No prize for making Parliament work - Macleans.ca
 

No prize for making Parliament work


 

Michael Ignatieff talks to the Star.

Ignatieff said he was immediately struck by the political irony – there were the Harper Conservatives, lashing out at the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois, on the eve of needing their support in yesterday’s confidence vote in the Commons.

And the Liberal leader realized, once again, that this is what happens to parties who support the Conservatives in this fragile minority Parliament.

“While you’re propping the government up, they’re running ads saying, `He’s just in it for himself.’ How stupid do they think I am?” Ignatieff said in an interview with the Star yesterday, immediately after the Liberals, for the first time in nearly four years, voted against the government in a confidence vote.


 

No prize for making Parliament work

  1. Um, because, Iggy. You only voted to support the government because it suited you… aka you're still in it for *yourself*. (Oh! The dreams of power and prestige on "the world stage"!!)

    Or, wait, I'm sorry– was all your talk about Harper's irresponsible government just bluster and you actually believed the Tories were doing a good job?

    How stupid do you think we are?

    • Since you're buying the Harper slop by the barrel, how about wearing your so-called leader's accountability record or lack of … Speaking of coveting, what was harper's record as leader of the opposition? Proposed a coalition with the NdP and Bloc, tried a nice game of Nixon covert taping, had some henchmen make an 'overture' to a dying MP in hopes of 'securing' his vote, plagarized an Australian speech and took claim for it as his own (but threw some backroom writer adrift to take the blame a few years later), thrown accusations of supporting pedophiles at one PM, pouted in the US media about a made-in Canada decision to not get into an illegal war.
      You've bought all that and more, so I think you've answered your own question.

  2. In other words, Iggy withdrew his support of the government because they weren't showing him enough gratitude.

    Iggy, you really must think we're just as stupid as the Conservatives apparently think you are.

  3. "How stupid do they think I am?” Ignatieff said…"

    As stupid as Dion, apparently.

    • Stupid enough to keep setting up imprudent one-liners like "How stupid do they think I am," at the very least.

    • Stupid enough to keep setting up imprudent rhetorical tee-off points like "How stupid do they think I am," at the very least.

      • Agreed, and he keeps doing it – like a nervous tick or something.

        • I bet he knows the proper spelling of 'tic'.

          • Well, as a politician, I think he better start learning proper common sense communication that doesn't constantly make him look like the arrogant caricature that his opponents keep drawing of him. Probably more important than spelling, but maybe that's just me.

          • It is definitely not just you. The theory that how a politician is perceived is more important than their thoughts and ideas about actual problems and solutions seems to be the norm these days.

          • If only Iggy had some thoughts and ideas about problems and solutions though. So far, he doesn't even have that yet. In fact, it seems as though his most impressive accomplishments to date are:

            a) Speaking English well, unlike the previous leader;

            b) Turning the tables on the NDP by trying to force an election.

            All successful leaders need some substance, including Harper.

          • I'm reasonably sure that Ignatieff has the capability to develop ideas / thoughts that are relevant to his role as LPC Leader, and then vigorously promote and defend those ideas. I base this belief on the fact that there is material available from his days as an academic where he did exactly that.

            However, as you suggested, there is little evidence that he has actually made it past the develop ideas stage in his new role. I'll assume that he is finding the transition more challenging than he anticipated, and perhaps he will never complete that transition successfully.

            Do you think that Ignatieff's poor transition might link back to your earlier suggestion that the public seems to prefer perceptions over underlying ideas and thoughts; why try to develop new ideas when you are unlikely to be rewarded for your efforts?

            Regarding the two Ignatieff "accomplishments" that you mentioned, they both seem to be more about perceptions rather than ideas, so I won't comment about them.

            Btw, would you actually prefer a greater focus on ideas?

          • Well, as a commenter on a blog, I think you better start learning proper common sense communication that doesn't constantly make you look like the ignorant twit who doesn't know the difference between an idiosyncracy and an irritating bug. But maybe you can't.

