99

So much stuff


 

Glen Pearson laments, defends and responds.

I listened to a Conservative MP friend of mine blasting Michael Ignatieff in an interview today for living too long outside the country to be an effective Prime Minister.  When I jokingly said later that he was “shameless,” he responded with, “I know, but it’s the stuff they give us.”

Alas, this is the stuff the PMO gives us all.


 

So much stuff

  1. If Stephen Harper declared the sh*t sandwich to be the official food of the Conservative party, his MPs would eat three at every meal with huge grins on their faces.

  2. Lucky for the Liberals that they didn't get to select their leader, he was picked for them. Us poor Conservatives had to choose who would lead our party.

    But look on the bright side, Ignatieff should be back home soon and you can have Bob Rae designated as your new leader, you can even skip the convention again!

    • Stephen Harper had some real competition in that one. I wonder whatever happened to that blonde lady….

  3. Glen Pearson: the Liberals are no less shameless. A recent example, trying to foment division between Canadians based on race, calling Conservatives racist etc…

    Creating and exploiting religious division with "wafergate", which was outrageous nonsense.

    Seriously, the Liberals have been totally pathetic and beyond shameless and those two examples show. Dividing Canadians on race and religion, it doesn't get much lower than that. You may wish to bring that to the attention of the Liberal caucus next time you meet.

    • I'm sure you have it at your fingertips, so would you mind sharing the evidence that any of the above was directed from Ignatieff's office, and publically disseminated by Liberal MPs? Quotations with names attached would be great.

      • http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/cp-article.aspx?cp-

        From the article..

        "Quebec MP Marlene Jennings said the prime minister's recent videotaped address to supporters was a direct attack on gays, lesbians and other minorities.

        When it was pointed out that Harper never singled out those groups, but only referred to “left-wing fringe'' organizations, she said it was simply a demonstration that the prime minister has two messages _ one for the public and one for Conservative supporters"

        Liberals are sure getting desperate.

        • Good example, though I'd need to see more to fully accept jarrid's assertion, as I'm sure you'd agree.

          Not so sure about the desperate description, because that can cut two ways, no?

        • Harper's cancellation of the CCP and his denouncement of the minorities for which it was established is the attack to which she and others will continue to refer.

      • Yeah, that'll happen. The ConBots are always so careful about those kinds of things.

    • Um, where and when and who in the Liberal caucus said anything negative about Harper and his pocketing of the wafer?

      The only comments I recall were from LeBlanc and from Pearson himself saying this was a non-story and asking everyone to move on.

    • I must have missed the evidence or article that stated where the Liberals were responsible for "wafergate"? And I don't think it was nonsense. The Prime Minister was badly briefed on what to do a Catholic State funeral, which is a trend demonstrated by his mistakes at world conferences.

  4. Shame and political party talking points (of any particular stripe or clour) and mutually exclusive concepts : the oath of an MP should be god save the queen and forgive all of us our daily trespasses –

    • Hey Jack, remember when I was suggesting the similarities between monarchy and religion?

      • I'd have to google a bit to find the thread, but I remember your mentioning it.

        God save the Queen! : )

      • I'd have to google a bit to find the thread, but I remember your mentioning it. Quite a convincing argument, IIRC, though I think we disagreed as to whether the similarity was a good thing. : )

        • What does IIRC mean?

          Anyway, if our MPs do adopt psiclone's oath, I am sure that our Politics will mature in such a way as to deliver us smoothly and comfortably into the eleventh century.

          • The eleventh century . . . that would be progress. Always the optimist, eh?

            (IIRC = "If I recall correctly")

  5. Sorry Glen, but Michael Ignatieff is no Lester Pearson.

    • Missed the point, did ya?

      • No, I just read Glen's blog post in its entirety, as I usually do. You should try it.

        • Then address Glen Pearson's real comparison.

          He only compared Ignatieff to Pearson with respect to their time abroad, and how it was a source of Mike Pearson's strength and is for Iggy as well. But I don't think anyone would compare Pearson in style or leadership skills to anyone but Pearson.

          Glen's real comparison was to compare Harper to Pearson, the latter making international leadership a real objective and an objective for its own sake because of the good it would do (that is the definition of world leadership) vs the former making an international action just about optics on the domestic front – " every move he makes is determined by domestic issues and is studied and polled in excruciating detail".

