Ignatieff for Liberal Leader!

[geoffrey]

Alright folks, get ready for this. While I came out very opposed to Michael less than a month ago, I decided to read a few of his books and get first hand knowledge of the man instead of watching the CBC (which you think would portray him favourably... well maybe they did to the lefties). He's definitely much different in print than in the news, so yes, I'm not a stubborn conservative, I'm a progressive!!

I would be ok with Ignatieff leading this country. Not the best choice for the job, I'd give Harper or any of the CPC future leaders (Bernard Lord for one). But I'd be comfortable with having this guy in charge.

From a CBC interview:

Ignatieff: And I’ve been one who’s said – if you’re serious, you’ve got to pull the trigger. Not always, only as a last resort – discriminate, proportional, whatever. But that doesn’t make me a realist. That makes me someone who’s simply asking the question of what are your principles worth? What price are you prepared to pay?

Solomon: Are you ready to kill and are you ready to die?

Ignatieff: Yeah – those are the questions.

Solomon: And you’re finding out what you’re prepared to kill for and you’re finding out what you’re prepared to die for.

Ignatieff: Yes.

We all know Harper has his hands tied when it comes to major foreign issues, it just makes too good of a story for the press and the opposition. He'll be limited to NATO and UN peacekeeping.

But Ignatieff... this man could lead us into battle, pulling that "trigger." Canada needs at least one term of a "semi-hawkish" leader to regain our appearance as a country willing to fight for peace and defend peace at all costs in the world. We once were a world leader in peacekeeping (see: Pearson) but now we are an irrelevant player on the international scene.

Call me a blind nationalist all you want, but I want to have pride in the fact that my country takes a stand for those less advantaged than us. I know that won't happen with the Conservative Party, just too much at stake for them. Though with Ignatieff at the head of the Liberals, Canada would have a chance to regain our international respect and prestige. After two terms of Harper rule, I think Ignatieff would be a nice transitional piece! We do have to go back to the national ruling party sometime, might as well be with a competent international-minded leader!

I think he'd be better suited to take the helm after the next leader fails. This lets him put at least one person between him and the scandal.

I would also like to address apologies to Biblio Bibuli for not embracing Ignatieff sooner like he suggested!

[tml12]

Alright folks, get ready for this. While I came out very opposed to Michael less than a month ago, I decided to read a few of his books and get first hand knowledge of the man instead of watching the CBC (which you think would portray him favourably... well maybe they did to the lefties). He's definitely much different in print than in the news, so yes, I'm not a stubborn conservative, I'm a progressive!!

I would be ok with Ignatieff leading this country. Not the best choice for the job, I'd give Harper or any of the CPC future leaders (Bernard Lord for one). But I'd be comfortable with having this guy in charge.

From a CBC interview:

Ignatieff: And I’ve been one who’s said – if you’re serious, you’ve got to pull the trigger. Not always, only as a last resort – discriminate, proportional, whatever. But that doesn’t make me a realist. That makes me someone who’s simply asking the question of what are your principles worth? What price are you prepared to pay?

Solomon: Are you ready to kill and are you ready to die?

Ignatieff: Yeah – those are the questions.

Solomon: And you’re finding out what you’re prepared to kill for and you’re finding out what you’re prepared to die for.

Ignatieff: Yes.

We all know Harper has his hands tied when it comes to major foreign issues, it just makes too good of a story for the press and the opposition. He'll be limited to NATO and UN peacekeeping.

But Ignatieff... this man could lead us into battle, pulling that "trigger." Canada needs at least one term of a "semi-hawkish" leader to regain our appearance as a country willing to fight for peace and defend peace at all costs in the world. We once were a world leader in peacekeeping (see: Pearson) but now we are an irrelevant player on the international scene.

Call me a blind nationalist all you want, but I want to have pride in the fact that my country takes a stand for those less advantaged than us. I know that won't happen with the Conservative Party, just too much at stake for them. Though with Ignatieff at the head of the Liberals, Canada would have a chance to regain our international respect and prestige. After two terms of Harper rule, I think Ignatieff would be a nice transitional piece! We do have to go back to the national ruling party sometime, might as well be with a competent international-minded leader!