          • Well, as a commenter on this thread, I think you better start learning to lose arguments better. Stopping and calling people names doesn't do it. Sorry. lol. Next.

          • Why do the left/lib crowd fall into name calling at the drop of a hat?

          • Shush now, craigola. You're boring.

          • Oooo, zing, with an emphasis on the zzzzzzzzzzz.

          • Oooo, zing, with an emphasis on the zzzzzzzzzzz. That's very consistent of you, avr.

          • Well, maybe the poor tick just realized it was carrying Lyme disease…

          • Well, maybe the poor tick just realized it was carrying Lyme disease, so it got nervous. Hey, I'm trying…

  4. Iggy I think you should not have asked that particualr question as you have already answered it yourself. First by supporting the gov't when you really don't support it (or do you? it's rather unclear) second by removing your support BEFORE the bill that should be judged on it's own merit. Right now the only gamesmanship that seems hypocritical isn't the NDP, CPC or even the BLOC …

    • He's also said that his current opposition to the government is principled, which suggests that it was unprincipled when he propped the same government up.

      • Could be, could be, or perhaps both are principled actions.

        If a person said that they like black, does that suggest that he dislikes white?

        • Apparently the Harper accolates have their own answer for that last question, and unfortunately its proven in their action (or non-actions)…

  5. Like Dr Phil says,
    the best indication of how someone will act in the future,
    is their past actions.

    Say it ain't so, but MI signed the coalition contract, was willing and 'threatening' to be the leader of a coalition government…and will most definitely do it again, if he loses the next election.

    Speaking of how stupid do you think we are…
    the coalition of losers that attempted to seize power after losing the election is NOTHING like a minority government seeking the support of individual opposition parties, issue by issue.

    Note to MSM, Canadians are not that stupid to think the situations are the same.

    • He didn't sign "the coalition contract." He signed a letter to the Governor-General. You know who else signed a letter to the GG? Stephen Harper, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton. Harper wanted to "seize power after losing the election." It's the same and it's totally different.

      How stupid do I think you are? Pretty darned stupid.

      • Oh, give it a rest. Ignatieff signed a document in support of a negotiated and formal coalition. Harper never did any such thing. It still amazes me how people keep uttering this nonsense, especially those who keep telling us how great unelected coalitions are.

        • "Unelected coalitions"?

          Dumb.

          I don't think there is anything wrong with Harper suggesting to Clarkson that she ask him to form government rather dissolve Parliament (which is exactly what he did with that letter). I think Harper's sin is against our democracy. What he did last winter was poison the well on any kind of coalition in the next few years, and make parliament even less stable. Of course, this seems to be his MO. Destabilize and saboutage government to justify 'reforms'. He could have attacked the Liberals for any number of other issues in December, but cynically and disingenuously arguing that coalitions are 'undemocratic' or a 'coup d'etat' is the height of irresponsibility.

          • Actually, I think that a person who keeps responding to other people's posts with the word "dumb" must be the dumb one, as well as unimaginative and unsophisticated to boot. The fact that you didn't even address the very term you thought "dumb" simply confirms my suspicion.

            So, until you can justify you lazy and knee-jerk assertion, I have to assume that you're in fact the dumb one and incapable of proper argumentation. Thanks. Next.

          • Look who's throwing the term 'knee-jerk' around. Besides wearing one of those words better than the other, your dubious defence of Harper's own coalition attempt may be bought by some, but the so-called leader's MO and hypocrisy shows you for the fool. But hey, I suppose there are some people in the US still willing to say a good thing about their own harper-like democratic deficiter…

          • Yet another person who can't criticize my use of the term "unelected coalition." In case some of you didn't notice, it's unpopular, and people prefer Harper. And that says something, doesn't it?

          • You want someone to criticise your use of the term "unelected coalition"? Fine: in Canada, we elect MPs, not governments. The MPs get to choose the government, and, as such, any government chosen by MPs is an elected one, even a coalition. Can we please stop talking about the legitimacy of the would-be coalition now?

          • A coalition government is unelected in the sense that no one elected any MP's to form such a coalition. Indeed, parties often run promising not to form such coalition governments, as the past two Liberal leaders have done, including the current one.