          And in that he is dead bang on.

  6. Sorry, Glen, but Michael Ignatieff is no Lester Pearson.

    • I knew Mike Pearson (well…I met him several times) and Mike Ignatieff is no MIke Pearson.

      There is a vast difference between working in an Embassy, especially the one in Washington where I spent 7 years, and working in a foreign country in terms of keeping in touch with Canada.

      In the former, one lives and breathes what is happening in Canada, especially in the government, on a daily basis. In the latter, it is a constant struggle just finding out what is going on in Canada. Sure since the Internet, it is easier to keep up with Canadian developments, but this was not the case 34 years ago.

    • I knew Mike Pearson (well…I met him several times) and Mike Ignatieff is no MIke Pearson.

      If one wants to keep in touch with Canada, there is a vast difference between working in an Embassy, especially the one in Washington where I spent 7 years, and working in a foreign country.

      In the former, one lives and breathes what is happening in Canada, especially in the government, on a daily basis. In the latter, it is a constant struggle just finding out what is going on in Canada. Sure, since the Internet, it is easier to keep up with Canadian developments, but this was not the case 34 years ago.

    • I knew Mike Pearson (well…I met him several times) and Mike Ignatieff is no MIke Pearson.

      If one wants to keep in touch with Canada, there is a vast difference between working in an Embassy, especially the one in Washington where I spent 7 years, and working in a foreign country.

      In the former, one lives and breathes what is happening in Canada, especially in the government, on a daily basis. In the latter, it is a constant struggle just finding out what is going on in Canada. Sure since the Internet, it is easier to keep up with Canadian developments, but this was not the case 34 years ago.

  7. It's the stuff they give us.

    Harper is just messin' around with us.

  8. Glen wrote: "My friend's own argument, if valid, would have meant that Lester Pearson wouldn't have been up to the task."

    First, Pearson only spent half as much time abroad. Second, most of Pearson's time abroad was spent in dedicated service to his beloved Canada, first in WW1 and then as one of the most accomplished diplomats in Canadian history.

  9. I take it then that you agree with the main thrust of Glen's post then, that Harper uses optics in foreign policy for domestic purposes.

    And on his side point, how much time abroad is too much for you? how much direct contact with Canada is not enough? And who are you and harper etc to judge?

    Ignatieff in this infamous 34 years came back to Canada almost every year, was appointed by Chretien to represent Canada at the UN's committee on humanitarian intervention, won a Governor General's award for a book partly about Canada, was shortlisted for a Book prize for a novel entirely about Canada, has written about Canada in virtually every book he's written, gave the Massey Lectures in 2000, was a professor at UBC, has guest lectured dozens of times in Canada, was routinely invited onto broadcasting programs and news programs as a resident expert on Canada

    So tell us what the rules are so when we go abroad or send our kids abroad, we'll know when they might risk no longer being Canadian enough.

    • In other words, Iggy was very good at just visiting us, wasn't he? And the question is not whether or not that makes him a good Canadian, which is debatable, but whether or not it makes him a good candidate to lead this country. And I, for one, think that wanting to live here should be a primary qualification for the job. There are plenty of great Canadians who travel a lot. That's not what Iggy did. He traveled to Canada sometimes, as a self-described citizen of another country. Pretty much a slam dunk criticism, and certainly would be if here were the Conservative leader. Without doubt.

      • Dumb-ass criticism. I don't want the leader of Canada to be judged on residence, I want them to be judged on ability. So the appropriate question isn't "Where does he live" the appropriate question would be "How much does he know?"

        Someone called forth as an expert on Canada strikes me as likely a far better candidate than someone who's lived in Canada they're whole lives and spent a good portion of that badmouthing the systems we have.

        • This is ridiculous. By that logic, it wouldn't even matter if here were a citizen of this country. I mean, a person could "know" so much that they could phone in being prime minister from Tazmania, right? Geez.

          • Reducto ad absurdum. Turning it around, your logic would suggest that Paul Joseph Cartier would make a better Prime Minister than Clement Atlee. Do try to remain in the realm of the reasonable.. or if you can't handle that.. at least the sane.

          • Can you please explain how I'm making that absurd claim? Next.

