I was initially attracted to the Liberal Party because of Pierre Trudeau, a strong and charismatic leader who fought for a Just Society, and took decisive stances in favour of human rights. The Liberal Party has had other great leaders too, like Lester Pearson, Jean Chretien, as well as John Turner and Paul Martin who led the party through some difficult times.
Alas, this is now a Liberal Party that I no longer recognize...
Poster by Simon Pole Recommend this post
Don't you think you're going a tad overboard here? How Liblogs operates is a totally different thing then how the Liberal Party operates.
ReplyDeleteScott, I respect your opinion but I could not agree with the position of Michael Ignatieff. I am done with the Liberal Party. Look at Chretien. He told Bush to buzz off when he was asked to participate in Iraq war. Iggy spent most of his adult life with neo-Cons in US. He does not fit in the Liberal mode. As long as he is the leader I am out. I agree to disagree with you in this regard. You will see more posts like that from me.
ReplyDelete"Iggy spent most of his adult life with neo-Cons in US. He does not fit in the Liberal mode."
ReplyDeleteErr... Wrong.
First of all, "Iggy" spent his time in the US AND Europe. In Europe he lived with and amongst bohemians... yet you don't accuse him of being a socialist. In the US he was at the University which turns out a vast majority of America's LIBERAL elite. He also headed up a center focused on Human Rights, and wrote several books on the subject.
You also make the mistake of blanketly calling all Americans "NeoCons". That's a very unfair assessment. These very people had "Iggy" labeled a "liberal" from day one - right through his tenure (even, I may add, when he gave his very first begrudging okay to the Iraq war - which he later indicated was a mistake, as said Clinton and Kerry).
WesternGrit, I was going to call it a day from the blog but your statement bothered me that I called all Americans neo-cons. They elected Barack Obama. Did they not? Vast majority of Americans are not neo-cons and I know it first hand because I do travel to US and I know what they think of Bush.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Ignatieff’s approval of Iraq is concerned it was anything but begrudging. I see him not any different than Harper. One and the same therefore I cannot support him.
Oh yes, he was not elected as a leader but appointed by the Liberal caucus.
How Liblogs operates is a totally different thing then how the Liberal Party operates.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment, I can find some eerie parallels (was Iggy elected?) but that's for another time...
At the moment Michael Ignatieff is the leader of the Liberal party. He issued a weak statement on the situation in Gaza. It was a surprise to many Liberals as it indicated a shift in international policy with regards to previous statements. Even Bob Rae pronouncements this weekend are far superior.
Given that Michael Ignatieff approved the war in Iraq (even if he backtracked somewhat) and the fact that he was a rare Liberal that vote for the extension of the farce in Afghanistan, I think that it's fair to actually find out Iggy's views.
Iggy has also echoed "Quebec as a nation" - isn't that Harper's view also?
Michael Ignatieff support torture - being involved in Human Rights does not deflect for that fact.
The man seems a clone of Harper in most terms. Iggy was even spouting possible tax cuts to stimulate the economy... wtf?
With rumours of Warren K running the war room, it's a valid questions to ask how the coterie of pro-Israeli lobby has influenced Michael Ignatieff. His statements does seems to indicate some influence.
Ignatieff cannot deny his past statements. Yes he has tried but at the same time his actions seem to indicated that he still believes in them.
Right now, the Liberal Party is in a transition and seem to be disenfranchising many long term members.
If you read Michael Valpy's excellent article on Ignatieff, you'll note that he managed to piss of his so-called Bohemian/socialist UK friend's by backing Margaret Thatcher's assault on unions.
ReplyDeleteI love that old photo you posted LeDaro. You don't often see politicians looking so natural and casual.
Hey LD, check out the National Post. Iggy just scored his second rousing endorsement from a big name rightwing nutjob at the Post. This time it's Jonathan Kay himself singing Iggy's praises. Kinda makes your stomach churn, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteIt's rather telling that Kay is praising Iggy not on Canadian policy or anything he's done but on his stance on Israel.
ReplyDeleteI've always felt that there is a certain coterie that will push that Israel can do no wrong.
I've read enough about "Islamofascist" and how religion "their" religion is evil and creates terrorists. These people are not even self-aware enough to realize that they are doing the same thing here.
Kay divides those that are pro-Isreal, pro-Zionist (or whatever, he's not too clear himself) as the adults... Interesting.
If Kay thinks that what Israel is doing as moral and adult like, I'll stick with the innocence of children - he can keep his cluster bombs, skin melting phosphor and murdering of civilians...
While I don't agree on what is going on over there (I have Palestinian friends IN Gaza - although they've gotten out to Qatar, AND I have Israeli friends - but up further North in Tel Aviv), I will take a rather petty endorsement from someone who may just swing a handful of votes our way.
ReplyDeleteIt's a sad fact of politics. I will also take endorsements for the leader/party from anyone who outlines the DIFFERENCES between Iggy's statements and Harper's (Iggy does talk about the human cost quite clearly, and need for resolution). There are other differences - calling for peace vs. Harper's focusing on blanketly supporting the Israeli reprisals...
I too agree with a SWAT team going into a bank and removing criminals who may be holding civilian hostages, BUT feel strongly that the Police/SWAT should be culpable and legally held responsible for any civilian deaths they are directly contributing to in the offing.
