Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Just Visiting

This actually really surprised me. Of the ten candidates remaining, there was only one who I thought might not run in the next election for the Liberals should he lose, and it wasn't Michael. Maybe this is just another case of Ignatieff choosing his words poorly but I certainly do hope that all ten candidates are firmly committed to running in the next election for the party, win or lose. There are a lot of people who have proven themselves to be very impressive politicians during this race and the Liberal Party is better off with all of them in parliament.

And, just so no one can complain about context, here's the series of questions:


Q: If you lose the Liberal leadership race, will you run for the party in the next election?

Ignatieff: Depends who's leader.

Q: Have you indicated there are some that you would not run for?

Ignatieff: No. It really is that I have to look what I am looking at.

Q: Your track record, your history is that you move on to other projects again and again and again.

Ignatieff: In a rival publication.

Q: Yes it's been suggested that this is just another fling ...

Ignatieff: It's a hell of a fling if it is. I mean, the fling stuff won't fly. It has been brutal.
Etobicoke-Lakeshore is very very, tough.

Q: But you won't commit to running in Etobicoke- Lakeshore again?

Ignatieff: I like to serve my constituents well. But you're asking me an anticipatory, hypothetical about the situation that prevails on the 3rd or 4th of December I am quite confident I will win.

Q: But do you have a commitment to the Liberal party long term?

Ignatieff: I've had a commitment to the Liberal party since I was 17. And my commitment to the Liberal party continues. But there are all kinds of ways you can stay committed and involved and active in the Liberal Party of Canada without being an MP.
Q: Without being an MP?

Ignatieff: Being an MP, without being an MP. I have been a Liberal all my life. When I go into rooms, people are glad I am in the room because people have read stuff I
have written which has contributed to their sensibilities to be a Liberal and what Liberal philosophy is. There are all kinds of ways I can serve the party.
Don't doubt my devotion to the Liberal Party of Canada. You wouldn't do this occasionally difficult job if you weren't seriously committed to it. [...]

posted by calgarygrit at 8:46 p.m.

48 Comments:

  • Is it poor form to say, I told you so?

    Also, I liked Kennedy's back-handed comment in the CP article, paraphrasing:

    Ignatieff has never claimed to be anything other than an amateur.

    By Blogger Simon Pole, at 9:59 p.m.  

  • He answered a hypothetical question with a hypothetical answer.

    He is committed to running in the next election. Period. No question. As stated in many prior interviews. And as stated in a follow-up interview today: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=6a5e02e6-0960-4660-9f9d-62e4503d12a2&k=14570.

    Interesting campaign strategy the Kennedy people have. Alienate all of the Ignatieff supporters. Maybe that's why Dion took out such a big loan.

    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 10:25 p.m.  

  • Where do you read entitlement Pebbles?

    Confidence is supposed to be a good thing in a leader, isn't?

    Do you want someone who thinks they won't win?

    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 10:44 p.m.  

  • First: There are lots of people *I* wouldn't want to run for as an MP, either. Foolish phrasing, but I agree. There is no "proof" here he doesn't care about the country.

    Second: Arrogance? I prefer that variety of arrogance to Jack Layton's, "We know we can't win..." performance. Broadbent came closest because he actually committed himself.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 10:57 p.m.  

  • "From day one, all I have heard from fellow Kennedy supporters is that we are a positive campaign that is not out to demonize anyone."

    Like this positive post, Sholdice? Or Uzurper?

    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 11:34 p.m.  

  • Would you commit to running with Volpe as leader? Fry? Ask a hypothetical, get a hypothetican.

    By Blogger Peter Loewen, at 11:47 p.m.  

  • Ignatieff is right to be scared about who leads the party.

    A strong, historically centrist party is being hijacked by the left. In a field of candidates, Ignatieff and Brison are the only two centrists in my opinion.

    Ignatieff is no amateur. Kennedy can laugh at him, but Kennedy doesn't have three degrees, several books published, tought at the most prestigious universities, and become one of the most respected minds in the world.

    Sure Kennedy is an accomplished man himself, but he has no right to call Ignatieff an amateur.