I think he'd be better suited to take the helm after the next leader fails. This lets him put at least one person between him and the scandal.

I would also like to address apologies to Biblio Bibuli for not embracing Ignatieff sooner like he suggested!

Wow thi could ensure a CPC majority but violently splitting the Liberal/NDP vote!!!

[speaker]

Yes, exactly, this is what david emerson said. There is no real difference between the two parties, let's just call them the libcons and be done with it. There would be a majority without the need to compomise in coalition or partnership governance. Go for it. The cats will win every time.

[Biblio Bibuli]

I would also like to address apologies to Biblio Bibuli for not embracing Ignatieff sooner like he suggested!

It takes a big man to apolgize ... so I accept without reservation.

And you can console yourself in the fact that you're STILL one of the elite who's on board with the next PM way out in front of the masses.

One thing I disagree with ... I see Harper as a one term PM ... and I think we'll be seeing Michael sooner than you think. I just made a serious wager that he will be Canada's PM before his sixtieth birthday. The best bet I've ever made, I feel.

[Riverwind]

One thing I disagree with ... I see Harper as a one term PM ... and I think we'll be seeing Michael sooner than you think. I just made a serious wager that he will be Canada's PM before his sixtieth birthday. The best bet I've ever made, I feel.

So Biblio. Did you make money on your bets related to the 2006 election?

[sage]

One problem that will plague Ignatieff, as Harper is finding out, is that it is easy to govern from academia, but more difficult to implement in practice.

Its fine for Ignatieff to comment on foreign policy when he is a professor, its far different however when it comes time to make a decision between competing interests.

Is it a strong military or health care spending? For just one example.

[Biblio Bibuli]

One thing I disagree with ... I see Harper as a one term PM ... and I think we'll be seeing Michael sooner than you think. I just made a serious wager that he will be Canada's PM before his sixtieth birthday. The best bet I've ever made, I feel.

So Biblio. Did you make money on your bets related to the 2006 election?

I never do well when I bet on someone that I dislike.

Just as well because, as sure as I'm standing here, I know that I could never really enjoy that kind of a win.

GO IGNATIEFF GO!

[geoffrey]

Yes, exactly, this is what david emerson said. There is no real difference between the two parties, let's just call them the libcons and be done with it. There would be a majority without the need to compomise in coalition or partnership governance. Go for it. The cats will win every time.

The big differences between the parties are disappearing rapidly. Populism is dead, extreme social conservatism is dead, we are getting to the same end, the CPC is moving left and will eventually catch up with the Liberals. This is, of course, once the Liberals return to their normal place which will happen after they realise they can't be special interest minded and still win majorities.

The CPC will be equal to the PC's in social values within 5 years.

I would also like to address apologies to Biblio Bibuli for not embracing Ignatieff sooner like he suggested!

It takes a big man to apolgize ... so I accept without reservation.

And you can console yourself in the fact that you're STILL one of the elite who's on board with the next PM way out in front of the masses.

One thing I disagree with ... I see Harper as a one term PM ... and I think we'll be seeing Michael sooner than you think. I just made a serious wager that he will be Canada's PM before his sixtieth birthday. The best bet I've ever made, I feel.

I think Ignatieff is smarter than to jump on a sinking ship. He'll let someone else begin to straighten things out and then take over. Why would he risk his future with a currently failing party?

[D.B.]

I think Ignatieff is smarter than to jump on a sinking ship. He'll let someone else begin to straighten things out and then take over. Why would he risk his future with a currently failing party?

Ignatieff is smart, I'll give you that. But he's even more ambitious and the Liberals aren't really a failing party. It's not like they were reduced to 2 seats. Right now he's looking for support like a fat kid looking for smarties. If he finds enough, he runs. I think it's that simple.

But I still think there's an outside shot the Liberals force a quick election and Martin pulls a Trudeau coming back for the next election.

[geoffrey]

I think Ignatieff is smarter than to jump on a sinking ship. He'll let someone else begin to straighten things out and then take over. Why would he risk his future with a currently failing party?

