The Commons: Rise up

‘We’re in a funny place in this election campaign right now’

Michael Ignatieff had been speaking for something like an hour, without so much as a sip of water, pausing only to let members of the audience pose questions for him. Eleven hours earlier he’d been in Orleans, standing in a family’s garage, between their snowblower and their barbecue, to explain how a Liberal government would help families just like this take care of sick and aging loved ones. Now he was standing in the middle of a hotel ballroom in Sudbury, surrounded on all sides by rows of people—both faithful partisans and the merely curious.

He’d taken 13 questions and offered 13 responses and maybe he’d swayed a vote or two. Maybe he hadn’t. Whatever he’d accomplished, Day 21 of his first campaign as leader of the Liberal party of Canada was nearing its end. After this was a drive to the airport, after that a flight to Regina. By this time tomorrow he’d be in Edmonton, preparing to fly to Vancouver.

Before he left though he wanted to tell these people in this hotel ballroom about this song he’d been thinking about. “While I was on the bus this afternoon I found myself thinking about a wonderful singer called Bruce Springsteen,” he said. “Does everybody like Bruce Springsteen? I like Bruce Springsteen.”

It was not immediately clear where this was going.

“Bruce Springsteen is a great singer and somewhere in his work there is a wonderful song called The Rising,” he continued. “And in that song there’s a wonderful refrain—Rise up. And I began thinking about it today because we’re in a funny place in this election campaign right now.”

Mr. Ignatieff periodically breaks the fourth wall to become a sort of meta-politician. He confuses his previous life with his current one and becomes a journalist named Michael Ignatieff covering a politician named Michael Ignatieff. It is usually self-deprecating. But this was different. This was the politician acknowledging reality. Or taking stock of what seems to be his reality. Whatever was about to come, he seemed gripped with something.

“We’ve got a prime minister who shut down parliament twice and Canadians kind of shrugged,” he said. “We’ve got a prime minister who’s found in contempt of parliament. It’s never happened before in the history of our country and people say, kind of, ‘So what?’ We got a prime minister who tried to shut down the long-form census and people thought, that’s crazy, but kind of, ‘So what?’ And then we have a prime minister who just went out and smeared a member of his own caucus, tried to destroy her public reputation, and people say, kind of, ‘So what?’”

Two middle-aged ladies in the front row behind him shook their heads, appearing genuinely disgusted.

“And then we’ve got a prime minister who’s got a convicted criminal who was his chief of staff. Convicted five times of fraud and people say, kind of, ‘So what?’” he went on.

At first his sentences had been trailing off—the politician acting out the apathy—but now they seemed to be hardening.

“And then we’ve got a prime minister who’s got, right now, in his election campaign, four people accused of election fraud. And people say, ah, kind of, ‘So what?’ And then we’ve got a prime minister who allows only five questions to the press, the press are following him around, they only get five questions and if they ask six he walks away. And people say, kind of, ‘So what?’ And then we’ve got a situation where at Guelph university the other day, students lined up for two hours, some of them voting for the first time in their lives, to vote. And a Conservative operative tried to shut it down and stop it and some smart Conservative lawyer downtown tried to write a letter to get 700 votes by Canadian students disallowed in a federal election in Canada and people say, kind of, ‘So what, it’s just all political games, who cares?’”

It seemed for sure now that he had some kind of answer and indeed, with the full attention of six hundred eyes secured, here it came.

“And I kept hearing that refrain from Bruce Springsteen—Rise up. Rise up. Rise up, Canada!”

He nearly shouted this. The crowd began to clap, but Mr. Ignatieff kept on, talking louder over the swell, realizing his moment.

“Rise up! Rise up!” he cried. “Why do we have to put up with this? Rise up! Rise up! … Rise up! This goes beyond partisan politics! This goes beyond the Liberal party! This is about our country! This is about our democracy! Rise up! Rise up!

The crowd was now standing. Someone called out the refrain. Having built this up, he moved to justify his creation.

“We have got to fight here. We have got to stand and fight. This is not about me. This is not about the Liberal party. This is about the kind of democracy we hand to this child and this child and this child,” he declared, pointing to children in the audience. “We gotta rise up. We gotta stand and we gotta fight and we gotta win. This is not about the Liberal party of Canada. This is about the country you love. So rise up, Canada!”

It would seem to matter only marginally that he had confused his Springsteen songs*.

“Good night,” he said to the cheering, “thank you, merci.”

He and them were thus roused.

And now he has 16 days to make something of this.

*The refrain “rise up” is from My City of Ruins, which appears two tracks after The Rising on the 2002 album of the same name. The chorus of The Rising goes “Come on up for the rising,” while the chorus of My City of Ruins goes “Come on rise up.” In hindsight, they’re basically the same song, In fairness to Bruce, it was 2002 and we needed at least a couple songs like that.




Browse

The Commons: Rise up

  1. I got chills reading that.

    Now we've got a battle cry!

  2. I got chills reading that.

    Now we've got a battle cry!

    • Lots of worried Cons out already : we must be doing something right : Rise Up.

      • You don't read polls, do you. We're well ahead, and it would take a gaffe of epic proportions to bring that support down. The CPC support floor is about where the Liberal cieling is. You see how that makes it impossible to win, right?

        • Harper is the problem : with a new leader the Cons would be in majority territory.

        • Polls are misleading. More votes in the West won't win Harper any more seats. Something like Iggy at 33% could match Harper's at 38%. Not sure of the exact numbers, but you get the point.

    • To shortly be followed by vomiting after seeing it .

    • Then your leader has started to figure out this politics thing, rallying the troops… or, rallying you, anyways…

    • This is not about the Liberal party of Canada. This is about the country you love. BYAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!

  3. A week is a lifetime in politics….2 weeks is more than enough time.

  4. A week is a lifetime in politics….2 weeks is more than enough time.

  5. I love the line this is the first time in history a government was found in contempt. Imagine being on a committee with 3 of your worst enemies. The committee takes a vote on whether you are in contempt and surprise, you lose the vote! Does that make it so? If this was in the good old Chretien days, he would have simply shut the whole committee down – which he actually did.

  6. I love the line this is the first time in history a government was found in contempt. Imagine being on a committee with 3 of your worst enemies. The committee takes a vote on whether you are in contempt and surprise, you lose the vote! Does that make it so? If this was in the good old Chretien days, he would have simply shut the whole committee down – which he actually did.

    • It's never happened before…yet committees have always been around.

      Chretien didn't shut down a committee either.

      • Oh but you forget. Eggleton, Anne McClellan and Sgro were sighted for contempt but the committee which had a Liberal majority exhonorated them. Sorry Emily.

      • Chretian shut down committees and inquiries. Come on, if it needed to be done to hide Liberal transgressions it was done – many times. Can you say Somalia for starters.

        • Yes, he shut down the Somalia inquiry. I can't think of anything else, so you'll have to source it.

    • Cast your mind back to 2004 when Harper was one of Martin's 3 worst enemies. Harper is nothing, if not flexible.

      • Well, In a robotic sort of way.

    • "Does that make it so?"

      Nope. First you need the speaker to rule that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.
      And then, yes, it makes it so.

      • A Liberal speaker you mean.

        Canadians are a lot smarter than that.

        "Vote for the Liberals because Harper was contemptuous of the Liberals" was a campaign theme doomed from the start.

        Doomed because it smacked of the self aggrandizing belief in entitlement to power that the Liberals have long been known for.

        • Who are you going to attack next, chet, the Auditor General?

        • A Liberal speaker elected by Conservatives. A Liberal speaker who is beyond reproach and has been completely non-partisan in his role, whether he was the Speaker for Liberal or Conservative governments. You know I have been limiting my disgust and criticism to this government and not to the people who ignorantly support it. But, I am fed up with nonsense like this. You Chet, are beneath contempt. You have no more respect for the Canadian institution of Parliament than your contemptible leader. I have just hit my tipping point. I was NEVER going to vote Conservative, but was really waffling among all the Opposition parties. Well congratulation Chet. You and your pal Steve with your arrogant dismissal of all that I hold dear in my country have just won the Liberals my vote. Democracy does matter to me. Parliament does matter to me. I consider any Opposition party much better to protect that on my behalf. But, I don't see any entitlement in the Liberal party anymore and I think it's time to give them another chance. The Conservatives have had their chances. They have treated my money and my country with more disrespect than I have EVER experienced under any government.

    • You are right. By the way Ignatieff is being a little loose with the truth. There was no vote on the contempt. It is only in his own mind and those of the Liberal persuasion on this blog.

      • You're going to have to choose between "it never happened" or "It doesn't matter that it happened." When you keep switching back and forth between the two it tends to undermine your credibility.

        It did happen & it does matter.

        • It doesn't matter if it happened or not, the entitled libranos are going nowhere again. Who will the corporate lawyers of montreal and Toronto tap as their next proxy for re-entry to the trough? Got to be getting a little lean for the entitled, highborn, parasitic maggots which infect those cities like lice.

          • If you're getting minimum wage for this stuff, you're overpaid. Better step it up, Peter, there are thousands of C students looking for part-time jobs..

    • Unless you for some reason believe that this is the first minority government ever, I think the "first time in history" thing is actually pretty significant.

      • It is significant in the fact that the opposition would abuse the power they had for crass opportunism. Spending estimates are that – estimates. No matter what the Conservatives said, the opposition could say not good enough. To go for a contempt of parliament charge is scandalous in the fact it shows how little regard the opposition has for our institutions and to force an election on it to boot. If they form government as a group who lost the election with the support of the Bloq, they will truly show their contempt for the country and the Canadian taxpayer (because taxes will go through the roof to pay for their pie in the sky policies and also their Bloq support fee). Anyone that thinks this is an acceptable outcome to the election, needs to have their head examined. This will look like an undemocratic seizure of power, from the bogus contempt charge to defeating the throne speech. They didn't even read the budget.

        • 1) They did read the budget – in the lockup before its release and certainly since (looking for holes to pick at during the election campaign).

          2) In a sense, it's irrelevant whether they read it or not, since they defeated the government on contempt.

          3) If Harper didn't want this election, he would have produced the requested documents. He pushed them into a corner where they had little choice but to call the election or lose what remaining respect their constituents had for them (having backed down too many times before). Harper thought he smelled a majority but knew if he pulled the plug as he did in 2008 it would slip away again. This gave him what he wanted – and in time to escape the damage of the upcoming trials and what many suspect will be a very critical final report from the AG.

  7. It's never happened before…yet committees have always been around.

    Chretien didn't shut down a committee either.

  8. Ignatieff's caught in a squeeze play between a resurgent NDP, and an incredibly strong Conservative Party. Expect to see a different Liberal leader after this election.

  9. Ignatieff's caught in a squeeze play between a resurgent NDP, and an incredibly strong Conservative Party. Expect to see a different Liberal leader after this election.

    • LOL you chose your name well. 'Deadpan' would have worked too.

    • "Incredible" is the correct adjective — not credible.

    • LMAO…NDP support: a mile wide and 2mm deep…

      • They don't have to win seats to spoil the party.

  10. Cast your mind back to 2004 when Harper was one of Martin's 3 worst enemies. Harper is nothing, if not flexible.

  11. LOL you chose your name well. 'Deadpan' would have worked too.

  12. "Does that make it so?"

    Nope. First you need the speaker to rule that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.
    And then, yes, it makes it so.

  13. Mr. Ignatieff periodically breaks the fourth wall to become a sort of meta-politician. He confuses his previous life with his current one and becomes a journalist named Michael Ignatieff covering a politician named Michael Ignatieff. It is usually self-deprecating. But this was different. This was the politician acknowledging reality. Or taking stock of what seems to be his reality. Whatever was about to come, he seemed gripped with something."

    Or he simple wishes he were back on campus.

    For anyone who has attended some secondary schooling, it is easy to remember the creation of realities by means of slogans. On school campuses across this country and around the world, students join the cause by simply singing the slogan over and over again. And it works every time, within that school setting.

    It's when coming out of school and discovering that the world is more complicated than can be expressed by simple slogans that reality hits home.

    Seems to me Mr.Ignatieff is still stuck in the school setting. He still believes resorting to empty slogans can do the trick, and maybe it can. But that would only mean that most Canadians voting in favour of such empty slogans are also stuck in a reality not yet hitting home.

    Time will tell.

    I had always thought Canadians to be more mature.

  14. Mr. Ignatieff periodically breaks the fourth wall to become a sort of meta-politician. He confuses his previous life with his current one and becomes a journalist named Michael Ignatieff covering a politician named Michael Ignatieff. It is usually self-deprecating. But this was different. This was the politician acknowledging reality. Or taking stock of what seems to be his reality. Whatever was about to come, he seemed gripped with something."

    Or he simple wishes he were back on campus.

    For anyone who has attended some secondary schooling, it is easy to remember the creation of realities by means of slogans. On school campuses across this country and around the world, students join the cause by simply singing the slogan over and over again. And it works every time, within that school setting.

    It's when coming out of school and discovering that the world is more complicated than can be expressed by simple slogans that reality hits home.

    Seems to me Mr.Ignatieff is still stuck in the school setting. He still believes resorting to empty slogans can do the trick, and maybe it can. But that would only mean that most Canadians voting in favour of such empty slogans are also stuck in a reality not yet hitting home.

    Time will tell.

    I had always thought Canadians to be more mature.

    • Conservatives are equally guilty of selling bad ideas by wrapping them in clever slogans. This is essentially what politics is all about. Distilling your message down to some vaguely accurate, mostly misleading soundbite for the consumption of the vast majority who barely care.

      • How true,. One of my favourite was selling to the Canadian media and public that budgetary surpluses were a theft and a sign of incompetence for a government that had a huge debt to pay down. Look where these idiots have gotten us now.