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 12:16 a.m.  

  • Kennedy never called Ignatieff an amateur.

    By Blogger Dan McKenzie, at 1:08 a.m.  

  • I'm constantly dissapointed with the pissing matches going on between bloggers in these comment sections.

    Can you talk about the issues or please just go away.

    By Blogger Shawn, at 3:23 a.m.  

  • my bad.

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 3:34 a.m.  

  • I don't know which is worse for Ignatieff, Brison's blunt talk, or Kennedy's patronizing "there, there, it'll be okay, Iggy," spiel.

    What's sure though, is that the race has suddenly hardened against the Count -- he'll be the walking dead for the next four weeks.

    After that you can safely put a stake through his heart, and bundle him back to Harv.

    By Blogger Simon Pole, at 6:12 a.m.  

  • The reporter should have asked him what has he accomplished as MP for Etobicoke Lakeshore. I personally would find the answer to that question more interesting.

    By Blogger mezba, at 9:41 a.m.  

  • Cerberus "anticipatory hypothetical". My god if you can't see that as the arrogance it will be taken for by the entire Canadian electorate, you really do have blinders on. Ordinary, non card carrying Liberal, Canadians hate this guy. So do 70 % of card carrying Liberals. He is a twit. A genuine, veritable ,arrogant pompas ass twit.

    By Blogger S.K., at 11:35 a.m.  

  • FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

    By Blogger bza, at 12:48 p.m.  

  • I'm not trying to alienate anyone, but all Ignatieff had to say was "yes", in response to the question and that would have been the end of it.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 1:19 p.m.  

  • Outside of poli-blogs, I really doubt that 70% of Canadians know all that much about Ignatieff, much less loathe (or love) him.

    I didn't mind or think odd Ignatieff's response. I actually personally prefer someone who says, "I am sooo not going to serve this Party leader" to someone who says, "I don't care WHO the leader is or HOW the party changes, I'm here through and through." He's no simple partisan to the bone - I dig that. I dig it a lot.

    (Which is maybe partly why I don't object to floor-crossing.)

    (Although I prefer sitting indepently, I think)

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 1:31 p.m.  

  • Write Iggy off before the Canadian electorate does it for us.

    He clearly lacks political experience.

    Brison is absolutely right.

    When it comes to a Federal election, gaffes like this aren't quickly forgotten.

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 1:31 p.m.  

  • Iggy Supporters

    Go here and read point # 5

    http://www.adamradwanski.com/blog.html

    Whoever we elect as leader must be there for the long haul.

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 1:40 p.m.  

  • Oh brother.

    I'm not ANYONE's supporter, but there is nothing to suggest that Ignatieff isn't here for the "long haul".

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 3:52 p.m.  

  • CG: You say all Iggy had to do was say "yes."

    So you want him to lie? Because people aren't going to like the truth?

    Better to refuse to answer the hypothetical, if what you're trying to do is avoid giving partisan blogs something to talk about. Better to just say what you think if what you're trying to do is give Canadians a real person to vote for.

    By Blogger Gauntlet, at 4:54 p.m.  

  • Gauntlet:

    Well it worked for Chretien. Lied to the press about running no matter what if he lost to Turner. Quit pretty soon after though and then worked hard to get rid of him. And in the end, 3 straight majorities. The ends always justify the means. Anything goes. And that's an especially helpful approach during party renewal. Especially when we are trying to re-earn the trust of Canadians. Right?

    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 6:12 p.m.  

  • Yah because getting a BA was way more important than what he doing instead...

    By Blogger Dan McKenzie, at 6:36 p.m.  

  • And he hasn't had a single opportunity in 20 years to finish it since. Right, Dan?

    This is a big misstep for Iggy. It's not a matter of whether he'll be happy as an MP under any leader at any time; it's rather that he wouldn't commit to running in the next election, which may be only months away. Indeed, this is precisely what the one-time frontrunner (Neil LeBlanc) in the NS PC leadership race did, who went on to lose by a wide margin.

    I don't have a problem with Ignatieff saying what he did. He's here to be a leader. It would be a waste of his talents to be a backbencher.