Let's keep in mind that this is ONE ISSUE among myriads, and for one to draw a conclusion about a party and a leader based on ONE issue is ridiculous - you couldn't support anyone, if that was the case. I had serious concerns about the immigration "head tax" that came out in the 90s, but I worked from the inside to fight it. We lost to Harper before that could come about, but, hey, I didn't go for a galactic change in my politics because of one issue...
Some of us need to decide if they are "one issue" persons, or if the overall good of Canada is more important. I have set aside many personal and petty issues to support candidates municipally, provincially, and federally in the past, and will continue to do so... Diplomacy and pragmatism in moderation is often the most socially positive and effective way to bring your ideas to the center stage (and I do mean "center").
Let's keep in mind that this is ONE ISSUE among myriads, and for one to draw a conclusion about a party and a leader based on ONE issue is ridiculous
ReplyDeleteIt's not ONE issue.
Iggy's stance on Afghanistan. His previous musings on torture. His present on reducing income tax...
Iggy undermining the coalition. They way he's negotiated his way into the drivers seat of the Liberals, what he's said about the Quebec Nation...
It's also telling how he's surrounded himself....
If you look at what he's said and done objectively, he's a lot closer to Harper than you think.
I've often criticized that some let one aspect dictate their political alliances. Israel is a very polarizing one. I've said that while Cherniak is a Liberal, he's blinded by "Israel can do no wrong".
I don't think that people liked Bush on all his policies but there was likely one or two that resonated with them. Is that a way to get voters?
Diplomacy and pragmatism in moderation is often the most socially positive and effective way to bring your ideas to the center stage (and I do mean "center").
ReplyDeleteLet's hope that Mulcair takes over from Layton then...
This isn't about "one issue" as WG suggests. It's about the character of an interim leader who is an unknown quantity to many of us. It's about a guy who did things and took opinions in the past that he assures us he no longer holds, that he was mistaken. It's about whether we can or should believe him.
ReplyDeleteIf this leopard hasn't truly changed his spots he'll be poised to cause immeasurable damage to the LPC even if he leads it to power again.
When you recognize the need to assure followers that you've changed, the first thing you should do is to show doubters that your assurances can be believed. You demonstrate your credibility, your integrity.
Iggy's blustery foray on Gaza where, even though merely "interim" leader, he shifted party policy to unquestioningly support Israel, showed that his assurances that the old Iggy was gone were an outright scam. That came right out of the mold of the old Ignatieff.
When we learn that, even as "interim" leader he gags caucus on this issue, that's the old Ignatieff at his worst. That's not a party leader, that's a party ruler.
When we find that he's hired Kinsella, any remaining doubt about Ignatieff's bona fides evaporates. Kinsella doesn't seek consensus. He's a rank bully genuinely committed to the "my way or the highway" ideology.
When I look at Ignatieff I have trouble distinguishing him from Stephen Harper. Their backgrounds differ but their attitudes are very much cut from the same cloth.
I've supported the LPC for 41-years. I'm quite familiar with being opposed to party policies so that sometimes I've had to hold my nose to vote Liberal. So please, it's frankly insulting to get lectured that I'm getting unhinged over "one issue." I can handle being on the other side of my party on issues. I can handle supporting my party when I can't support its leader.
I find myself in a similar position to many PCs who couldn't support the CPC under Harper. They're still around and they feel that their party is no longer there. That's how I feel about the LPC under Ignatieff.
If this guy consolidates his iron grip on the Liberal Party of Canada, the party that I've supported these past four decades will probably cease to exist.
It'll be about as "liberal" as the Liberal Party of British Columbia. And I'll have nothing to do with it.
Didn't mean to insult, or question anyone's loyalties. We are a big tent party, and there is always a place to voice your opinion. I'm only trying to dissuade people from leaving the fold, or sitting back and doing nothing.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like how things are with some issues (all seemingly related: Afghanistan/Iraq/torture), then work within to change it. If the Liberal Party doesn't reflect what most moderate Canadians want, we won't win. I think Mr. Ignatieff knows this.
I only say that we need to stick to working from within, since this is a moderate party that reflects the views of the widest swath of Canadians (even if they don't always vote for us)... Where else do we park ourselves - even if we disagree? It is much easier to change the party from within. The Policy Convention is one thing to work towards. We will be sending a strong message, if most of the room agrees with what you are talking about. If not, then you know that you are a minority of Liberals. WE the rank and file still have a very powerful say - and we have it (loud and clear) in April. Since it is no longer a "leadership" convention, it will be pretty easy to become a delegate and go. Make sure you and everyone else who feels the same way, get's elected a delegate and expresses their views.
With a solid showing at the Convention for your viewpoint, it will be hard for any leader to just swipe those views aside. To do so would be at the peril of their public/media legitimacy. If, on the other hand, the Convention is overwhelmingly in favor of what you oppose, then, I'd say, on these issues of statehood and conflict resolution, you're in the minority in the party.
Remember, I say all this wishing for UN intervention and a ceasefire in Gaza. I believe that the Defense Force has gone too far in their pursuit of Hamas (while not letting Hamas off the hook for their complicity in this). But, I say, we are a big tent and there is much room for difference of opinion. It doesn't make us any less Liberal.
Wow, I did not realize that this discussion was still going on.
ReplyDeleteWesternGrit, I do respect your opinion but I agree 100% with MoS. And I will go a step further. I am done with the leader and the party as long as Iggy is the leader.