Ignatieff is smart, I'll give you that. But he's even more ambitious and the Liberals aren't really a failing party. It's not like they were reduced to 2 seats. Right now he's looking for support like a fat kid looking for smarties. If he finds enough, he runs. I think it's that simple.

But I still think there's an outside shot the Liberals force a quick election and Martin pulls a Trudeau coming back for the next election.

Hopefully, I woudn't mind seeing complete failure of the party.

[tml12]

I think Ignatieff is smarter than to jump on a sinking ship. He'll let someone else begin to straighten things out and then take over. Why would he risk his future with a currently failing party?

Ignatieff is smart, I'll give you that. But he's even more ambitious and the Liberals aren't really a failing party. It's not like they were reduced to 2 seats. Right now he's looking for support like a fat kid looking for smarties. If he finds enough, he runs. I think it's that simple.

But I still think there's an outside shot the Liberals force a quick election and Martin pulls a Trudeau coming back for the next election.

Ignatieff can't govern like an "we don't need an army" intellectual. He needs to be a pragmatist. Intelligent people are smart...but others of them can't get out of the library.

The real world isn't about when final exam week is or where the guy with the oxycontin is so you can stay up the week before studying. The real world is about being able to perform a trade, establish social connections, and fight for what you believe in at whatever cost.

There is no pragmatism in intellectual leftist idealism.

[geoffrey]

I think Ignatieff is smarter than to jump on a sinking ship. He'll let someone else begin to straighten things out and then take over. Why would he risk his future with a currently failing party?

Ignatieff is smart, I'll give you that. But he's even more ambitious and the Liberals aren't really a failing party. It's not like they were reduced to 2 seats. Right now he's looking for support like a fat kid looking for smarties. If he finds enough, he runs. I think it's that simple.

But I still think there's an outside shot the Liberals force a quick election and Martin pulls a Trudeau coming back for the next election.

Ignatieff can't govern like an "we don't need an army" intellectual. He needs to be a pragmatist. Intelligent people are smart...but others of them can't get out of the library.

The real world isn't about when final exam week is or where the guy with the oxycontin is so you can stay up the week before studying. The real world is about being able to perform a trade, establish social connections, and fight for what you believe in at whatever cost.

There is no pragmatism in intellectual leftist idealism.

Thats the great thing about this guy, he's not a leftist idealist. While an intellectual, he's not some Chomskey, he's actually quite hawkish, more so than anyone has spoken of in the CPC.

Here's an interview with Evan Soloman on CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/ignatieff.html

I do get the impression that he holds one (old school, 1700's) conservative view, the white man's burden type idea. Because we hold the power and money, we've got an obligation to protect those lesser than us. While I personally agree with this, I think this may be a stumbling block with the majority of Canadians that enjoy the whole splendid isolationism.

EDIT: To be fair tml, there is no pragmatism in the intellectual right idealism either.

[tml12]

I think Ignatieff is smarter than to jump on a sinking ship. He'll let someone else begin to straighten things out and then take over. Why would he risk his future with a currently failing party?

Ignatieff is smart, I'll give you that. But he's even more ambitious and the Liberals aren't really a failing party. It's not like they were reduced to 2 seats. Right now he's looking for support like a fat kid looking for smarties. If he finds enough, he runs. I think it's that simple.

But I still think there's an outside shot the Liberals force a quick election and Martin pulls a Trudeau coming back for the next election.

Ignatieff can't govern like an "we don't need an army" intellectual. He needs to be a pragmatist. Intelligent people are smart...but others of them can't get out of the library.

The real world isn't about when final exam week is or where the guy with the oxycontin is so you can stay up the week before studying. The real world is about being able to perform a trade, establish social connections, and fight for what you believe in at whatever cost.

There is no pragmatism in intellectual leftist idealism.

Thats the great thing about this guy, he's not a leftist idealist. While an intellectual, he's not some Chomskey, he's actually quite hawkish, more so than anyone has spoken of in the CPC.

Here's an interview with Evan Soloman on CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/ignatieff.html

I do get the impression that he holds one (old school, 1700's) conservative view, the white man's burden type idea. Because we hold the power and money, we've got an obligation to protect those lesser than us. While I personally agree with this, I think this may be a stumbling block with the majority of Canadians that enjoy the whole splendid isolationism.

