Categories: Andrew Coyne, Capital Read

He said that?!?

by Andrew Coyne on Thursday, March 12, 2009 3:36pm - 121 Comments

He said that?!? Michael Ignatieff, in an article on The Epoch Times website, on why he did not try to form a coalition government:

I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up.

This is just an extraordinary statement. One, it validates everything the Conservatives have said about the coalition: that it did, indeed, put the Liberals in bed with the separatists. And two, as a Conservative spokesman took about a millisecond to point out, if he was so opposed to doing a deal with “people who want to split the country up,” why did he sign that letter to the Governor General, expressing his support for the coalition and urging her to put it in charge of the country? If it was right then, why is not right now? And if it is not right, why is it not? After all, weren’t we told over and over at the time that the Bloc were not “enemies of Canada“, but the duly elected representatives of the people of Quebec?

Ignatieff’s instincts on the coalition were, and are, sound. He may even sincerely believe what he is saying. But he didn’t act on those beliefs when it counted. And the Conservatives are going to make him wear it. Especially after this.

Tags: coalition government, Michael Ignatieff

More by Andrew Coyne

http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/ Transcanada

This is all the CONs have on Ignatieff so far? My advice is try harder.
Ignatieff didn’t form a coalition, nor did he express support after he became leader. He bluffed and the frightened Stephen Harper blinked and came up with a budget 2 months earlier than the Flaherty Fall FU called for.

http://www.jamiesonrothwell.com jsrothwell

I agree, this is a softball compared to the gross incompetence that is the Harper Government™ . Try harder
http://vollman.blogspot.com Robert V

Do you think referring to someone as CONs improves the perception others will have of your comments? Does it somehow make you seem less of a bitter partisan than someone who refers to the LIEberals?

Your argument is also entirely fallacious. One negative comment was made about Ignatieff and you somehow presume that’s the ONLY negative comment? What, is everyone supposed to list every single detraction we know about someone any time we say anything about anyone?

DavidL

Thanks, Robert V, you said it better than I could and you hit the nail squarely on the head.
http://politics-forthepeople.blogspot.com/ penlan

It’s quicker to type out Cons than the full word, just as it is easier to type Libs. That is why I do it & for no other reason.

http://noneasyet dun roberts

whereas putting ALL CAPS is easier than just writing `Conservatives’, I guess. try again.

Ottawaboy

The threat of the Coalition served its purpose as a political ploy. It forced Harper, temporarily, back to some semblance of political sanity and fended off a threat to party funding. Thank goodness he will never see a majority, given what he has done, or attempted to do, with a simple minority.

Iggy is smart. The Tories hate that.
kody

“This is all they have on him”

You’re projecting some wishful thinking, it appears. They have oh so much more. How about:

- he’s more American than Canadian, having spent much of his adult life in the U.S. and having written repeatedly how he considers himself American, he only comes to the “lesser country up north” for the sole purpose of ruling us and nothing less;

- he’s a lifelong academic, spending it in the protected halls of the Ivy league, wholely out-of-touch with Canadian values

-he’s for attacking Iraq, except when he’s against it

- he’s against the Israeli state, except when he’s talking to his pro Palestinian constituencies

- he’s one of the handful of people in the Liberal party we know the party members DO NOT want as their leader, having LOST the only leadership contest he ever ran in. A man his own party doesn’t want to lead them, believes his “annointment” by the Liberal elite (and apparantly his own inherent Ivy League based eliteness) gives him the right to lead us all.

- having not been elected to even his own party, he sought to lead the country, unelected, having signed the deal to form the government.

- in a naked desire for power he signed the deal with the Seperatists, the very party the Liberal brand was built on fighting over the past Quarter century. In one fell swoop he cast aside decades of fighting the seperatists, and hence the last remaining identifiable thing the Liberals stood for, so he could take the reigns of power…..unelected as even his own party leader. The elite Americanized Ivy Leaguer, believed he had his rightful place to rule over us lesser northerners.

