BTC: Passive aggression pact


Let the record show that the non-aggression pact between Messrs. Ignatieff and Rae endured precisely nine days—expiring at approximately 5:05pm EST today when the latter implied to Don Newman that associates of the former were spreading baseless accusations about his interest in the Liberal leadership.

Update. Rae, in conversation with Canadian Press. “I think it’s just a misinformation campaign or a disinformation campaign and I just think it doesn’t speak well of what goes on in our business.”

The (mis)information in question was printed in the Globe this morning. But note who the Globe sourced the (mis)information to. “Mr. Rae, the former Ontario NDP premier, has expressed some hesitation to close friends about whether he will enter the campaign.”

So did the Globe speak to said close friends? Was it indeed close friends who were spreading this misinformation? Does that mean that some of Bob Rae’s close friends are working for Michael Ignatieff?

And is everybody super-excited about seven months of this?

Update II. The Globe follows and the melodrama deepens.

Turns out it wasn’t anonymous Ignatieff supporters spreading misinformation about Bob Rae, it was Dominic LeBlanc and his anonymous supporters. Or so says one of Bob Rae’s anonymous supporters, contradicting what Bob Rae himself implied on national television this evening.



BTC: Passive aggression pact

  1. Wow that took awhile and about 8 days overdue.

  2. Oh, Wayne. Don’t hold back!

  3. Passive Aggression Pact is very very good. You should trademark it. Sounds like title of Brothers & Sisters episode (ask Feschuk).

  4. Michael Ignatieff would be a formidable leader for the Libs:

    a) He would turn the page on the Trudeau vision of Canada which is long overdue for the Liberal Party.

    b) He doesn’t think participating in a war is inherently bad, even one started by George W. Bush.

    c) He can be open-minded on tough labour strife, as shown in his backing of Margaret Thatcher in the bitter coal miner’s strike in England.

    If he can get past the Libeal leadership convention, he’ll make a worthy opponent for Harper. If I was Iggy, my first order of business would be to co-opt Justin Trudeau.

  5. Thanks Jarrid in reminding me why I won’t support and didn’t support Iggy. And being a supporter of the Liberal P. of Canada…

  6. And is everybody super-excited about seven months of this?

    Yes, I am.

    Stephen Harper

  7. Yawn. Who cares who wins the Liberal leadership? Whoever it is will never become PM, just like the last guy.

  8. Well, considering that Rae was co-chair to Dion’s policies and Rae is quite “left” – I don’t think that’s a winning combo for the Liberals.

    They’ve always done better as centre-left.

    I remember reading that Rae was an extremely sore loser in the last race – I don’t like that sign.

    Does anyone know exactly why Rae left the NDP? I haven’t read any of his books so I don’t know.

  9. I agree with Sandi that Rae’s too far left, like Dion was too far left. The trick for the Libs is to get a man/woman of the left, but with a pragmatic, realistic bent so that they govern from the centre. I really think Iggy fits the bill. Iggy’s gotten a bit of bad rap because of Iraq, but the guy’s got a bona fide left of centre pedigree.

    I think all potential Prime Ministers should spend considerable time in foreign lands like Iggy did. It opens people’s eyes on what the real world’s all about as opposed to life in this coddled nation of ours, which often seems divorced from the real world.

  10. Damn Globe and Mail! Stop using anonymous sources.

  11. , which often seems divorced from the real world.

    Oh, the irony.

  12. But wasn’t Iggy a “close friend” of Bob Rae?

  13. I haven’t paid much attention to Iggy since the respected human rights scholar, Harvard professor and oh-so-committed Canadian came up with the brilliant concept of “Empire Lite.”

    You are as thoroughly failed as the most irrational thing you’ve ever said/done with regard to an issue of substance, in perfect seriousness and with the benefit of an impressive reputation that suggests credibility.

    I don’t want to give Iggy the chance to prove that hasn’t happen to him yet…not with our country, at any rate. We’ve got Harper for that.

  14. Jarrid- “this coddled nation of ours”

    In what respect and by whom are we coddled?