    Funny, this is probably what went through David Emerson's mind as well.

    By Blogger JG, at 8:16 p.m.  

  • mk,

    don't forget - he dropped out of college and PROVED that government intervention is not required do provide social services.

    He's a walking example of Conservative philosophy and he doesn't even know it!:)

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 8:36 p.m.  

  • Since no Prime Minister nor leader of the Liberal party has ever been elected without a formal education, one must discount Kennedy's chances of becoming Liberal leader, let alone the Prime Minister of Canada.

    False on two counts: Alexander MacKenzie.

    First Liberal Prime Minister, and the 2nd Prime Minister of Canada.

    I will also observe that Ignatieff's disconnect from this country and its history seems to extend to his followers.

    By Blogger Simon Pole, at 9:53 p.m.  

  • Since no Prime Minister nor leader of the Liberal party has ever been elected without a formal education, one must discount Kennedy's chances of becoming Liberal leader, let alone the Prime Minister of Canada.

    Well, no urban planner has ever been elected PM - I guess that cancels them all out.

    Say... no aboriginal, either - or non-white immigrant... or non-white period. Or woman. Or monkey-owner. Or skunk-owner.

    Has a major banker ever been elected PM? If not, then say no to them.

    Has an American ever been elected PM? If Gore ever wanted to immigrate and run... I guess he'd be out before he started.

    I know a LOT of university graduates who can't find Iraq on a map and have no clue which nations used to comprise the USSR.

    I wouldn't like to see Kennedy as PM - but still don't feel your point has merit.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 9:55 p.m.  

  • Yeouch, Simon Pole beats me by two minutes AND a far greater grasp of history and pith than I'm ever going to lay claim to.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 9:56 p.m.  

  • We are in danger of not seeing the forest for the trees on this issue.

    Mr. Ignatieff may be well educated and may be able to comprehend complex thoughts but he has some crippling liabilities as a politician.

    1. He can't deal effectively with the media, as his numerous misquotes attest. These misquotes will transform into political blunders during a federal election campaign, with disastrous results.


    2. Ordinary Canadians can't relate to him. He's perceived as an outsider, not one of us. His intellectual nature will work against him as a politician. Canadians won't like being talked down to.

    3. If he is dodgy about whether he will run, what will his reaction be if he is elected leader and loses the next federal election? If he quits then, we are back to square 1.

    There are several candidates who have been loyal party supporters and active members for many years.

    Why we would snub any of them for an unproven intellectual prone to political gaffes is beyond my comprehension.

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 9:49 a.m.  

  • loyal party supporters and active members for many years

    Newsflash here peeps - "loyal party supporter" doesn't qualify you to be Prime Minister. Please, pull your head out of your navel. Quickly.

    "Active member" also does not qualify you to be Prime Minister.

    Ignatieff should be evaluated and accepted/rejected on different qualifications than that. (As should anyone)

    I don't understand the idiotic twisting people are bent on going into in this race. It's supposed to be about "party renewal" and "policy", but it's generally, day to day, just about total bullshit.

    Can anyone say, "Loser"? Because that's the Liberal Party right now - desperate for a new direction and a firm visionary policy, but too flailing about in petty drama-manufacturing to accomplish any of it.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 10:56 a.m.  

  • We have had PMs with all sorts of character flaws, real or imputed, but summer soldier is a real downer. Many have thought he is like that, and now he shows that he does seem to be like that. I don't think that is due to a lack of political expdience, but I would like to see this guy shoved aside so we can get a clear look at Dion

    By Blogger garhane, at 2:57 p.m.  

  • We have had PMs with all sorts of character flaws, real or imputed, but summer soldier is a real downer. Many have thought he is like that, and now he shows that he does seem to be like that. I don't think that is due to a lack of political experience, but I would like to see this guy shoved aside so we can get a clear look at Dion

    By Blogger garhane, at 2:58 p.m.  

  • I guess I just have more confidence in those who have stuck by the party and grown in credibility.

    I have no confidence in "drive by" Liberal opportunists in this race like Ignatieff and Rae.