            In other words, even Iggy seems to agree with me. Ain't that a kick.

            Another thing that never ceases to amaze me is how the same people who howl and scream over my use of the term "unelected coalition" have no hesitation whatsoever to use the 2004 letter as an example of a coalition government. It makes you wonder if nobody is taking logic 101 in post-secondary education any longer.

          • I don't see any inconsistency. The 2004 letter was suggesting that Harper be permitted to form government with cooperation of some form or another with one or both of the other two opposition parties. And there is nothing wrong with that. It's how our system is supposed to work, so we don't have to have elections every few months.

          • Oh Dennis, I thought the sillyness of the term shone through and needed no further explanation. Just to be clear, 'dumb' is referring to the idea. I don't think you're dumb, I think you're disingenuous when you raise these points.

            Now, on to explain why I thought the term was silly. Any government is composed of elected MPs. All governments are selected by MPs, and therefore elected. Coalitions don't run in elections, and the idea that that should happen is absurd. They might as well merge at that point, and avoid vote splitting. Coalitions are something that arise after elections in an attempt to form a stable working relationship for parliament. Any group of 50%+1 is a legitimate government, according to our system. Don't like it? Change the system. Calling it a coup d'etat and inciting rebellion against the GG is irresponsible, not mention wrong.

          • "What he did last winter was poison the well on any kind of coalition in the next few years, and make parliament even less stable."

            Actually, it was the Liberals that did that during the last election when they promised not to form one and then did anyway and they're doing it again now by making the same promise again. Forming a coalition after unequivocal statements like those is what makes them "undemocratic" and "poisons the well".

          • They promised not to form a coalition with an NDP that would impose a significant increase in business taxes. They kept that promise, both in spirit, and in letter. That you take your impression of what they said from Harper's edited quotes rather than reality doesn't change it.

          • No, the promised NO coalition with the NDP, but I just love it how some people are twisting themselves in knots trying to defend that monstrosity.

          • Go read the quote again.

          • "That you take your impression of what they said from Harper's edited quotes rather than reality doesn't change it."

            Actually, I take my impression from what Stephane Dion said during the press conference. There's a reason the polls for the Conservatives soared into the mid 40s that week. And it's not because the Canadian people thought the Liberal Party of Canada kept their promise both in spirit and in letter. Does Ignatieff's promise not to form a coalition come with the same caveats?

        • No, you give it a rest. He signed a letter to the GG saying if the government falls, she should look to the opposition to try to form a government, exactly the same as Harper. It still amazes me how people keep uttering this nonsense

          • I keep asking people to show me where in that letter there's anything supporting your statements about a coalition government, and you never do. So, instead of quitting, you keep at it by making fools out of yourselves. Seriously. You can't defend the unelected coalition between the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc, even though many of you thought it was the best thing that happened to Canada since Wayne Gretzky, you then turn around and suggest, amazingly enough, that it's simply following Harper's lead, who you all suggest is an undemocratic dictator who forced prorogue on a helpless electorate. Watching y'all jump through hoops on this one is getting to be quite the amusement sport for me, actually.

  6. You want stupid ? How about this, as Kady live-blogged the other day:

    Oh, and asked to clarify his apparent conflict with Dalton McGuinty over the HST: “I'm the leader of the opposition; I have no position to clarify.

    Huh. I've got to think that there were more than a few furious phone calls between Ottawa and Queen's Park that would suggest otherwise.

    This is only slightly better than Sgt. Schultz, when quizzed by the gestapo about what prisoner Hogan is up to: "I am only the seargent here. I know nothing, I see nothing, I hear nothing"

    • Well, he probably should have made his point more clear: in a strictly technical sense, as leader of the FEDERAL "loyal opposition", he really DOESN'T have a "legitimate" role in having aposition to hold, or to "clarify". However, most serious political observers KNOW that there is theory, and that there is political reality, and would normally expect some co-ordination of positions between the federal and provincial Liberal organizations. To suggest otherwise, to fall back on technical jurisdictional "restrictions" on reciprocal understandings is disengenuous at best, if not downright condescending.

