TDH, in a post so confused it only shows that you shouldn't plump for a leadership candidate before they've been properly tested because you will be only wind up twisted into logical and emotional knots trying to justify why you sided with them in the first place, writes:
August 2, 2006 - With all of the premature calls for a ceasefire that have circulated in this country over the past couple of weeks (with the exception of Michael Ignatieff, who clearly has a lot more depth and consideration behind the viewpoint he released today), Warren Kinsella has without a doubt the most sensible perspective I have heard thus far. WK nails it again.
WK has been so busy lately demanding that the Liberals denounce this or that Progressive Blogger, that I would suggest we leave him out of it. Lets instead talk about Iggy and his "depth".
First, Iggy ducks out of the debate for nearly a month and, when the polls show opinion swinging sharply against the Tories, he comes out and says that this week he is for a ceasefire, but last week, when the polls were turned a little bit in the other direction, he was against a ceasefire.
His explanation for this bizarre behavior is as follows:
"I've been following it minutely from the beginning and watching it unfold and figuring out when was the time when a statement would be important and relevant," said the MP for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.
Hey, here's a clue, Philosophy Boy: any statements by a man who wants to lead the Canadian nation would have been "important and relevant" from the get-go. And if in your first statement you had supported the Harper position on the assumption that Israel should be able to get a certain number of licks in, and now you wanted to issue a second statement saying that Israel had gotten its licks in and striking further would be counter-productive, then that would have been a substantive and defensible position.
But what your actual statement really amounts to is an attempt to surf public opinion from when it was somewhat pro-Israeli to now when it is somewhat anti so that it looks like you were on top of the wave the whole time. Crap stuff, dude. Think about it.
And I think TDH is stuck with the terrible task of knitting your sows' ear into a silk purse. Should've stayed neutral, TDH. You too, Cherniak, although Dion is not nearly the same kind of embarrassment to the party as Iggy.
As for me, I'm still weighing the idea of showing up at the convention in my adult diaper waving a sign that says "I Love Iggy: Torture them all, Down to the Last Lizard!"
Ignatieff delivered the boner line of this debate, when he fluffed off the Qana tragedy with this flippant retort:
"This is the kind of dirty war you're in when you have to do this and I'm not losing sleep about that."
Whenever anyone questioned Ignatieff's silence on this issue, it was met with- don't question the man his mother-in-law is ill. Well, Ignatieff puts the "distracted" angle to rest with this:
"I've been following it minutely from the beginning and watching it unfold and figuring out when was the time when a statement would be important and relevant," said the MP for Etobicoke-Lakeshore."
Poor grade all around.
Between those poor remarks, I think his comments were fairly well placed -- although the timing factor didn't put him on the wave but somewhere off shore after Rae and Brison's comments.
When it comes to statesmen-like and veteran leadership style, Ignatieff has disappeared and virtually allowed Rae to grab that mantle (fiery debater and passionate scholar goes to Dion; while Kennedy takes the Best rookie, although Martha is close...). TDH is now a cartoon character like Eyore, braying to an empty field and saying 'Woow is me!'
Qana upsetting, but really it's the larger picture that counts. One can't be distracted by one situation when so many are going on.
Lose sleep over one incident and you won't be able to focus with a fresh mind on the whole large picture.
Since Jonathan is following this thread, perhaps he can answer this. He wrote:
but in such a complicated dispute as the one we are currently witnessing, nothing is black or white. What is wrong with taking some time for reflection in order to offer a measured and appropriate response?
Some time, for sure. I agree, there is no black and white in geopolitics. But isn't three weeks a bit long? Surely, there's a happy medium betweem give minutes and three weeks, is there not?
just a question: as far as I know the first poll that firmly reflected Cdn disenchantment with Harper's mid-east position came on the same day that Ignatieff's op-ed appeared in the Globe (Tuesday). Am I missing something here? Did a poll come in earlier saying a)Cons losing support or b)Cdns unhappy with Harper's mid-east position?
Because, otherwise, I don't see how you can argue that Ignatieff is basing his comments on what the polls are saying. In fact, I'd say that his op-ed (plus the Globe articles and editorial) have crystallized the discomfort currently felt.
As a side note, Ignatieff's comments about Israel-Lebanon seems to me in keeping with stuff he's written previously. Specifically re: the aims of terrorism (I think it's in the Lesser Evil that he argues that, in a war on terror, democratic states undermine their own laws and institutions and, in so doing, ultimately destroy themselves)
Just a thought.
Curious, there were ipsos-reid and decima polls out in the late July which showed that Harper's Mid-East to be problematic for alot of Canadians.
Thanks for the response bigcitylib -- I know this is an older post.
I found the polls you mentioned. Thanks for the heads up.
Two thoughts: first, the poll that showed the Tories lead slipping came out on July 31st, only the day before Ignatieff's op-ed. And one has to think (or I do, at least, having contributed to papers) the piece must have been written and accepted by the Globe *at least* the day before.
Second, polls released on the 22nd and 25th of July showed Cdns strongly backing Israel's response (and Harper's stance).
Not to back Ignatieff on everything (I was disturbed by his comments on Qana), but I don't think he's basing his comments on the polls. Some might argue that he'd be a 'better' (ie. more savvy) politician if he did (say, on Iraq and Afghanistan) but for all the knocks against him, I don't think following the polls is one of them.
Have a good weekend!
Post a Comment