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 3:30 p.m.  

  • I don't buy that. For a second. People who DON'T belong to a party (ie. most Canadians) don't really care about how loyal to a "party" a person has been. If anything, they're interested in how loyal and committed a candidate is to Canada.

    In other words - you don't need to "stick by a party" to "gain credibility". Only to partisans, and I don't place a lot of faith in anything a partisan says. Ever.

    There are, believe it or not, tonnes of people who have gained "credibility" outside of a party. Craig Kielberger (sp) comes to mind, top of my head.

    Next newsflash - all the leadership contenders are "opportunists". So Bob Rae hopped parties - didn't bother Liberals when Brison or Stronach did it. If it's good enough for Churchill, then it's good enough for me. So Ignatieff was busy in academia and not riding politics for his life - so what?? If he doesn't have the experience, that's one thing -- not "sticking by the party" or whatever bs you want to call it is irrelevant.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 4:20 p.m.  

  • Its one thing to switch parties because of a change in perspective, conviction or belief.

    It is quite another thing to join a party for the purpose of running for its leadership.

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 4:46 p.m.  

  • Doesn't wash for me.

    You can't run as an independent, so if you think you got the right ideas for Canada and want to lead it, you have to join *a* party.

    So long as we work on a Westminster system and are unable to vote directly for the position of Prime Minister, then anyone should be free to run for leader of whatever party.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 6:40 p.m.  

  • Here's another blast from the past to shed some light on the Ignatieff situation.

    Who was the last saviour of the Liberal Party to say he wouldn't run if he wasn't made leader?

    That's right: Edward Blake, the only Liberal leader never to be PM.

    From The Big Red Machine by Stephen Clarkson (p. 7):

    Edward Blake, who led his party from 1880 to 1887, was the only federal Liberal leader never to become prime minister.

    A brilliant but nakedly ambitious man who had served as the first Liberal premier of Ontario in 1871-2, Blake switched to Dominion politics in 1872 and soon made it known that he would only continue to serve in the national party if he could be its leader.

    When Blake did attain that position in 1880, the opportunity for success was ripe. Macdonald's National Policy was seen to be failing, and cost overruns on the Canadian Pacific Railway were pushing the national treasury toward bankruptcy.

    Thus, much of the blame for the Liberals' failure to displace the Tories was placed on Blake's shoulders, as he did little to attract new recruits from outside Ontario and could not match Macdonald in the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate.


    (pdf link)

    By Blogger Simon Pole, at 7:18 p.m.  

  • You're sidestepping the issue, Jason. Ignatieff made it appear that his commitment to politics is conditional on becoming Liberal leader, as if no other position is suitable for someone of his staggering intellect.

    By Blogger JG, at 7:22 p.m.  

  • Josh, you're misrepresenting the issue.

    I'm done with Ignatieff, I don't want him within ten paces of the PMO, yet it is still untrue that his continuation is "conditional on becoming leader". It's conditional on "who becomes Leader".

    What exactly am I sidestepping here??

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 8:12 p.m.  

  • Iggy can't have been thinking of a Volpe win. With Iggy's superior intellect, he could control Leader/PM Vople like a puppet -- sorta a Cheney-Bush thing. Power without responsibility. Sweet.

    By Blogger Havril, at 8:12 p.m.  

  • I certainly don't see what he's talking about. Lougheed ran a competent, modernizing, and prudent administration, only to be blindsided by the precipitous decline in oil prices and the deep recession of the early 1980s.

    I mean... should we be recalling the Socreds then?

    By Blogger JG, at 9:34 p.m.  

  • Josh, you're misrepresenting the issue.

    I'm done with Ignatieff, I don't want him within ten paces of the PMO, yet it is still untrue that his continuation is "conditional on becoming leader". It's conditional on "who becomes Leader".

    What exactly am I sidestepping here??

    Well, as Rex Murphy wrote today in the Globe, politics is a team sport. Ignatieff's comments suggest a note of self-aggrandizement in his leadership aspirations.

    By Blogger JG, at 9:38 p.m.  