    • Deceiven' Stephen was also an instructor at university. He specialized in poisoning the minds of economics students with the BS, discredited theories of Hayak and Friedman latterly known as neocon "trickle-down" economics. Well, we're being trickled up on now.

      • I don't recall Harper ever being an instructor at a university? As far as I know his bio is, a job his dad got him at Imperial Oil in the mailroom and working for the lobby-stink-tank NCC. Otherwise he's always been living off the political teat of Canada's government.

      • Hay[e]k "discredited," eh? Try "ignored at our peril." And try to spell his name right. All that's left to figure out is when the pain sets in.

    • How about Harper's "The Coalition says 'YES', (with chorus), the Conservatives say 'No' (no chorus, cuz Harper's the only one who gets to say no. Something like that you mean maybe. I like Iggy's better, it's got real power and lot's of voices are going to be singing that phrase out loud and in their heads. It sticks.

      • Oh, yeah, let there be no doubt about it: it will stick!

        Anything will stick to a confused mindset.

        Just wait which part of the country will 'rise up' most spontaneously after Ignatieff has formed a coalition goverment by handing over the balance of power to the BQ.

        And that time there will be no confused mindsets involved, believe you me!

        • So you prefer the country to be run by the Bloc Albertois? Because that's the way you're sounding… just like the BQ / PQ. Take a look in the mirror, FV, and you'll see Marios staring back.

  15. "Michael Ignatieff had been speaking for something like an hour, without so much as a sip of water……"

    Well, that could be the problem right there. Give the man some water when he needs it most!!

  16. "Michael Ignatieff had been speaking for something like an hour, without so much as a sip of water……"

    Well, that could be the problem right there. Give the man some water when he needs it most!!

    • was he delirious? lol

  17. It is amazing how a reporter can put his own personal, I won't say spin, because that sounds like it is intentional, but flavor might be a better word, to a story.
    John Geddes covered the same speech, and it didn't sound near as impressive as Aaron makes it out to be. Is that because Aaron got 'caught up' in the moment, and if so, what does that say about his objectivity? After reading John's article, I thought, "Seems like Ignatieff has some fire in him after all. Probably too little, too late, but nice to see." As I read Aaron's article, I was expecting to hear about how the sky opened up and a voice said 'this is my candidate'. – lol
    I would guess it would be hard to be objective as a journalist, as we all have our biases, but I would expect that they would at least try. . ..

  18. It is amazing how a reporter can put his own personal, I won't say spin, because that sounds like it is intentional, but flavor might be a better word, to a story.
    John Geddes covered the same speech, and it didn't sound near as impressive as Aaron makes it out to be. Is that because Aaron got 'caught up' in the moment, and if so, what does that say about his objectivity? After reading John's article, I thought, "Seems like Ignatieff has some fire in him after all. Probably too little, too late, but nice to see." As I read Aaron's article, I was expecting to hear about how the sky opened up and a voice said 'this is my candidate'. – lol
    I would guess it would be hard to be objective as a journalist, as we all have our biases, but I would expect that they would at least try. . ..

    • This isn't a newsite…this is a blog

      • macleans.ca is a newsite
        Aaron wrote an article and has a byline. It would very well be in next weeks issue (although I doubt that it will).

        • Yes, and this is not the news page….it's the blog page.

          A blog is like a diary….it's meant to convey 'flavour'….and thoughts…and the atmosphere about the event

          If ignatieff gave a barn-burner of a speech….a blog will reflect that.

          • This article could very well end up in the next issue. We can post comments about any article that macleans put on the site. Do you have a subscription? Do you know that a lot of the articles that we comment about end up in the printed mag? If some of it doesn't make it into the mag, it is not for lack of trying.

            As far as flavor, I was just pointing out how two different (and lets admit – liberal) reporters give very different coverage of the same event. We don't get to see it often, so it is neat.

            As far as barn burning, I would guess it would depend on whose article you read. . .

          • It might…it might not…however, it's currently on a blog.

            Most 'articles' here were in the magazine first…then sometimes posted as a blog entry to get opinion Other impressions never go to the magazine. The magazine can only cover so many stories….this site can cover an infinite number of them

            I don't think either writer is Liberal, although they are likely liberal….and of course they would have 2 slightly different views of the same event. That's the whole point of having 2 different people cover the same event.

            I get the same impression of 'barn-burner' from both items though.

            Harper doesn't do barn-burners…or questions for that matter….so it's harder with him. LOL

          • Pants burners, then?

          • LOL perfect!

          • And Harper drink water between every sentence he makes be it interview or speech. It may be to keep the "pants on fire" flames down to a cinder while cameras are rolling.

          • LOL good point! That might well be why he does it!

          • I will guess by this post that you don't read the paper version. Most of the content is on the site first, or at the least, at the same time. The paper version has most of the same material. Before you comment on it, read an issue and compare.

            I think I used the small l liberal. My point was that you normally can't compare two different versions of the same event. That is what made it unique.

            I wasn't talking about Harper as all. Funny how you can make everything relate to Harper – I am starting to wonder if you have a secret crush on him. Are you around the same age as him? Do you find him dreamy?

          • Get serious dude, and leave the sexism behind.

          • Sexism, where do you see sexism? You liberals are masters at inventing a slight. . .

    • Welcome to Wherry's world!!

  19. This isn't a newsite…this is a blog

  20. Comments that are not favourable to Iggy……are being removed.but not when they are against Mr. Harper

  21. Comments that are not favourable to Iggy……are being removed.but not when they are against Mr. Harper

    • No, they are not.

    • Yes, liberal media conspiracy, blah blah blah.

    • this would be the first I have heard of comments being removed.

      I would imagine that they censor for swears, though.

    • Quick someone is hiding under your bed! Lock yourself in the closet!

      Harper for supreme leader

      I shall monitor and report back

    • There is a report link people can use if they feel you are being vulgar or whatever. Were you?

    • Intense Debate has a known problem with some comments not showing up for a while after they've been posted.

      That said, it wouldn't be the first time Maclean's has disappeared comments. Although I haven't ever seen them do it for something other than one of their writers committed a bad gaffe and got called on it.

      • Sometimes they just disappear into the ether. Sometimes the filters they have will block posts for things they shouldn't; a few days ago a filter that was supposed to block a specific spammer whose online name included "harper" ended up blocking every post wth Harper's name for a short period until they fixed it.

        So posts periodically vanish for a variety of reasons that aren't good but which are not – as Joshua implies – due to a conspiracy.

  22. No, they are not.

  23. 'My City of Ruins' is about Asbury Park, NJ and pre-dated 9/11 (and 'The Rising' album). Bruce sang it to open the 9/11 telethon. It had rarely been heard before. It's not about Canada, of course, or politics, and Bruce would likely go WTF if he heard this odd citation.

    'The Rising' was about 9/11, about firefighters climbing up in the stairwells of the WTC as they were about to collapse and then continuing on up to heaven. Poignant and powerful, especially in concert.

    Bruce supported Obama and lost a lot of audience. Plans are a tour again next year if the economy improves. I'm guessing he doesn't want to be linked to a losing Canadian ex-pat who even after living in the U.S. during 9/11 and aftermath confuses two powerful Springsteen songs with totally different intent, meanings and soar. Notably, he chooses the dirge-like 'My City of Ruins' rather than the uplifting 'The Rising'.

    Iggy is reflecting on the ruins of his campaign's crash-and-burn. But it was never meant to be. He'll be 64 a few days after the election. Not the time or age to become a world leader. He needs more Springsteen, perhaps. May I suggest 'Hard Times (Come Again No More)' written by Stephen Foster in 1854 which Bruce often used to finish tour shows during the recession of 2009. It might remind Iggy that we survived the recession, and in doing so he lost his ticket to The Promised Land. (Bruce song from 1978)

  24. 'My City of Ruins' is about Asbury Park, NJ and pre-dated 9/11 (and 'The Rising' album). Bruce sang it to open the 9/11 telethon. It had rarely been heard before. It's not about Canada, of course, or politics, and Bruce would likely go WTF if he heard this odd citation.

    'The Rising' was about 9/11, about firefighters climbing up in the stairwells of the WTC as they were about to collapse and then continuing on up to heaven. Poignant and powerful, especially in concert.

    Bruce supported Obama and lost a lot of audience. Plans are a tour again next year if the economy improves. I'm guessing he doesn't want to be linked to a losing Canadian ex-pat who even after living in the U.S. during 9/11 and aftermath confuses two powerful Springsteen songs with totally different intent, meanings and soar. Notably, he chooses the dirge-like 'My City of Ruins' rather than the uplifting 'The Rising'.

    Iggy is reflecting on the ruins of his campaign's crash-and-burn. But it was never meant to be. He'll be 64 a few days after the election. Not the time or age to become a world leader. He needs more Springsteen, perhaps. May I suggest 'Hard Times (Come Again No More)' written by Stephen Foster in 1854 which Bruce often used to finish tour shows during the recession of 2009. It might remind Iggy that we survived the recession, and in doing so he lost his ticket to The Promised Land. (Bruce song from 1978)

    • Oh puleeze…it's just a phrase from an old song.

      • After Yoko's slapdown I'm surprised any CONbot is interested in talking music. I guess being tone deaf goes well with bitter koolaid.

        • Well apparently swiping a song and breaking copyright to sell your campaign is okay….quoting one line from a song as a speech hook is not. Go figure.

          • Really hard to top Harper singing – using the term loosely – Lennon's Imagine while using a child as a prop.
            Iggy really does have some rising to do to catch up to that.

          • LOL yes, of all the songs for Harp to be singing.

            Shoulda been the Volga boat song or something.

          • Yo heave ho!

            ROTFLMAO Time to heave out the yoyos!

          • LOL I worry that's what Harper sees Canadians doing…mindless drudgery

    • Aaron,

      very astute.

      And a very painful analysis to our Liberal friends here, judging by their responses.

      Well done sir.

      • very astute? I was leaning towards pontificating a-hole myself.

      • It may surprise you, but there are people out there who put principles, values and beliefs before things like money and personal gain. Springsteen, for example, supported Obama and lost a lot of fans as you noted; do you honestly believe that his PR team and record label-wanting to protect profits- wouldn't have warned him and tried to dissuade him from publicly endorsing one politician over another? You bet they would have. And he supported Obama regardless. I think it is the same thing here. Many individuals based in the entertainment industry-whether in the States or our home-are not exactly the biggest fans of conservative politics, let alone ideologues like Mr. Harper, Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain and Co. Lennon's widow, who pulled Harper's rendition of Imagine as a copyright infringement, for example, is known to stop right leaning politicians from using his music; as I'm sure you recall, in the last American election, several artists publicly called out Republicans for using their music. In Canada, some of our most talented musicians (like Arcarde Fire, who won this year's Grammy for best album) are also publicly endorsing anyone BUT Harper. So let's sit back, and see how this plays out. In the mean time, you're welcome to continue using Nickleback etc for the Conservative campaign. It would only be one of many crimes against humanity committed by the right in our nation.

    • Parachute Club wrote a real Canadian anthem "Rise Up" in the eighties which has often been used by the NDP, and I think even by Jack Layton. I think the writers of "Rise Up" from Parachute Club, even wrote Jack Layton a song for his leadership campaign.

      Ignatieff certainly doesn't know his Canadian culture if he has to import American references to make a point. His touchstones are American references, NOT Canadian ones. He doesn't know our history and culture because he was not here for our history and culture.

      • And John Lennon took out Canadian citizenship… when, exactly?

  25. Oh puleeze…it's just a phrase from an old song.

  26. Conservatives are equally guilty of selling bad ideas by wrapping them in clever slogans. This is essentially what politics is all about. Distilling your message down to some vaguely accurate, mostly misleading soundbite for the consumption of the vast majority who barely care.

  27. macleans.ca is a newsite
    Aaron wrote an article and has a byline. It would very well be in next weeks issue (although I doubt that it will).

  28. Yes, liberal media conspiracy, blah blah blah.

  29. this would be the first I have heard of comments being removed.

    I would imagine that they censor for swears, though.

  30. was he delirious? lol

  31. Yes, and this is not the news page….it's the blog page.

    A blog is like a diary….it's meant to convey 'flavour'….and thoughts…and the atmosphere about the event

    If ignatieff gave a barn-burner of a speech….a blog will reflect that.

  32. After Yoko's slapdown I'm surprised any CONbot is interested in talking music. I guess being tone deaf goes well with bitter koolaid.

  33. This article could very well end up in the next issue. We can post comments about any article that macleans put on the site. Do you have a subscription? Do you know that a lot of the articles that we comment about end up in the printed mag? If some of it doesn't make it into the mag, it is not for lack of trying.

    As far as flavor, I was just pointing out how two different (and lets admit – liberal) reporters give very different coverage of the same event. We don't get to see it often, so it is neat.

    As far as barn burning, I would guess it would depend on whose article you read. . .

  34. Well apparently swiping a song and breaking copyright to sell your campaign is okay….quoting one line from a song as a speech hook is not. Go figure.

  35. It might…it might not…however, it's currently on a blog.

    Most 'articles' here were in the magazine first…then sometimes posted as a blog entry to get opinion Other impressions never go to the magazine. The magazine can only cover so many stories….this site can cover an infinite number of them

    I don't think either writer is Liberal, although they are likely liberal….and of course they would have 2 slightly different views of the same event. That's the whole point of having 2 different people cover the same event.

    I get the same impression of 'barn-burner' from both items though.

    Harper doesn't do barn-burners…or questions for that matter….so it's harder with him. LOL

  36. Really hard to top Harper singing – using the term loosely – Lennon's Imagine while using a child as a prop.
    Iggy really does have some rising to do to catch up to that.

