‘Frankly, get lost’


 

Michael Ignatieff talks to the Globe’s Gary Mason.

“Frankly,” he said, “I think it’s condescending to westerners that being a so-called intellectual is some big liability. People out here are as devoted to the life of the mind, and the life of culture, as anybody else in the country. So I don’t think that’s going to fly. It’s just stupid.”

He said his life has exposed him to different cultures and different experiences. He is the only current federal leader in Canada who has been to Iran. Besides, he said, there were other prime ministers, Lester Pearson among them, who spent a great deal of their lives outside Canada before they assumed power. “The alternative [Mr. Harper] is a politician formed and shaped in the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks,” Mr. Ignatieff said. “To the degree this is about my patriotism and devotion to Canada, frankly, get lost.”

Elsewhere in that piece, the Alberta oil sands explained with a goose analogy.


 

‘Frankly, get lost’

  1. "…the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks."

    Oh, yes. That will play well.

    "[F]rankly, get lost."

    Hmm. And I hear that one should not mess with Michael Ignatieff or else he will mess with the person who has messed with him until he–meaning Ignatieff–is done.

    • Oh, and isn't the NCC based in Toronto?

      Is there some other think tank to which Ignatieff is referring.

      • I can't believe Iggy would be stupid enough to say something like that. For a guy who is marketing himself as an intellectual he doesn't seem very bright in many of his interviews.

      • I can't believe Iggy would be stupid enough to say something like that about Calgary. For a guy who constructed a career for himself by milking his "intellectual" credentials, he doesn't come across as very bright in many of his interviews.

      • "radical conservative ideological world of Calgary"
        Calgarians are radical. Me thinks Ignatieff has some explaining to do. I'd really like him to expand on what he means by this.
        Also, this reminds me of the Milch cow. Liberals view the west of nothing more than a source of revenue.
        "So it's slightly bad faith to beat the goose that lays the golden egg over the head with a stick."
        Also
        "they will need an agenda…" If anyone kind find the Liberal agenda on anything besides 360 EI please share.
        So despite the tille How the west will be won… Gary Mason and Ignatieff shared nothing put crap.

        • "Liberals view the west of nothing more than a source of revenue"

          Sort of like how the entire rest-of-the-country views Greater Toronto.

          I do agree with posters here that Ignatieff's comments were pretty stupid.

          And as for agendas, Mark, apparently we will have an election on 360 EI vs. Elimination of public financing of political donations. Should be RIVETING.

      • I can't believe Iggy would be stupid enough to say something like that about Calgary. For a guy who established a successful career in show business by milking his "intellectual" credentials, he doesn't come across as particularly bright in many of his interviews.

        • He has been flagging lately in his interviews – personally, I think he's mentally and physically tired. I don't know if he realized how much physical energy is needed to maintain he schedule of a party leader trying to bring his party back from the brink.

          I know this comment will open me up to "well then he should go to his summer house in Provence" but hey – it doesn't matter where his house is – he needs a week off! Maybe Rae and Coderre can step in for a week while he sleeps in late ;-)

  2. That's excactly how Ignatieff should respond. Not with silly false bluster ie., " Mess with me…" But take a hike if you're questioning my patriotism. Nobody but the patisans will care in Alberta if Ignatieff slags some suits in think tanks.
    The really depressing aspect of the attacks on Ignatieff's patriotism and how long a person can be out of the country is that SH doesn't believe a word of it. It's all tactics and expedient politics, which coming from an intelligent man is all the more sad and pathetic really.

  3. While I agree with KCM that in that I like his dismissal of the stupid stuff, as RayK suggests, the "…the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks" is, uhmmmm, stupid….Calgary, you mean like what a quarter, a third of the provincial population….. talking about cutting off one's nose to spite your looking ok face….

    • I think that Iggy has made a crude political calculation here. It's OK to offend Calgarians because the Liberals will never win any Calgary ridings. Maybe one of his political advisors suggested it to him. Why else would Iggy go out of his way to spit venom at the "radical conservative ideological world of Calgary"?

      • I don't recall Harper ever going after a Cities residents with comments like that. Even Conservative wasteland Toronto. This from a supposed intellectual who's been to Iran and therefore understands Canada because he's been gone for 30 years.
        Heck even if Calgarians are radical conservatives, maybe their proud of that and their still Canadians. New type of Liberal leadership pffttt.