EDIT: To be fair tml, there is no pragmatism in the intellectual right idealism either.

Make me admit it...the right isn't always correct!!!

Seriously though I have never argued that extremes were correct...everything in moderation, like the Greeks always said!!!

[geoffrey]

Make me admit it...the right isn't always correct!!!

Seriously though I have never argued that extremes were correct...everything in moderation, like the Greeks always said!!!

Especially having the olympics in the nude, those Greeks were brilliant.

I don't know how well that'd work in the winter games?

[Biblio Bibuli]

Thats the great thing about this guy, he's not a leftist idealist.

That's EXACTLY what Andrew Coyne said yesterday:

"Sam Phillips, the Sun Records owner and discoverer of Elvis, famously said "if I could find a white boy who could sing like a Negro I could make a million dollars." Mr. Ignatieff has a bit of the same quality. He can say some quite bluntly conservative thing, yet sound like a liberal the whole time. The words may be on the right, but the music is left. In politics, that's gold."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columni...03-6f410e7a371c

[geoffrey]

Thats the great thing about this guy, he's not a leftist idealist.

That's EXACTLY what Andrew Coyne said yesterday:

"Sam Phillips, the Sun Records owner and discoverer of Elvis, famously said "if I could find a white boy who could sing like a Negro I could make a million dollars." Mr. Ignatieff has a bit of the same quality. He can say some quite bluntly conservative thing, yet sound like a liberal the whole time. The words may be on the right, but the music is left. In politics, that's gold."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columni...03-6f410e7a371c

I've changed my candidate preference since I posted this initially.

If the Liberals are going to win, I'd prefer right-of-centre Maurizio Bevilacqua.

If the Liberals are to lose to the CPC again, I'd prefer Ignatieff I guess as he and Harper could work together fixing the laughing-stock Canada has become internationally.

[shoop]

Pretty strange criteria .... I can't see Bevilaqua cracking the top five. (My guess for order of finish, first to fifth would be Kennedy, Ignatieff, Rae, Dryden and Dion.)

I honestly think it will come down to Ignatieff, and Kennedy on the second to last ballot with Kennedy winning.

Given the the Liberals are very likely (expecting?) to lose the 2007 election to a Harper majority I would say that Kennedy is their best choice of the three. There is no way that Kennedy or Rae sticks around for 4 1/2 to 5 years in opposition. He's only 45 now. He will still be relatively (51) young when the Liberals have their next best shot at forming government again in 2011.

Gotta wonder though, is swinging left really going to help their electoral chances nationally?

That would just leave more room in the centre for Harper to build a majority.

What if that 1.8% of the electorate who *lent* their votes to the NDP in January decide to stick with them in 2007?

I've changed my candidate preference since I posted this initially.

If the Liberals are going to win, I'd prefer right-of-centre Maurizio Bevilacqua.

If the Liberals are to lose to the CPC again, I'd prefer Ignatieff I guess as he and Harper could work together fixing the laughing-stock Canada has become internationally.

[geoffrey]

I can't see Bevilaqua cracking the top 5 either, but he's the only one I wouldn't mind running Canada. Ignatieff could be good news, but he said himself he's tax and spend Trudeau style. And I dislike that.

[Biblio Bibuli]

I can't see Bevilaqua cracking the top 5 either, but he's the only one I wouldn't mind running Canada. Ignatieff could be good news, but he said himself he's tax and spend Trudeau style. And I dislike that.

No lies about what Michael Ignatieff said or didn't say will help your Italian Stallion get into the money. :angry:

[geoffrey]

I can't see Bevilaqua cracking the top 5 either, but he's the only one I wouldn't mind running Canada. Ignatieff could be good news, but he said himself he's tax and spend Trudeau style. And I dislike that.

