Friday, October 27, 2006

Rejected Endorsement

Wow. The Iggmentum continues to spread across Quebec. Is there anyone there who's not supporting the guy?

posted by calgarygrit at 10:42 p.m.

19 Comments:

  • Me. But I'm not a member of the liberal party anyway.

    By Blogger Yining Su, at 11:26 p.m.  

  • English Canada as well as sane Quebecers are pulling their hair out asking "are you NUTS" everytime we hear Ignatieff speak.

    Seriously this is a dangerous road. It's not about courage, it's about sanity and how this could tear the country apart.

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 11:50 p.m.  

  • Anyone cacth Don Newman's show today. I think Helena Guerguis called Ignatieff a separatist.

    It was completely ridiculous. Just when you thnk liberals are in the midst of doing anything dumb, there's always a useful Tory dolt to remind us all who's REALLY stupid.

    By Blogger Mark, at 12:08 a.m.  

  • "Are you nuts?"

    Of course we are...

    Pourquoi ce type est venu des US pour nous dire comment faire de la politique?

    What are his credentials? Dialectics has said Antonio.

    If you do not understant The Profound Thoughts of The Master, say HOHMMMH, it will come.

    Entretemps, des gens intelligents essaient de réparer tout le mal fait au parti.

    By Blogger Mtl Downtown, at 12:30 a.m.  

  • There's actually a rumour that the Ignatieff crowd is trying to get Bernard Landry invited to the Convention as the keynote speaker.

    Well...OK, we started the rumour...it's Friday night, after all.
    Read it on the Alter Boys.

    Dudley.

    By Blogger Alter Boys, at 12:31 a.m.  

  • "I think Helena Guerguis called Ignatieff a separatist."

    Well she's also called Peter Mackay a gentleman, so clearly she has some problems expressing herself.

    By Blogger Reality Bites, at 1:05 a.m.  

  • Hilarious Bart!!!


    The What Do I Know Grit

    By Blogger James Curran, at 1:10 a.m.  

  • "Anyone cacth Don Newman's show today. "

    That was on Mike Duffy.

    By Blogger Dan McKenzie, at 3:04 a.m.  

  • Actually, I agree with Guergis. I don't say it much because I don't want the headache of fighting and arguing, but I do think Ignatieff would prefer to see Quebec independent.

    Proof? None - just a feeling I have. But I've had awhile, much long than this "nation" business. Ever since the "civil war" bit - not the war idea, but his notion that as PM his job would be to make sure "calmness" and "serenity" prevailed over English Canada.

    Nothing more than my opinion/hunch/feeling, and I'm not going to put the effort into fighting, but again, I'm with Guergis (though I did not see the segment and cannot comment on her specific words or tone).

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 3:12 a.m.  

  • Dan - thanks for the catch, you're right, it was CTV, not Newman.

    By Blogger Mark, at 8:20 a.m.  

  • I live in MontrĂ©al. I don't support Michael Ignatieff, because I am viscerally convinced that he won't be able to deal with the separatists. By recognizing Quebec as a nation, Ignatieff is playing the separatists' game. Besides, I'm not a supporter of the Liberals or any political party.

    By Blogger Anh Khoi Do, at 9:40 a.m.  

  • jason bo green is right --

    Iggy is a separatist.

    Supporting Liberals should answer this question:

    Landry et al say that part of making Quebec a nation is it becomes indivisible territorially.

    Is this part of Quebec being a "nation" in the constitution?

    Are Liberals trying to rid federalist Quebeckers of the right to partition?

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 9:58 a.m.  

  • Janine,

    avec tout le respect possible,

    est-ce que tu m'as appeler stupide ainsi que tout les partisans de M. Ignatieff?

    je m'attendais vraiment pas a ca.

    By Blogger Anthony, at 10:23 a.m.  

  • "Anyone cacth Don Newman's show today. I think Helena Guerguis called Ignatieff a separatist"

    Actually i thought what she said is he's helping the separatists by bringing this issue up and that the separatists will use it to further their cause.

    As for me,i think the only reason he said it was to buy votes in Quebec,although in a legal way without brown envelopes.

    By Blogger paulsstuff, at 10:44 a.m.  

  • If Mr. Ignatieff wins it will be a nightmare for Liberals.

    I am not an anybody but Iggy club member.

    I just have no confidence in Mr. Ignatieff's political judgement. His inability to take a clear principled position and defend it is also a sign of impending disaster.

    The party may well elect him as leader.

    If so, we will also certainly get thrashed in the next federal election.

    So soon enough, we will be doing all this again.

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 11:24 a.m.  

  • Quebec is more than a nation, it is a parallel universe.

    By Blogger Altavistagoogle, at 2:28 p.m.  

  • The worst thing about Iggy is, win-or-lose, he is going to polarize the two solitudes. Even in defeat, he would probably scoop up some more seats in Quebec (in particular some of the Conservative seats).

    On the flipside, he would be crushed in English Canada.

    By Blogger french wedding cat, at 3:51 p.m.  

  • Hey I'm not a Liberal or anything for that matter. But as your neverendum of a leadership contest goes on and on, dare I suggest that
    instead of firing off partisan shots in all directions, you take more of a satellite look at the situation.
    (1) Whatever happens the cat is now out of the bag.Quebecers will judge the Liberals by whatever happens at your convention on that issue.
    (2) You have a chance to bring the Liberal corpse in Quebec back to life.By offering Quebecers some kind of symbolic distinct society status which only recognizes reality. If you don't you'll be dead there for a long time.
    (3) It seems to me that if you want those Quebec votes, and you want to minimize the damage in English Canada your best move would be to package the resolution by turning it from a perceived negative into a positive. If you can't bring English and French Canada together your role in Canadian history is effectively over.
    (4) People who say that the separatists will benefit from a distinct society clause don't know what they are talking about. On the contrary it would reduce the separatists to a noisy rump. It wouldn't take much for Quebecers to feel it's ok to be federalists again. The separatists know that and they are shitting their pants.If it sounds like they're crowing about it it's only because they want to setup what they hope will be the Big Disappointment.
    (4) If you don't play your cards very carefully you will not only keep Harper in power,and castrate yourselves.You could be setting this country up for a possibly catastrophic conjunction of events. A far right-wing government,no federal presence in Quebec, a strong Bloc and reasonably strong PQ, a French population in Quebec that feels that English Canada is not only unable to recognize their reality.But is now actively hostile to it. And judging by the blogosphere there does seem to be a lot of anti-Quebec feeling out there... By themselves all of the above could do some damage to our country. But all together they could be fatal.All of this is far more important than cheap party politics.And I can't help but wonder if the length of your neverendum has caused some of you to think that it's all about your candidate. When it' really all about Canada. Good luck! I have a feeling you're going to need it...

    By Blogger Simon, at 9:04 p.m.  

  • Liberals have to think about the party first and unity within the party.

    Sheila makes a good point here

    http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Copps_Sheila/2006/10/29/2165078.html

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 5:45 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home