Ian Davey - The Storm Creator
Remember a few weeks back when a few bloggers were criticizing Michael Ignatieff for going quiet? Remember how anyone who did so was called "insensitive" and "callous" because he was caring for his sick mother in law?
For the record, I don't think anyone was ever criticizing Ignatieff for spending time with his family. If he wants to visit a relative, sick or not, and take a three week vacation in the middle of a leadership race, that's his prerogative. The criticism was always on Iggy going completely silent and not releasing a statement on the Middle East crisis. Reading Diebel's article, it's clear that there was a major breakdown in communication in the Ignatieff campaign (Paul Wells explains why that's a bad thing here).
Last week, however, back in Toronto, Ignatieff told the Star his mother-in-law was, in fact, not ill.
"There is no health crisis," he said. "There never was. Anybody who said there was, was not authorized to say that. I never purported to say that."
He apologized for the confusion.
For the record, I don't think anyone was ever criticizing Ignatieff for spending time with his family. If he wants to visit a relative, sick or not, and take a three week vacation in the middle of a leadership race, that's his prerogative. The criticism was always on Iggy going completely silent and not releasing a statement on the Middle East crisis. Reading Diebel's article, it's clear that there was a major breakdown in communication in the Ignatieff campaign (Paul Wells explains why that's a bad thing here).
posted by calgarygrit at
3:53 p.m.
21 Comments:
coach moach; Umm...I followed the link to your blog and found every single post there attacking other candidates. Among the gems was "Stephane Dion is an arrogant ass" and a comparison of Dion's financial situation to Nortel. So I don't think I'm going to lose much sleep over your criticism that my "snide remarks" are "weak".
As for Ignatieff's mid-east position itself, I think people have attacked the substance of it. Perhaps not the Globe article which was very well written and thoughtful, but his Toronto Star follow up received a lot of criticism.
And, finally, "timing" and "team" are important things in politics.
By
calgarygrit, at 4:23 p.m.
Just be honest with us about the candidates whereabouts! At first this was about the Middle East. Some would say it wasn't that important that MI release a statement, but the campaign mislead people and the media and made it into a question of honesty and integrity and not policy.
By
Darren McEwen, at 4:25 p.m.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
paul kambulow, at 4:31 p.m.
Clearly, this is going to be the greatest thread ever!
CG hasn't attacked Ignatieff, only Ignatieff's total silence during a major international crisis. He's been fair all throughout (well, except for putting Manley and Broadbent on the same ballot! He's never been snide.
Darren is right.
Paul - I admire ya, where do you find the time?
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 4:38 p.m.
Ahem, Coach Moach
July 18 - Kennedy makes statement about Middle East conflict
July 25 - Kennedy Calls on Harper to continue fuinding safe injection sites
July 28 - Kennedy condemns what he calls immoral fundraising tactics of the Conservatives
Aug 3 - Kennedy Renews Call for Immediate Ceasefire
Aug 4 - Kennedy criticizes Harper for refusing to attend AIDS conference
Aug 4 - Kennedy appears on CTV Newsnet responding to Harper's caucus speech
By
Dan McKenzie, at 5:19 p.m.
Paul; your reply was so long, it bogging down the whole thread so I had to delete it.
By
calgarygrit, at 5:34 p.m.
Coach,
Incidentally, it's been so long since we've heard from Gerard that I'm starting to wonder whether he too is in Hungary.
If you watched CTV or read www.CTV.ca you would have seen that Kennedy came out swinging against Harper live on CTV the afternoon of day one of the Conservative Caucus meeting.
My friend who doesn't really follow politics or get involved text messaged to say he was on TV talking about Harper's position.
By
Darren McEwen, at 5:41 p.m.
Speaking of lack of communication, some friends of mine just came back from an Iggy event in Montreal this afternoon.
Ignatieff kept saying that he was a "progressive" Liberal and that it is "really important" that people "understand" that about him.
Any ideas about what he means by that? Progressive like progressive conservative? Progressive like progressing towards an electoral victory? Progressive like what?
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
JJ
By
JJ, at 6:22 p.m.
I don't think it was a mis-communication. C'mon, Iggy can follow "minutely" the war's progress but doesn't know what is being said in the Canadian papers?
Also, the campaign could have cleared up mis-conceptions at any time. They could have said, "Yes, WWIII might be breaking out, but our guy for PM is running about the fields of Hungary." But that wouldn't have looked good either, would it?
By
bigcitylib, at 6:47 p.m.
To Coach Moach,
Why is it bad when CG asks questions about Iggy? I happen to support Ignatieff myself and I sure don't mind. I don't like Kennedy in the slightest, but it's not like CG is a mouthpiece for him. His remarks weren't snide or weak. They were APT!
CG's site has always been about all sorts of politics. I don't find him overtly pro-Kennedy or overtly-Anti anyone. He has his opinions just like the rest of us.
Finally, what tops this all off for me is that 100% of the time, CG backs up every one of his statements with facts. He doesn't make snide remarks, he simply just presents an issue and comments on it.