        • What was that about a "culture of defeat" in Atlantic Canada?

          Or are we literally talking about "cities", as opposed to whole regions?

          • That's a decent point.
            Harper is still paying for that unlike this comment from Ignatieff. It's red meat for the Liberal base (if they have a base) just makes a mockery of his attempt to "win the west" and his fanciful goal to govern for all Canadians. I think most people will see through his charade.
            His comment was a failed attempt to swipe at Harper. "Unfit to be PM because he is from radical Calgary and has not been to Iran"

          • uhm, prob more than a decent point, Mark.

          • As a general observation, legitimate criticism of Iggy often gets deflected onto Harper. Iggy is rarely defended on his own merits.

          • sure. but i see that playing out both ways…. for how long did the CPC and its followers use 'the Libs did it first justification'.

            regardless, in this instance, i see both moves as equally stupid.

          • "red meat for the Liberal base."

            This is the giant myth of Ontario, and of Toronto in particular. The myth being that we dislike Alberta or Calgary or the West. Our politics tend to be a bit different, true. But the hatred only flows West to East, not the other way around. Torontonians love Alberta…it is beautiful. It's an economic engine for the country which is good for everyone. If anything, some central/eastern Liberals suffer from Alberta indifference…but being negative towards Alberta will not excite the Liberal base.

          • You're kidding, right? May I suggest you go read just a brief sampling of comments on any Globe and Mail article referencing the West, or Alberta in particular. Yeah, people from Ontario just looove westerners. It's all a one way hate street.

          • RayK, I understood Harper's "Culture of defeat" line to mean that Atlantic Canada was, and deserved, better than the welfare-trap hell-hole being created for it. Not quite the same as Iggy's radical Calgary line.

          • Then you misunderstood.

      • I guess CR… I certainly can't come up witha better rationale (when is the last time a Lib held a seat in Calgary?!?)….all i got is it is just a dumb gaffe????

  4. "People out here"
    "radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks"

    Where is "out" in Canada? Outside the halls of parliament? Or outside your southern Ontario voter base? I don't know if you've noticed this, Iggy, but the WEST IS IN. There were around 500,000 people in Toronto who voted Conservative in the recent election. The Fraser Institute is based in Vancouver, C.D. Howe is based in Toronto, and the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation is based in Regina. Even the head of the University of Calgary's policy school (the "Calgary School" as some call it) used to be President of C.D. Howe.

    • Not the best turn of a phrase I agree.

      But "out west" and "out east" are pretty normal things to say. You can go "out west." You cannot go "out to the centre." You have to go in. I don't think it's meant a political slight. It's like going "up north" (you know, north of the Bloor Street) or "down south."

  5. Ahem…

    http://www.albertaagenda.ca/

    And you guys thought I was kidding about Harper's raison d'être. Iggy might not have been around for a while but at least he's not a hypocrite about his intentions.

  6. Frankly, Iggy, people out here are more devoted to scratching out a living rather than serving the "life of the mind and the life of culture."

  7. Besides, he said, there were other prime ministers, Lester Pearson among them, who spent a great deal of their lives outside Canada before they assumed power.

    I'd respect Ignatieff a lot more if he didn't try to gloss over his unbelievably long absence by making mealy-mouthed comparisons with Pearson.

    Iggy's years abroad more than double Pearson's.

    Pearson spent most of his years abroad in devoted service to his beloved Canada, as a WWI veteran and as a distinguished diplomat. Iggy spent his years abroad in a state of significant intellectual detachment from his home country. At times, he even wondered whether he still felt like a Canadian anymore.

  8. "Radical conservative ideological world of Calgary" does not mean Calgary in tota is an ideological world of radical conservatism, it posits that there is a radical conservative ideological world and it is in Calgary. There is no denying that. The PoliSci dept. at the University of Calgary is a hotbed, no?

  9. "Radical conservative ideological world of Calgary" does not mean Calgary in tota is an ideological world of radical conservatism, it posits that there is a radical conservative ideological world and it is in Calgary. There is no denying that. The PoliSci dept. at the University of Calgary is a hotbed, no? Or do I mean wetbed.

    • So John Baird told all of Toronto to f**k off, but when Iggy talks about the “radical conservative ideological world of Calgary“ he was actually referring to a few individuals who dwell on the 7th floor of the U of C Social Sciences building.