No lies about what Michael Ignatieff said or didn't say will help your Italian Stallion get into the money. :angry:

From: http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/ignatieff.html

"I don’t know that realism quite gets it, Evan, I think there has been evolution in what I think. Certain parts of me are utterly unchanged, I’m a kind of Pierre Trudeau, gay marriage, tax and spend liberal on the social domestic side, pretty well unchanged since the sixties, in fact confirmed by events. I think I’ve got tougher on the international side, more hawkish because of the combined effect of watching ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, seeing what it looks like – seeing the Kosovo intervention."

Anyone that wants to be like Trudeau is not someone I want running my country. I like him in opposition because you won't hear him beaking like most of the lefties about living up to our international obligations in Afghanistan and eventually peacekeeping in Iraq (which he supports).

The Liberals won't win going more left-wing. Suprisingly, even with his low profile, Bevilaqua may be one of the few candidates that could appeal to the business community, those that used to support the Liberals but lost faith when they went too leftist.

Whoever controls that central libertarian type business community wins. And right now, its the CPC. It's been traditionally Liberal.

[Black Dog]

If the Liberals are to lose to the CPC again, I'd prefer Ignatieff I guess as he and Harper could work together fixing the laughing-stock Canada has become internationally.

Pick your quisling, eh?

It's weird to me how conservatives love to deride Canadians inferiority complex vis a vis the U.S, yet seem to harbour these strange idea that the rest of the world is whispering, pointing and laughing at us behind our backs. The only people to whom Canada is a laughingstock are Canadian hawks. No one else gives a damn.

[geoffrey]

If the Liberals are to lose to the CPC again, I'd prefer Ignatieff I guess as he and Harper could work together fixing the laughing-stock Canada has become internationally.

Pick your quisling, eh?

It's weird to me how conservatives love to deride Canadians inferiority complex vis a vis the U.S, yet seem to harbour these strange idea that the rest of the world is whispering, pointing and laughing at us behind our backs. The only people to whom Canada is a laughingstock are Canadian hawks. No one else gives a damn.

Doesn't change the fact that we should be doing more. We should be in Sudan now, we should be ready to help out in Iraq once a relative peace is established. We should have been there in Rwanda. We have an obligation to those less fortunate than us. If no one else will help, we should step up and act unilaterally.

[Black Dog]

Doesn't change the fact that we should be doing more. We should be in Sudan now, we should be ready to help out in Iraq once a relative peace is established. We should have been there in Rwanda. We have an obligation to those less fortunate than us. If no one else will help, we should step up and act unilaterally.

Why is the assumption that the only way to "help those less fortunate than us" is through the application of military force?

[geoffrey]

Doesn't change the fact that we should be doing more. We should be in Sudan now, we should be ready to help out in Iraq once a relative peace is established. We should have been there in Rwanda. We have an obligation to those less fortunate than us. If no one else will help, we should step up and act unilaterally.

Why is the assumption that the only way to "help those less fortunate than us" is through the application of military force?

Because when Hutus are slaughting Tutsis not much stops them besides a force on the ground. Same with Sudan.

Throwing money at it hasn't worked. Supporting NGO's that go into the areas has worked better, but hasn't stopped genocide in Sudan or Rwanda.

These are cases when boots on the ground will help, and we should have been there.

[Black Dog]

Because when Hutus are slaughting Tutsis not much stops them besides a force on the ground. Same with Sudan.

The point is, there is lots we can do to prevent such situations from arising in the first place.

Throwing money at it hasn't worked. Supporting NGO's that go into the areas has worked better, but hasn't stopped genocide in Sudan or Rwanda.

These are cases when boots on the ground will help, and we should have been there.

There's countless places where people are just as bad off, and where the daily toll in human lives is just as high. But they don't make the headlines. It just seems really preverse to me that we should spend millions of dollars to ensure that we have the means of going to these poor countries with force, rather than just spending the same money on aid or investment.

What it comes down to for me is this: nations only act to preserve their self-interest, thus any state humanitarian intervention will always be preeceeded by the question of "what's in it for us?" In order for your vision to work, entire nations must transform themselves into moral actors unconcerned with their own interets. And I think it's pretty fair to say that just ain't gonna happen. As a result, any framework for humanitarian intervention that would emerge would, regardless of the stated intentions, be tainted and ineffective. In other words the failures of Rwanada, Sudan etc. were not the exceptions, but the rule.