  37. Hitler knew how to manuver people, as did Stalin and Mao, Ignatiev learned from the masters.

    When Ignatiev loses he’ll go to his villa in the south of France or estate somewhere in England. Does his wife afford such a lifestyle, not really, this luxury Ignatiev enjoys came from the backs of peasants in Russia before the revolution when his family hid money in England before fleeing. Long story short, he’s not the poor imigrant boy he wants folks in Canada to believe.

    I would rather vote for a Prime Minister who fought tooth and nail to lower the GST by 2 percent which saved the people HUGE dollars in home purchases, vehicles etc.. Sure, it’s only 5% now but the Liberals wanted it raised upward to around 10 or more percent. GST on our gas bill this month was ten bucks, under Liberal CONTROL it would be over $20. That is only home heating, what about everything else regular folk have to buy. Let’s use toilet paper as an example. Pretty soon no hard working taxpayer can NOT afford butt wipe they’ll use junk mail instead and plug~up the Toronto, Quebec city sewer systems. Ha, Peasants REVOLT~ I’m joke but the fact is our Prime Minister has made some of his campane promises come true even with the horrific controls the Liberal party continues to enact . On a plus side Prime Minister Haper hasn’t cost taxpayers BILLIONS in under radar scams.

    As for constant harping on our jet fighter plane replacesments. Canadian companies are involved in developing/improving F35s . Creating jobs in OUR COUNTRY and it’s sickening watching worn out F18s drop from the sky. It’s humorous reading that leader hopefuls think fighter planes should go through the government TENDERING PROCESS. Ummmmm. Anyone who has been involved in government tenders would roll over laughing at the idea of quoting on fighter planes.

    Pretty dam sad when Liberals sent our young army to battle into sandy dessert WAR wearing como GREEN. Talk about sitting targets for the enemy. Perhaps it is time to send the big talking heads overseas to fight the battles they create … Just a thought folks.

  38. Hitler knew how to manuver people, as did Stalin and Mao, Ignatiev learned from the masters.

    When Ignatiev loses he’ll go to his villa in the south of France or estate somewhere in England. Does his wife afford such a lifestyle, not really, this luxury Ignatiev enjoys came from the backs of peasants in Russia before the revolution when his family hid money in England before fleeing. Long story short, he’s not the poor imigrant boy he wants folks in Canada to believe.

    I would rather vote for a Prime Minister who fought tooth and nail to lower the GST by 2 percent which saved the people HUGE dollars in home purchases, vehicles etc.. Sure, it’s only 5% now but the Liberals wanted it raised upward to around 10 or more percent. GST on our gas bill this month was ten bucks, under Liberal CONTROL it would be over $20. That is only home heating, what about everything else regular folk have to buy. Let’s use toilet paper as an example. Pretty soon no hard working taxpayer can NOT afford butt wipe they’ll use junk mail instead and plug~up the Toronto, Quebec city sewer systems. Ha, Peasants REVOLT~ I’m joke but the fact is our Prime Minister has made some of his campane promises come true even with the horrific controls the Liberal party continues to enact . On a plus side Prime Minister Haper hasn’t cost taxpayers BILLIONS in under radar scams.

    As for constant harping on our jet fighter plane replacesments. Canadian companies are involved in developing/improving F35s . Creating jobs in OUR COUNTRY and it’s sickening watching worn out F18s drop from the sky. It’s humorous reading that leader hopefuls think fighter planes should go through the government TENDERING PROCESS. Ummmmm. Anyone who has been involved in government tenders would roll over laughing at the idea of quoting on fighter planes.

    Pretty dam sad when Liberals sent our young army to battle into sandy dessert WAR wearing como GREEN. Talk about sitting targets for the enemy. Perhaps it is time to send the big talking heads overseas to fight the battles they create … Just a thought folks.

    • You sound angry. Please don't try to seize a ballot box.

      • You look desperate. I'm not going to let you stuff a ballot box.

    • "Anyone who has been involved in government tenders would roll over laughing at the idea of quoting on fighter planes"

      You may want to check on that with Alan Williams, former assistant deputy minister at the Department of National Defence (DND) responsible for procurement.

      But I guess you're just much more expereinced and much smarter than he is, so you must be right.

      • Huh. I used to be involved with a company that submitted tenders for national defence. I don't remember laughing. But it wasn't for fighter jets, so that must be all the difference in the world.

        • It is… a tendering process is when you let many companies bid on a project. There might be a single company in the entire world that can produce a fighter jet with the capabilities of the F35 and they are doing it for the Pentagon. The tendering process is a joke in these circumstances. It's not like buying a bunch of firewalls and sending an RFP to a dozen vendors.

          • "There might be a single company in the entire world that can produce a fighter jet with the capabilities of the F35 "

            Ah, but there's the problem . . . what are the capabilities we as a country need?

            Are we satisfied that the requirements defined by the USA and the developed (and hopefully achieved) by L-M for a single-platform, multi-role fighter are right for Canada's needs?

            Or is there some value to the users of the equipment, and the taxpayers of Canada, defining what our specific needs are, based on long-range Defence and Foreign policy objectives? That definition could result in our seeking a different platform (or even platforms) for our specific needs.

          • Thanks, BCer. Just what I was going to say. I also remember the booklet of requirements they wanted, down to the size of the grommet or screw and such. But now it appears 'whatever you have is fine by us' is the way we're going.

          • continued . . .

            Don't forget, because the F35 was developed to incorporate a lot of commonality for the needs of the USAF, Navy and Marines, there will be a lot of design compromises that are likely to render it a sub-optimal choice for the each of the services for which it is intended. One key rationale fr developing the platform was to minimize procurement costs, but it is becoming apparent to most informed observers that as the individual service requirements are increasingly not being met, additional development costs need to be invested, resulting in a higher cost product (and probably reducing commonality in the process)

            So, yes, it makes ample sense for the buyer to shop around and subject prospective suppliers to competition. On a scale more familiar to most, you probably would have a hard time getting a break on price if you marched right into your local Mercedes dealership and announced that is the only car I want to buy, now what can you do to make a good deal for me?

            Or do Conservatives only believe in competition when it suits them?

    • Congratulations, your the winner of the Godwin's Law on this thread: Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies). "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

      Simple arguments………

      • And as the very first word, I didn't read any more. I just read BCer's quote.

      • To be fair, we should give Rob some credit for referencing Hitler, Stalin, Mao, AND the House of Romanov. I'm wondering why he didn't throw in Pol Pot or Kim Il Sung though. Maybe he thought that would be exaggerating.

    • Let's not forget who brought in the GST.

    • Well spoken Rob, agree with you 100%

    • You know, there's at least equally valid grounds for pointing to the named despots as Harper's mentors, if you want to get into games of silly hyperbole.

  39. You know, Iggy can sound passionate when he wants to.

    That CPC ad featuring Iggy saying straight to his fellow Americans "It's your country as much as it is mine" reminded me of that "passion".

    I suspect it also takes a lot of what you would call that same "passion" to not show up to vote (in a parliament we're all to be oh so respectful of, lest we show "contempt" towards it) 70% of the time.

    What you would call "passion" I'd say many Canadians would call a deep seeded opportunistic self interest.

  40. You know, Iggy can sound passionate when he wants to.

    That CPC ad featuring Iggy saying straight to his fellow Americans "It's your country as much as it is mine" reminded me of that "passion".

    I suspect it also takes a lot of what you would call that same "passion" to not show up to vote (in a parliament we're all to be oh so respectful of, lest we show "contempt" towards it) 70% of the time.

    What you would call "passion" I'd say many Canadians would call a deep seeded opportunistic self interest.

    • Is it any use explaining to someone like you that the 70% was made necessary by the endless lies Harper's attack ads have spread about Ignatieff? That going to where the people are, with the courage to answer our questions, is Ignatieff's way of debunking those lying ads? (And that while he was gone, deputy leader Ralph Goodale held the fort?)

  41. Aaron,

    very astute.

    And a very painful analysis to our Liberal friends here, judging by their responses.

    Well done sir.

  42. As for for our sometimes parliamentarian (sometimes being a mere fraction of the whole he tacitly promised his constituants who put him in power to vote for them)

    who continually screeches "contempt of parliament"

    most Canadians know it isn't "parliament" as a whole, for the largest block in parliament is the CPC themselves, but rather contempt for the opposition, with the largest block being the Liberals.

    Canadians can easily translate that into a charge by Iggy that Harper is being contemptuous of the Liberals.

    While Iggy no doubt holds himself (and perhaps his party) in incredibly high esteem, polls show voters do not.

    And therein lies the self fulfilling failure of Iggy's grand campaign theme.

  43. As for for our sometimes parliamentarian (sometimes being a mere fraction of the whole he tacitly promised his constituants who put him in power to vote for them)

    who continually screeches "contempt of parliament"

    most Canadians know it isn't "parliament" as a whole, for the largest block in parliament is the CPC themselves, but rather contempt for the opposition, with the largest block being the Liberals.

    Canadians can easily translate that into a charge by Iggy that Harper is being contemptuous of the Liberals.

    While Iggy no doubt holds himself (and perhaps his party) in incredibly high esteem, polls show voters do not.

    And therein lies the self fulfilling failure of Iggy's grand campaign theme.

    • is it impossible for you to keep it to one message? Or is your strategy to fill up space?

      • He's going for right-wing, free-form poetry. Not succeeding, though…

    • Actually, their actions show contempt of the institution in its entirety. The instruction manual on blocking committees is proof of that.

  44. A Liberal speaker you mean.

    Canadians are a lot smarter than that.

    "Vote for the Liberals because Harper was contemptuous of the Liberals" was a campaign theme doomed from the start.

    Doomed because it smacked of the self aggrandizing belief in entitlement to power that the Liberals have long been known for.

  45. How true,. One of my favourite was selling to the Canadian media and public that budgetary surpluses were a theft and a sign of incompetence for a government that had a huge debt to pay down. Look where these idiots have gotten us now.

  46. You sound angry. Please don't try to seize a ballot box.

  47. is it impossible for you to keep it to one message? Or is your strategy to fill up space?

  48. Wherry's a clever writer, and on this one he outdid himself. He's always a pleasure to read.

  49. Wherry's a clever writer, and on this one he outdid himself. He's always a pleasure to read.

  50. if you consider Wherry a clever writer.,……you need to expand your horizons.

    Wherry's just another anti-harper shill….his writing is as lame as it is predictable.

    • Wherry does a good job of giving us a glimpse of what's going on at Ignatieff's rallies.

      I assume you'd rather read about Harper's rallies, so go find a columnist travelling with Harper. But once you have heard or read about one of Harper's speeches, you know it all. There is a limit to how many times one can write about the trouble lapping at our shores and the reckless coalition.

    • And you are Lucy Maud Montgomery?

    • And yet, you keep squatting on his blog. Job requirement, eh?

    • Sounds great to me!

      No more robot Harper – let's get a little life and vision into this damn election!

  51. if you consider Wherry a clever writer.,……you need to expand your horizons.

    Wherry's just another anti-harper shill….his writing is as lame as it is predictable.

  52. Who are you going to attack next, chet, the Auditor General?

  53. Wherry does a good job of giving us a glimpse of what's going on at Ignatieff's rallies.

    I assume you'd rather read about Harper's rallies, so go find a columnist travelling with Harper. But once you have heard or read about one of Harper's speeches, you know it all. There is a limit to how many times one can write about the trouble lapping at our shores and the reckless coalition.

  54. Well, In a robotic sort of way.

  55. "Incredible" is the correct adjective — not credible.

  56. Pants burners, then?

  57. And you are Lucy Maud Montgomery?

  58. Reminds me of Bob Dole's 'Where's the outrage?' remarks during the latter stages of the '96 presidential campaign, and we know how that ended up. Like Dole, it seems as though Ignatieff is coming to the painful realization that his attacks just aren't working, and that the end is near.

  59. Reminds me of Bob Dole's 'Where's the outrage?' remarks during the latter stages of the '96 presidential campaign, and we know how that ended up. Like Dole, it seems as though Ignatieff is coming to the painful realization that his attacks just aren't working, and that the end is near.

  60. Lots of worried Cons out already : we must be doing something right : Rise Up.

  61. How many bloggers does Maclean's need on this non-story? or Should I say how much press does Michael Ignatieff need to not make a difference?

  62. How many bloggers does Maclean's need on this non-story? or Should I say how much press does Michael Ignatieff need to not make a difference?

  63. Desperation thy name is Ignatieff. We now have our Howard Dean moment in Canadian politics. Now we hear the big guns are coming out to help.The two adscamers will be campaigning for Ignatieff. It didn't help last time and it won't help this time. In fact it may hurt the Libs.
    Ignatieff bombed in the debates. The party is going no where in the polls and his leadership numbers are below Layton. The professor was in his glory in Sudbury. However, most Canadians are in no mood for an Ignatieff as PM. They simply ignore him and wait for May 2nd to confirm their dislike for the arrogant elitist who pretends he cares about Canada.

    • I wish someone would leak one of the emails that you people who get talking points for social media sites get.
      Dear Friend: please get on to every news site and repeat the following thoughts. Try to put them in your own words a little bit so they're not word for word.
      Clearly they threw it out quickly this time. The only word any of you can manage is desperation.
      if you think standing up for democracy is desperate….well, i guess that would make you a Stephen Harper Conservative.

    • "However, most Canadians are in no mood for an Ignatieff as PM."

      According to all available polls, most Canadians aren't in the mood for anyone currently on offer as PM.

      • Which, for better or for worse, suits Harper's chances just fine.

        I'm still keeping most of my chips on the "Stronger Harper Minority but no Majority" square.