    • So John Baird told all of Toronto to f**k off, but when Iggy talks about the “radical conservative ideological world of Calgary“ he`s actually referring to a few individuals who dwell on the 7th floor of the U of C Social Sciences building.

      • Yeah, well, I thought we agreed that the whole John Baird thing was intensely silly.

        • We did indeed. Sorry to bring it up.

    • Jack…you really need to use big block letters and speak slowly…otherwise, their gut instinct to protect their tiny whinies will come to the fore and you'll get the whole finger pointing and victim schtick…

      • Sigh. Yet another failed attempt at wit by austinso.

        • "Wit"? No…I wouldn't dare with the likes of you, Critter…a "sad-exposition-of-the-truth" is a more apt description…

    • "Wetbed"? Wasn't "wets" what the Thatcher School of Radical Neoconservatism called folks like you and me Jack?

    • This is entirely irrelevant to the point, nitpicky, and damn snotty … but I can't resist – houldn't that read "in totis"? Takes the ablative as I recall.

    • This is entirely irrelevant to the point, nitpicky, and damn snotty … but I can't resist – shouldn't that read "in totis"? Takes the ablative as I recall.

      • Ah, quite right! "tota" is feminine ablative singular, however; "totis" would be plural; as I was referring to the "urbs" (f.) of Calgary (or, I suppose, the "civitas," also feminine), I used "in tota" instead of the usual "in toto" (neuter). (The feminine ablative singular ending, confusingly, looks exactly like the feminine nominative singular ending; the only difference is that the -a is long. There used to be a great convention of printing long vowels with an acute accent, thus making texts wildly easier to read and poetry far easier to scan, but for some reason they abandoned it in, I think, the 18th C. Recently I've seen a couple of attempts to bring it back, which I hope will catch on.)

        • Yes, I thought maybe you were using the accusative plural since 'in' sometimes takes it as in 'into'. Anyhoo, it's been years since I was competent in latin but your construction struck me as odd. I suppose it is a credit to Wheelock that any of this remains in memoria mei.

        • Yes, I thought maybe you were using the accusative plural. Anyhoo, it's been years since I was competent in latin but your construction struck me as odd. I suppose it is a credit to Wheelock that any of this remains in memoria mei.

        • Yes, I thought maybe you were using the accusative plural since 'in' sometimes takes it as in 'into'. Anyhoo, it's been years since I was competent in latin but your construction struck me as odd. Kudos to Wheelock that any of this remains in memoria mei.

    • sure Jack, you are correct. but it is easily misinterpreted and let alone, when you have news regurgitating spinsters, that that are only happy to let you what the other side 'thinks about you'. he served this up on a silver platter.

    • sure Jack, you are correct. but it is easily misinterpreted unto itself, let alone when you have news regurgitating spinsters, that that are only happy to let you what the other side 'thinks about you'. he served this up on a silver platter.

      • "regurgitating spinsters"? What have you got against bulimic old maids?

        • he he. uhmmmm….. they never pay me any attention at the retirement home dances?

  10. I agree with you Jack, although at second glance he could have been a little more precise. I doubt he meant to slag all of Calgary and i find it absurd that so many on this post are just automatically reading that in. The fact is Calgary is a Conservative city and the centre/heart of that Conservativism as been, for a number of years now the Uof C. No slight there. even the label radical is warranted. Still, being precise in your language is probably a bonus…particularly if you're a politician.

  11. Besides, he said, there were other prime ministers, Lester Pearson among them, who spent a great deal of their lives outside Canada before they assumed power.

    I'd respect Ignatieff a lot more if he didn't try to gloss over his unbelievably long absence by making mealy-mouthed comparisons with Pearson.

    Iggy's years abroad more than double Pearson's.

    Pearson spent most of his years abroad in devoted service to his beloved Canada, as a WWI veteran and as a distinguished diplomat. Iggy spent most of his years abroad in a state of significant intellectual detachment from his country of origin.

    • "…in a state of significant intellectual detachment from his country of origin.

      That looks real purty, but it doesn't actually mean anything. Are you saying Canada isn't good enough for him? Are you saying he's smart, and that's a bad thing? How about all the nice folks in Canada who can't answer simple history questions about the country they live in? Are they intellectually detached from their country?

