The slur


Dan Gardner on the return of an attack on Michael Ignatieff.

I don’t believe for a moment that these Conservatives believe what they are saying. No, to them, it’s all just a game — a miserable little game that diminishes Parliament and reminds good people why they stay clear of politics.

If you don’t want to take Dan’s word for it, consider that when editors at the National Post—not generally great champions of Mr. Ignatieff’s cause—reviewed Blood and Belonging, they found no reason to even note the allegedly controversial comments and, in fact, came away with a positive reading of what the book said of Ignatieff’s thinking.

Filed under:

The slur

  1. Gardner is right about Ignatieff. Ukranian’s at least have the excuse of ignorance, or simply love of country. What excuse do the consevatives have? To knowingly lie in support of nothing more than political advantage is partisanship taken to insane lengths!

    • I assume you’ll be equally fastidious the next time a Liberal says something stupid and debatably untrue in aid of a good soundbite, right?

      • Firstly it’s not debatably untrue, so let’s be clear about yr partisanship in this. But otherwise my answer is yes, i would object if a liberal deiberately distorted something from Harper’s past. Which has happened under Martin in particular, and i said so then.

      • Short answer yes! By the way there’s no debateably about this story!

  2. You know what would be fantastic? If our leaders, espacially our Prime Ministers could say things like THIS, for example:
    This is a moment of challenge for our country. But we’ve experienced great trials before. And with every test, each generation has found the capacity to not only endure, but to prosper — to discover great opportunity in the midst of great crisis. That is what we can and must do today. And I am absolutely confident that is what we will do. I’m confident that at this defining moment, we will prove ourselves worthy of the sacrifice of those who came before us, and the promise of those who will come after.”
    – President Barack Obama

    …instead of the bitter, uninspirational and slandering remarks we hear.

    • You deserve applause for your humanity, Angela K. Unfortunately, it seems, in today’s world the Lords of Darkness rule. You know — the ones who cite God as their witness.

      • Quite honestly I have no problem with people citing God – at least they show hope and compassion and the belief in something greater than ourselves.
        It’s the constant attacks and the he-she she-said rebuttals that are sickening me. But it’s politics, what’s new? Ohh wait a minute. Obama is doing it right!

        • Politicians citing god usually do it for political reasons. I doubt it has much to do with believing.

        • @Angela, they cite but do not exemplify G-d’s attributes (the “devils” believe and tremble too); i expect more from ppl who claim to have hope; lack of compassion/indifference to ppl’s basic needs and dignity, misrepresenting the truth for political gain, not acting when you have the chance to do good–all those and other regrettable examples of this type of behaviour from the conservs go against G-d/Good. and i expected more from them because they held themselves up as some sort of example.

  3. I think it is fair to criticize Mr. Ignatieff on a couple of counts…
    a) smugness and a tendency to arrogance (both of which come through in the quoted text – but I don’t read in it a disdain of Ukrainians – merely of artificial nationalism) – and
    b) The way he acquired that riding in 2005….not because the aspirations of his Ukrainian opponent (and critic here) in that riding were thwarted but because – if I can believe my sources – Mr. Martin and the string pullers surrounding him displaced Martha Hall-Findlay for a second time (she was negotiatiing with Jean Augustine at time to succeed Ms. Augustine in the riding).

  4. These days the Tories seem to be way worse than their opponents.

  5. Dan Do you believe for a moment Iggy believes what he is saying? According to you, Iggy wrote “Isn’t nationalism just an exercise in kitsch, in fervent emotional insincerity?” yet he also has said that Quebecers are a nation and has hinted that we need to have another round of constiutional argy-bargy to acknowledge that. Is Iggy pandering or does he believe that we should have threaten the make-up of Canada just to appease Quebecers and their ’emotional insincerity’ and ‘exercises in kitsch’?

    What I always find interesting is how white latte liberals have appointed themselves gatekeepers to decide what Canadians are allowed to say about other ethnic groups and what those ethnic groups are allowed to say about others. And isn’t it amazing how ethnic groups that mainly support Libs are allowed to say whatever they like without comment while ethnics that lean Con have their beliefs parsed and then declared that they are whining and are arguing in bad faith.

  6. it’s just more press and recognition for Ignatieff and the Liberals as a legit minority govt option to the current embarrassment we have in Ottawa.

  7. Huh? What makes you think that Iggy can’t sling mud as well as the rest of them? He certainly can.

Sign in to comment.