The revolution will eventually end up on YouTube

This footage is apparently a couple months old, but it is indeed Michael Ignatieff standing up in public and saying things about stuff—specifically arctic sovereignty, agriculture, Conservative attack ads, Afghanistan, nuclear energy, firearms and pharmacare.

Do try to contain yourselves.

The revolution will eventually end up on YouTube

  1. As much as I hate to rekindle the old "Ignatieff hasn't spent much time in Canada" debate, Iggy's inference (3rd link) that criticizing him on this issue is the same thing as attacking immigrants is intellectually dishonest.

    • Intellectually dishonest would be pulling some quotes from a middle of a book and claiming the author reached a very different conclusion concerning torture than the author in fact did. This is dishonest because the proponents presumably did read the entire book and are well aware that the statements being made are untrue.

      Ignatieff generalized the attack based on being out of Canada, but the most common apology from thoughtful conservatives for these ads is that Ignatieff should not be PM because he does not know Canada as a result of "spending most of his adult life" out of the country.

      So how would it be possible for an immigrant to overcome this hurdle. If you did not spend your childhood here, there are huge swatches of culture that you would simply never be able to experience. I agree that it is not an identical argument but it is a straightforward extension of the logic sitting within those Conservative attack ads. If you listen carefully (I recognize you're ear challenged) you will see that he actually made it clear that he was making an extension. Intellectually invalid, perhaps, dishonest certainly not.

      Perhaps you would like to say as others that this Conservative exclusion of "foreign tainted" Canadians is only for the PM position? How much discrimination is required to make someone second class? Why just the PM, don't Premiers need to know their province, don't mayors need to know their towns? Do we stop at political leaders? Why should not everyone who is put is a position to make judgment about other Canadians?

      Perhaps you would like to say that yes damn it, the PM needs to know this country, Premiers need to know their province, mayors need to know their towns. It is pretty clear that both Harper and Ignatieff could pass any rational quiz on Canadian history, geography whathaveyou. (Jack needs to work on that Vancouver Bay thing but) So given Ignatieff can comment intelligently about Canada's culture, economy, geography, history, people and the Conservative braintrust is aware of this, when they put out an ad indicating he doesn't know Canada, is that intellectually dishonest?

      Personally I think see no reason to qualify it, it is just dishonest.

      • Intellectually dishonest would be pulling some quotes from a middle of a book and claiming the author reached a very different conclusion concerning torture than the author in fact did

        Fair enough. I should have just said "dishonest".

        So how would it be possible for an immigrant to overcome this hurdle

        The immigrant could overcome this hurdle by persuading other people to vote for him/her despite the fact that he/she lacks Canadian experience. Of course, it's extremely unlikely that an immigrant who lived elsewhere for most of his/her life would be running for PM.

        If you listen carefully (I recognize you're ear challenged) you will see that he actually made it clear that he was making an extension

        First, frogs have ears. There wouldn't be much point to "ribbiting" if other frogs couldn't hear them. Second, Iggy has made this dishonest link much more explicit in French ("Those who attack me, attack immigrants").

        Perhaps you would like to say as others that this Conservative exclusion of "foreign tainted" Canadians is only for the PM position?

        Indeed I do. There is a huge amount of power concentrated in the Prime Minister's office. He leads us all and represents us all. I couldn't care less if the Premier of PEI or the Mayor of Sarnia spent three and a half decades abroad. (Islanders and Sarnians might care, but that's their problem.)

        Do we stop at political leaders? Why should not everyone who is put is a position to make judgment about other Canadians?

        That's a lame "slippery slope" argument. Look at the Americans. There's only one job in the country that an immigrant is legally prevented from holding ,and that job is President of the United States. Does this mean the Americans hate immigrants?

        • But they weren't dishonest.

          I think the line "just in it for himself" is Harper projecting his own feelings onto Ignatieff. I think it is great irony that this tagline (it's all about him) appears at the bottom of the CPC website, which is cluttered with pictures of Harper, Harper and more Harper. The man is so self-absorbed that he can't even see how perfectly that tagline captures himself.