          • You're suggesting that the criteria of living in Canada is paramount. If they do not meet that specific criteria, then they should not get elected, and thus, by extension, anybody who does meet that criteria is a better candidate than one who does not.

            Is that clear enough now?

          • In fact, nowhere have I made the claim that living in Canada is paramount. However, one would think that, if you want to be a prime minister of a country, that you'd also have wanted to live there. Indeed, it seems pretty much a no-brainer, except to some of you oh-so-sophisticated thinkers.

            Perhaps needless to say, or maybe it is needed, it certainly doesn't follow that someone who doesn't want to live here is less qualified than someone who does. It just means the latter would need a severe deficiency in some other important area of qualification to be as equally hampered.

            Again, thank you all for your wonderful contributions to this thread.

          • Ah, excellent, so then we agree that if the person from Tazmania was the best candidate, they would gain our support.

            Of course, this brings us back to my original point – where they live isn't the important question, it's how much do they know.

            Now that we have that cleared up, we can go back comparing the merits of the candidates.. one who has been repeatedly called on as an expert on Canada, represented Canada to the UN. Received a Canadian Governor General's award, and written novels about Canada, vs one who has claimed that Canada is "a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term" and a "second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status."

            Hmm.. which is the more Canadian?

    • I take it then that you agree with the main thrust of Glen's post then, that Harper uses optics in foreign policy for domestic purposes.

      Glen wrote: "The PM calculates his actions on the world stage in light of a domestic audience and how it will play." No evidence is provided, and the statement itself is vague enough that I don't really have an opinion on it, but I suppose it is true in a general sense, as it would be true of most politicians.

      And on his side point, how much time abroad is too much for you? how much direct contact with Canada is not enough?

      We've been through this before. It's a loaded question. Iggy's time abroad doesn't disqualify him from anything, but many reasonable people would agree that the fact Iggy spent most of his adult life abroad has been an Achilles Heel in his quest to become PM.

      If Ignatieff ever does become PM (which seems increasingly unlikely), he will become a historical anomaly, because no elected leader in world history ever chose to spend that much time outside his own country.

      • I think that the comparison Glen makes between Pearson and Harper is that for Pearson leadership abroad truly was an end unto itself and not a domestic play. He certainly had the credentials for it and I think that is consistent with his leadership at home (he was not the best at optics at home and was constantly derided for not focusing on his optics… eventually he started to listen – the bow tie disappeared – but not by much).

        Harper by contrast has changed is Minister of Foreign Affairs 4 times in three years, is not appointing diplomatic posts in Afghanistan he ought to (and everyone else is), is losing our seat at the Security Counsel, have either no representation or inconsistent and changing representation at discussions for international treaties, but makes a huge deal about showing guns in small bay no one questions is ours thousands and thousands of kilometers from any threat – all points Paul Wells has been trying to get someone to pay attention to for years (especially the degradation of our foreign service and reputation and how seriously Harper takes that role).

        • Of course, these are your words, not Glen's.

          is losing our seat at the Security Counsel

          You're probably referring to Canada's campaign for a seat at the UN Security Council. We won't even know what happens until 2010.

          degradation of our foreign service and reputation

          Are these talking points from Iggy's recent Cdn Club speech? Please provide objective evidence that Canada's reputation has degraded. The whole "Ignatieff will make Canadians proud of our flag again" theme seems unspeakably arrogant to me.

          • Why don't you take it up with Glen Pearson? Too chicken?

    • "And on his side point, how much time abroad is too much for you? how much direct contact with Canada is not enough? And who are you and harper etc to judge?"

      We all get to judge Ignatieff because we're voters and that's what voters do. Maybe the issue of Ignatieff's absence isn't important to you (nor is it to me) but certainly people should be allowed to judge candidates for PM based on their history. Ignatieff is who he is and some people will like it and others not. Same for Harper, Layton, Duceppe, and May.

  10. I don't quite understand why it's "shameless." It's as though some people think that a candidate to be prime minister doesn't have to spend any time in this country, which Ignatieff hardly did for an extremely long time. In fact, everything about his biography suggests that he wanted to leave as soon as possible, when he did leave he identified himself as a citizen of other countries, and only came back to have a chance at being prime minister.