By
Forward Looking Canadian, at 7:41 p.m.
I can see it now: Layton debating Ignatieff in the 2007 election debates. A question rises on foreign policy.
Ignatieff: For 10 years I covered foreign policy minutely for the BBC in London.
Layton: Interesting you should mention Europe. Because you sir, went on a vacation to Europe during on of the greatest crisises in Canada history. That is unforgivable.
Ignatieff: But I'm a Harvard professor of human rights!
Layton: Apparently you also slept well while children were dying.
By
Simon Pole, at 7:51 p.m.
Simon Pole,
I don't know if you were trying to dig at Iggy with that comment or make fun at Layton.
But I can't imagine saying "Iggy slept while children were dying". It's one thing to criticize him for revealing his thoughts too late, it's another to pretend like Iggy could have done anything.
What has Jack done besides bitch and moan? What could we do? I find it funny that Jack wants to recall parliament and all this stuff. If I heard that Norway was recalling its government over the middle east issue, I'd laugh. Are we supposed to think that recalling parliament could resolve the middle east peace process? Seriously come on here.
Anyway, the "slept while children were dying" thing was over the top for me.
By
Forward Looking Canadian, at 8:13 p.m.
Riley,
If all that is politically possible is to bitch and moan, than that is what you do.
And if Parliament was recalled to debate the issue, then that would have made headlines the world over. That isn't exactly nothing. It's called applying political pressure. If it really meant nothing, then I'm sure Harper would have done it.
By
bigcitylib, at 8:16 p.m.
While I dont consider Davey's respose to reporters, claiming Iggy was with an "ill relative", a smart idea, I think the article was a little heavy and unrelated to anything of real importance. A little confusing why campaing officials said this, YES, but at the same time Ignatieff cleared things up quite well.
Along the same lines as what others have said, what could have Iggy done with the sitution in the middle east? Sure he didnt talk any talk until it was necessary, but I dont find that political rhetoric usually solves these types of problems anyway.
Let's not blow this article out of proportion and make it appear worth more than it is.
By
Just another Liberal, at 8:44 p.m.
Big city lib,
Recalling parliament would make headlines around the world?? Oh man I'm rolling on the floor laughing. Are you serious??
If only Jack Layton was Prime Minister, think of how better the world would be.
By
Forward Looking Canadian, at 8:56 p.m.
CANADA RECALLS PARLIAMENT
Kerry Assassinates Bush In Cold Blood
"Now who's sorryr?"
Saudis Declare "Open War" On Hezbollah
US Captures Bin Laden Alive
Heatwave Shows No Signs Of Relent
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 11:22 p.m.
Perhaps my lack of subtlety explains why I don't get shout outs from the Toronto Star.
Your crude, lumpen writing probably has more to do with not getting shout outs from the Star. Your lack of subtlety only explains why everyone is making fun of you.
By
Tybalt, at 12:29 a.m.
This "longer than 3 paragraphs is poor" etiquette thing that LH mentioned is news to me... is it news to anybody else? Part of blogging is building a community, and if Calgrit has one, so be it.
(This contention would be met with helpless laughter at, say, Daily Kos, where the comments are often as well-written as the entries.)
As for Diebel, personally I've found her articles some of the best available on the Liberal leadership race, and asserting that her not treating Karygiannis like the spawn of Satan somehow diminishes her credibility is truly bizarre. I realize that Volpe and "Jimmy K" aren't popular online, but this is starting to get silly.
Then again, considering that the rest of LH's posting was meaningless pro-Ignatieff puffery. "A policy first, straight shooter, ready to change the paradigm of the Liberal Party?" "Straight shooters" don't write hopelessly muddled "I feel I'm above it but I can totally support those who do it" articles about torture in british newspapers.
moach: Ignatieff did more to discredit the substance of his argument with that infantile "won't lose any sleep" comment about Qana than Calgary Grit could in a year of trying.
By
Demosthenes, at 3:21 a.m.
Doesn't it kind of strike you all as a bit sad how many pissing contests are going on in this race?
I remember at the start many were optimistic about real policy debate.
Now it's like Martin vs. Chretien again, but with a few more camps instead of just two.
By
Shawn, at 12:22 p.m.
As an Iggy supporter I find CG to be very fair, the campaign did kind of muck this one up. Enforced praise of a particular policy, camp, or action is NOT the way that we want to go again. It worked so well last time. CG never say compares a candidate to say Vlad the Impaler. He goes after statements and actions, this is fair game and indeed needed if we want the strongest canddiate to emerge. If we Iggy supporters don not think he can handle critisim then we are supporting the wrong guy. If we think everything he does is perfect then we are idiots, he would probably agree. The last thing we need if some enforced politically correct cult of personality, it has done so well for us in the past.
By
Aristo, at 11:23 a.m.
Face it the new Liberals are just as bad as the new Conservatives, they both are useless, both busy looking mostly after their own self interest and not the good welfare of the ctizens..
The fderal Liberals are keeping the fderal Conservatives wrongfuly in power by their poor Kiberal leadership still too.
By
Anonymous, at 9:57 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home