41

Day 3, epilogue


 

Here is video of Michael Ignatieff’s closing remarks. The speech itself will neither change the course of human history, nor is it likely to doom him to political failure. That’s my expert analysis.


 

Day 3, epilogue

  1. Can150 will be to the Ignatieff Liberals what Aylmer was to the Chrétien Liberals.

    • You're getting boring

    • Not unless the Conservatives unveil a new 7% tax and declare Quebecers extra special people – oh, and start taking briefcases full of money in motel rooms.

    • I've heard that he's considering having an extra set of arms surgically grafted ( in the US, no less) onto his torso so that he can get his hands on even more taxes.
      We've got to stay the course with Stephen Harper or this foreigner will run deficits up into the tens of billion$.

    • Look at you and your belief that your analysis is so great, that it deserves to be cross-posted among other threads.

    • Is this like the 4th time you have copied and pasted the same thing? Quite the parrot act. Might explain why you are so easily duped in your political leanings. Do you have any comments "for the little boy who lives down the lane"?

  2. I'm not sure if you all noticed, but my impression is that the Liberals are the new Progressive Conservatives, and the Conservatives are . . . well, I'm not sure what, exactly, but more old Liberal-like than Reform-like, anyway.

    Did you catch that bit about not bigger government, not Harper's centralized control, but more networked government, involving and using the community groups and others on the ground all across Canada? So, in other words I take it, more grass-roots empowered, if not grass-roots driven government.

    Words of course are easy to say, now to find out if Ignatieff has taken that to heart and is willing to run with it.

    • Involving and using community groups is another word for using NGO's who are under the control of the UN in all but name. This takes away the power of the electorate. You will not have a voice unless you belong to an NGO which lobbies government to do the UN's bidding. Have fun. This whole "thinkers" conference reeks of UN interference – carbon taxes, Africa, and now networks. Vote for the Liberals if you want world government.

      • So when GwB was talking about getting "a thousand points of light" involved in the US, he was talking about ceding control of the states to the UN?

        Huh. Who'da thunk.

    • And not only do you post the same thing in multiple threads, you actually re-post the exact same thing twice (maybe even more – I have not read all the comments yet). How is that cookie cutter working out? Was this even your own idea, or did you simply lift it from some Conservative blog?

    • The Liberal and Conservative philosophies have been confused ever since Mulroney (nominally a Progressive Conservative) espoused the traditional Liberal position in favour of free trade, continentalism and Big Business before all else.

  3. Can't listen to anything that has an interpreter butting in every two seconds.

  4. Well, we now know how Ignatieff intends to finance his platform.

    I was wondering about that.

    And it gives him a solid lead-in to getting Layton's support, in the next parliament…

  5. Nothing will change if proper reasoning is not adhered to. Proper reasoning skills are a requirement for politicians, members of the msm and posters alike.

    Since the meaning of democracy has played such a large part in the LPC stand as of late, and since the media reports and opines on such standings, I hereby present an open letter to Macleans:

    (continued)

  6. Open letter to Mr.Coyne, editor of Macleans

    Dear Mr.Coyne,

    This letter is in regards to the meaning of democracy. Lately, the topic of discussion amongst politicians, the main stream media (msm) and Canadians at large, has focused in on our democratic well being.

    Within this letter I would like to address the role being played by members of the msm in regards to the state of our democray, and in particular the role being played by Macleans. Since you are its editor, I would like to address this letter to you.

    Working towards a healthy democratic state involves the act of reasoning. You reasoned under the title The Grand Inquest of the Nation that "this is a great day in the history of Parliament. Three members — Lee, Harris and Bachand — have stood up for Parliament's ancient powers and privileges. Now it's up to the rest of them to do the same."

  7. The speech itself will neither change the course of human history

    That's what you think, Wherry. Unbeknownst to you, Ignatieff's speech has triggered a sequence of causally linked events that will culminate in the Machine Takeover of 2061.

    • Ohh what's this button next to the Skynet logo? Let's push it…

  8. Mr.Coyne, you have publically praised Mr.Lee for standing up for Parliamentary rights and have managed to "whip up" the masses. And yet, as of today, I have not been able to find a piece of your writing in which you publicly question Mr.Lee for his insistence to stand outside the House when other motions in regards to foreign affairs are being called upon. That's no way for a democratic country to decide anything. And so, we are not really a democratic country……

    Yet, again, both motions deal with foreign affairs, and both motions are of the essence to the well being of our democracy.

    If you reason, as I do, that the media must be held responsible for upholding its designated pillar onto which our demcracy is to stand up proudly, and if it's up to the rest of us to do our part, could you explain to me and everyone else, why you have so willingly decided to praise the actions of one man, while when one such man does the exact opposite, you offer no further insight publically?

    Awaiting your reply,

    Francien Verhoeven

    • Well, I'll give you one thing. That was long.

  9. Shortly after that, one of the parliamentarians you so highly regard for "standing up for Parliament's ancient powers and privileges", Mr.Lee to be specific, stood outside of the House when a vote was being called for. Please note: I am not accusing Mr.Lee for voting for or against his conscience; I am accusing Mr.Lee of not stepping into the House when the vote was being called for. Mr.Lee was on the Hill, but had decided to conveniently forget about privilege and ancient powers to be.

    Mr.Lee insists, together with Harris and Bachand, within their motion to the speaker of the House, that when it comes to foreign affairs (the Afghan detaineee transfers) Parliament should be the determining voice.