    Some people love to think that the Tory ads attacking Iggy on this front are out of line. For the most part, I think they're bang on, and I'm surprised that more Liberals and leftists don't criticize Iggy's candidacy on this score. Lord knows that if Iggy was the Conservative leader he'd have absolutely no chance of being PM precisely on this score. So, I don't quite understand why it's not a legit issue.

    • Because the ads don't say "does he really know what is good for Canada, having been so long away".

      They say he is just visiting, that he is only in it for himself, that he is unqualified because he isn't Canadian enough and that being abroad a certain amount of time (never clarifying where they would draw the line) means you are unqualified.

      And because they are clearly desperation ads. Not a single ad about Harper or his policies; only negative attacks on Iggy's character.

    • This whole Coinservative argument about Ignatieff's absence nudges awfully close to statism.

      • I was thinking more along the lines of nativism, but statism works too.

        All I know is that Mitchell Palmer would be proud…

        • Yes, it's so nativist and statist to criticize the man who wants to become Canada's national leader for not having spent much time in Canada.

          Canada is probably one of the least nativist and statist countries in the world.

          • Man, if you don't believe that in part the subtext of this line of attack is "Canada for 'Real' Canadians" then you're not being truthful.

          • Anyone can pull "subtext" out of any orifice. Harper's videotaped use of the term "left-wing fringe groups" was interpreted by Liberal MPs as a "direct attack on women and minorities". That's quite the "subtext"!

            It's convenient for Ignatieff supporters to spin legitimate criticism of his historically unprecedented time abroad as narrow-minded statism, or as attacks on immigrants, or whatever other convenient "subtext" they can spin up.

          • Anyone can pull "subtext" out of any orifice. Harper's videotaped use of the term "left-wing fringe groups" was interpreted by Liberal MPs as a "direct attack on women and minorities". That's quite the "subtext"!

            It's convenient for Ignatieff supporters to spin legitimate criticism of his historically unprecedented time abroad as narrow-minded statism, or as attacks on immigrants, or whatever other convenient "subtext" they can dream up.

          • Which is why the Conservatives argument about Ignatieff's time abroad is so stupid, right?

    • HA! What a load of Malarky!! You've never ever given even a second's thought to this "issue" before the Conservative "braintrust" decided to make it an "issue". You don't really care where he spent any time, if he had spent the every minute of his life ice fishing and eating maple fudge while wrapped in a Bay Blanket you'd find something else just as damaging to prove he's not fit for office.

      Spare us the histrionics…

      • Who in the world are you trying to kid? This has ALWAYS been party of Iggy's baggage. Heck, even Liberals used to think so before appointing him party leader. How in the world could it not be? And we sure as heck know it would be an issue if Ignatieff were running under the Conservative banner.

        Look, Ignatieff didn't live here for 34 years, and he didn't come back until given a chance to become leader of the Liberals and, as a consequence, the obvious chance to become prime minister.

        Again, I don't know why more Liberals and leftists don't criticize Iggy on this score. They constantly wrap themselves in Canadian nationalism. Until, of course, the split second that one of their own might be glaringly weak in the area.

        Instead of admitting that it's a potential weakness, some of you get angry for people bringing it up. That's a strategy, I guess.

        • It's always been a part of Ignatieff's (kindly avoid the dripingly sarcastic "Iggy", I avoid such inanities as "Harpercrite") baggage? Funny, I remember the real complaint about him when he was running for leader was that he's aloof and hadn't put in the requisite time in Parliament. But if you want to spin that into meaning that he wasn't in Canada for long enough go right on ahead…nothing appears able to stop you.

          I don't wrap myself in Canadian nationalism, most "leftists" and Liberals (these two terms mean different things, you know that right?) don't either. It's the current iteration of the Republican-lite Conservatives who stike the "love-it-or-leave-it" pose most often…I have no idea what you are actually talking about (I suspect you are going to reply that the Liberals tend to portray themselves as the Natural Governing Party…which is true. But that is a far cry from "wrapping themselves in Canadian Nationalism")

          As always my complaint with you is that you try to frame your personal opinions as those held by the mythic Everyday Canadian. When in reality you are a staunch Conservative.

          Ignatieff's absence isn't *really* an issue for you…you just think that it might be enough to convince enough people not to vote for him.