      • It was disingenuous and condescending.

        I'm struck by the fact that Iggy never takes a firm position on any policy. It's all pie-in-the-sky semantics with this guy.

    • Unfortunately, the Klink of this story is Harper, which should make you all warm and fuzzy. Blinded by his clumsy passion for power, while having little interest or ability to actually do the job he's tasked with. Don't know if Klink hired a psychic-dresser or not, but I wouldn't doubt that he spent like a drunken conservative PM… Not to make lightly of the gestapo or a bad 60s sitcom, but just to complete your lame analogy.

  7. A Tory government being propped up by Jack and Gilles is no more a Coalition than when they were being propped up by Iggy and the Liberals. The irony of the situation depends entirely on the electoral math: only the Tories have nothing to fear from an election tomorrow.

    • Don't Stop Believin'.

  8. "The other disagreement I have is that when he attacks his opponents, he engages in falsehoods and the politics of personal destruction."

    Mr. Ignatieff, I realize you were out of the country at the time, but the Liberal Party of Canada pretty well invented the attack ad concept in this country. The Conservative attack ads, (Just visiting etc..) pale in comparaison to the personal and dishonest attacks leveled by the Liberal Party of Canada against Stockwell Day, Preston Manning and Stephen Harper in the 1997, 2000, 2004 and 2006 elections.

    I just have to laugh every time I hear the Liberals complain about attack ads after what the've done to their opponents in the last 10 years. They're just getting some of their own medicine back.

    What a bunch of hypocrites. Mr. Ignatieff, how stupid do they think we are?

    • I seem to remember your lot bitching a whole lot about that, when it was happening. It's A-OK now, so it was A-OK then?

    • Andrew – It's one or the other. Either negative ads are O.K., or they're not.

      They can't be O.K. when the Liberals do it, but not O.K. when the Conservatives do it.

      I don't understand why Michael Ignatieff complains about negative ads when his party has been doing it for years. It seems so, what's the word, inconsistent, don't you think? I'd have a little more time for his grievances if he'd apologize for the Liberals previous negative ads and promising not to run any in the future.

      I'm not holding my breath, especially not with Warren Kinsella, assisting Iggy's and the Liberal Party's cause.

      So Iggy's crying to the sympathetic ears of the Toronto Star's Susan Delacourt in her "exclusive interview" doesn't exactly move me to tears.

      • I'm not holding my breath, especially not with Warren Kinsella, assisting Iggy's and the Liberal Party's cause.

        I get the feeling that Kinsella is assisting the Liberal Party's cause more than he is assisting Ignatieff's cause. I Turns out that Kinsella is a closet Ignatieff basher. Ssh! Don't tell anyone. Here's what Kinsella wrote about Ignatieff in his blog:

        "It is not very often that one gets to witness a "leadership frontrunner" immolate his own candidacy so blithely, so recklessly, but if you click here and you peer inside, you will see the corpse of Michael Ignatieff's vaulting ambition. He is done – and if he isn't, he should be. Now, it is true that I objected to the learned professor before reading this essay, posted over the weekend on Pierre Bourque's site. I objected to the manner in which his supporters trampled on democracy in a Toronto riding – literally locking out opponents. I objected to his support of George W. Bush's illegal war in Iraq. I objected to the fact that he mocked Canada during the three decades he was abroad, and that he likened Israeli policy to the fascism of apartheid. I objected to what I perceived to be breathtaking arrogance – calling Canada a "herbivorian boy scout" one day, then jetting up here to run it the next. And then came this essay. Below I have culled a representative sampling of some the things Ignatieff says about torture in his just-published tour de force. His Kool Aid drinkers – and he has many already, rest assured – will bombard me with emails, braying and screeching that I quoted him out of context. But the fact is that they are his words …"

      • I'm not holding my breath, especially not with Warren Kinsella, assisting Iggy's and the Liberal Party's cause.