        • You really think stronger? Given the watershed lows that were hit by Dion? From what I've seen, the Liberal base is far more energized this election cycle, and the CPC base less enthused. I still don't think it'll be enough to move to Liberal minority, but I don't expect that Mr. Harper will be making any gains.

          I've seen nobody come out and say, 'I didn't vote CPC last time but I will this time.' I've seen a few saying "Dammit, can't bring myself to vote for them again."

          Similarly, I haven't seen any people claim they voted Liberal previously and won't be doing so now. While I have seen a few folks saying, "I'm considering holding my nose and voting Liberal this time."

  64. Desperation thy name is Ignatieff. We now have our Howard Dean moment in Canadian politics. Now we hear the big guns are coming out to help.The two adscamers will be campaigning for Ignatieff. It didn't help last time and it won't help this time. In fact it may hurt the Libs.
    Ignatieff bombed in the debates. The party is going no where in the polls and his leadership numbers are below Layton. The professor was in his glory in Sudbury. However, most Canadians are in no mood for an Ignatieff as PM. They simply ignore him and wait for May 2nd to confirm their dislike for the arrogant elitist who pretends he cares about Canada.

  65. Igantieff's supposed faux outrage is only in his own mind. Like most things Liberals do is they go over the top in their rhetoric and therefore people just discount the comments.
    Funny Ignatieff can't win because of his own leadership ability and policies. He can only personally attack the Prime Minister. Funny how that works when you are losing the battle.

  66. Igantieff's supposed faux outrage is only in his own mind. Like most things Liberals do is they go over the top in their rhetoric and therefore people just discount the comments.
    Funny Ignatieff can't win because of his own leadership ability and policies. He can only personally attack the Prime Minister. Funny how that works when you are losing the battle.

  67. You are right. By the way Ignatieff is being a little loose with the truth. There was no vote on the contempt. It is only in his own mind and those of the Liberal persuasion on this blog.

  68. I disagree with Ignatieff. I don’t think people are shrugging and saying “so what?” I think Canadians are very concerned about the actions of the Tories and the health of our democracy.

    However, I also feel that Canadians think the opposition is as much a part of the problem as the party currently in charge. There are constant partisan game by all parties (wafergate was probably the nadir in political games). The Liberals abstained from a historic number of confidence votes. When Layton accused Ignatieff of serious absenteeism, Ignatieff didn’t even bother to defend himself during the debate. Committees dominated by opposition members might be justified in ruling against the Tories, but the public is equally justified in taking it all with a huge grain of salt.

    Most recently, the opposition attacked Guergis a while ago and demanded she resign/be fired, and suddenly they’re jumping to her defense? I thunk Canadians are probably thinking “WTF?” not “so what?”

    The list goes on, and I don’t mean to single out the Liberals (only because we’re on the subject of MI).

    It’s not “so what,” it’s more like “I don’t like this, but I don’t buy that the opposition will do any better on ethics, so I’ll judge them on other factors like fiscal management, environment policies, health care, etc.”

    • I think you've captured the public mood.

    • Despite the -21 score I think you have a point. If the Liberals wanted this campaign to be about ethics then they should have come up with a set of policies that curbed the power of the PMO and empowered MPs and made it the absolute centrepiece of their campaign much like the Tories did in 2006 with what would become the accountability act. Without that, it's easy to see how a cynical public just sees it as the Liberals blowing smoke. Personally, I find it odd that up until now the Liberals have been trying to fight this election with their family pack of policies which basically makes the election about the economy which is what the Conservatives would like it to be about.

      • And its' for comments like yours and Mike's above that I keep reading these forums. Well thought out.

        One quibble I'd have with Mike's characterization of events. The confidence vote abstention was Dion's game, not Ignatieff's, and during the Guergis affair they were demanding she be dropped from Cabinet, but were all rather stunned when he turfed her from the party completely. That said, your description may match the public's memory more closely than the facts.

        Still, nice thinking both of you. It's something I hadn't considered before and has a ring of truth to it to me.

        My problem is while I believe the opposition has certainly been too occupied with "gotcha" politics, there are, amongst them, some very serious concerns. I fear that the public's disillusionment with the whole process will end up rewarding the CPC which will do nothing to lessen the liberties they take against a properly functioning parliament.. of course, that's what ME2's comment is about, isn't it?

        Frustrating.

        • You might be right about the confidence motions (haven't bothered Googling it, but I'll take your word for it). I was surprised Layton didn't bring it up during the debates, but it makes sense if it was Dion's game.

          As I say below to Wascally Wabbit, I don't think Angry Ignatieff will win much more support. He needs to talk about his ideas, particularly democratic reform, rather than simply attack the other guy. More positive, less negative. More a vote for something, less a vote against something.

          And as for the thumbs (as ME2 mentioned), I've long ago learned to ignore them. It seems anything even remotely anti-Liberal will automatically yield -5 thumbs down at a minimum. It wouldn't surprise me if some commenters read my first line, and immediately clicked thumbs down.

          (As an aside, since you use Intense Debate, do you know how to sign into Intense Debate on an iPhone? Whenever I post something from my phone, it won't associate my comment with my ID profile. Have you (or anyone else) tried?)

      • LOL I've long ago ignored the thumbs rating system. It seems anything even remotely harsh about the Liberals will automatically yield at least 5 thumbs down. It wouldn't surprise me if some people read the first 4 words of my post, and immediately clicked the thumbs-down button.

    • Only too true.

      However, I prefer the dour pragmatism of this Canadian election than the "bite-your-knuckles-and-cry-elephant-tears- over-the-beautiful-blue-eyes-of-the-man-who-raps-about-hope" emotionalism of the recent American election.

      Ignatieff has to learn to quit the bluster and tell it like it is, or at least like he sees it. Calling for an uprising is ridiculous. He must be getting tired; time for some warm milk and a hot water bottle.

  69. I disagree with Ignatieff. I don’t think people are shrugging and saying “so what?” I think Canadians are very concerned about the actions of the Tories and the health of our democracy.

    However, I also feel that Canadians think the opposition is as much a part of the problem as the party currently in charge. There are constant partisan game by all parties (wafergate was probably the nadir in political games). The Liberals abstained from a historic number of confidence votes. When Layton accused Ignatieff of serious absenteeism, Ignatieff didn’t even bother to defend himself during the debate. Committees dominated by opposition members might be justified in ruling against the Tories, but the public is equally justified in taking it all with a huge grain of salt.

    Most recently, the opposition attacked Guergis a while ago and demanded she resign/be fired, and suddenly they’re jumping to her defense? I thunk Canadians are probably thinking “WTF?” not “so what?”

    The list goes on, and I don’t mean to single out the Liberals (only because we’re on the subject of MI).

    It’s not “so what,” it’s more like “I don’t like this, but I don’t buy that the opposition will do any better on ethics, so I’ll judge them on other factors like fiscal management, environment policies, health care, etc.”

  70. "Anyone who has been involved in government tenders would roll over laughing at the idea of quoting on fighter planes"

    You may want to check on that with Alan Williams, former assistant deputy minister at the Department of National Defence (DND) responsible for procurement.

    But I guess you're just much more expereinced and much smarter than he is, so you must be right.

  71. Oh but you forget. Eggleton, Anne McClellan and Sgro were sighted for contempt but the committee which had a Liberal majority exhonorated them. Sorry Emily.

  72. That line may fire up people that already support Ignatieff, but it isn't going to win over people that don't. Ignatieff has to tell those people why:
    A. it is in their material interest to vote Liberal
    B. for retrospective voters, why Harper has done a bad job managing the economy

    Ignatieff has an okay story on A (if utterly facile – he's going to have to get new jets, and he voted for much of Harper's crime agenda, so he's going to need jails), but has conceded the argument on B. If that is his approach, he might as well concede the election, because that question is the hill upon which governments live or die.

    • Canada doesn't have to get the untested, most costly F-35 jets and not sure what crime bills you are referring to. The ones Harper says he will pass within 100 days are the ones expected to substantially increase the prison population. The 2006 bundled Bill C-2 was passed with the help of both Libs and NDP, but isn't expected to impact that substantially on the prison pop. A more recent bill, opposed by both Libs and NDP, and passed with help from the Bloc, is expect to increase the prison pop by about 1500 but may also be unconstitutional, so the courts may weigh in.

      On the economy, how has that been conceded? I don't think Ignatieff stresses this enough, but he has made the arguments about the surplus and bank regulations that Harper inherited (both of which Harper railed against), about the structural deficit (although he talks about this less now, presumably because this will affect ALL party platforms as Harper has put the budget in an unstable condition even if the economy exceeds all expectations), about the untargetted and irresponsible spending, and about the $11B unspecified cuts. What other arguments/facts about Harper/Flaherty should he be making?

      • That should be the 2007 Bill C-2.

  73. That line may fire up people that already support Ignatieff, but it isn't going to win over people that don't. Ignatieff has to tell those people why:
    A. it is in their material interest to vote Liberal
    B. for retrospective voters, why Harper has done a bad job managing the economy

    Ignatieff has an okay story on A (if utterly facile – he's going to have to get new jets, and he voted for much of Harper's crime agenda, so he's going to need jails), but has conceded the argument on B. If that is his approach, he might as well concede the election, because that question is the hill upon which governments live or die.

  74. Deceiven' Stephen was also an instructor at university. He specialized in poisoning the minds of economics students with the BS, discredited theories of Hayak and Friedman latterly known as neocon "trickle-down" economics. Well, we're being trickled up on now.

  75. Congratulations, your the winner of the Godwin's Law on this thread: Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies). "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

    Simple arguments………

  76. LOL perfect!

  77. LOL yes, of all the songs for Harp to be singing.

    Shoulda been the Volga boat song or something.

  78. Anyone seriously considering voting for CRAP needs to have their head examined. Unless, of course, you are as dysfunctional as Deceiven' Stephen seems to be.

    • Anyone with a different opinion is an idiot.

      Typical arrogant Liberal thinking.

      Disgusting.

      • No, not anyone with a different opinion. Just anyone who ignores what the CPC has done and has been doing. Ignoring Mr. Harper's complete lack of reliability for anything he says, and ignoring his continued attacks on the ability of parliament and committees to have accurate and reliable information so that they can do their jobs effectively.

  79. Anyone seriously considering voting for CRAP needs to have their head examined. Unless, of course, you are as dysfunctional as Deceiven' Stephen seems to be.

  80. Quick someone is hiding under your bed! Lock yourself in the closet!

    Harper for supreme leader

    I shall monitor and report back

  81. Aaron – Iggy's script writers missed a wonderful opportunity. I've already invoked it before the campaign – but I'll do it again – Canadians need to find their Howard Beale moment – "to go to their windows – open them – stick their heads out – and yell – I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!"
    Trouble is – he is part of what they are mad about – they are mad at Harper, and Layton and Duceppe as well as Iggy – hence the switch to Bruce Springsteen!

    • Sounds more like a Howard Dean moment. I don’t think the public will be receptive to angry Ignatieff. He acted a little too angry IMO at the English debate, waving his hands, and raising his voice.

      He needs to act more sympathetic, not angry. Talk more about his platform and give people a reason to vote for him, rather than reasons to hate Harper.

      For example, instead of attacking Harper on democratic reform, talk more about your own ideas for democratic reform. Instead of attacking people with “stop shrugging your shoulders, dammit!” try to say something like “people are responding positively to our platform, and I know you’ll be excited too” or some such thing.

      Sell yourself, and be positive, rather than attacking others and being negative. But that’s just my opinion. Clearly the OLO and Donolo disagree.

    • " …. Iggy's script writers missed a wonderful opportunity …… Trouble is – he is part of what they are mad about …"

      Was there an opportunity or is Iggy part of what I am mad about?

      Why do we have to listen to this nonsense in first place?

      Look at Iggy's numbers! As if he's going to lead an uprising of pissed off Canadians. Hahahahaha. Canadians are more likely to sit in their chairs than they are to get up for Iggy.

      "But Ignatieff's personal numbers are worse. Nanos Research publishes an occasional “leadership index” that combines respondents' perceptions on trust, competence and vision for Canada. At the end of February, Harper's score was as high as it's been since Ignatieff became Liberal leader, at 98.9. Ignatieff's was its lowest yet, at 36.9. His leadership index score has been below NDP Leader Jack Layton's for 14 straight months.

      Also in February, Harris Decima found that Ignatieff is viewed positively by 25 per cent of respondents and unfavourably by 51 per cent. That's the lowest positive score of any national leader, and the highest unfavourable rating. The lowest positive rating Harris Decima ever measured for Stéphane Dion was 30 per cent. Ignatieff has been at or below that level for more than a year." Paul Wells, Inside Liberal Effort Resurrect Iggy, Mar 2011

  82. Aaron – Iggy's script writers missed a wonderful opportunity. I've already invoked it before the campaign – but I'll do it again – Canadians need to find their Howard Beale moment – "to go to their windows – open them – stick their heads out – and yell – I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!"
    Trouble is – he is part of what they are mad about – they are mad at Harper, and Layton and Duceppe as well as Iggy – hence the switch to Bruce Springsteen!

  83. You're going to have to choose between "it never happened" or "It doesn't matter that it happened." When you keep switching back and forth between the two it tends to undermine your credibility.

    It did happen & it does matter.

  84. Was it really necessary for Maclean's to have two writers tell us how wonderful Iggy is and take an entirely too credulous view of what Libs are doing.

    Wells detalied in his article about resurrecting Iggy a few weeks ago that Iggy has dire personal numbers but Libs hoped once people saw Iggy campaigning everything would change.