Oh yes, there’s so much more.

http://macleans.ca kc

He shoulda said: “that all you’re capable of cons – rooting around for dirt – is that what yr proud of Kody?
Nancy Tobin

- “more American than Canadian”: Ignatieff lived in the US for 5 years (Jim Flaherty attended an American university, BTW). A PM having a perspective that reaches beyond a single region of our federation would be refreshing these days. Ignatieff seems to want to unite Canadians, Harper seems bent on dividing us by pitting regions against each other. Ignatieff acts more like a Canadian than Harper ever has.
- “he’s a lifelong academic”: Ah, yes. One of these ‘elitists’ with an education. Aside from his stint at Imperial Oil (which I’m not sure is over), Harper had no real-world experience before entering politics. Ask Obama if political experience is more important than leadership skills.
- “he’s for attacking Iraq”: So is Harper.
- “party members DO NOT want [Ignatieff] as their leader”: He lost the first leadership bid because of one person (Gerard Kennedy). Last I checked, Ignatieff is an elected MP. The only people I hear complaining about Ignatieff’s leadership these days are conservative supporters. Harper would love to see the LPC waste money and time on a leadership convention while the contenders throw darts at each other, only to select Ignatieff (the clear frontrunner) anyway. Why would conservative supporters (who could not vote at a Liberal Party leadership convention) care how he was selected?
- “he sought to lead the country”: Read the above article. Ignatieff declined the opportunity to lead the country under a coalition.
- “naked desire for power”: LOL! How much more desperate for power could one person be than Harper (unnecessary 2008 election, prorogation, proposed coalition with NDP/Bloc in 2004)?

Being well-published, Ignatieff’s views on a wide range of social issues are clearly-defined (for anyone who takes the time to look). Nobody seems to know what Harper’s true feelings are on any issue. As a young man, he was liberal, then he switched to conservative, then reform, then somewhere in between. Staunch conservatives are now calling Harper too liberal. It seems his true ideals are those which he feels gives him the strategic advantage on any given day.

An oh yes, I too have much more on Harper.

http://noneasyet dun roberts

@ nancy toobin

*Ignatieff lived in the US for 5 years (Jim Flaherty attended an American university, BTW)* and in the uk for what? 30 years – and only returned when it seemed that he was going to be crowned PM

Naturally, if Harper had lived in the u.s. for five minutes, people like Nancy Tobin would no doubt be screaming as to how `foreign’ he is…

*One of these ‘elitists’ with an education.*, and with no experience leading anything. As for Obama, look at the trouble hope-n-change is getting into now with his incompetence – even the liberal media are calling it that…

*“he’s for attacking Iraq”: So is Harper.* which of course will neutralize the ability of Liberals to smear the Conservatives in the next campaign.

- *He lost the first leadership bid because of one person (Gerard Kennedy).* Of course, one person doesn’t elect anyone leader: he lost because Liberals didn’t want him as leader, period.

*“he sought to lead the country”: Read the above article. Ignatieff declined the opportunity to lead the country under a coalition.* Ignatieff `declined’ the opportunity to lead the country because he knew he would be driving the Lib bus over a cliff, given the lack of popularity of the measure outside of canada. and nancy, did you read the article. It’s clearly an attack on Iggy’s hypocrisy for coming out in suport of a coalition only to oppose it later.

*“naked desire for power”: LOL! How much more desperate for power could one person be than Harper (unnecessary 2008 election, prorogation, proposed coalition with NDP/Bloc in 2004)?*

there was no `proposed coalition in 2004′, please don’t recite Coalition talking points; as for Harper and power, yes he was actually elected to office whereas absolutely nobody voted for this Separatist Coup Coalition..

*An oh yes, I too have much more on Harper.*

and if the foregoing is the best you have, I’d like the see the sloppy seconds…

Jessica.H

Kody.. you so hit the nail on the head…. Ignatieff is an American…… I cant believe Libs are so desperate (supporters too) that they actually are happy this guy is their leader… he doesnt even like Canada… read his books people!!! Denial denial and more denial… just like they were in denial the Dion would have been a terrible leader…… wake up…. get yourselves someone who actually grew up in Canada… got his/her feet and hands dirty on Canadian soil and isnt some spoiled Ottawa brat! I like Harper because he is REAL…. he knows what its like to work hard, get dirty…. and really believes in his work unlike many many other politicians who were just happy to uncork a bottle of dom perignon, eat 100.00 an oz caviar and watch women take off their cloths and call it a business meeting on tax payer dollars! Harper is a no-nonsense lets get back to the basics and quit selling ourselves out… buckle up and watch the other countries fall because of their idiotic spending. Because of Ignorantieff….. Harper was forced to spend…….. and now we face the same fate as the USA because this spending crap doesnt work anymore…… thanks Libs….. a$$holes.

http://jamesbowie.blogspot.com James Bowie

If I’m not mistake, the letter was signed by Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, and Gilles Duceppe. I saw the letter, but maybe there was a shedule or appendix of signatures attached somewhere else I didn’t see.

If he did sign it, I haven’t seen an image of that signature, which I think would have been widely circulated.

http://andrewcoyne.com Andrew Coyne

James,

It was another letter, signed by the entire Liberal caucus. Ignatieff’s people made a big to-do, via Jane Taber, of the fact the he was the last to sign. The Globe even published a reproduction of the relevant part of the document.

kody

But sign it he did.

