What is Ignatieff doing?

[threnody]

I hardly think living in the United States for the past 30 years, blindly assisting and supporting the Iraq invasion, and then showing up in Canada to lead a political party is something that we Canadians should want.

Perhaps I have a biased opinion because I am detested at the Iraq war. Perhaps, but didn't Canada dissagree with this war as well?

I don't know. Please enlighten me as to why Ignatieff is amongst the top contenders in the Liberal party leadership race.

[Figleaf]

l

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[watching&waiting]

I hardly think living in the United States for the past 30 years, blindly assisting and supporting the Iraq invasion, and then showing up in Canada to lead a political party is something that we Canadians should want.

Perhaps I have a biased opinion because I am detested at the Iraq war. Perhaps, but didn't Canada dissagree with this war as well?

I don't know. Please enlighten me as to why Ignatieff is amongst the top contenders in the Liberal party leadership race.

Well since you asked I will surmise some of the things that are making him a top candidate. The people of Canada have spend 13 years of middle left liberal rule, and it has costs them dearly in terms of faith in our government, to be able to make choices that are within the wants and needs of the people. It was pretty eveident during thta time that there was a fragmented right in the country, and so it gave very large populations of voters little choice to show their real positions. Now that people have seen the right as a more unified force and more then capable of governing in a way closer to the views of the larger population. They have taken the step to the right and from what you see now it seems that they are very favourable to this change.

This means that the liberal are now the fragmented party and the left is still yet not through with breaking the party even further. There needs to be a huge change in party politics and it needs to have as wide a spectrum of all these( can I say disposable) candidates, to show the gauge of where the party needs to if in future it will survive. If you look rally at the top 3 candidates you will see Rae that most will equate to the far left, you will see Dion, who really is just the contination of the Chretien style, and Iggy is more to the righ of all of them, with some views more PC then Liberal. The fourth leader Kenny, well I would have to say fits somewhere in between Iggy and Dion, but not with a real force so far. So with the times leaning to the right of center by the people at large, it shows then that Iggy would be best suited for that idea. I do not think the liberals really believe that they stand even the remote chance of regaining power for quite some time, and that is why the true players that one would have thought would have run for leader, have all bowed out of the running and most are keeping their heads down and mouths closed in this battle. The next election will be the one that shows the party if they have made the right moves. It is not as if they expect to win as I believe they know that will not happen, but it will show the party where the wedges are so they can make proper use of these at a later time and date. You must remember this is the liberal party we are talking about here and they never mean what the words really say, and they have been honed to only gain power from behind if they can, so they never will get caught.

I hope that helps. Also yes it is my own view of this and as you cna see I am not a liberal by any means.

[threnody]

You must remember this is the liberal party we are talking about here and they never mean what the words really say

This was enough for me to discount your entire post.

What bias and bigotry must be involved in making such a ridiculous statement as this.

[B. Max]

Don't sweat it ... Iggy's done.

The only real question about the leadership now is this: Will

-Rae take it (and lose the election), leaving Kennedy, Dion and Dryden to win the next round;

or

-Dion or Kennedy take it with a decent chance at winning the upcoming election and being allowed a second chance as leader next round anyway. (With Rae possibly staying on in a cabinet role for a while.)

Is this the kinda talk that makes liberals wet their pants. Trot out the old tax me I'm canadian. This might sell in Teeronta / the outer edge of the lunatic fringe but that's likely all the legs it will get.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2006/...2016835-cp.html

[watching&waiting]

Oh I will say biased but not bigotry. You see you show your liberalness with that statement. How many times have we seen the liberals say one thing and do another. So many we can not count them. So yes I am biased by the evidence, and only a liberal would say that also meant bigotry. You guys have got to stop seeing things as your right to do things and anyone who does not agree is a bigot. But as I said it was my opinion and yes you do not have to take it at face value. Hell I even said I was biased. But you have now shown you are closed to any ideas other then your own view, so why ask in the first place? Or are you like many of the left people I have come across, where you only seek those, who are of your same thinking. If you do not believe the things I have said about Iggy's views then you should look more at what he even has said. If you feel the liberals are not a fractured party, then why are the choice of leaders so pathetic. Where are the big guns from the party and why are they so silent? If you can not make arguments on the things I have said then yes by all means say I am a biased bigot as you have done, because to address what I said would mean you must have things to refute them.

[M.Dancer]

Rae in the second ballot.

Prime Minister Rae by the Next Election

[threnody]

Rae in the second ballot.