    The only time Canadians are going to rise up for Iggy is if he tries to usurp power with help of NDP and BQ again. Lib hopes of miraculous turnaround during election are a damp squib.

    Please stop with the Liberal hagiography, Maclean's.

  85. Was it really necessary for Maclean's to have two writers tell us how wonderful Iggy is and take an entirely too credulous view of what Libs are doing.

    Wells detalied in his article about resurrecting Iggy a few weeks ago that Iggy has dire personal numbers but Libs hoped once people saw Iggy campaigning everything would change.

    The only time Canadians are going to rise up for Iggy is if he tries to usurp power with help of NDP and BQ again. Lib hopes of miraculous turnaround during election are a damp squib.

    Please stop with the Liberal hagiography, Maclean's.

  86. The Canadian press has officially delcared Guerigs not being taken back into the CPC……..drum roll please………a……

    SCANDAL.

    Ditchburn, Bryden et al at the CP are so overtly partisan it's become comical.

    The woman who the press was treating like a she-devil (when they could tie her to the CPC) now, must, just must.be allowed back into the CPC……so they can proceed to scandalize Harper via his ties to Guergis….who the media are demanding be reinstated.

    Indeed it's moved beyond comical and into Orwellian.

  87. The Canadian press has officially delcared Guerigs not being taken back into the CPC……..drum roll please………a……

    SCANDAL.

    Ditchburn, Bryden et al at the CP are so overtly partisan it's become comical.

    The woman who the press was treating like a she-devil (when they could tie her to the CPC) now, must, just must.be allowed back into the CPC……so they can proceed to scandalize Harper via his ties to Guergis….who the media are demanding be reinstated.

    Indeed it's moved beyond comical and into Orwellian.

  88. And yet, you keep squatting on his blog. Job requirement, eh?

  89. Canada doesn't have to get the untested, most costly F-35 jets and not sure what crime bills you are referring to. The ones Harper says he will pass within 100 days are the ones expected to substantially increase the prison population. The 2006 bundled Bill C-2 was passed with the help of both Libs and NDP, but isn't expected to impact that substantially on the prison pop. A more recent bill, opposed by both Libs and NDP, and passed with help from the Bloc, is expect to increase the prison pop by about 1500 but may also be unconstitutional, so the courts may weigh in.

    On the economy, how has that been conceded? I don't think Ignatieff stresses this enough, but he has made the arguments about the surplus and bank regulations that Harper inherited (both of which Harper railed against), about the structural deficit (although he talks about this less now, presumably because this will affect ALL party platforms as Harper has put the budget in an unstable condition even if the economy exceeds all expectations), about the untargetted and irresponsible spending, and about the $11B unspecified cuts. What other arguments/facts about Harper/Flaherty should he be making?

  90. That should be the 2007 Bill C-2.

  91. Not any links from here to the video?

    Good reason as the write up is far better in Mr. Wherry's imagination,

    It was embarrassing. The crowd was embarrassed for Ignatieff and clapped politely as the handlers made them stand up after the 4th or 5th rise up out of Ignatieff.

    The Liberal campaign is in "well nothing else is working" mode so what if we lose a bit worse.

  92. Not any links from here to the video?

    Good reason as the write up is far better in Mr. Wherry's imagination,

    It was embarrassing. The crowd was embarrassed for Ignatieff and clapped politely as the handlers made them stand up after the 4th or 5th rise up out of Ignatieff.

    The Liberal campaign is in "well nothing else is working" mode so what if we lose a bit worse.

  93. Given the choice between the hope of 'Rise Up' and the fear of the-end-of-the-world-if-I-don't-get-a-majority, I'll take Rise Up!

  94. Given the choice between the hope of 'Rise Up' and the fear of the-end-of-the-world-if-I-don't-get-a-majority, I'll take Rise Up!

  95. Sounds more like a Howard Dean moment. I don’t think the public will be receptive to angry Ignatieff. He acted a little too angry IMO at the English debate, waving his hands, and raising his voice.

    He needs to act more sympathetic, not angry. Talk more about his platform and give people a reason to vote for him, rather than reasons to hate Harper.

    For example, instead of attacking Harper on democratic reform, talk more about your own ideas for democratic reform. Instead of attacking people with “stop shrugging your shoulders, dammit!” try to say something like “people are responding positively to our platform, and I know you’ll be excited too” or some such thing.

    Sell yourself, and be positive, rather than attacking others and being negative. But that’s just my opinion. Clearly the OLO and Donolo disagree.

    • Last line in that video…

      "This goes beyond our country".

      After he uses lines from the first song played on the loudspeakers after Obama's election night victory speech in Chicago.

    • The unclipped version is a lot more interesting and informative, but perhaps Harper supporters would not like it.

      • Oh, I am a Harper supporter, and please, give us more of this. Ignatieff in front of a greying crowd trying to save his day………………Hallelujah, Hallelujah………………and amen!

    • It sounded sort of half interesting when reading about it in print. Watching the video… not so much.

  96. Thanks Kate.

    While the video as a whole was comedy gold,

    the two older gentlemen behind Iggy, reluctantly standing up after the sixth or seventh screech to "rise up"

    priceless.

    • Hey, if he's quoting Bruce Springsteen, at least he's got the right crowd demographic.

    • Now that I've seen the actual video of the event, it's worse than I expected. His handlers should have given him some water when Ignatieff needed it. Oh, man, this does not look good.

      Has CBC aired it??? If CBC has not aired it then it's not good news for Iggy.

  97. Thanks Kate.

    While the video as a whole was comedy gold,

    the two older gentlemen behind Iggy, reluctantly standing up after the sixth or seventh screech to "rise up"

    priceless.

  98. Hey, if he's quoting Bruce Springsteen, at least he's got the right crowd demographic.

  99. Last line in that video…

    "This goes beyond our country".

    After he uses lines from the first song played on the loudspeakers after Obama's election night victory speech in Chicago.

    • Hey, that started a bit abruptly and ended even more abruptly. How about an unclipped version so we can judge for ourselves, rather than being spoon fed CPC gruel?

      • Ask Aaron Wherry for a longer clip, he's the blogger who seems to have a tingle up his leg.

        • Okay, found one on the LPC site: http://www.liberal.ca/#media

          Ignatieff is exactly right. Lol, the CPCer who posted the clipped version cut out all the stuff about why we need to rise up – don't they like hearing a list of the things Harper has actually done?

          Damn right, Canadians deserve a lot better than Harper has been dishing out.

          • "the CPCer who posted the clipped version cut out all the stuff about why we need to rise up "

            Ignatieff blathers about that constantly. The point of the clip is that his supporters aren't responsive to his rabble rousing.

      • For some reason the full clip wasn’t aired on CPAC, and their website excludes Ignatieff’s leaders tour from April 15 entirely. This short clip is the only thing I could find.

        Something tells me the speech was embarrassing for Ignatieff and someone at CPAC was convinced to bury the speech.

        Mr. Werry does a fine job of re-imagining what may have been a very different speech.

        Somebody post the entire speech, please.

      • spoon fed CPC gruel? And what is it that you call Wherry's piece again?

  100. Hey, that started a bit abruptly and ended even more abruptly. How about an unclipped version so we can judge for ourselves, rather than being spoon fed CPC gruel?

  101. "My City in Ruins," sound like the Mickster is singing a loser's lament for his city, Librano Toronto – a.k.a. "Fort Apache – The Bronx"

  102. "My City in Ruins," sound like the Mickster is singing a loser's lament for his city, Librano Toronto – a.k.a. "Fort Apache – The Bronx"

  103. Ask Aaron Wherry for a longer clip, he's the blogger who seems to have a tingle up his leg.

  104. Okay, found one on the LPC site: http://www.liberal.ca/#media

    Ignatieff is exactly right. Lol, the CPCer who posted the clipped version cut out all the stuff about why we need to rise up – don't they like hearing a list of the things Harper has actually done?

    Damn right, Canadians deserve a lot better than Harper has been dishing out.

  105. Vote for Health not Stealth!

  106. Vote for Health not Stealth!

  107. It's just…..over.

  108. It's just…..over.

  109. You know, Canadians did "shrug" at all of those trumped up "scandals"… and all of the dubious "fraud" charges, which are also not going to amount to anything. The Liberals are always treating Canadians like they're stupid. And maybe as a society in the past we were, but not anymore. We read more, more widely from different sources, we communicate our thoughts more, faster, and in effect it is making us all a bit more sophisticated when it comes to political ideas. It's not surprising to me that the Conservatives are benefiting from this movement. The cheap tricks that have always worked for the Liberals are all well known an easy to spot now. Their tools are all dull. Their mouthpiece (the Liberal friendly mainstream media) have been called out and are being dismissed – their power greatly diminished. Bring on the Conservative majority.

  110. You know, Canadians did "shrug" at all of those trumped up "scandals"… and all of the dubious "fraud" charges, which are also not going to amount to anything. The Liberals are always treating Canadians like they're stupid. And maybe as a society in the past we were, but not anymore. We read more, more widely from different sources, we communicate our thoughts more, faster, and in effect it is making us all a bit more sophisticated when it comes to political ideas. It's not surprising to me that the Conservatives are benefiting from this movement. The cheap tricks that have always worked for the Liberals are all well known an easy to spot now. Their tools are all dull. Their mouthpiece (the Liberal friendly mainstream media) have been called out and are being dismissed – their power greatly diminished. Bring on the Conservative majority.

    • here here!!
      Well said.

    • Ah, much easier to see the reply button when I'm not on my BB.
      While I agree with much of what you have said, what I'm not in agreement is your insistence that mainstream media is liberal friendly. Mainstream media (read, bell and rogers) are only friendly to those that make them the most money. And are hardly a tool in either parties box. They are more like thugs for hire. To the highest bidder. The cheep tricks that work so well for the libs work equally well for the cons. They both excel in the art of attack adds, but as you pointed out, society is growing up and recognizing this. But as much as we would like to believe this, most likely to make ourselves feel better, there is still enough ignorance in this world to keep these politicians employed.

  111. The "Rise Up" rally cry is really working because a couple of old stiffs from past liberal fiascos have joined the fray. Martin and Chretien will be joing Iggy on the campaign trail to help muster the depleted troops or maybe they are just big fans of "da Boss" .

  112. The "Rise Up" rally cry is really working because a couple of old stiffs from past liberal fiascos have joined the fray. Martin and Chretien will be joing Iggy on the campaign trail to help muster the depleted troops or maybe they are just big fans of "da Boss" .

    • That's only going to strengthen the Tories. Tthere are a lot of blue Liberals who resent those leaders.

  113. The unclipped version is a lot more interesting and informative, but perhaps Harper supporters would not like it.

  114. Anyone with a different opinion is an idiot.

    Typical arrogant Liberal thinking.

    Disgusting.

    • He sounds like a really creepy American politician. Oh and he's also advocating a Coalition attempt to seize power when they lose the election.

    • What an embarassment. Ignatieff pleads 'rise up' seven times before getting a response from his supporters."Our Prime Minister the Right Honourable Stephen Harper" is all that is needed to bring a room of Tories to their feet.

      • Pavlov wept.

    • Hilarious. I can't quit laughing.

      Somebody tell Micheal that this isn't Illinois; it's Canada. Springsteen doesn't cut it here.

      Now if he tried some Gordon Lightfoot it'd probably have some effect. Probably Sundown is more accurate anyway. "Sometimes I think it's a sin when I feel like I'm winning and I'm losing again.."

  115. Let's not forget who brought in the GST.

  116. " …. Iggy's script writers missed a wonderful opportunity …… Trouble is – he is part of what they are mad about …"

    Was there an opportunity or is Iggy part of what I am mad about?

    Why do we have to listen to this nonsense in first place?

    Look at Iggy's numbers! As if he's going to lead an uprising of pissed off Canadians. Hahahahaha. Canadians are more likely to sit in their chairs than they are to get up for Iggy.

    "But Ignatieff's personal numbers are worse. Nanos Research publishes an occasional “leadership index” that combines respondents' perceptions on trust, competence and vision for Canada. At the end of February, Harper's score was as high as it's been since Ignatieff became Liberal leader, at 98.9. Ignatieff's was its lowest yet, at 36.9. His leadership index score has been below NDP Leader Jack Layton's for 14 straight months.

    Also in February, Harris Decima found that Ignatieff is viewed positively by 25 per cent of respondents and unfavourably by 51 per cent. That's the lowest positive score of any national leader, and the highest unfavourable rating. The lowest positive rating Harris Decima ever measured for Stéphane Dion was 30 per cent. Ignatieff has been at or below that level for more than a year." Paul Wells, Inside Liberal Effort Resurrect Iggy, Mar 2011

  117. " …. Iggy's script writers missed a wonderful opportunity …… Trouble is – he is part of what they are mad about …"

    Was there an opportunity or is Iggy part of what I am mad about?

    Why do we have to listen to this nonsense in first place?

    Look at Iggy's numbers! As if he's going to lead an uprising of pissed off Canadians. Hahahahaha. Canadians are more likely to sit in their chairs than they are to get up for Iggy.

    "But Ignatieff%E2%80%99s personal numbers are worse. Nanos Research publishes an occasional “leadership index” that combines respondents%E2%80%99 perceptions on trust, competence and vision for Canada. At the end of February, Harper%E2%80%99s score was as high as it%E2%80%99s been since Ignatieff became Liberal leader, at 98.9. Ignatieff%E2%80%99s was its lowest yet, at 36.9. His leadership index score has been below NDP Leader Jack Layton%E2%80%99s for 14 straight months.