He also did not immediately repudiate the signature in any way. To the contrary, he openly embraced it, later holding out the prospect of taking Harper down with the coalition.

After the coalition is dead for all practical purposes, and has no real political fuel to burn, to then attempt to slink away from it shows an uncomfortably high level of opportunism and dishonesty for the high minded eltie academic from the American Ivy league.

http://macleans.ca kc

Spect he learned from Harper, him setting such a good example an all!

Stephen

You are mistaken:

“Every Liberal and New Democrat member of Parliament has signed a letter to Her Excellency the Governor General stating that they collectively and individually lost confidence in the government and were committed to governing together.” (Layton quoted in the Canadian Press)

He was the last Liberal to affix his signature to a document attesting support for the coalition, waiting until Mr. Harper was about to meet with Michaelle Jean before finally signing on. (Kelly McParland in the National Post)

The Globe ran a picture showing every Liberal signature on that letter, including Ignatieff’s.

He may not have been on television at the event alongside Layton and Dion, but he signed his name to a letter saying he supported the coalition option.
http://andrewcoyne.com Andrew Coyne

Here’s the link (although the photo does not seem to appear in the online version):

http://tinyurl.com/5z2tfz

Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

If the Bloc are the enemies of Canada and not to be permitted to participate in Canadian democracy, why is the party not banned and any separatist in parliament banished/executed for treason? If people want to whip up anti-separatist sentiment, they should put those words into action. Unless Harper thinks we should allow enemies of Canada to draw salary and pension from the government?

DavidL

This is still a democracy. The Bloc have every right to form a party and try to break up Canada. We still have some freedom of speech left (although currently being eroded away by the HRC’s). That means we have the right to call them the enemies of Canada and expose them for what they are. NOBODY has the right to ban anybody from anything legal. That’s what democracy and freedom of speech are all about.
http://noneasyet dun roberts

*If the Bloc are the enemies of Canada and not to be permitted to participate in Canadian democracy, why is the party not banned and any separatist in parliament banished/executed for treason? If people want to whip up anti-separatist sentiment, they should put those words into action. Unless Harper thinks we should allow enemies of Canada to draw salary and pension from the government?*

because they are a legal party, have the right to organize – do you want to suspend the charter now? the fact is, the bloc DO NOT belong in government, whether having an active role or as the silent partner. Period.

And if calling the Bloc `separatist’ is `whipping up sentiment’, what do you call Iggy for characterizing the bloc as just that?

catherine

Doreen Iannuzzi twittered the same meeting with Ignatieff and reported this from that part of the discussion:

bloc quebecois are duly elected, fellow citizens; many are good ppl; but they have diff. obj. than i do #ignatieff
http://macleans.ca kc

“This is just an extraordinary statement. One, it validates everything the Conservatives have said about the coalition: that it did, indeed, put the Liberals in bed with the separatists”

Really AP? Validates everything does it? Validates, traitors, coup, illegimate coalition, when you know very well there was nothing illegimate about it! With such broad, inclusive language you give tacit support to the ignorant, of how our political system works and intentional demogoguery of the lowest kind. You greatly disappoint me, fair man that i know you otherwise to be. Shame on you sir!

herringchoker

traitors, coup, illegitimate…

Sounds about right to me.

Blues Clair

Don’t appease the traitors!
http://macleans.ca kc

H’choker
Well, i did say it would attract the ignorant, didn’t i?

http://noneasyet dun roberts

*Well, i did say it would attract the ignorant, didn’t i?*

and here you are, KC!

Andrew Coyne

Busted. I just meant the “in bed with the separatists” part.

http://macleans.ca kc

I knew it! Generous of you sir! I’m a real Orwell freak, language is all! careless language,carerless thoughts!

http://macleans.ca kc

Possibly Iggy got cold feet? He saw the polls, then started thinking! Not brave! Poor judgement & very human!
http://macleans.ca kc

Did he get cold feet, check the polls & start thinking? Not brave, poor judgement – but very human!

Barbara

Has any other news media reported this?

I can’t seem to find anything to confirm what he said.
don craig

hard to believe a politician saying or doing the expedient thing… if your not already two faced you walk into the House and the transformation occurs..
J@ck Mitchell

Hmm, so in terms of party leaders who understand the constitution, we are now 2/4. I call that half full!

madeyoulook

I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up.
The constitutional misunderstanding inherent in what appears (to us mere citizens) to be simply a decision on parliamentary tactics is so subtle, it will require a man of letters of the stature of one J@ck Mitchell to enlighten us.