      As far as the horrible, upsetting comments about Calgarians…Darn. There go all those conservative votes Iggy was about to steal in Alberta…How could he be so silly and miss that chance?

    • I agree that the Liberals are relying on a total strawman when they pretend that the criticism of Ignatieff is simply that he "spent some time outside the country". Hopefully, if we are having an adult conversation about this, we can at least acknowledge that the real problem is that he didn't spend much time IN the country–and that matters.

      All that being said, the Conservatives have played into this caricature–and looked like idiots doing it. Their criticisms have been nothing but skin deep–never relating Ignatieff's time abroad to substantive issues.

      Now, obviously, thirty second ads are always going to be pretty shallow, but the Conservative could certainly use a more nuanced version of this line in their public statement–if only to give their criticisms more credibility. No one is going to take this argument seriously if the Conservatives just keep repeating the lines from their commericals rather than reinforcing why the lines from their ads matter. From what I see, the Cons don't seem to get this at all.

      • I completely agree. I thought the Conservative ads were shoddy and not particularly effective. The "cosmopolitan" attack was a complete misfire that turned off people like me, who would welcome cosmopolitan leaders. They also had a tawdry and annoying "attack ad" vibe.

        Iggy's astonishing lack of political experience and Canadian experience is a serious matter that deserved to be addressed more effectively. There are many substantive issues here that call into question Iggy's ability to govern this country effectively.

      • I completely agree. I thought the Conservative ads were shoddy and not particularly effective. The "cosmopolitan" attack was a complete misfire that turned off people like me, who would welcome cosmopolitan leaders. They also had a tawdry, annoying "attack ad" vibe.

        Iggy's astonishing lack of political experience and Canadian experience is a serious matter that deserved to be addressed more effectively. There are many substantive issues here that call into question Iggy's ability to govern this country effectively.

      • I completely agree. I thought the Conservative ads were shoddy and not particularly effective. The "cosmopolitan" attack was a complete misfire that turned off people like me, who would welcome cosmopolitan leaders. They also had a tawdry, annoying "attack ad" vibe.

        Iggy's astonishing lack of political experience and Canadian experience is a serious matter that deserves to be addressed more effectively. There are many substantive issues here that call into question Iggy's ability to govern this country effectively.

      • I completely agree. I thought the Conservative ads were shoddy and not particularly effective. The "cosmopolitan" attack was a complete misfire that turned off people like me, who would welcome cosmopolitan leaders. They also had a tawdry, annoying "attack ad" vibe.

        Iggy's astonishing lack of political experience and Canadian experience is a serious matter that deserves to be addressed more effectively. There are many substantive issues here that call into question Iggy's ability to govern this country well.

      • If you believe the GG's words then the beauty of Canada is its diversity. Honestly speaking, which of the two would you peg as in a better position to understand how diversity works and how you can unite divergent views between Harper and Ignatief.

        I know it's awfully optimistic (and partially ignorant of our current situation) to think that political goals can overcome political games, but could we at least credit Iggy with a little perspective, one that very little Canadians share?

        • I don't doubt that Ignatieff gained valuable skills and insights living abroad, but the question is whether he has sufficient experience in Canadian public life to govern the country. And you don't have to look far for examples that he doesn't–take Ignatieff's comments in this very interview.

          Ignatieff portrays his opposition to a freeze on new tar sands development (pending stricter environmental standards) as an olive branch to the West. But every poll on this subject shows that a majority of Albertans SUPPORT such a freeze. This may come as a surprise to many, apparently including Igantieff, but Albertans care about the natural landscape of their province–not to mention the rising cost of living.

          So, yes, Ignatieff may have a better understanding of diversity than Stephen Harper–as if those are our only two choices. But Ignatieff's lack of understanding of the basically, practically realities in Alberta has lead him to embrace a policy that only has majority support amongst Conservatives and oil company executives in the name of national unity. That's a problem.

          • But every poll on this subject shows that a majority of Albertans SUPPORT such a freeze.

            Really? Prove it. Unless by "freeze" you mean "temporary reduction in the growth rate to give labour, infrastructure and housing a chance to catch up".

          • Cr
            i can't "prove it' myself, but i'm in and out of AB 2 or 3 times a year and i'm pretty sure i've read simlar polls as Rayk. Most Albertans are in favour of a slowing down[ at least before the big bust ] of developement a la Lougheed.
            It bothers me too that Iggy hasn't picked up on this. But then he never was my choice for Lib leader. I still have reservations about his judgement. Trouble is i also think Sh is a very bad PM.