    Also in February, Harris Decima found that Ignatieff is viewed positively by 25 per cent of respondents and unfavourably by 51 per cent. That%E2%80%99s the lowest positive score of any national leader, and the highest unfavourable rating. The lowest positive rating Harris Decima ever measured for Stéphane Dion was 30 per cent. Ignatieff has been at or below that level for more than a year." Paul Wells, Inside Liberal Effort Resurrect Iggy, Mar 2011

  118. Huh. I used to be involved with a company that submitted tenders for national defence. I don't remember laughing. But it wasn't for fighter jets, so that must be all the difference in the world.

  119. And as the very first word, I didn't read any more. I just read BCer's quote.

  120. For some reason the full clip wasn’t aired on CPAC, and their website excludes Ignatieff’s leaders tour from April 15 entirely. This short clip is the only thing I could find.

    Something tells me the speech was embarrassing for Ignatieff and someone at CPAC was convinced to bury the speech.

    Mr. Werry does a fine job of re-imagining what may have been a very different speech.

    Somebody post the entire speech, please.

  121. You look desperate. I'm not going to let you stuff a ballot box.

  122. A Liberal speaker elected by Conservatives. A Liberal speaker who is beyond reproach and has been completely non-partisan in his role, whether he was the Speaker for Liberal or Conservative governments. You know I have been limiting my disgust and criticism to this government and not to the people who ignorantly support it. But, I am fed up with nonsense like this. You Chet, are beneath contempt. You have no more respect for the Canadian institution of Parliament than your contemptible leader. I have just hit my tipping point. I was NEVER going to vote Conservative, but was really waffling among all the Opposition parties. Well congratulation Chet. You and your pal Steve with your arrogant dismissal of all that I hold dear in my country have just won the Liberals my vote. Democracy does matter to me. Parliament does matter to me. I consider any Opposition party much better to protect that on my behalf. But, I don't see any entitlement in the Liberal party anymore and I think it's time to give them another chance. The Conservatives have had their chances. They have treated my money and my country with more disrespect than I have EVER experienced under any government.

  123. It is… a tendering process is when you let many companies bid on a project. There might be a single company in the entire world that can produce a fighter jet with the capabilities of the F35 and they are doing it for the Pentagon. The tendering process is a joke in these circumstances. It's not like buying a bunch of firewalls and sending an RFP to a dozen vendors.

  124. “Their mouthpiece (the Liberal friendly mainstream media) have been called out and are being dismissed – their power greatly diminished. Bring on the Conservative majority.” are you joking! The main stream media is not liberal. They cloud and alter the truth all the time. G20. Television consortium not allowing Elizabeth may in the debate. They only show you what they think you should want to see. Open your eyes.

  125. “Their mouthpiece (the Liberal friendly mainstream media) have been called out and are being dismissed – their power greatly diminished. Bring on the Conservative majority.” are you joking! The main stream media is not liberal. They cloud and alter the truth all the time. G20. Television consortium not allowing Elizabeth may in the debate. They only show you what they think you should want to see. Open your eyes.

    • Only parliamentary leaders get to debate. Why? Because they will form future governments. If you let May in you might as well include all the independent MPs in the debate. They'd represent an equivalent proportion of Canadian voters.

      • Green's received just under a million votes nation wide last election. How many independent MP's received that many again?

        • Who cares if they got a million votes across the entire country. Did they have the confidence of enough voters in a single riding to win one seat? No! They represent a very narrow swath of Canadians and shouldn't be included in the debates.

          • Right, I must have misunderstood you when you suggested that the Greens represent the same number of voters as some independent candidate running in one riding.

          • They represent a much larger swath of Canadians then the bloc, who only field candidates in one Provence. Duceppe has been in the debate since the early 90"s. They represent a larger percentage of the now defunct reform party. In the 1993 debate, Manning participated, even though his party had no seats. In 1993, both the NDP and PC party were in the debate, even though neither had official party status. The green party runs in every riding, and are on their way to equaling the NDP, but yet the mainstream media insist that they jump through hoops just to just to receive parity with the other parties.

          • "They represent a much larger swath of Canadians then the bloc"

            That's why the Bloc received 450, 000 more votes than the Greens in 2008 and 900, 000 more votes than the Greens in 2006. Let us not forget that enough Canadians found the Bloc representative of their views to elect 49 Bloc MPs to the Commons. How many Greens got elected? Oh that's right 0.

    • This article is a prime example. Look at the video. It's garbage. And yet Wherry works himself up into a frenzy, ejaculating all over his computer. That's a Liberal friendly article right there. And that's fine, Wherry can write whatever he wants. I highly respect a guy that gets paid to write. My point was simply that I read Wherry (Macleans), but I also read the NP, the Globe, the Wall Street Journal, the Ottawa Citizen, about a dozen different blogs, twitter feeds. It used to be people like Wherry would pump out this puff piece and millions of people would lap it up as their only source of information on the event. Now, I can read a dozen interpretations of it AND get the video.

  126. "the CPCer who posted the clipped version cut out all the stuff about why we need to rise up "

    Ignatieff blathers about that constantly. The point of the clip is that his supporters aren't responsive to his rabble rousing.

  127. That's only going to strengthen the Tories. Tthere are a lot of blue Liberals who resent those leaders.

  128. He sounds like a really creepy American politician. Oh and he's also advocating a Coalition attempt to seize power when they lose the election.

  129. Only parliamentary leaders get to debate. Why? Because they will form future governments. If you let May in you might as well include all the independent MPs in the debate. They'd represent an equivalent proportion of Canadian voters.

  130. This article is a prime example. Look at the video. It's garbage. And yet Wherry works himself up into a frenzy, ejaculating all over his computer. That's a Liberal friendly article right there. And that's fine, Wherry can write whatever he wants. I highly respect a guy that gets paid to write. My point was simply that I read Wherry (Macleans), but I also read the NP, the Globe, the Wall Street Journal, the Ottawa Citizen, about a dozen different blogs, twitter feeds. It used to be people like Wherry would pump out this puff piece and millions of people would lap it up as their only source of information on the event. Now, I can read a dozen interpretations of it AND get the video.

  131. What an embarassment. Ignatieff pleads 'rise up' seven times before getting a response from his supporters."Our Prime Minister the Right Honourable Stephen Harper" is all that is needed to bring a room of Tories to their feet.

  132. I expect Igantieff and Liberals would like AG to dust off and release some of her other reports while she is at it.

    Liberals misinformed Parliament about millions spent on gun registry: AG
    Last Updated: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 | 4:30 PM ET
    2006 Report of the Auditor General of Canada

    The former Liberal government misinformed Parliament about millions of dollars in expenses incurred by the gun registry, Auditor General Sheila Fraser said.
    The largest portion of her latest report to Ottawa focused on how the government twice failed to properly record tens of millions of dollars worth of overspending at the Canada Firearms Centre.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2006/05/16/gu

    AG Fraser lambastes Liberals for blowing budget by a billion dollars on registry‏

    AG Fraser lambastes Liberals for blowing budget by a billion dollars on registry. When Canada's auditor general tabled her December 2002 report, she set her sights on Ottawa's controversial gun registry program.
    Sheila Fraser blasted the federal government, run by the Liberals at the time, for exceeding its estimated budget, saying that by the time the smoke cleared and all gun owners and their guns were registered, the program would have cost taxpayers more than $1 billion. Opposition critics were quick to point out that figure is 500 times more than the original $2-million estimate. A look at internal audits conducted by the Canadian Firearms Program suggests the cost of the program has been an issue from the beginning.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/10/06/f-

  133. I expect Igantieff and Liberals would like AG to dust off and release some of her other reports while she is at it.

    Liberals misinformed Parliament about millions spent on gun registry: AG
    Last Updated: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 | 4:30 PM ET
    2006 Report of the Auditor General of Canada

    The former Liberal government misinformed Parliament about millions of dollars in expenses incurred by the gun registry, Auditor General Sheila Fraser said.
    The largest portion of her latest report to Ottawa focused on how the government twice failed to properly record tens of millions of dollars worth of overspending at the Canada Firearms Centre.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2006/05/16/gu

    AG Fraser lambastes Liberals for blowing budget by a billion dollars on registry‏

    AG Fraser lambastes Liberals for blowing budget by a billion dollars on registry. When Canada's auditor general tabled her December 2002 report, she set her sights on Ottawa's controversial gun registry program.
    Sheila Fraser blasted the federal government, run by the Liberals at the time, for exceeding its estimated budget, saying that by the time the smoke cleared and all gun owners and their guns were registered, the program would have cost taxpayers more than $1 billion. Opposition critics were quick to point out that figure is 500 times more than the original $2-million estimate. A look at internal audits conducted by the Canadian Firearms Program suggests the cost of the program has been an issue from the beginning.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/10/06/f-

    • Yes, yes, we get it already, you want to see the CPC ousted after the AG's report on them just like we saw the Liberal's ousted following this report.

    • I expect Conservative supporters to be able to spell "Ignatieff" correctly. Yet they persist in disappointing.

  134. I don't recall Harper ever being an instructor at a university? As far as I know his bio is, a job his dad got him at Imperial Oil in the mailroom and working for the lobby-stink-tank NCC. Otherwise he's always been living off the political teat of Canada's government.

  135. And Harper drink water between every sentence he makes be it interview or speech. It may be to keep the "pants on fire" flames down to a cinder while cameras are rolling.

  136. There is a report link people can use if they feel you are being vulgar or whatever. Were you?

  137. Green's received just under a million votes nation wide last election. How many independent MP's received that many again?

  138. spoon fed CPC gruel? And what is it that you call Wherry's piece again?

  139. very astute? I was leaning towards pontificating a-hole myself.

  140. It may surprise you, but there are people out there who put principles, values and beliefs before things like money and personal gain. Springsteen, for example, supported Obama and lost a lot of fans as you noted; do you honestly believe that his PR team and record label-wanting to protect profits- wouldn't have warned him and tried to dissuade him from publicly endorsing one politician over another? You bet they would have. And he supported Obama regardless. I think it is the same thing here. Many individuals based in the entertainment industry-whether in the States or our home-are not exactly the biggest fans of conservative politics, let alone ideologues like Mr. Harper, Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain and Co. Lennon's widow, who pulled Harper's rendition of Imagine as a copyright infringement, for example, is known to stop right leaning politicians from using his music; as I'm sure you recall, in the last American election, several artists publicly called out Republicans for using their music. In Canada, some of our most talented musicians (like Arcarde Fire, who won this year's Grammy for best album) are also publicly endorsing anyone BUT Harper. So let's sit back, and see how this plays out. In the mean time, you're welcome to continue using Nickleback etc for the Conservative campaign. It would only be one of many crimes against humanity committed by the right in our nation.

  141. "There might be a single company in the entire world that can produce a fighter jet with the capabilities of the F35 "

    Ah, but there's the problem . . . what are the capabilities we as a country need?

    Are we satisfied that the requirements defined by the USA and the developed (and hopefully achieved) by L-M for a single-platform, multi-role fighter are right for Canada's needs?

    Or is there some value to the users of the equipment, and the taxpayers of Canada, defining what our specific needs are, based on long-range Defence and Foreign policy objectives? That definition could result in our seeking a different platform (or even platforms) for our specific needs.

  142. Well spoken Rob, agree with you 100%

  143. continued . . .

    Don't forget, because the F35 was developed to incorporate a lot of commonality for the needs of the USAF, Navy and Marines, there will be a lot of design compromises that are likely to render it a sub-optimal choice for the each of the services for which it is intended. One key rationale fr developing the platform was to minimize procurement costs, but it is becoming apparent to most informed observers that as the individual service requirements are increasingly not being met, additional development costs need to be invested, resulting in a higher cost product (and probably reducing commonality in the process)

    So, yes, it makes ample sense for the buyer to shop around and subject prospective suppliers to competition. On a scale more familiar to most, you probably would have a hard time getting a break on price if you marched right into your local Mercedes dealership and announced that is the only car I want to buy, now what can you do to make a good deal for me?

    Or do Conservatives only believe in competition when it suits them?

  144. It doesn't matter if it happened or not, the entitled libranos are going nowhere again. Who will the corporate lawyers of montreal and Toronto tap as their next proxy for re-entry to the trough? Got to be getting a little lean for the entitled, highborn, parasitic maggots which infect those cities like lice.

  145. Is it any use explaining to someone like you that the 70% was made necessary by the endless lies Harper's attack ads have spread about Ignatieff? That going to where the people are, with the courage to answer our questions, is Ignatieff's way of debunking those lying ads? (And that while he was gone, deputy leader Ralph Goodale held the fort?)

  146. Couldn't have said it better. Either corruption is challenged or it breeds even more corruption and so far this Harper government though possibly the most corrupt in Canadian history has gone virtually unchallenged and therefore has become even more bold in it's contempt of Parliament and Canadians.

  147. Couldn't have said it better. Either corruption is challenged or it breeds even more corruption and so far this Harper government though possibly the most corrupt in Canadian history has gone virtually unchallenged and therefore has become even more bold in it's contempt of Parliament and Canadians.

    • Your statements are laughable. The most corrupt government in Canadian history was the Chretien/Martin Liberals who stole hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars and lined their Liberal cronies' pockets with it.

      At least when the Tories send money to their own shills it builds infrastructure in their ridings instead of paying for luxury estates, yachts, and high falootin swarays.

      • Or to our competitors in the lumber industry in the states.

  148. The climax was a bit awkward but the lead up was sincere. It seems to be a general narrative worth repeating.

  149. The climax was a bit awkward but the lead up was sincere. It seems to be a general narrative worth repeating.

    • A bit awkward? It was plain embarrassing. Sensible Liberals must just watch this and shake their heads into their hands.

      I feel kind of bad for Ignatieff; he's about to get John Kerry'd right out of Canada.