        I get the feeling that Kinsella is assisting the Liberal Party's cause more than he is assisting Ignatieff's cause. I Turns out that Kinsella is a closet Ignatieff basher. Ssh! Don't tell anyone. Here's what Kinsella wrote about Ignatieff in his blog on March 27, 2006:

        "It is not very often that one gets to witness a "leadership frontrunner" immolate his own candidacy so blithely, so recklessly, but if you click here and you peer inside, you will see the corpse of Michael Ignatieff's vaulting ambition. He is done – and if he isn't, he should be. Now, it is true that I objected to the learned professor before reading this essay, posted over the weekend on Pierre Bourque's site. I objected to the manner in which his supporters trampled on democracy in a Toronto riding – literally locking out opponents. I objected to his support of George W. Bush's illegal war in Iraq. I objected to the fact that he mocked Canada during the three decades he was abroad, and that he likened Israeli policy to the fascism of apartheid. I objected to what I perceived to be breathtaking arrogance – calling Canada a "herbivorian boy scout" one day, then jetting up here to run it the next. And then came this essay. Below I have culled a representative sampling of some the things Ignatieff says about torture in his just-published tour de force. His Kool Aid drinkers – and he has many already, rest assured – will bombard me with emails, braying and screeching that I quoted him out of context. But the fact is that they are his words …"
        (Hat tip: Alberta Aardvark)

      • I'm not holding my breath, especially not with Warren Kinsella, assisting Iggy's and the Liberal Party's cause.

        I get the feeling that Kinsella is assisting the Liberal Party's cause more than he is assisting Ignatieff's cause. I Turns out that Kinsella is a closet Ignatieff basher. Ssh! Don't tell anyone. Here's what Kinsella wrote about Ignatieff in his blog on March 27, 2006:

        "It is not very often that one gets to witness a "leadership frontrunner" immolate his own candidacy so blithely, so recklessly, but if you click here and you peer inside, you will see the corpse of Michael Ignatieff's vaulting ambition. He is done – and if he isn't, he should be. Now, it is true that I objected to the learned professor before reading this essay, posted over the weekend on Pierre Bourque's site. I objected to the manner in which his supporters trampled on democracy in a Toronto riding – literally locking out opponents. I objected to his support of George W. Bush's illegal war in Iraq. I objected to the fact that he mocked Canada during the three decades he was abroad, and that he likened Israeli policy to the fascism of apartheid. I objected to what I perceived to be breathtaking arrogance – calling Canada a "herbivorian boy scout" one day, then jetting up here to run it the next. And then came this essay. Below I have culled a representative sampling of some the things Ignatieff says about torture in his just-published tour de force. His Kool Aid drinkers – and he has many already, rest assured – will bombard me with emails, braying and screeching that I quoted him out of context. But the fact is that they are his words …"
        (Hat tip: Alberta Aardvark)

      • I'm not holding my breath, especially not with Warren Kinsella, assisting Iggy's and the Liberal Party's cause.

        I get the feeling that Kinsella is assisting the Liberal Party's cause more than he is assisting Ignatieff's cause. Turns out that Kinsella is a closet Ignatieff basher. Ssh! Don't tell anyone. Here's what Kinsella wrote about Ignatieff in his blog on March 27, 2006:

        "It is not very often that one gets to witness a "leadership frontrunner" immolate his own candidacy so blithely, so recklessly, but if you click here and you peer inside, you will see the corpse of Michael Ignatieff's vaulting ambition. He is done – and if he isn't, he should be. Now, it is true that I objected to the learned professor before reading this essay, posted over the weekend on Pierre Bourque's site. I objected to the manner in which his supporters trampled on democracy in a Toronto riding – literally locking out opponents. I objected to his support of George W. Bush's illegal war in Iraq. I objected to the fact that he mocked Canada during the three decades he was abroad, and that he likened Israeli policy to the fascism of apartheid. I objected to what I perceived to be breathtaking arrogance – calling Canada a "herbivorian boy scout" one day, then jetting up here to run it the next. And then came this essay. Below I have culled a representative sampling of some the things Ignatieff says about torture in his just-published tour de force. His Kool Aid drinkers – and he has many already, rest assured – will bombard me with emails, braying and screeching that I quoted him out of context. But the fact is that they are his words …"
        (Hat tip: Alberta Aardvark)