J@ck Mitchell

No no, even the most distinguished man of letters would concede that you are right.

KRB

No doubt it will still be Conservatives vs. The Coalition in the next election. The CPC will point to each of the opposition parties platforms, and say that none can be believed, because they’re all subject to coalition negotiations afterwards.

Plus with the Libs tacking hard right (relative to where they were when Iggy inherited the LPC), it’s likely to push down NDP-to-Lib switchers, as they instead vote NDP as a means to “swing” a Lib-led coalition government leftward.
Ed

Couple this comment with his recent “I didnt know that the delay in passing the budget would affect EI”, and a pattern is beginning to emerge.

The Count has an uncanny ability to reverse his position on issues (recall his once-enthusiastic support for Iraq II?).

I predict a field day – or perhaps a cottage industry – for journalists who can follow the tortuous path of his changing views . . .

James Connors

Then you will need a new industrial revolution to put this toothpaste back in the tube;

http://tinyurl.com/csxe5n

Peter MacKay

LOL. That brought 32,000 search results!

From what I can see, Ignatieff changed his position on certain issues only after listening to opposing viewpoints and learning from them.

Harper on the other hand, changes position whenever his grip on power is threatened. As everyone knows, listening to opposing viewpoints is not one of Harper’s strengths.

Karen

This cannot be the real Peter Mackay, right?

SAB

if only

George E.

“If it was right then, why is not right now?’
Whithout gnowing offal on the backyard of political kitchen I would aswer: because “now’ is not “then”.
Emilie

And was that the complete answer Ignatiff gave on the coalition or did the media censor the best part?
Dee

As some some Asians have said ‘Canada is perceived as a democracy but it’s really not’.

I’m sure the PRC are laughing at the non-existent Canadian democratic process. Should make it easier to do business in China, after all that’s all that really matters isn’t it?

sf

Which Asians? And if Canada is not a democracy, then exactly which countries are democracies?

Or is it not a democracy because the Conservatives won the last election?

Dee

You’d have to understand who the Epoch Times is targeting.

Subtlety is not an Anglais or Conservative attribute, limited intellect is.

Frank

Catherine, I took a look at the Epoch article. They didn’t say much about Ignatieff’s quotes on the Bloc because their article was not about the Bloc. If anything, that article gave Iggy a soapbox so I don’t think you have anything to complain about. They also didn’t take the same jab at Iggy that Mr. Coyne has here, so let’s not go shooting the messenger.

Yeah, the second Epoch article Andrew links lets the PMO take a shot at Iggy, but that’s in response to an article where Iggy was the only person quoted. Seems fair to me.

Regarding Mr. Coyne’s blog post, I see two sides. I think he’s right that Iggy has flip-flopped to a certain extent here, but I disagree that this comment is all that extraordinary. Common, I think most people knew Mr. Ignatieff did not want the coalition when it came about — he sent out enough signals about that to be clear. But he also wasn’t in power. Sure, if he believed the coalition was bad, he shouldn’t have signed the letter — that would have been the principled thing to do. But at the same time we all know he wouldn’t be here today if he did that. He would have been seen as undercutting Mr. Dion in his lust for the leadership, and that may well have killed his chances, and turned many in the party against him.

The real loss for Mr. Ignatieff here is that it suggests again that he changes his tune to suit the circumstances. Not all that uncommon for a politician, but undesirable nonetheless, and you can expect the PMO to remind people of this as long as Mr. Ignatieff gives them the chance.
http://www.telefizyon.org sasa

test
Steve

Andrew, I am shocked at how wrong you’ve gotten this one.

His instincts were right, yes, and he DID act when it counted… do you see a coalition? No, because he took unprecedented actions to wrest control away from the man engineering the coalition. Him signing the letter was obviously just politics, whereas the meaningful action is there for all to see.
stevo

wow this site is full of bleeding heart liberals… WAH WAAHH WAAHH.

Why wont the liberals allow harpers get tough on crime bills to pass??>>>>>?????? hmmmmm it must be that the liberals are criminals themselves and wouldnt want to punish their own.
This justice system destroyed by the liberals is what we are going to be paying for with our lives
Meany

Doh!

See the Quebec polls Iggy? Let sleeping dogs lie.

Don’t the Liberals put their leaders through some sort of media training?
eg. “Whatever you do, don’t say anything about …..”
catherine

btw, Ianuzzi managed to capture a whole lot more on twitter than Epoch TImes did writing a “news” article. The twitter summary:

reflecting: #Ignatieff : deliberate/thoughtful/articulate responses; intelligent; respectful; history-aware (Can & rest of world)