          • Richard, I think you have a problem with my apparent framing of opinion as "everyday Canadian" because maybe that's just what it is.

            Only in the world of Canadians Liberalism and leftism (and we stupid conservatives can know the difference, you know) can a slam dunk weakness of a candidate be turned on its head and treated as something not to be spoken of in polite company. Why? Why shouldn't Ignatieff's decision not to live here for 34 years be in any way considered a potential weakness to be prime minister?

            In fact, I think many of you know that it is a glaring weakness, which is precisely why you want to mock those who dare mention it.

            It's like running a campaign against Harper and not mentioning that he has a problem of getting along with other party leaders, or that he's run up a deficit of over $56 billion.

            But I guess one can only utter slam dunk criticisms against those who happen to be conservative politicians.

          • Alright Dennis "Average Canadian" F, here's your shot – convince me.

            What exactly is it about being a professor at some of the most prestigious schools on the planet that precludes one from being a legitimate Prime Minister?

            You seem to think having taught at Cambridge, Oxford, London School of Economic, University of California and Harvard since 1978 excludes one from being Prime Minister…explain to me why.

            What does a person who spends every minute of his life in Canada have over our distinguished Professor in this regard?

            What makes where he worked a "slam dunk criticism"?

            (The answer of course for those who don't want to wait is simply that he's running as a Liberal)

          • Very fascinating, Richard_S_A. For a person who seems so impressed by higher education, you seem to have a problem with basic logic. Let me explain.

            I think teaching at prestigious foreign schools is a terrific qualification to be prime minister. On the other hand, I think not living here for most of your life isn't. I mean, does he want to be the leader of Canada, or of Britain or the United States? And, if it's Canada, why in the world would you not want to live here?

            I never said anyone who wants to be PM needs to spend every second here. How about live here?

            It strikes me as remarkable that living in a country one wants to lead isn't seen as, at the very least, helpful to the cause.

            Indeed, if he were Conservative, you'd probably be yelling and screaming about the fact that he's more qualified to be a so-called "Bush-bot" than prime minister of a country HE NEVER REALLY WANTED TO LIVE IN.

            Geez. Maybe education these days isn't quite what it used to be, given the lack of common sense in those who apparently hold higher learning as the primary qualification for leadership.

          • In other words, it's Ignatieff's fault that all those prestigious foreign schools aren't located in Canada.

            (If Ignatieff was a Conservative? I wouldn't care – much like I didn't care until the screeching harridans basically annoyed me into defending him.)

          • Yes, I guess it's his fault. He felt it more important to live and work, as more than just a scholar – he was a journalist, writer, and other things – in other countries than to live in Canada. It's a choice he made. You can't go back and change it, as many of you are now trying to do.

          • Dennis seems to argue that it's fair game to criticize Ignatieff for being out of the country for 34 years. I agree with him, it is fair game.

            He also argues that it should negatively impact citizens' votes. I disagree with him on that; for me personally, it's at minimum neutral and maybe positive.

            But his position is nonetheless defensible, and I suspect there are many Canadians for whom this is a negative. However, this will wane even further during the election campaign. It is already "old news."

            Dennis' argument that he (Dennis) is an average Canadian frightens me however and I very much hope that he is, in fact, an outlier.

          • I didn't argue that it should negatively impact citizens' vote, I said that it probably will, which is why many of you are acting so nervously about it.

            And what is it exactly about me that "frightens" you? Is it that I dare disagree with your view of the world? Or that you have a hard time rebutting my arguments? Weird.

          • IntenseDebate Notification <DIV dir=ltr align=left>I agree with both your arguments: (1) Conservatives are welcome to attack Ignatieff for being gone a long time and (2)apologies for the confusion, I agree fully with you that it will affect Canadians votes. </DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left>The reasons it frightens me that you think you are an “average Canadian” (a bit tongue in cheek to be sure) are twofold: First, it appears to me that you are a partisan Conservative – this alone makes you not average but isn't particularly frightening. Second, I cannot recall a single time where you agreed with a view espoused by a Liberal (you call “leftist”) commentator, or even acknowledged their position as reasonable. In fact, you assume EVERYONE who disagrees with you is a leftist/Liberal, which is absurd. If I'm wrong about any or all of these points, I'd be thrilled for you to provide evidence and correct me, and I'll gracefully retract my fright.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left>It is this combination that is frightening. I hope the average Canadian is not an ultra-partisan Conservative who never acknowledges or agrees with a view espoused by a non-Conservative and/or assumeseveryone who disagrees with them is a “leftist”. </DIV> <DIV>

          • You know, some of you kill me with your lack of logic or consistency. Here you are accusing me of labellling all my opponents as Liberals or leftists, yet here you are labelling me as a partisan conservative. So, it's not OK for me to do it, which is what you claim, but it's OK for you to do it, is it?