  150. Who cares if they got a million votes across the entire country. Did they have the confidence of enough voters in a single riding to win one seat? No! They represent a very narrow swath of Canadians and shouldn't be included in the debates.

  151. Thanks, BCer. Just what I was going to say. I also remember the booklet of requirements they wanted, down to the size of the grommet or screw and such. But now it appears 'whatever you have is fine by us' is the way we're going.

  152. LOL good point! That might well be why he does it!

  153. Right, I must have misunderstood you when you suggested that the Greens represent the same number of voters as some independent candidate running in one riding.

  154. You don't read polls, do you. We're well ahead, and it would take a gaffe of epic proportions to bring that support down. The CPC support floor is about where the Liberal cieling is. You see how that makes it impossible to win, right?

  155. To shortly be followed by vomiting after seeing it .

  156. I wish someone would leak one of the emails that you people who get talking points for social media sites get.
    Dear Friend: please get on to every news site and repeat the following thoughts. Try to put them in your own words a little bit so they're not word for word.
    Clearly they threw it out quickly this time. The only word any of you can manage is desperation.
    if you think standing up for democracy is desperate….well, i guess that would make you a Stephen Harper Conservative.

  157. Parachute Club wrote a real Canadian anthem "Rise Up" in the eighties which has often been used by the NDP, and I think even by Jack Layton. I think the writers of "Rise Up" from Parachute Club, even wrote Jack Layton a song for his leadership campaign.

    Ignatieff certainly doesn't know his Canadian culture if he has to import American references to make a point. His touchstones are American references, NOT Canadian ones. He doesn't know our history and culture because he was not here for our history and culture.

  158. Come on, Jack. Bring out the old Parachute Club gang, and have them sing the Canadian anthem "Rise UP", at an NDP campaign event, and send this American imposter home.

    How can a guy from Toronto, like Ignatieff, not know about the Parachute Club, or "Rise Up"? Oh yeah….he hasn't been here for 35 years, and knows eff all about our culture.

  159. Come on, Jack. Bring out the old Parachute Club gang, and have them sing the Canadian anthem "Rise UP", at an NDP campaign event, and send this American imposter home.

    How can a guy from Toronto, like Ignatieff, not know about the Parachute Club, or "Rise Up"? Oh yeah….he hasn't been here for 35 years, and knows eff all about our culture.

    • The Parachute Club is Canadian Culture? God help us all.

  160. LMAO…NDP support: a mile wide and 2mm deep…

  161. Harper is the problem : with a new leader the Cons would be in majority territory.

  162. They don't have to win seats to spoil the party.

  163. I think you've captured the public mood.

  164. Now that I've seen the actual video of the event, it's worse than I expected. His handlers should have given him some water when Ignatieff needed it. Oh, man, this does not look good.

    Has CBC aired it??? If CBC has not aired it then it's not good news for Iggy.

  165. Oh, I am a Harper supporter, and please, give us more of this. Ignatieff in front of a greying crowd trying to save his day………………Hallelujah, Hallelujah………………and amen!

  166. Despite the -21 score I think you have a point. If the Liberals wanted this campaign to be about ethics then they should have come up with a set of policies that curbed the power of the PMO and empowered MPs and made it the absolute centrepiece of their campaign much like the Tories did in 2006 with what would become the accountability act. Without that, it's easy to see how a cynical public just sees it as the Liberals blowing smoke. Personally, I find it odd that up until now the Liberals have been trying to fight this election with their family pack of policies which basically makes the election about the economy which is what the Conservatives would like it to be about.

  167. Unless you for some reason believe that this is the first minority government ever, I think the "first time in history" thing is actually pretty significant.

  168. "However, most Canadians are in no mood for an Ignatieff as PM."

    According to all available polls, most Canadians aren't in the mood for anyone currently on offer as PM.

  169. Intense Debate has a known problem with some comments not showing up for a while after they've been posted.

    That said, it wouldn't be the first time Maclean's has disappeared comments. Although I haven't ever seen them do it for something other than one of their writers committed a bad gaffe and got called on it.

  170. Actually, their actions show contempt of the institution in its entirety. The instruction manual on blocking committees is proof of that.

  171. And its' for comments like yours and Mike's above that I keep reading these forums. Well thought out.

    One quibble I'd have with Mike's characterization of events. The confidence vote abstention was Dion's game, not Ignatieff's, and during the Guergis affair they were demanding she be dropped from Cabinet, but were all rather stunned when he turfed her from the party completely. That said, your description may match the public's memory more closely than the facts.

    Still, nice thinking both of you. It's something I hadn't considered before and has a ring of truth to it to me.

    My problem is while I believe the opposition has certainly been too occupied with "gotcha" politics, there are, amongst them, some very serious concerns. I fear that the public's disillusionment with the whole process will end up rewarding the CPC which will do nothing to lessen the liberties they take against a properly functioning parliament.. of course, that's what ME2's comment is about, isn't it?

    Frustrating.

  172. No, not anyone with a different opinion. Just anyone who ignores what the CPC has done and has been doing. Ignoring Mr. Harper's complete lack of reliability for anything he says, and ignoring his continued attacks on the ability of parliament and committees to have accurate and reliable information so that they can do their jobs effectively.

  173. Yes, yes, we get it already, you want to see the CPC ousted after the AG's report on them just like we saw the Liberal's ousted following this report.

  174. It sounded sort of half interesting when reading about it in print. Watching the video… not so much.

  175. LOL I've long ago ignored the thumbs rating system. It seems anything even remotely harsh about the Liberals will automatically yield at least 5 thumbs down. It wouldn't surprise me if some people read the first 4 words of my post, and immediately clicked the thumbs-down button.

  176. Pavlov wept.

  177. I expect Conservative supporters to be able to spell "Ignatieff" correctly. Yet they persist in disappointing.

  178. You might be right about the confidence motions (haven't bothered Googling it, but I'll take your word for it). I was surprised Layton didn't bring it up during the debates, but it makes sense if it was Dion's game.

    As I say below to Wascally Wabbit, I don't think Angry Ignatieff will win much more support. He needs to talk about his ideas, particularly democratic reform, rather than simply attack the other guy. More positive, less negative. More a vote for something, less a vote against something.

    And as for the thumbs (as ME2 mentioned), I've long ago learned to ignore them. It seems anything even remotely anti-Liberal will automatically yield -5 thumbs down at a minimum. It wouldn't surprise me if some commenters read my first line, and immediately clicked thumbs down.

    (As an aside, since you use Intense Debate, do you know how to sign into Intense Debate on an iPhone? Whenever I post something from my phone, it won't associate my comment with my ID profile. Have you (or anyone else) tried?)

  179. I respect the fact that this speech really impresed Mr. Wherry but the way he described it I was expecting something similar to Obama's race speech. Needless to say I was pretty disapointed with the oration of this mini speech. I found it shrill and to be honest rather condscending towards the voters. So far Mr. Ignatieff has proven to be a poor spokesperson for his party and this short rant seems to prove it.

  180. I respect the fact that this speech really impresed Mr. Wherry but the way he described it I was expecting something similar to Obama's race speech. Needless to say I was pretty disapointed with the oration of this mini speech. I found it shrill and to be honest rather condscending towards the voters. So far Mr. Ignatieff has proven to be a poor spokesperson for his party and this short rant seems to prove it.

  181. How about Harper's "The Coalition says 'YES', (with chorus), the Conservatives say 'No' (no chorus, cuz Harper's the only one who gets to say no. Something like that you mean maybe. I like Iggy's better, it's got real power and lot's of voices are going to be singing that phrase out loud and in their heads. It sticks.

  182. Oh, yeah, let there be no doubt about it: it will stick!

    Anything will stick to a confused mindset.

    Just wait which part of the country will 'rise up' most spontaneously after Ignatieff has formed a coalition goverment by handing over the balance of power to the BQ.

    And that time there will be no confused mindsets involved, believe you me!

  183. How about Harper's "The Coalition says 'YES', (with chorus), the Conservatives say 'No' (no chorus, cuz Harper's the only one who gets to say no. I like Iggy's better, it's got real power and conviction. Lot's of voices are going to be singing that phrase out loud and in their heads. It sticks.

  184. How about Harper's "The Coalition says 'YES', (with chorus), the Conservatives say 'No' (no chorus, cuz Harper's the only one who gets to say no. I like Iggy's better, it's got real power and conviction. Lot's of voices are going to be singing that phrase out loud and in their heads. It sticks.

    • The shrill desperation in Ignatieff's voice is what sticks with you. It's funny that Ignatieff who has criticised Harper by stating that "“Mr. Harper wants to bring American-style attack politics into Canada,” would directly parrot Obama's 2008 campaign.

  185. Then your leader has started to figure out this politics thing, rallying the troops… or, rallying you, anyways…

  186. It is hard to believe Iggy would have a speech focused on the words "Rise Up, Rise up", and then NOT channel the only popular Canadian song with those very words. It's actually a good song…and inspirational.

    Here, for your viewing pleasure:

  187. It is hard to believe Iggy would have a speech focused on the words "Rise Up, Rise up", and then NOT channel the only popular Canadian song with those very words. It's actually a good song…and inspirational.

    Here, for your viewing pleasure:

  188. Polls are misleading. More votes in the West won't win Harper any more seats. Something like Iggy at 33% could match Harper's at 38%. Not sure of the exact numbers, but you get the point.

  189. To be fair, we should give Rob some credit for referencing Hitler, Stalin, Mao, AND the House of Romanov. I'm wondering why he didn't throw in Pol Pot or Kim Il Sung though. Maybe he thought that would be exaggerating.

  190. The shrill desperation in Ignatieff's voice is what sticks with you. It's funny that Ignatieff who has criticised Harper by stating that "“Mr. Harper wants to bring American-style attack politics into Canada,” would directly parrot Obama's 2008 campaign.

  191. Your statements are laughable. The most corrupt government in Canadian history was the Chretien/Martin Liberals who stole hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars and lined their Liberal cronies' pockets with it.

    At least when the Tories send money to their own shills it builds infrastructure in their ridings instead of paying for luxury estates, yachts, and high falootin swarays.

  192. Your statements are laughable. The most corrupt government in Canadian history was the Chretien/Martin Liberals who stole hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars and lined their Liberal cronies%E2%80%99 pockets with it.

    At least when the Tories send money to their own shills it builds infrastructure in their ridings instead of paying for luxury estates, yachts, and high falootin swarays.

  193. the obvious thing to note is "Rise Up" in terms of Canada makes you think of the Parachute Club and "Rise Up", not the wrong refrain to the wrong Springsteen song.

    Iggy picks the tangential yankee song over the clear, obvious Canadian song. That's too damned interesting a "tell" to not mention.

    Rise up! Canada! Rise up! Rise Up! Your mad as hell and your not going to take it any more! Its my money and I want it now!

    Here's another funny thing. It sounds an awful lot like the only good 30 seconds of John McCain's campaign when he ended his acceptance speech with:

    "Fight with me! fight with me! Fight for our children and their children! Fight for liberty and justice! Fight with me!" (with the rapt audience clapping wildly in the convention center).

    So, who's the secret Republican?

  194. the obvious thing to note is "Rise Up" in terms of Canada makes you think of the Parachute Club and "Rise Up", not the wrong refrain to the wrong Springsteen song.

    Iggy picks the tangential yankee song over the clear, obvious Canadian song. That's too damned interesting a "tell" to not mention.

    Rise up! Canada! Rise up! Rise Up! Your mad as hell and your not going to take it any more! Its my money and I want it now!

    Here's another funny thing. It sounds an awful lot like the only good 30 seconds of John McCain's campaign when he ended his acceptance speech with:

    "Fight with me! fight with me! Fight for our children and their children! Fight for liberty and justice! Fight with me!" (with the rapt audience clapping wildly in the convention center).

    So, who's the secret Republican?

  195. Ignatieff will never get people excited about him because he only ever talks about Harper.

    Harper being bad does not make Ignatieff good. Why is this so hard for him to see. Yeah sure, I won't vote Conservative. But I won't vote Liberal either. Their entire platform seems to be "we disapprove of Stephen Harper's personality. We want power so we can be more.. cordial?"

  196. Ignatieff will never get people excited about him because he only ever talks about Harper.

    Harper being bad does not make Ignatieff good. Why is this so hard for him to see. Yeah sure, I won't vote Conservative. But I won't vote Liberal either. Their entire platform seems to be "we disapprove of Stephen Harper's personality. We want power so we can be more.. cordial?"

    • Too perfect!!! Thx.

  197. The Parachute Club is Canadian Culture? God help us all.

  198. Chretian shut down committees and inquiries. Come on, if it needed to be done to hide Liberal transgressions it was done – many times. Can you say Somalia for starters.

  199. If you're getting minimum wage for this stuff, you're overpaid. Better step it up, Peter, there are thousands of C students looking for part-time jobs..

  200. Yes, he shut down the Somalia inquiry. I can't think of anything else, so you'll have to source it.

  201. It is significant in the fact that the opposition would abuse the power they had for crass opportunism. Spending estimates are that – estimates. No matter what the Conservatives said, the opposition could say not good enough. To go for a contempt of parliament charge is scandalous in the fact it shows how little regard the opposition has for our institutions and to force an election on it to boot. If they form government as a group who lost the election with the support of the Bloq, they will truly show their contempt for the country and the Canadian taxpayer (because taxes will go through the roof to pay for their pie in the sky policies and also their Bloq support fee). Anyone that thinks this is an acceptable outcome to the election, needs to have their head examined. This will look like an undemocratic seizure of power, from the bogus contempt charge to defeating the throne speech. They didn't even read the budget.

