Now he's definitely running for MP, whether he wins the Lib Leadership race or not:
"Let's be clear: I am planning to run in the next election in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I love being an MP and I've enjoyed it enormously and I'm looking forward to doing it again," Mr. Ignatieff said.
Yesterday, he wasn't so sure.
While some are calling Iggy an "error prone amateur" , Stalwart supporters like Ted at Cerberus are claiming that all these apparent gaffes are really signs of Iggy's leadership genius, or his refusal to "speak in soundbytes", or whatever...but actually a good thing. In other words, they're calling it ice-cream and saying they like it. They're also claiming that Iggy's PR team doesn't need to get a muzzle on their candidate's wandering mouth, it just has to just let Iggy be Iggy. But which Iggy is that? Yesterday's fair-weather Iggy, or today's committed one?
Hmm..Iggy allows has how he might not stick around in this duckburg depending on who wins the leadership. Scotty Brison sucks and blows with great indignity over Iggy's refreshing bit of honesty. This be the same Scotty-boy who bolted the CPC when he decided he couldn't work with Steve. Hypocrite.
I don't see any contradiction. Before he said he could guarantee he'd run if he didn't win. Now he says he's planning on running. The only way those contradict each other is if you don't think he's planning on winning. And really, the only candidate I seriously think he wouldn't run under is Volpe, who has no chance of winning.
"Before he said he could guarantee he'd run if he didn't win."
I mean't "couldn't".
Pretty legalistic defence. But I don't think it would answer the question: whether you plan on winning or not, Iggy, will you run (as MP)if you don't win? That's what people want to know.
Maybe what he's saying is that he plans to run, because he loves being an MP and serving his country, but if the party lurches too far to the left he'll run as a Conservative.
I think politicians should remain loyal to the policies and vision they feel are best for the country, not loyal to partisan political parties.
I clearly have no place in the Liberal party though I guess, though I do find it funny that people can make fun of "Dear Leader" Harper and his demand for absolute party loyalty and also attack Ignatieff for not being willing to let his loyalty to party force him into committing in advance to running for a party that may espouse a very different vision of the country under another leader than what he feels is best for the nation.
Apparently, Tories who put party above country are sheep, while Liberals who do it are soldiers.
The first answer was honest because it was a hypothetical question and he said I'm fully committed to the Liberal Party but who knows what happens in the future.
Chretien for example said he would run if he lost to Turner. He didn't. Winters the same in 1968 as well as many others.
The reality is he plans to run. But if he lost the race and the new leader thought it would be better not to have such a big rival in cabinet, then who knows. As he said there are lots of ways to serve the party.
So he doesn't speak with pat answers that make us all go, ahhhh. Chretien's political skills vs. Ignatieff's frankness. I absolutely agree that he needs more of Chretien's political skills, but I hope he keeps picking those up without losing his honesty, because that often seems to be the trade-off.
That's ridiculous Iggyforpresident.
Ignatieff waffles on the issue of sticking by "his" (scoff) party, and you're comparing that to Brison's decision to leave the CPC?
Let's look at Scott's reason: Steve is against gay marriage - along with a large part of the Conservative caucus. Scott is gay and believes he should be entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples. Scott determines that under Steve's leadership he could not continue to fight for a party that was against what he perceived to be his (and others') fundamental rights.
You die-hard Iggy supporters crack me up. You really look for any possible defence you could imagine to back him up. It doesn't matter if he waffled on a simple and direct question about whether he would run for the party if he lost... but you guys are all offering defences like, "well, maybe if the party went to the left," or, "maybe he should stick by his policies," or, "blah blah blah blah bahhhhh, bahhhh."
Is it tough being a sheep, or does it come naturally? I jest, but you guys would be losing it if another candidate was asked if he would run for the party, and said "meh, maybe." To answer otherwise is an outright lie, and you know it.
Losing it if another candidate said the same thing???
Can you show me a single example of any issue, even policy issues, where Ignatieff supporters have gone after any candidate the way Iggy gets attacked?
Honestly, it is a message the campaign keeps repeating: it is far more important that the Liberal Party win the next election than it is for Michael to so promote him instead of tearing down the others. This is essential for a real party renewal.
I think, by and large and for the most, any candidate-related "attacks" have focused on policy disagreements. Even someone like TDH who is arguably the most argumentative, when he goes after a candidate (as opposed to a candidate's supporters) he goes after their policy and not their character.
As I keep saying, I'm all for attacks on Iggy's policies and even an "anybody but" campaign if that's how a lot of people feel, but the approach of the "stopiggy" crowd is hurting the party without question.
Post a Comment