        • Kinsella's a typical Liberal that way: it's all about the pursuit of power, consistency and principles jettisoned when inconvenient. That was then, this is now. I was struck by an exchange I had with a Liberal partisan, Loraine Lamontagne, at Kady's blog a few weeks ago which brought the Liberal mindset home to me:

          jarrid – " Could you imagine what our economy would be like if we implemented the Kyoto Protocol and the Green Shift? I shudder thinking about it. "
          Loraine Lamontagne – " Dion would not have implemented the Kyoto Protocol and the Green Shift no more than Chrétien axed the GST." (ITQ, July 29th, Updated: Reno 911: Hold that tax credit!)

          Get it folks, our Liberal campaign promises, nay, our main Liberal campaign planks, are just so much window dressing to be jettisoned once elected. We don't really mean what we say during an election campaign. Dion's "no coalition" comment during the 2008 election campaign being only the most recent egregious example. How stupid do the Liberals think Canadians voters are? Apparently, plenty stupid. Otherwise, why would they treat the electorate like fools?

          • Youère joking, rightÉ

            Èit's all about the pursuit of power, consistency and principles jettisoned when inconvenient. È

            Sounds like a fitting description of the current government, to me. I thought Liberals had no principles to jettison, anywayÉ

          • The Liberals, as Loraine Lamontagne said, campaigned to axe the GST, and then of course kept it. As Loraine implied, that's the Liberal Party of Canada's way of doing things.

            The Conservative campaigned in 2006 to knock two points of the 7% GST. They did what they said they'd do, reducing to 5%.

            I think Canadians sat up and took notice. Here's a party that makes promises it can keep and doesn't trifle with us.

          • That's of course forgetting:

            -income trusts
            -senate reform
            -patronage appointments
            -fixed election dates
            -wait times guarantee
            -independent PBO
            -inhibit floor-crossing MPs
            -free votes for MPs on non-confidence motions
            -limitations on what kinds of votes could be considered matters of confidence
            -promise to reduce excise tax on diesel by 2 cents per litre
            -promise to remove GST on gasoline when price rises above 85 cents/litre
            -promise to reveal all government public opinion research results
            -promise to create 125,000 new daycare places

            And more. You can pick one issue one which the Liberals broke their promise (and did the right thing) and one where the Conservatives kept their promise to implement a bad policy, but looking at the list above reveals no shortage of reversals and jettisoning of principles on the part of the CPC.

    • Once again, there is a different in negative advertising during a campaign, and negative advertising during when they're supposed to be.. you know.. governing.

      • The former 'new government' has thrown all appearances of governance out the window, not when they can just use the public moneypit to just continually finance their own election campaigns. For those syncophants with the ol' familiar strains of Liberal baggage, it must wear well to be following in the footsteps of those you openly denounce. Let's just say hypocrisy is no way to run a country, but apparently you can run a party like that.

      • A government still governs during an election campaign, doesn't it, and Liberals have certainly run negative advertising during those, haven't they? Besides, sounds more like a rule you made up rather than something based on consistent principle.

      • People have been bemoaning the 24/7 political spin cycle because of the minonrity government context. C'est la vie. Apparently the Liberals are coming up with some negative advertising of their own in the next few weeks.

        You have to be consistent her Thwim, it's can't be bad when the Conservatives do it, and fine and dandy when the Liberals do it.

  9. “While you're propping the government up, they're running ads saying, `He's just in it for himself.' How stupid do they think I am?” Ignatieff said

    So I guess the ads are right. It is all about him.

    • Was there ever any doubt?

  10. Oh , one more thing Iggy. Dion did the whining, woe is me schtick for a bit and it went over like a lead balloon. Politics is a contact sport, if you're still unclear on that, I suggest you talk to Jean Chretien, he could teach you a thing or to.