            However:

            a) Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not the most vocal opponents of Harper here either leftists or Liberals? And, if I've made an error somewhere in this regard, please feel free to correct the record. Please feel free to tell me how you're otherwise a great fan of our prime minister.

            b) Why would it be so shocking to you that a person of conservative perspective would tend to see things, well, from a conservative perspective, which often means arguing with leftists or Liberals. Not always, but often. Read my blog. I often direct my criticism at all politicians of all stripes.

            Now, I suggest you stop being frightened by people who dare challenge your views and start actually challenging their views, if you can. Thank you.

          • "you just think that it might be enough to convince enough people not to vote for him. "

            I don't even think it's that. Conservatives just get a kick out of irritating people by being obnoxious. It's their defining characteristic.

  11. Are you still here?

  12. Are you still here? Sssh… grown-ups talking.

    • Are you still here, angry at being exposed as an idiot?

      • Another brilliant comeback from Anon. You add so much to these discussions.

  13. Are you still here? Sssh… adults talking.

  14. I'll also take this opportunity to remind people that it was a Liberal prime minister who once refused the request of a prominent Canadian conservative to allow him to retain his citizenship while at the same time accept an esteemed position in a foreign country. As I recall, many of the same people who now champion Iggy's internationalist credentials applauded Chretien when he denied Conrad Black to be both Canadian and a British Lord. Ain't irony rich?

    I'll also note that this example has nothing to do with what happened to Black afterwards, or his personal life in general, but that probably won't stop some of you.

  15. I'll also take this opportunity to remind people that it was a Liberal prime minister who once refused the request of a prominent Canadian conservative to allow him to retain his citizenship while at the same time accept an esteemed position in a foreign country. As I recall, many of the same people who now champion Iggy's internationalist credentials applauded Chretien when he denied Conrad Black the right to be both Canadian and a British Lord. Ain't irony rich?

    I'll also note that this example has nothing to do with what happened to Black afterwards, or his personal life in general, but that probably won't stop some of you.

    • You're comparing Ignatieff's years abroad to a deliberate renunciation of one's Canadian citizenship in order to assume an empty, glitzy foreign title? Don't be absurd. Black stormed out of the party in a huff and a puff; Iggy just popped out for a smoke and didn't come back for a few hours. One is rude, the other is unforgiveable.

  16. No, I'm comparing praise of Iggy's internationalist credentials with Jean Chretien essentially revoking Black's. Or, to put it more precisely, telling Black that he can't be Canadian while being a prominent Brit Lord, too. In other words, how can people like you praise Iggy and Chretien in this regard at the same time? Why in the world didn't he let Conrad Black still be a Canadian? Why force the choice on him? It's like saying that Iggy can't be Canadian because he left us, right? Which no one is arguing.

    • What makes you think that anyone here cared one whit about what amounted to a juvenile slapfest between Chretien and Black?

      I thought the whole thing was silly, albeit kinda funny, back then, and I still do now.

      What's your point again?

    • He didn't bloody well renounce his Canadian citizenship. As to the House of Lords, Canadians are effectively barred from holding foreign titles. Black wanted to be good old Conrad and Milord of Crosharbour at the same time, raising certain suspicions that he might hold Canada in contempt (citation: most of Black's political journalism for the previous 10 years). Chretien called him on it and lo & behold! Conrad confirmed the suspicions in excelsis by renouncing his citizenship, publicly insulting our country.

      I'm not defending Ignatieff for being abroad for so long at all. I'm just kicking over your little sandcastle of a comparison between Black and Iggy.