  • Wait let me guess Joe Green, your deathly afraid that Ignatieff is a plant by some Skull and Bones like organization out of Harvard which is bent on secretly ruling the world.

    Lougheed erally only had a positive impact on Alberta, what more could have been expected of him that he single handedly alter prevailing world market prices with a magic wand. Sorry no dice on that one. As for Dion winning over the West and Alberta, I don't think even Dion himself has that widely an over inflated opinion of himself.

    By Blogger Chris, at 3:54 a.m.  

  • Whatever Rex Murphy said doesn't change the fact that Ignatieff (whom I don't currently care for) did not say what you claim he did. I'm not sidestepping, and you were misrepresenting. And I believe Rex is wrong - or at least, should be wrong. Politics may BE a team sport, but I don't believe it should be. Too many people place their party over the country, which is not helpful. I like an MP of principle who would refuse to work for a leader he/she disagreed with.

    I might have been persuaded to vote for my incumbent MP had she told Martin off and sat as an independent, for example. Sadly, she was a "team player", even when the team was wrong.

    That said, I could certainly criticize Ignatieff for a lack of commitment to Parliament -- if he was truly passionate about the nation and his riding, he'd sit independently rather than just quit. I could understand *that* sort of criticism.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 10:13 a.m.  

  • Whatever Rex Murphy said doesn't change the fact that Ignatieff (whom I don't currently care for) did not say what you claim he did. I'm not sidestepping, and you were misrepresenting. And I believe Rex is wrong - or at least, should be wrong. Politics may BE a team sport, but I don't believe it should be. Too many people place their party over the country, which is not helpful. I like an MP of principle who would refuse to work for a leader he/she disagreed with.

    Alright - consider my argument more of an interpretation. I like an MP of principle as well, but that's not what I see in Ignatieff's comments. He was not asked whether he would support a party leader under any circumstances, but simply whether he would run in the next election. If you run for the leadership of a party, especially as a new MP, you should not suggest that your short-term commitment to the party (and, more generally, political life) depends on who is elected leader. To me, that does not suggest putting the country over the party; it suggests that Ignatieff is putting himself over the party.

    I might have been persuaded to vote for my incumbent MP had she told Martin off and sat as an independent, for example. Sadly, she was a "team player", even when the team was wrong.

    Out of curiousity, who was this MP? I'm extremely heartened to see that Layton and Peter Stoffer can agree to disagree on Afghanistan without any histrionics.

    That said, I could certainly criticize Ignatieff for a lack of commitment to Parliament -- if he was truly passionate about the nation and his riding, he'd sit independently rather than just quit. I could understand *that* sort of criticism.

    Okay, that's what I was getting at - Ignatieff's commitment to Parliament. I can see his not wanting to serve under Joe Volpe, but there is no realistic chance that he'll become leader. Otherwise, I can't see what would be wrong with serving as Foreign Minister under any of the realistic contenders (Dion, Kennedy, Rae, possibly but probably not Dryden).

    By Blogger JG, at 12:01 p.m.  

  • james; I've always had a soft spot for Harper and I do like GK's hair. No arguments here...

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 1:55 p.m.  

  • Clearly Joe Green you didn't bother to read what I wrote given that I said "some Harvard Skull and Bones like organization" which is something called a simile. To wit I am calling you a delusional conspiracy theorist so far out in left feld that have lost touch with anything resembling reality.

    The oil industry happens to be dominated by Alberta because most of the oil found in Canada is in Alberta. Unsurpisingly the industry centers itself there. Your hysterical stance on everything and anything simply discredits you.

    By Blogger Chris, at 6:34 p.m.  

  • Oh - I didn't mean to suggest Ignatieff had suggested putting the country over the party. Sorry if it sounded like I did.

    But absolutely there is nothing remotely wrong with being Justice or Defence or Foreign Minister to Dion, or whomever - even if you disagree with each other, as many people often do. It's an entirely noble calling. (I wouldn't want to personally touch Public Works, though.....)

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 7:33 p.m.  

  • If what I have read in this blog is in any way representative of Liberal youth or youth in general, I havebeen far too optimistic about our country's future.

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 10:42 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home