    And if you're really tired of it as you say, move aside and let Bob Rae enter the fray. He knows how the game is played too.

  11. Good to see there's something to keep the kids from going out and playing in the traffic.

    • It still irks me that I lost ten bucks in the office pool for the 2006 leadership convention. Like Jim Travers, I had my money on Rae, like Jim Travers, I haven't quite gotten over it.

      • It was a very good year.

  12. We're all stupid – Layton is due for pension in about a year as are many BLOC members and Tories. Enough said

    • "We're all stupid …"

      Do you mind speaking for yourself on this one OT?

      Life's a tad more complicated than that, OT. Canadians don't want an election so that Michael Ignatieff can prove his manhood. He's not scoring any points with Canadians for wanting to precipitate an election. He wants to make Parliament work does he? How come the Liberals have come up with no amendments or suggestions to t he government on what they think should be done? According to Iggy, it isn't in his job description. So much for making Parliament work I guess.

      And the Liberals would have gotten eviscerated at the polling booth.

      • I believe he has made suggestions, all flatly refused. As the CPC have said: 'there will be no amendments'.

  13. Gosh, why am I not surprised by your pathetic response. Yawn…..

    • Everything's a bizarre conspiracy theory with you, isn't it?

      • There is no theory or conspiracy – it's the facts. Many are due for pension. Yawn.

  14. 25 comments, half of them from Jarrid.

    *yawn*

    • I agree.

    • Oh, oh! Two people who can't count.

      Look guys, it's been a dismal week for the left/lib cause I know, heck, even Harper-hater Susan Riley acknowledged in her column this week that Harper dominates the field. It's been that kind of week. Enjoy the last few days of summer before the colder weather sets in – politics isn't everything.

  15. Surely nobody is paying any real attention anymore. The conservatives have done a good job of keeping their initiatives middle of the road, the other parties have done a good job of reining in their worse ideas and making them take action on stuff they wouldn't otherwise have done. Everything is going OK, and would probably be much the same if each party switched places with any other one. It's all just posturing and name calling.

  16. What part of "yawn" didn't you understand?

    • Touche

  17. I am no fan of Harper, plain and simple.
    That said, I just watched a live interview with MI on the local station and don't hold out much hope for him in an election. I'm sorry to say that he came off as charmless, evasive and smug.
    Stephen Harper has always been his own worst enemy, and this has been the difference in denying him a majority. Hopefully Harper will continue his hyper aggressive assaults and it will turn enough people off to yet again deny him the big win, because if left alone, I think Ignatieff will sewer himself.

    • "Hopefully Harper will continue his hyper aggressive assaults and it will turn enough people off to yet again deny him the big win, because if left alone, I think Ignatieff will sewer himself."

      When I read that bit about Harper's "hyper aggressive assaults" I almost sewered myself. Are you referring to the hyper-aggressive suggestion that the Liberals might possibly, in some hypothetical election scenario, form a coalition with someone? I'm getting the vapours just thinking about it.

    • "Hopefully Harper will continue his hyper aggressive assaults and it will turn enough people off to yet again deny him the big win, because if left alone, I think Ignatieff will sewer himself."

      When I read that bit about Harper's "hyper aggressive assaults" I almost sewered myself</>. Are you referring to the hyper-aggressive suggestion that the Liberals might possibly, in some hypothetical election scenario, form a coalition with someone? I'm getting the vapours just thinking about it.

    • I'll try to remind people again that a majority is difficult for all parties these days. Why? Because of the Bloc in Quebec, and because of a united Conservative party in Ontario. If the latter had existed throughout the 90's, Chretien's majorities would probably have been out of reach.

    • "Hopefully Harper will continue his hyper aggressive assaults and it will turn enough people off to yet again deny him the big win, because if left alone, I think Ignatieff will sewer himself."

      I really hope he doesn't sewer himself, left alone or otherwise. Politics is a nasty business but that would take things to a new low, as it were.

      Anyway, what are these hyper-aggressive assaults of which you speak? Suggesting that the Liberals might possibly, in some hypothetical election scenario, form a coalition with some party that shall remain nameless but whose initials begin with N and end with P? The naked aggression is truly frightening.