          • Here's what I could come up with in a couple of minutes on Google:

            Edmonton Journal: "Nearly two-thirds of Albertans say the government should limit greenhouse gas emissions produced by oilsands development, even if it means some projects would be delayed or cancelled, according to a new poll [according to a] Leger telephone poll, commissioned by the Edmonton Journal and Calgary Herald"

            http://stoptarsands.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/envi

            The Globe and Mail: "a majority of Albertan's (62%) feel that the pace of economic development in Alberta has been too fast."

            http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/Januar

            Pembina Institute: "Of Albertans surveyed, 71 per cent believe that the Alberta government should suspend new oil sands project approvals until environmental and infrastructure issues have been resolved."

            http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/Poll_Env_mediaBG_

          • But every poll on this subject shows that a majority of Albertans SUPPORT such a freeze.

            Really? Prove it. Unless by "freeze" you mean "temporary reduction in growth rate to give labour, infrastructure and housing a chance to catch up".

        • In Iggy's case, his "International" perspective far outweighs his "Canadian" perspective. Why do you think he's so gung-ho about the oilsands? Because of his international perspective, he understands that Canada's vast energy reserves are its most important geopolitical asset. Without the oilsands, Canada's importance is diminished in the community of nations.

          • Again, being awfully optimistic, but a Canadian perspective hasn't solved much of our Canadian problems. Maybe we do need a second opinion.

            Would you argue that having a government that fails at actually trying to solve our problems would put us in a worse position than our current non-government which fails at remaining a government?

      • I completely agree. I thought the Conservative ads were shoddy and not particularly effective. The "cosmopolitan" attack was a complete misfire that turned off people like me, who would welcome cosmopolitan leaders. They also had a tawdry, annoying "attack ad" vibe.

        Iggy's astonishing lack of political experience and Canadian experience is a serious matter that deserves to be addressed more effectively. There are many substantive issues here that raise doubts about Iggy's ability to govern this country well.

  12. Speaking of radical conservative ideological Calgary think tanks, whatever happened to the allegations of the U of Calgary group who allegedly had money funneled through a university research account to pay for political ads in the 2006 election as a way of helping Harper without coming under election spending laws? Were they fined or cleared?

  13. "The alternative [Mr. Harper] is a politician formed and shaped in the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks,”

    There's a problem with this statement more important than the (maybe) problem that's been discussed so far. The statement suggests that Ignatieff thinks he can pull out the old Harper-as-radical (and "foreigner" in the sense of Westerner) boogeyman to win. But look: Martin tried that twice; Dion tried it once. Harper's been in power for a while now. Of course some people are gonna believe it: that's why Martin and Dion kept trying it. But that just shows how narrow the Liberal circle has become. Lots of Canadians have qualms about Harper – but if Ignatieff thinks that this time (the fourth time!) the "radical" label is going to be enough to swing the election, well, it just shows once again that he's not exactly the big ideas guy he's been made out to be.

    • My read was that Harper-as-radical really meant that he's less in-touch with the views of most Canadians than Iggy is. "I may have been out of the country for many years but I think more like you do then Harper does."

    • Well I'm sure theres plenty of time to mention a few other things about Harper pre election, no? Maybe even policy – if only he would risk revealing them pre campaign.

  14. Just because he's a self-styled 'intellectual' doesn't mean he has two brain cells to rub together.

  15. Was Iggy not around around the last time an 'intellectual' Liberal leader gave the people of the West the finger? Come to think of it, maybe not. Well as RayK pointed out, that may not play too well, but good on Iggy for allowing that we might possibly be devoted to intellectual and cultural pursuits, dispelling that whole 'center of the universe' notion. Good on him.

    • Jeez get over it already. Trudeau gave the finger to some people outside the train in Salmon Arm BC if i remember correctly, hardly all of the west. I'm a westerner and i can't for the life of me remember why he gave the finger. I was a young guy in Edmonton during the second half of Trudeau's term in office and a lot of people i know had a sneaking respect for the guy whether they liked his politics or not. A good deal of the east/west schism as been played up by the media and conservative pols, and has played out far longer than has been healthy for the country.