  15. RyanD – we are coddled by history and geography. We have been spoilt by these. It makes us a rather smug people. Behind our backs or after a few drinks, that is a word that foreigners use to identify one of our less pleasant characteristics. Smug means “highly satisfied”. And this we tend to be when we think of ourselves. Trudeau was smug, so was Clark, it dripped out of Dion’s pores. In this they were typically Canadian. We have been blessed with remarkable good fortune and we think that somehow, we’re better than others because of it. Unlike other countries, our mettle has not been tested. Iggy has faults, but I don’t think he’s a smug Canadian, he’s experienced too much of the real world to be one.

  16. Jarrid- Thanks you for defining what “smug” means for me, has anyone defined “Condescending” to you before?

    No doubt we are very fortunate in the geography department. Coddled by History? I’m not so sure. It depends on which Canadians you refer to. I think Aboriginal Canadians might disagree. I think any number of groups that have had the short end of the stick at various points would disagree. Our “mettle” hasn’t been tested? I hear that one frequently in any number of contextxs and nine times out of the ten it means nothing. If you are speaking militarily I think two World Wars, decades of Peace keeping and withstanding an invasion from our southern neighbours may be relevant tests.

    I really don’t see how we are any more smug than people from most countries (I’m not saying we aren’t, rather most people are at some point). My experience with foreigners after a few drinks are different from yours I guess. Based on some of your previous comments I get the feeling that you are mostly referring to smugness with regards to being better than Americans. Are these the foreigners you refer to (I am asking this honestly, not as some sort of jab)?

    Also, interesting that Harper’s name didn’t land on your little list of smug politicians. I would think he tops the list.

  17. RyanD – “decades of Peace keeping”. How many casualties did we take in those decades of Peace keeping?

    We took a lot of casulties in WW1 that’s for sure. Other than that, the only thing, and it’s not nothing I suppose, that tests our mettle is the weather.

    Afghanistan is starting to cause pain, both in terms of casualties and material costs. That’s one of the reasons we want to cut and run.

    Compared to Europeans who fought two major wars on their soil, which is all the difference, and Americans, who’ve shouldered more adversity than we have by a country mile, we’ve had it all too good. The smug comments came from Brits mostly but others, in England.

    As for the Smug Canadian, the counterpart to the Ugly American, not all Canadians hold to type. I didn’t include Harper in my list because like Iggy, I think he’s self-aware enough to know that fate or providence has thus far shielded us from serious adversity, and if things happen to be going well for us, it isn’t because of our inherently morally superior Canadian nature.

    I would be curious if other agree that smugness is one of our national faults. It’s always interesting to see how others see us as well, but many might be too polite to say things to our faces.

  18. You could well be right, Jarrid, I haven’t thought about it before. Certainly we have to be the most sensitive, low self-esteem nation. And I think our efforts to overcome our national ‘not good enough’ worry might come across as smug.

    Obviously, I don’t buy your opinion on why we are like that, though.

  19. Jarrid- So we would be a better nation if we had had more of our young men and women killed? Good God are you serious?! It isn’t fate or luck that has saved us from this (although it probably helped at some points), it is actions we have chosen (usually smartly) as a nation in terms of how we deal with problems both internally and externally. Lets look at the “adversity” the Americans have shouldered- 2 World Wars that they chose to avoid until it landed squarely in ther backyards (in both cases they might have turned the tide much earlier leading to MUCH better results for all). A civil war created by their own foolish biggotry and blind expansionism (the rapid growth of the country led to the tensions that started the war). Vietnam and Iraq were two failed attempts to impose American influence through force of arms with disasterous reults. All this American adversity is nothing to be admired, it is the ongoing history of misguided aggression and a quest for Empire. Please don’t try to legitimize their ongoing follishness as some kind of noble stand in the face of adversity. Before I get attacked for being anti American I’ll say that I have a great deal of admiration for what America was SUPPOSED to be when it was founded (a very different animal than what we have today) and that in spite of my feelings about their foolishness collectively I still have great respect for the individual Americans who have given their lives and their service in the various wars mentined above.

    Put simply, suggesting that not having been bloodied up enough in war is a negative or that it makes is weak is macho nonsense. We have avoided unecessary wars (for the most part) and that is a good thing. We have attempted to be proactive and promote peace rather than imposing our idea of order, that is a good thing too. As for smugness it is really a matter of opinion I suppose. The only criticism I have ever heard from foregners I have spoken to is that we are quite strange because of our constant attempts at self definition. Rather than smug they saw us as remarkably insecure.

Sign in to comment.