      • Negative, personal attack ads in between campaigns. Far more aggressive than anything we've seen previously.

        • Except for some of the vicious ads we've seen from Liberals, right? Next.

        • "Far more aggressive than anything we've seen previously."

          Liberals think people don't have memories. Maybe that's why they abandon their election platforms the minute they're elected and are puzzled when they're called on it.

          • You mean like Harper has abandoned his platformÉ

            Next… ;)

  18. The Hill Times, April 30, 2007
    BACKROOMS
    By Angelo Persichilli
    Grit Leader Dion, the academic, tries to imitate street-smart Chrétien and that's really pathetic
    – TORONTO–There is nothing funnier than an academic trying to imitate a street-smart politician, or, a street-smart politician trying to imitate an academic. Jean Chrétien was street smart. Stéphane Dion is, they say, an academic. Chrétien succeeded because he behaved according to his personality. Dion, the academic, is trying to imitate Chrétien and that's pathetic.
    [youtube TRPa1IDZI4M&feature=player_profilepage#t=132 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRPa1IDZI4M&fe… youtube]

  19. Hollow words from the Hallowed One. Mikhail Ignatieff is so out-of-touch with the Canadian people because they truly are foreign to him. He is not in his element here, and his perceived intellect is void of any passion. He projects a loathsome image of superiority and loftiness. His only ambition is for himself. Anyone with eyes to see notices not one indication of a desire to serve or truly represent Canada in any capacity, so why does he think he's entitled to "start at the top"??

  20. The level of accuracy represented by Iggy's clever skewering of Harper's dysfunctional style of governing in the quoted passages is matched here by the vitriolic level of his detractors non-sequiturs yielding ultimately meaningless and despondent comments.

    • Simultaneously meaningless and despondent? That's interesting.

  21. non-sequiturs yielding ultimately meaningless and despondent comments

    You mean just like the one you posted? Next.

    • Have another hit of that powder Dennis.

      • Zing!

        • Never ceases to amaze me how some people think that stupid taunts in any way serve as a rebuttal to anything. In fact, I should probably start taking it as a compliment. Thanks, guys. Keep it up! Keep proving me right! lol. Next.

      • With any luck MacLean's will have another all-Iggy posting today or tomorrow. This particular posting has been hugely entertaining with all the neo-cons going absolutely nuts. The level of visceral response has been nothing short of hilarious. Our lovely group of right wing posters seem to have buttons the size of dinner plates; they're so easy to push.

  22. Too funny – he's only in it for himself – duh, like Harper's not in it for himself, doesn't want power?

    One of the stupidest lines ever.

    • Canadians have already entrusted him with power. It's yet to be determined if they're willing to do the same with Iggy. Still surprises me the extent to which some people still treat Harper as though he's still in the opposition and doesn't have a track record with voters. Iggy's a long way from proving that he's worthy of developing a track record in office.

      • Another yawner here – Harper fought to have power and is fighting to retain it…..duh!

  23. The subject of Iggy's talk, was…Iggy?

    In other news, today the Sun rose in the east.

    He could do himself a favour and stop reifying the meme that he's a narcissistic carpet bagger " in it for himself" by not making every ad, discussion, event, debate ect. a focus on himself.

    Of course, this presupposes the meme is false.

    It's apparantly not, so I guess we will continue to hear about Iggy, from Iggy, for some time to come.

  24. "How stupid do you think I am?"

    I am sure that is one of the things politicians are NOT supposed to say.

    But anyway, complaining that they are running the ads while "were supporting them"….ulm didnt the criticism in the house continue, werent there speeches talking about how they were "on probation". And was Ignatieff the one claiming he was going to mess with Harper till he was done……kind of hypocritical, or forgettful or silly.

    So the political education of Michael continues……he has now passed through the Dion stage and is now in the Martin stage…the one where you have a really thin skin and wonder why your talents are just not apparent to all. In about a year he might actually be trained up enugh to actually handle a campaign.