      • Why wouldn't Chretien give him an exemption, which he had the power to do, so that he could hold both titles? After all, you say you support internationalist Canadians, right? So why not be in favour of Black's request? Why, instead, revoke his ability to be both Canadian and Brit Lord? In Iggy's case, you like a Canadian having foreign credentials. In Black's case, you don't. Fascinating.

        • Elevating oneself to the House of Lords by owning the Daily Telegraph is not my definition of Canadian internationalism. It's absurdly megalomaniacal while also very petty. Perhaps Black made the right choice.

        • Elevating oneself to the House of Lords by owning the Daily Telegraph is not my definition of Canadian internationalism. It's absurdly megalomaniacal while also very petty. Perhaps Black made the right choice. As to giving Black an exception, why should he have one? Because he was rich enough to buy a title?

          On the other hand, I don't see Iggy's career as a international journalist and man of letters as particularly Canadian; I don't think it detracts from his Canadianitude either. Your comparison of Iggy and Black is apples and oranges: they both spent a lot of time abroad, it's just that Iggy didn't renounce his citizenship.

          • Oh, so you denigrate Black's desire to do things overseas, but not Iggy's? And it's the latter who wants to be our prime minister. This stuff just fascinates me. It really really does.

          • I'm glad you're so fascinated, Dennis F, because it's a sign you just might learn something.

            I do indeed denigrate Black's elevation to the House of Lords, because here's the thing: "doing stuff overseas" is a category that contains good stuff and bad stuff. I know, it's incredible! Technically we call it non-simplistic thinking but I don't want to bore you with jargon. Anyway, IMO, being an international man of letters is far more dignified than buying yourself a seat in the Lords. Just FWIW.

          • I'm glad you're so fascinated, Dennis F, because it's a sign you just might learn something.

            I do indeed denigrate Black's elevation to the House of Lords, because here's the thing: "doing stuff overseas" is a category that contains good stuff and bad stuff. (I know, it's incredible! Technically we call that non-simplistic thinking but I don't want to bore you with jargon.) Anyway, IMO, being an international man of letters is far more dignified than buying yourself a seat in the Lords. Just FWIW.

          • Actually, I think one can argue that Conrad Black's international accomplishments were more noteworthy than Iggy's. He built himself an international newspaper publishing empire, which you demean as buying a a seat in the House of Lords, and he's an extremely accomplished writer, intellect, and scholar in his own right. (And, yes, he's also a convicted criminal, which the US Supreme Court will either confirm or deny shortly.)

            But, in your world, none of that matters. Why? Is it because you're a Liberal or a leftist, and he's not? This seems to be the sole reason for your lack of consistency in this matter. Thank you.

          • I'm not faulting Milord for his business career (though some have, to be sure); I'm faulting him for trading his Canadian citizenship for a tin trophy. His being a good writer, or having an inspissated style, or being a criminal mastermind, is neither here nor there.

          • He was forced to renounce his citizenship because Chretien refused to allow him to keep it while at the same time achieving something overseas. Why was he not allowed to be both Canadian and and international achiever? And why would you not defend him in this regard like you're defending your beloved Liberal leader? I think you would if you had the same standard for friend and foe alike.

          • Chretien did not prevent him from being an International Achiever, he prevented him from indulging a petty vanity harmful to the principle that one's principal loyalty should be to Canada.

            There's nothing more tiresome than an unhinged sophist, Dennis.

          • If you believe that Black's loyalty wasn't to Canada, then why was Iggy's when he chose to spend 34 years overseas? My, you keep twisting yourself trying to justify this ridiculous double standard between Liberals and Conservatives, then some of you get angry at the suggestion that you're Liberals.

          • "If you believe that Black's loyalty wasn't to Canada, then why was Iggy's when he chose to spend 34 years overseas?"

            For the tenth time: because Black, not Iggy, renounced his Canadian citizenship.

            You may not agree with it, but logically it's not a double standard. Your partisanship makes it seem like one to you. Coming on this board and denouncing those who disagree with you as "Liberals" is a sign of partisanship. There is nothing "Liberal" about my distinction between Iggy and Black — apples and oranges, as I said before.

  17. Liberals are, of course, entirely free to select a leader to whom such an avenue of attack would not apply. They knew the parachute-candidate expat factor was a risk going in, his intra-party opponents having already brought it up; to hand-wave it away as specious or irrelevant remains a bit rich.