  202. We should be more concerned with a parliament and judiciary that is a throwback to empire- bleeds Canadian tax payers dry– delivers poor value – I suppose it is easier to blame the bogyman than address real issues that affect real Canadians. Many youth look at the political platforms and see nothing but hopelessness – an education system that is abysmal – we are enslaving our youth with student loans and failing to educate them on the basics. In Canada you need a certificate to take a breath. While higher education is important, the assets of any country are the people – our clever society closes the doors on the bulk of the population – smart – no stupid. The type of politics that divides the people of a nation or nations is to be frank cheap – real leadership please stand up – Real leaders unite their people. When will Canada stand up to the rampant corruption in this country? When will Canadians start asking the questions that matter? When will Canadians demand a better future? When will the politicians answer those that they serve? Decades and Im still waiting.

  203. We should be more concerned with a parliament and judiciary that is a throwback to empire- bleeds Canadian tax payers dry– delivers poor value – I suppose it is easier to blame the bogyman than address real issues that affect real Canadians. Many youth look at the political platforms and see nothing but hopelessness – an education system that is abysmal – we are enslaving our youth with student loans and failing to educate them on the basics. In Canada you need a certificate to take a breath. While higher education is important, the assets of any country are the people – our clever society closes the doors on the bulk of the population – smart – no stupid. The type of politics that divides the people of a nation or nations is to be frank cheap – real leadership please stand up – Real leaders unite their people. When will Canada stand up to the rampant corruption in this country? When will Canadians start asking the questions that matter? When will Canadians demand a better future? When will the politicians answer those that they serve? Decades and Im still waiting.

  204. Hay[e]k "discredited," eh? Try "ignored at our peril." And try to spell his name right. All that's left to figure out is when the pain sets in.

  205. here here!!
    Well said.

  206. Which, for better or for worse, suits Harper's chances just fine.

    I'm still keeping most of my chips on the "Stronger Harper Minority but no Majority" square.

  207. My City of Ruins and the Rising aren't "basically the same song" and Bruce owes no apology for writing them. They are both brilliant songs completely different except one somewhat similar refrain (in terms of lyrics but not even remotely close in terms of melody or style of song). The author of this article is way off.

  208. My City of Ruins and the Rising aren't "basically the same song" and Bruce owes no apology for writing them. They are both brilliant songs completely different except one somewhat similar refrain (in terms of lyrics but not even remotely close in terms of melody or style of song). The author of this article is way off.

  209. Hitting a new low on the lame scale. Very john Kerryish.

    What's with Springsteen anyway? This is Canada, not Illinois.

    How about Gordon Lightfoot, Neil Young or Burton Cummings. Now, wouldn't it have been impressive if Iggy did some Stan Rogers…."I'm a broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Trudeau's privateers."

  210. Hitting a new low on the lame scale. Very john Kerryish.

    What's with Springsteen anyway? This is Canada, not Illinois.

    How about Gordon Lightfoot, Neil Young or Burton Cummings. Now, wouldn't it have been impressive if Iggy did some Stan Rogers…."I'm a broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Trudeau's privateers."

  211. If they form a government supported by the majority of parliament, please explain how that shows contempt for the country again?

    You may not like that people in Quebec elect the Bloc, but the fact remains they do elect them, and unless you're going to declare their votes as having less worth than your own, you're going to have to live with it.

    Besides, the CPC have relied on the Bloc plenty of times to stay in power. The only thing that makes it different if the Liberals do it is that they'll be able to make deals with a group to the right of them as well to stay in.

  212. You really think stronger? Given the watershed lows that were hit by Dion? From what I've seen, the Liberal base is far more energized this election cycle, and the CPC base less enthused. I still don't think it'll be enough to move to Liberal minority, but I don't expect that Mr. Harper will be making any gains.

    I've seen nobody come out and say, 'I didn't vote CPC last time but I will this time.' I've seen a few saying "Dammit, can't bring myself to vote for them again."

    Similarly, I haven't seen any people claim they voted Liberal previously and won't be doing so now. While I have seen a few folks saying, "I'm considering holding my nose and voting Liberal this time."

  213. Or to our competitors in the lumber industry in the states.

  214. Only too true.

    However, I prefer the dour pragmatism of this Canadian election than the "bite-your-knuckles-and-cry-elephant-tears- over-the-beautiful-blue-eyes-of-the-man-who-raps-about-hope" emotionalism of the recent American election.

    Ignatieff has to learn to quit the bluster and tell it like it is, or at least like he sees it. Calling for an uprising is ridiculous. He must be getting tired; time for some warm milk and a hot water bottle.

  215. Hilarious. I can't quit laughing.

    Somebody tell Micheal that this isn't Illinois; it's Canada. Springsteen doesn't cut it here.

    Now if he tried some Gordon Lightfoot it'd probably have some effect. Probably Sundown is more accurate anyway. "Sometimes I think it's a sin when I feel like I'm winning and I'm losing again.."

  216. A bit awkward? It was plain embarrassing. Sensible Liberals must just watch this and shake their heads into their hands.

    I feel kind of bad for Ignatieff; he's about to get John Kerry'd right out of Canada.

  217. Why the Conservative Base Will Always Vote Conservative.

    THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY STRUCTURE
    (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950)

    Authoritarianism
    “Authoritarianism…happens when the followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want–which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical and brutal.” (Altemeyer, 2006, p. 2)

    The Authoritarian Personality
    An Authoritarian is “someone who, because of his personality, submits by leaps and bows to his authorities.” (p. 8)
    “Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled, customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians.” (p. 9)

    Authoritarianism
    Psychologically these followers have personalities featuring:
    1.a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society;
    2.high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
    3.a high level of conventionalism (believing that everybody should have to follow the norms and customs that your authorities have decreed ).(Altemeyer, 1981, 1988, 2006)

    High authoritarians are extremely self-righteous individuals who maintain a strong acceptance of traditional (i.e. Religious) values and norms, possess a general willingness to submit to legitimate authority, and display a general tendency to aggress against others (especially those who threaten their conventional values and norms). They see their own aggressive behaviour as righteous rather than hurtful. (Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993)

    Authoritarians believe in traditional gender roles, racial prejudice, negative attitudes toward homosexuals, conservative (fundamental or orthodox) religious values, and are low on openness to experience.

    They Are Also Extra-Punitive Toward Law Breakers

    *Assign longer jail times for any law breaker (no matter how small the crime)

    *They think the crimes are more serious than most people do, and they find “common criminals”
    to be highly disgusting and repulsive – it makes them feel glad to be able to punish a perpetrator

    *But they go easy on authorities who commit crimes

    Just picture John Baird…

  218. The liberal party was one of the most successful political entities in the world – which is impressive – and that success was not based on some emulation of Evanglical Shants, nor was it accomplished by bringing in the old guard – Chretien and Martin. It appears as if the party itself has decayed and its brainchild moved on…but interestingly, even as the strategic party brass appears in decline(?); if it fails in this election, the party gets two chances at being PM – a majority or coalition…no wonder they closed parliament.

  219. The liberal party was one of the most successful political entities in the world – which is impressive – and that success was not based on some emulation of Evanglical Shants, nor was it accomplished by bringing in the old guard – Chretien and Martin. It appears as if the party itself has decayed and its brainchild moved on…but interestingly, even as the strategic party brass appears in decline(?); if it fails in this election, the party gets two chances at being PM – a majority or coalition…no wonder they closed parliament.

  220. Welcome to Wherry's world!!

  221. If Ignatula loses he'll just go back to his castle in Transylvania.

  222. If Ignatula loses he'll just go back to his castle in Transylvania.

  223. Too perfect!!! Thx.

  224. Wow! What a right up. Obviously you wouldn't show that video. In it Ignatieff looks like he lost his marbles.

  225. Wow! What a right up. Obviously you wouldn't show that video. In it Ignatieff looks like he lost his marbles.

  226. LOL!!! Iggy sounded like an Evangelist preacher on Sunday morning TV. He thinks Harper has Republican leanings or contacts in the tea-party. WOW! Is he ever off base. I think the stress of the election is getting to him. He has used several different tactics to present himself and so far none have worked. I hope he is not turning into another Glen Beck. You won't have to worry about a right wing TV station coming with Iggy around. We have to have someone on Harper's side. This guy ain't no Obama!!!

  227. LOL!!! Iggy sounded like an Evangelist preacher on Sunday morning TV. He thinks Harper has Republican leanings or contacts in the tea-party. WOW! Is he ever off base. I think the stress of the election is getting to him. He has used several different tactics to present himself and so far none have worked. I hope he is not turning into another Glen Beck. You won't have to worry about a right wing TV station coming with Iggy around. We have to have someone on Harper's side. This guy ain't no Obama!!!

  228. 1) They did read the budget – in the lockup before its release and certainly since (looking for holes to pick at during the election campaign).

    2) In a sense, it's irrelevant whether they read it or not, since they defeated the government on contempt.

    3) If Harper didn't want this election, he would have produced the requested documents. He pushed them into a corner where they had little choice but to call the election or lose what remaining respect their constituents had for them (having backed down too many times before). Harper thought he smelled a majority but knew if he pulled the plug as he did in 2008 it would slip away again. This gave him what he wanted – and in time to escape the damage of the upcoming trials and what many suspect will be a very critical final report from the AG.

  229. So you prefer the country to be run by the Bloc Albertois? Because that's the way you're sounding… just like the BQ / PQ. Take a look in the mirror, FV, and you'll see Marios staring back.

  230. Sometimes they just disappear into the ether. Sometimes the filters they have will block posts for things they shouldn't; a few days ago a filter that was supposed to block a specific spammer whose online name included "harper" ended up blocking every post wth Harper's name for a short period until they fixed it.

    So posts periodically vanish for a variety of reasons that aren't good but which are not – as Joshua implies – due to a conspiracy.

  231. And John Lennon took out Canadian citizenship… when, exactly?

  232. You know, there's at least equally valid grounds for pointing to the named despots as Harper's mentors, if you want to get into games of silly hyperbole.

  233. He's going for right-wing, free-form poetry. Not succeeding, though…

  234. Yo heave ho!

    ROTFLMAO Time to heave out the yoyos!

  235. LOL I worry that's what Harper sees Canadians doing…mindless drudgery

  236. Ah, much easier to see the reply button when I'm not on my BB.
    While I agree with much of what you have said, what I'm not in agreement is your insistence that mainstream media is liberal friendly. Mainstream media (read, bell and rogers) are only friendly to those that make them the most money. And are hardly a tool in either parties box. They are more like thugs for hire. To the highest bidder. The cheep tricks that work so well for the libs work equally well for the cons. They both excel in the art of attack adds, but as you pointed out, society is growing up and recognizing this. But as much as we would like to believe this, most likely to make ourselves feel better, there is still enough ignorance in this world to keep these politicians employed.

  237. They represent a much larger swath of Canadians then the bloc, who only field candidates in one Provence. Duceppe has been in the debate since the early 90"s. They represent a larger percentage of the now defunct reform party. In the 1993 debate, Manning participated, even though his party had no seats. In 1993, both the NDP and PC party were in the debate, even though neither had official party status. The green party runs in every riding, and are on their way to equaling the NDP, but yet the mainstream media insist that they jump through hoops just to just to receive parity with the other parties.

  238. Sounds great to me!

    No more robot Harper – let's get a little life and vision into this damn election!

  239. "They represent a much larger swath of Canadians then the bloc"

    That's why the Bloc received 450, 000 more votes than the Greens in 2008 and 900, 000 more votes than the Greens in 2006. Let us not forget that enough Canadians found the Bloc representative of their views to elect 49 Bloc MPs to the Commons. How many Greens got elected? Oh that's right 0.

  240. This is not about the Liberal party of Canada. This is about the country you love. BYAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!

  241. Preaching to the choir won't help, no matter how strongly he feels about the issue.

    It's sad but true (to quote a Metallica song)

  242. Preaching to the choir won't help, no matter how strongly he feels about the issue.

    It's sad but true (to quote a Metallica song)

  243. I will guess by this post that you don't read the paper version. Most of the content is on the site first, or at the least, at the same time. The paper version has most of the same material. Before you comment on it, read an issue and compare.

    I think I used the small l liberal. My point was that you normally can't compare two different versions of the same event. That is what made it unique.

    I wasn't talking about Harper as all. Funny how you can make everything relate to Harper – I am starting to wonder if you have a secret crush on him. Are you around the same age as him? Do you find him dreamy?

  244. Get serious dude, and leave the sexism behind.

  245. Sexism, where do you see sexism? You liberals are masters at inventing a slight. . .

  246. a) Not liberal, sorry.

    b) Do you have a secret crush on Lizzie May? Do you find her dreamy?

  247. small 'l' – I am guessing you are not a conservative.

    who is Lizzie May? have I ever commented about her?

  248. small 'l' – I am guessing you are not a conservative.

    who is Lizzie May? have I ever commented about her?

  249. I'm not a member of any political party….I vote for whoever I think would be best for the future of the country. Direction, not specific policies.

    Lizzie May is Elizabeth May, leader of the Green party….if you think I have a 'crush' on some politician because I oppose his policies and direction, that's pretty sexist….not to mention dumb.

  250. I haven't seen anyone else so obsessed with Harper, so no.

    If there is no sexism, it is impossible to see. I have seen from your numerous posts that you have a hard time admitting a mistake. You seem to be able to justify any comment or belief, regardless of facts. A lot of the time, you will just change the topic. There is not sexism in my above post, but you will defend your comment until the day you die.

    Why don't you surprise me, prove me wrong, and admit that there is no sexism in the post? I would imagine that would be impossible for you. . .

    • Opposing a political leader is just that…opposing.

      Why don't you find something new to talk about instead of me?

      Like say, the topic here.

      • point proven.

Sign in to comment.