    Yet, on another matter regarding foreign affairs (contraception and abortion within aid stimulus to developing countries), Mr.lee insists on completely ignoring the workings of Parliament.

    continued

  10. The Liberals on Twitter seem excited by the speech.

    Can't quite figure that out — I can see why, say, a rip-roaring speech by Jack Layton might get a bunch of lefties jazzed up. I can see how Stephen Harper can get my fellow Tories roused with a speech, especially if he's calling the Liberals evil.

    Don't know how a milquetoast "we are the party of networks" speech can get the Grits all psyched.

    And, I mean, if there'd been a way, Wherry would have found it.

    ***

    Maybe this is like 2006, when an initially intellectually exciting Ignatieff entry into the leadership race ended up turning off all observers but his cult-like followers.

    ***

    Still, Harper's especially good at tripping over his own shoelaces.

    So if he does that during the next campaign, Ignatieff could well win.

  11. But an answer could be short. Do you agree with what I wrote, yes or no? it is really that simple

    • No, I don't agree, because if you want to send a letter to Andrew Coyne, it probably couldn't hurt to send a letter to Andrew Coyne c/o Macleans or write to the magazine's letters section instead of dropping a four post "challenge" in the middle of a series of posts responding to a totally unrelated story by an unrelated author.

      This is what I hate about the internet: people who post first and think later get equal billing with the patient, the brilliant and even the awake.

      • Well, Brian, I did try sending this letter to the editor but the message came back as failed. And since the content of my letter relates to how the LPC has acted over the past weeks, and so it is a very current topic I am touching upon, it would be suitable to place anywhere since the letter is an open letter to Mr.Coyne and this is a Macleans webpage.

        I mean, if we can only discuss topics when the bloggers suggest which topic we may touch upon, would that not be setting democracy in different terms? They dictate, we follow?

        I happen to think, with very good reason, that the open letter posted to Mr.Coyne is of extreme relevance.

        I do not post first and think later. This has been on my mind for a few days. In fact I have been waiting for Mr.Coyne or anyone else at Macleans to address the concern I address within my letter.

    • Coyne only drives the Democracy Hearse when Conservatives are leading the procession.

      Curious too, the Opps want documents deemed by the government to be a potential risk to national security, on public display,
      but Dippers are against MPs expense records to be made public…….

    • No, you're reading what you want to in the tea leaves. Nothing I say will make you change your mind, because your original premise is, to me, fatally flawed. You clearly see the workings of the parliamentary system in a very different way than I.

      • I am not asking you to change my mind. My letter isn't about changing anybody's mind. My letter is in regards to the workings of our democracy.

        And if you see the workings of our parliamentary system different from me, I would suggest you try and explain your view. Do you think Mr.Lee can act both ways, be completely inconsistent and still be credible?

        • You've already decided his actions are inconsistent. Which means you could really sum up your letter with this statement:

          Dear Macleans:

          You and I disagree on stuff. So, you're biased, right?

          Hugs and kisses,

          FVerhoeven

          …That was your point, right?

          • If you want that to be my point, then that would be the point taken.

            I would like to see a working democracy, not some emptyness posing in its stead.

            It's really just a matter of what one wants. And in that I agree with one of the great American presidents, in that freedom for all means to be free from wants.

            Hugs I would take from almost anyone, but kisses, well, that depends how good a kisser he is……………………..

  12. "The Liberals on Twitter seem excited by the speech. Can't quite figure that out."

    I can. Ignatieff said "no" to someone – namely the corporate community – and for the first time he picked a fight with people the Liberal party actually wants to pick a fight with.

    • Good point.

      I suppose going for the election last August didn't count? I mean, I thought Liberals _always_ want to pick a fight with Stephen Harper… But perhaps the timing was off.

    • Michael Ignatieff's Liberal "Spenders Conference" has wrapped up and what are the big, innovative ideas that have come out of the weekend?

      On Friday, it was a proposal to hike the GST back to 7 per cent, an idea Ignatieff admits is on the table.

      On Saturday, it was a clarion call to bring back a job-killing carbon tax on everything, an idea Ignatieff took credit for first promoting in his failed leadership campaign against Stéphane Dion.

      And on Sunday, right from Ignatieff's mouth? He called for job-killing business tax hikes to pay for big and grandiose Liberal spending programs. This is just one more step in Ignatieff's plans to raise as many taxes as he can get his hands on.

      • I must admit – thanks to this post, I've decided to rethink my political leanings.
        Nah – I still prefer mocking your Xerox-like communication skills.

  13. Nice words and platitudes but no real substance: Rehash of the Liberals red book of 1963 national day care. A regurgitation of Pierre Trudeaus National Energy Program; Stephane Dion's carbon tax, and higher personal and corporate taxes.

    • Yeah, except it didnt' have any of that in it.

      Must be convenient to have your opinion ready ahead of time.

  14. You know, just repeating this same note about 20 times throughout this blog doesn't make it any more true.

    • For SpencBC, everyday is Groundhog day!

  15. SpenceBC – bravo – you are both boring, perverse, wrong and irrelevant at one and the same time!
    In other words, you rate at about the same level as one of "Mr. I'm Minister of everything Harper's flowerpots"…
    You have failed to answer the point made numerous times in various blog threads – how Flaherty and Harper intend to pay for their stimulation deficit – their long term projections of which are being called voodoo economics – when it is becoming clear that a) they didn't manage to get much of it out of the door and b) most economists have concluded that the stimulus money isn't what is getting the economy started anyway?

    • I'm actually really embarrassed for him. What type of person copies and pastes the exact same comment a zillion times in the same thread? It speaks volumes….

Sign in to comment.