Prime Minister Rae by the Next Election

Forgive me, but I don't know what "second ballot" is, haha.

[Argus]

You must remember this is the liberal party we are talking about here and they never mean what the words really say

This was enough for me to discount your entire post.

What bias and bigotry must be involved in making such a ridiculous statement as this.

It's probably called "age", as in someone who has watched the Liberal Party for some years and has come to recognize that truth, honour, integrity and morality play no parts in that party's behaviour or policies.

[jdobbin]

It's probably called "age", as in someone who has watched the Liberal Party for some years and has come to recognize that truth, honour, integrity and morality play no parts in that party's behaviour or policies.

Can remember the Conservative party being referred to in the same way. Some said they would never vote for a party again that carried the Conservative name.

[Topaz]

I agree this guy is out. I think Ignatieff is another Bush lover and wants to help the US to control Canada! IF he gets in I wouldn't vote for the Liberals!

[Argus]

It's probably called "age", as in someone who has watched the Liberal Party for some years and has come to recognize that truth, honour, integrity and morality play no parts in that party's behaviour or policies.

Can remember the Conservative party being referred to in the same way. Some said they would never vote for a party again that carried the Conservative name.

Some of us care more about what's behind a name. That's why I, for one, stopped voting for the PCs and moved to the Reform Party, then the Alliance.

The present Conservative Party has very little in common with the Progressive Conservatives.

On the other hand, the present Liberal Party, has done nothing to distance itself from its corrupt, ammoral behaviour of the past thirty-five years.

[Argus]

I agree this guy is out. I think Ignatieff is another Bush lover and wants to help the US to control Canada! IF he gets in I wouldn't vote for the Liberals!

Uhm, that's okay. I think the Liberals already have enough intellectuals.

[jbg]

Rae in the second ballot.

Prime Minister Rae by the Next Election

Will his campaign slogan be "Let me do for Canada What I Did for Ontario"? or "Choose Your Canada"?

[jdobbin]

Some of us care more about what's behind a name. That's why I, for one, stopped voting for the PCs and moved to the Reform Party, then the Alliance.

The present Conservative Party has very little in common with the Progressive Conservatives.

On the other hand, the present Liberal Party, has done nothing to distance itself from its corrupt, ammoral behaviour of the past thirty-five years.

The Conservative party merged with the PCs. The PCs are in the back rooms, in the front rooms and Mulroney was right there with Harper. Not much distance there, I'm afraid.

[B. Max]

The Conservative party merged with the PCs. The PCs are in the back rooms, in the front rooms and Mulroney was right there with Harper. Not much distance there, I'm afraid.

Im afraid you are right just like reform had it right from the beginning.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Rae in the second ballot.

Prime Minister Rae by the Next Election

Uhhh, ok.

btw, why did you capitalize Next Election?

[watching&waiting]

I just do not see Rae ever being able to win an election. For one thing and it is a biggie, rae will not get the votes in and around Toronto, and that was the saving of the liberal from a complete melt down. Just about any where in Ontario and Rae will be seen as the far left person he is. It will not matter who he is now or what party he is associated with, he comes with baggage that is very large and very much poor performance. Most of Ontarios voters will still remember his premier days and that will be enough to make many of the even so called safe seats come into play. That will be a huge risk for the liberal party. Even though Rae is about as close to a big name, as one can get in the leadership race, the reasons of why he is a big name are not the kind the Liberals will want.

Also Rae will not even garner measurable support in Quebec and it will be a hard sell to Quebecers, to even consider him as governing material. I am not sure of where the Atlantic provinces will stand if rae was leader of the liberals, but I do not think it would gain the liberal anything and probably only cost them seats. He may have some support in the BC and Yukon and the territories, but that would not be enough to gain power.

As CPC supporter, I would have to say that Rae would make a good choice for Liberal leader. He will be open to attack on his performance as the NDP leader and his time as Ont Premier. He will not be a blank canvass, and so that baggage will all be refreshed in the hearts and minds of the voters. From the CPC stand, I would ratehr Rae over any of the others. He would be the easiest to show that the liberals are now going far left, and that will be hard for them to counter with Rae at the helm.

Dion while being very hard for most english speaking adults to understand, would have problem in Qubec, but not so large that he could not overcome them. I would think though that he would be a tough sell else where.

Kenny is a wild card in all of this and I am not so sure that he would be a bad thing for the liberals, and he would probably be a question mark to the CPC. Out of all the candidates so far Kenny would be the one who would best be able to show that things have changed in the Liberal party. But he would have to sell that to the voters and I am not sure he can do that.

