...emerges in an attempt by the Ignatieff campaign to prevent media reps from getting a look at his (possibly all gaffed up?) performance at today's first leadership debate. I mean, we know the spin Iggy's campaign will put on this should nobody be present to witness: "He commanded the arena as one to Greatness born!" and etc., even if he spends half the event with his microphone stuck up his nose.
Sorry folks, you want a coronation? The rest of us want to at least see how your guy performs a few times before signing up.
What RT said.
Update: Read Wells for an alternative take on this. Thanks Sandi.
Read Kady O'Malley and Paul Wells on this before judging.
ReplyDeleteRae is playing silly games here - a sort of tactic.
Apparently, Rae is NOT officially in the race yet.
Was it a gaffe or was Iggy sticking to an original agreement.
Hmm. We'll see how this develops. I could always change the header to "Rae's First Sleazy Political Manouver Scores!"
ReplyDeleteI'm facing three disparate reactions:
ReplyDelete1. Woo hoo!
2. Smooth move, Ex-Lax!
3. This sucks!
I hope the bloggers will eventually come to a consensus about what this pivotal moment means.
I do not like the idea of having no media presence, but on the other hand if an agreement was negotiated I think that should take precedence. Bob should relax. He'll have more than ample time to have Iggy in his sights with the media spotlight in full glare.
ReplyDeleteCTV just reported that the Muslims and Sihks are announcing today their support for Ignatieff.
ReplyDeleteThis preemptive strike will split the party and start a real war. Do you think Cotler and Schwartz will raise a penny for Ignatieff.
CTV just reported that the Muslims and Sihks are announcing today their support for Ignatieff.
ReplyDeleteAll of them?
Unless you have a link or more specific information, this is just useless.
Seriously, if Liberal blogs are just going to be venues for unsubstantiated rumour-mongering for various Liberal sectaries (and more often than not, Conservative agents provocateur), then the Liberal Party should think long and hard about Liblogs representing it. We've had more than two years of this and it's getting us nowhere.
It embarrasses me, quite frankly.
ti-guy
ReplyDeleteReported on CTV about 12 noon today by Fife. Sorry I dont have a link
ti-guy
ReplyDeleteSorry I forgot to mention that Navdeep Bains and Albagri{sp} are publicly announcing it today
Ok, if I take that at face value, all that means is that Navdeep Bains and Omar Alghabra (who lost his seat) are supporting Ignatieff. That's a far cry from "the Muslims" and "the Sikhs."
ReplyDeleteLet the Conservatives chop up the electorate into groupuscules to which they can retail their own 23 brands of "conservatism." Liberals have to get back to appealing to the electorate on the basis of common civic values, and I'm frankly fed up with this mindless ethnic politicking.
It's a big ruse anyway. Cultural/ethnic issues are far more local than what the federal government is even allowed to address.
Further to that comment, Impolitical has a post with a few links that trace all this "ethnic" politicking back to the noxious neocon/technocat/American immigrant/petroleum oligarch-fellator/smelly old man (...not that that there's isn't a lot to admire about the man) Tom Flanagan, who can never be an 'ethic' Canadian since he's white.
ReplyDeleteTi-guy
ReplyDeleteIn Montreal the Arabs and Sikhs moved en bloc from Kennedy to Dion and won the nomination for him. Ignatieff has made his move to get these votes. That is all I am saying. Chong is correct but only after the first and sometimes second generations.
Like it or not Ignatieff is splitting the party which may win the nomination but wll see the losers flock to the Conservatives for protection.
In Montreal the Arabs and Sikhs moved en bloc from Kennedy to Dion and won the nomination for him.
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence do you have to back up this assertion?
Ignatieff has made his move to get these votes. That is all I am saying.
And that's what worries me. Our political leaders seem intent on focusing on the 2 or 3% of particular demographics they need to gain the leadership of a party, to form the government or to get majorities. In that sense, 97% of the electorate (or the part of it that bothers to vote) are constantly being held hostage to these tiny minorities who are, most likely, the least serious about democratic politics and governance.
Chong is correct but only after the first and sometimes second generations.
How do you know this? Are you guessing? You're starting to sound like a Conservative agent provocateur.
My family's been in this country for 400 years and even I'm susceptible to mindless ethnic politicking. But it's something that's bad for healthy democracy. It's also insulting.