          Whether dishonest is the right word or not, making statements about an opponent's motivation says a lot about the character of the attacker, doesn't it?

          • I agree with you, Catherine. The line "just in it for himself" is a lame cheap shot. It's also a cheap shot when Liberals use it to attack Harper. I wish all political parties would abandon these sortsof "below the belt" attacks and focus on policies, ideas and records.

          • I agree with you, Catherine. The line "just in it for himself" is a lame cheap shot. It's also a cheap shot when Liberals use it to attack Harper. I wish all political parties would abandon these sorts of "below the belt" attacks and focus on policies, ideas and records.

          • I agree with you, Catherine. The "just in it for himself" line is a lame cheap shot. It's also a cheap shot when Liberals use it to attack Harper. I wish all political parties would abandon these sorts of "below the belt" attacks and focus on policies, ideas and records.

          • I agree with you, Catherine. The "just in it for himself" line is a lame cheap shot. It's also a cheap shot when Liberals use it to attack Harper. I wish all political parties would abandon this sort of "below the belt" attack and focus on policies, ideas and records.

  2. Thanks for the links. I suggest correcting the "nuclear energy" hyperlink to "nuclear medicine isotopes" or some such. It's the one I've seen so far, and I tried to contain myself. I really did.

  3. I watched the Arctic sovereignty one and the way Iggy talks about building infrastructure to service shipping through the northwest passage sounds to me like he's has thrown in the towel on doing anything to combat global warming.

    • I don't think anyone believes that even if we enact the most stringent standards environmentalists are calling for we can reverse the trend of global warming and prevent ice from melting.

        • Canada's claim to sovereignty over the passage we'll be weakened if we don't assert control over it.

        • Just like how Jack gave up when he decided to attack the tax shift of Dion's.

  4. Umm, no. As John pointed out, even if Igantieff and every other citizen on the planet did everything they could… it is too late to stop the ice from melting. However, if Ignatieff and every other citizen on the planet "throw in the towel on doing anything to combat global warming" then the situation will be ultimately much, much worse. So it makes sense to prepare for the impact of climate change at the same time as you work to eliminate the fundamental problem.

  5. Prime Minister Harper is heading to Nunavut to ensure the Nunavutlians that some evil person won't take over the north.

    The last thing Canada needs is for some entity to take over our islands in Hudson, James, and Ungava Bay. Quebec is evil; Bert is evil.

    How do I insert a humorous smiley face? :)

  6. The problem for Iggy is that he is now operating in the political arena, not the academic arena. In this arena, voters understand that ANY political ad, such as 'just visiting' is going to have it's own spin, unflattering to the attacked party. As long as the spin doesn't go too far, it's all kopasetic.

    Long arguments about 'out of context' and such aren't going to resonate, except with Lib partisans. Voter attention span just isn't nearly as long as that of students in a classroom.

    Obviously, when voters decide between one leader and another, they are going to factor in many things. The JV ads, among other things, suggest that voters factor in that Iggy has been away for 34 years. No big deal, it's a simple fact. Make of it what you will, voter.

    The Libs could produce an ad asking voters to factor in that Harper was once head of the National Citizens Coalition. Again, no big deal. Neither 'observation' is anywhere near below the belt.

  7. The issue with facts is simple. He skirts around facts – because he doesn't have them. He's right to question what the REAL books like – we've seen Flaherty in Ontario concoct two sets of books – and I'll bet he has at least two sets now – and neither match with those of Kevin 0 the Budget Man's estimates!
    On the other hand – he was sending the audience to sleep – in those answers I watched him give – it's one thing to say – I can't give you numbers simply because I don't trust the books that Mr. Flaherty has unveiled – but you can still make some statements of principle – and saying Bob Speller and I have talked to you…and we understand your predicament. when he spoke at the cost of changing Farm infrastructure – he clearly is unaware of the traditions of farmers to form coops to address such needs…

    In summary – I am a Liberal – and I'd frankly like to see him come out of his corner punching – with questions for the audience – what would YOU like to see – and then see a forceful response to those suggestions – why they would or wouldn't work…more of an Obama Town Hall -

Sign in to comment.