    • "Liberals are, of course, entirely free to select a leader to whom such an avenue of attack would not apply."

      Why? Conservatives will just come up with yet another baseless line of attack. Remember Dion being traitorously French?

      I like the fact that Ignatieff doesn't think Conservatives are worth paying attention to anymore. That's resonating with a lot of people.

    • I think perhaps you've missed the point.

      The key phrase is "it's the stuff they give us".

      Congratulations on having such a paragon of independant thought and critical reasoning as an MP. I do wonder sometimes why Harper hasn't followed through on his promise of free votes, since it seems that free or not, his MPs have been properly whipped to not think on their own anyway.

  18. Good grief. Conbots make me want to defend Ignatieff; Liberal bots make me want to vote for the NDP; dippers in general and Layton in specific are why I vote for Marxists; and I refuse to even talk to Marxists because they are some of the worst people I've ever met.

    On topic: just goes to show that everybody hates it when their boss tells you to say dumb things because he's the boss, and everybody in Canada is generally aware that partisanship is a prop we use to convince ourselves of the validity of representative democracy. Red versus blue, indeed.

  19. 1. Do you want me to provide a blood sample, too? My God, where you're coming from on this one?

    2. I don't accuse all people who disagree with Harper as being Liberal or leftist. I use the terms sometimes, sometimes I don't.

    3. One of the reasons I comment on here is to challenge people who I disagree with strongly. Aaron Wherry is one of them. He always seems to be crying about something that Harper does, even when that something often seems loike common sense. Iggy's lack of Canadian residency being one good example. It's a genuine issue, but many Liberals and leftists make it seem as though bringing it up is akin to barfing in public. OK, and maybe some non-Liberals and non-leftists, too, but not as much.

    I have offered criticisms of Harper in this very thread: a) $56 billion deficit; b) Failure to get along with other party leaders. Those are genuine criticisms, and there are many more.

    4. I read all kinds of one-liners in these threads characterizing people who disagree as being "Conbots" and such. Do you get "frightened" by these people, too, or do leftists leanings you're not willing to reveal that makes you far more sympathetic to them than to me? If not, then I apologize. Still, consistency in this regard would provide you with some perhaps needed consistency and credibility.

    So, now that that's been addressed, are you going to ask me for my birth certificate, too? My God. And I'm the one who's supposed to be "frightening" am I?

    • 1. Just a yes or no. 2. Fair3. Fair4. I find the whole Conbot / Harpercrite stuff incredibly useless and am equally perturbed/frightened by theses folks.

      • A yes or no to all those questions? A number of which, quite frankly, are none of your business.

        But let me try to put it to rest anyhow. In no way am I a partisan Conservative, nor do I in any way work on their behalf. Even the suggestion of such by you I find more "frightening" than anything I've written on here. Indeed, you're more guilty of what you accuse me of than I am!

        You seem to suggest that an opponent of yours must be in the tank. Wow! The irony is quite something, isn't it?

  20. Oh, and what's with the bizarro formatting of your posts, dude?

    • Email replies, not sure why it does that.

      • It's a bug. Email replies often contain formatting errors.

  21. Obviously, the fact that Iggy chose not to live and work in Canada IS an issue, as people are and have been talking about it. If he were an amazing leader with great ideas, it might not be. The fact is that he is NOT a leader and has no ideas that matter to the vast majority of Canadians. He is a career critic, yesterday's man and has selected the wrong career and party for the latter part of his working life. The Liberals made a huge mistake and are pouting.

  22. There are no Marquess of Queensberry rules in politcs, and none are needed. Just about anything goes, short of violence.

    Any party can make any kind of attack on any other party or leader. The check on the kind of attack made is, if the public thinks the attack goes too far, there will be a backlash on the attacking party.

    Two classic examples are the "Cretien face"ads of 1993 and the "soldiers in the streets" ads of 2006.

    So the 'just visiting' ads are fair game. Tories don't think they go too far, and there hasn't been much of a backlash, except from the usual suspects.

    Liberals just have to suck it up, and deal with it as best they can. Ignatieff starts off his first 'Narnia' ad by trying to turn his travels abroad into a positive. That's cool, it might work, it might not, who knows.

Sign in to comment.