[Borg]

He has the right to run.

An amazing amount of Liberals support him.

Shows what money will do I suppose.

Also shows Liberals true colours.

I would not be surprized if he is the new leader - and very soon.

Borg

[Guest Warwick Green]

He has the right to run.

An amazing amount of Liberals support him.

Shows what money will do I suppose.

Also shows Liberals true colours.

I would not be surprized if he is the new leader - and very soon.

Borg

Pretty sad choice. A guy with foot-in-mouth disease or a failed Premier who keeps saying that he has "learnt lessons" without telling people what they are.

[Borg]

Personally I believe he will be good for Canada.

Conservative majority anyone?

Borg

[myata]

I just heard him (Ignatieff) on the House this morning and by the goodness of God (in whom I don't believe) I just can't make sense of the guy. "I won't loose any sleep" - "It was a war crime" - "Everybody committed war crimes" - "I'm a friend " - I'm everybody's friend ?? He flips on a dime, no on a microchip.

Then the interviewer asks him about Iraq. Another puzzle: "I thought they (Iraqis) deserved better than Saddam even when Bush Jr. was walking under the table" - "Americans committed every possible mistake and betrayed them (Iraqis)" - " I now hope they somehow make it out on there own" (quotes aren't exact but should be pretty close in meaning; there should be a transcript somewhere on CBC too). Ho

How do one figures that out? Was it OK to invade but not on the WMD pretence but to liberate? Do those mistakes (never explained them) make all the difference? I.e., scenario 1 - complete and glorious triumph of democracy in Iraq - Ignatieff and Co are victorious as its "professors" (pun intended). Scenario 2 - not so obvious triumph of democracy in Iraq - Ignatieff scorns coalition for the mistakes and "betrayal" (whatever that supposed to mean?). Sounds like win-win. Can anybody explain him to me?

[jbg]

I just heard him (Ignatieff) on the House this morning and by the goodness of God (in whom I don't believe) I just can't make sense of the guy. "I won't loose any sleep" - "It was a war crime" - "Everybody committed war crimes" - "I'm a friend " - I'm everybody's friend ?? He flips on a dime, no on a microchip.

Then the interviewer asks him about Iraq. Another puzzle: "I thought they (Iraqis) deserved better than Saddam even when Bush Jr. was walking under the table" - "Americans committed every possible mistake and betrayed them (Iraqis)" - " I now hope they somehow make it out on there own" (quotes aren't exact but should be pretty close in meaning; there should be a transcript somewhere on CBC too). Ho

How do one figures that out? Was it OK to invade but not on the WMD pretence but to liberate? Do those mistakes (never explained them) make all the difference? I.e., scenario 1 - complete and glorious triumph of democracy in Iraq - Ignatieff and Co are victorious as its "professors" (pun intended). Scenario 2 - not so obvious triumph of democracy in Iraq - Ignatieff scorns coalition for the mistakes and "betrayal" (whatever that supposed to mean?). Sounds like win-win. Can anybody explain him to me?

One of the rare times you and I will agree. Good post.

[August1991]

Can anybody explain him to me?

I didn't listen to the programme this morning but the quotes seem vintage Ignatieff.

Ignatieff and his supporters are going to say that he's being "nuanced" and "deep" because he has a "profound" appreciation of the "complexity" of world issues.

Political analysts are going to note that he has no "growth potential".

Some might argue that Ignatieff is expedient and says whatever he thinks the group around him wants to hear.

IMV, Ignatieff is a flake. I think he really believes what he is saying. There's almost a new age quality to his claim that he communed with the Kurds of northern Iraq and felt their pain. Ignatieff is one of those august sounding people CBC Radio puts on Ideas. If you don't pay much attention, the words sound intelligent.

Will he become Liberal leader and PM? Possibly. Ignatieff is still a good sell to alot of people, particularly older women.

[Rue]

Ignatieff presented himself as an intellectual and an expert on human rights. He has constantly referred to his academic status and Ph.d from Harvard as his basis of authority and superiority over others.

What he has shown is that he is an idiot and an embarassement and someone who has spent so many years lecturing people and not being questioned that he is not fit for public office.

For a man to make two comments so diametrically opposed as to the same incident shows he is insincere and just shooting off at the mouth without thinking first.

All he had to say about the incident was that it was unfortunate for both sides.

He is an embarassement.