also voted for Chretien the first time. As you said, there will come a time that the Conservatives will not be right for the times, as they are now. For Canada, it's important that Liberals get their act together.....get a leader, shoot the backroom boys, reform the party "process" to go back to the grass roots and stop drifting. Canada will always need a healthy alternative. I can be viewed as a "die-hard" Conservative but it's "the times" and the alternatives that make me so. Check back with me in 10 years and things could be different.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Keepitsimple