  16. “The alternative [Mr. Harper] is a politician formed and shaped in the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks,” ____Ignatieff doesn't actually take a swipe at Calgary as many here seem to be suggesting. Rather, he takes a swipe at both "the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks,” __Who is to say this world and the think tanks of Calgary define the city, much less western culture? Ignatieff doesn't say anything of the sort, of course, but rather suggests the opposite: that the west is more than a few narrow ideological zones let alone some grand ideological mononarrative. What Ignatieff IS suggesting is that Harper's world is indeed very very small, for the greater part of his left never leaving the nest- like comfort of his local right wing groups, and that, as a result of this, Harper's experience is very narrow, his vision is insular, etc. If you are going to be offended, it should probably by this characterization of Harper, not by some imagined swipe at a city. Then again, perhaps to be offended by the latter is less awkward than being offended by the former.

  17. “The alternative [Mr. Harper] is a politician formed and shaped in the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks,”
    Ignatieff doesn't actually take a swipe at Calgary as many here seem to be suggesting. Rather, he takes a swipe at both "the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks,” Who is to say this world and the think tanks of Calgary define the city, much less western culture? Ignatieff doesn't say anything of the sort, of course, but rather suggests the opposite: that the west is more than a few narrow ideological zones let alone some grand ideological mononarrative. What Ignatieff IS suggesting is that Harper's world is indeed very very small, for the greater part of his left never leaving the nest- like comfort of his local right wing groups, and that, as a result of this, Harper's experience is very narrow, his vision is insular, etc. If you are going to be offended, it should probably by this characterization of Harper, not by some imagined swipe at a city. Then again, perhaps to be offended by the latter is less awkward than being offended by the former.

  18. “The alternative [Mr. Harper] is a politician formed and shaped in the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks,”
    Ignatieff doesn't actually take a swipe at Calgary as many here seem to be suggesting. Rather, he takes a swipe at both "the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks,” Who is to say this world and the think tanks of Calgary define the city, much less western culture? Ignatieff doesn't say anything of the sort, of course, but rather suggests the opposite: that the west is more than a few narrow ideological zones let alone some grand ideological mononarrative. What Ignatieff IS suggesting is that Harper's world is indeed very very small, for the greater part of his life never leaving the nest- like comfort of his local right wing groups, and that, as a result of this, Harper's experience is very narrow, his vision is insular, etc. If you are going to be offended, it should probably by this characterization of Harper, not by some imagined swipe at a city. Then again, perhaps to be offended by the latter is less awkward than being offended by the former.

  19. “The alternative [Mr. Harper] is a politician formed and shaped in the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks,”
    Ignatieff doesn't actually take a swipe at Calgary as many here seem to be suggesting. Rather, he takes a swipe at both "the radical conservative ideological world of Calgary and Calgary think tanks,” Who is to say this world and the think tanks of Calgary define the city, much less western culture? Ignatieff doesn't say anything of the sort, of course, but rather suggests the opposite: that the west is more than a few narrow ideological zones let alone some grand ideological mononarrative. What Ignatieff IS suggesting is that Harper's world is indeed very very small, for the greater part of his life never leaving the nest-like comfort of his local right wing groups, and that, as a result of this, Harper's experience is very narrow, his vision is insular, etc. If you are going to be offended, it should probably by this characterization of Harper, not by some imagined swipe at a city. Then again, perhaps to be offended by the latter is less awkward than being offended by the former.

    • Exarckly! And I believe Toronto has a radical conservative ideological world as well…but they just mostly golf and complain about taxes.

    • In this sense you're pretty much right about Ignatieff and the west. [ although i think he could have chosen his words a little more carefully] I spent close to a dozen or so years in Edmonton, it's a surprisingly different city than Calgary in a number of ways, not least politically. Until recently the city took pride in shutting out local Conservatives – i guess it just liked to go its own way. The west is more than one amorphous blob of slavering Consevatives – and even many of the Cons are not social Consevatives. It may be an upill battle for an intellectual eastener to catch fire in AB, but Libs would do well to abandon the notion that it can't be done because Albertans are inherently anti-Liberal. That said i doubt Ignatieff is the man to do it. But i wish him luck trying, if it only makes it easier for his successor, and because it will be good for Canada.

      • Hmmm, maybe i stop short- changing the Conservatives all those rrrs.

  20. Sigh..".should stop..! "Perhaps i shouldn't have started?