Categories: Coyne v. Wells

Coyne v. Wells on those Tory attack ads

Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells discuss the latest Tory attack ads.

by macleans.ca on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:47pm - 118 Comments

Download | Feed | iTunes

Tags: Andrew coyne, coynevwells09, paul wells, Podcast

http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

Is this the conversation Harper wants us to have? You bet. He wants us to talk about everything but the economy and he’s been pretty damned successful at getting everyone to do that over the past 5 months.

Cameron M

Good point – it’s always a safe start to ask “what does this person NOT want us to be talking about?”
David

I expected the Conservatives would spend their advertising dollars telling us what a terrific guy Iggi is. I think the adds are brilliant and truthful. Maybe the Liberals should have considered his minimal residency in the recent country of his drams before the coronation. The rest of us saw this coming (ex the media, of course).

Cameron MacLeod

>The rest of us saw this coming (ex the media, of course).

The hundreds of blog posts and columns and reports of upcoming negative ads were all in my head? Man, I better get checked out before I operate any heavy machinery or comment anywhere. Oops, too late.

Sam

Pretty good discussion about the issues. Enjoyed…..
Will

What is absurd is that I feel there is this uniqueness in Canada in how we like to run away from any sense of nationalism or any form of it, so of course its immature to attack Ignatieff because he was out of the country for 30 years because we are more “mature” to judge a politician based on where he has resided in the last couple of decades. But what cheeses me off is this pathetic attempt for Ignatieff to attempt to win the public over with his cheesy partisan antic “book” as you said I am so Canadian (scratch) true patriot love. So on this podcast I see you both agree on how its immature to judge the man for being out of the country, but yet no one scrutinizes this pathetic novel. We are told not to judge this man chauvinistically, yet he him self is trying to win over the Canadian public in a chauvinistic manor. It seems we are more concerned with one party’s pathetic attack ads, and yet no one jumps on this pathetic book.

http://coyne kc

Which came first – chicken/egg? Besides you really ought to open your eyes. I believe there have been a number of critical reviews of his book. In fact i do believe Mr Potter and Mr Coyne were not entirely enamoured.

http://coyne kc

Good stuff PWAC, a true union of minds. Ac’s skewering of ignatieff’s complusion to ingratiate and PW’s comment re: the tables being turned now, and Harper appearing the man with nothing to say except – ” Beware of the other guy” – were points that resonated. I must say Ac is at his best when he fires up that old time gospel, we need t have an ethical floor in our politics stuff – he’s got me onside.
Ironically by focussing ad nauseum on Iggy’s flaws, i wonder if Harper isn’t giving Iggy a bit of a free ride where he shouldn’t. That is, Ignatieff vagueness and even seemingly vacuous policy statements. Well knowing how much Steve loves to get the first and last kick in, i’m sure he’ll get around to it sooner or later. I guess what we’re all waiting to see is, how much of a street fighter and how nasty can Ignatieff get. Stay tuned, i think i heard the bell.

Geoff Small

I imagine Iggy simply won’t just lay down and take it, like Dion did with his refusal to respond. Iggy’s approach will probably be much lower key than the Tory attack ads, and focus on something substantial that has more to do with the party’s current message to Canadians – like EI reform. A policy issue like that is a fine stick to hit the Tories over the head with, since their reply to Liberal proposals tends to be “you had your chance to tell us that back when we invited you to have your say on the budget.” It’s a stance that can easily be framed as “Tories thumbing their nose” as much at the Liberals as at those who need and want access to EI, which will not go over well with Canadians in general – and that is likely going to be the substance of the Liberal response, should they opt out of the pettiness shown by Conservatives in these ads.
Ignatieff and his party are well aware, like some posters on this thread, that Harper is decidedly NOT talking about the problems in Canada’s economy, and if their plan is to have the PM wear this recession, then that is precisely what the game plan is – telling Canadians that Harper was asleep at the wheel while proposing what they would do differently. Although the “difference” itself isn’t all that big, they can frame it as significant enough to make their criticism work while avoiding petty criticisms.

http://coyne kc

I’d tend to agree, however Ignatieff responds it shouldn’t appear petty. But he has to respond, and not merely hope Canadians will simply see through the Tory adds. Dion took this road and we all know how that turned out. If Iggy can keep the perception out there that he’s setting the agenda and Harper’s running scared he’ll do ok.

SAB

I prefer “Drew Paul” to PWAC but that’s just me.

Kat

Andrew, you ask…Can you come back? Yes, you can but here’s the rub…I’ve travelled and everywhere I’ve been, I was Canadian first and proud of it. I came back because I was truly homesick, being away made me realize what a great country I came from. Ignatieff came back because he was recruited by the Liberal Party and while he was away, he didn’t always have nice things to say about Canada.

Paul, the Conservatives are not trying to justify these ads to themselves, they’re trying to justify them to you – the “chattering class”. At points throughout your discussion I found myself thinking “wait now, we’re not in an election”. And that’s the point…these ads are to prevent an election.

Ignatieff came away from the convention saying EI reform or else! With good fundraising numbers and a bounce in the polls, of course they would be thinking this way. And for obvious reasons, the Conservatives don’t want an election. If these ads cause the poll numbers to change in the Conservatives favour, maybe the Liberals with re-think.

I just wish we could have an honest debate about EI reform.

Kat

Oops, meant to say “maybe the Liberals will re-think”.
http://coyne kc

Well that’s a new twist on: the liberals made us do it! As to your first point, travelling and working overseas[ particularly for long periods] are entirely different things altogether. You wouldn’t be human if you didn’t begin to identify with your host country. I suspect Iggy’s choice of pronouns does have something to say about his propensity for self regard, but heh who’s perfect? Did Harper’s hair disqualify him from office?

Kat

Paul points out that one of the ads claims that the Liberals did it first through “grit girl” on You Tube so, it’s not just me saying the liberals made them do it.

And I have worked overseas and did identify with my host country but was still Canadian first. The quote from Ignatieff where he states the only thing he missed about Canada was Algonquin Park…is it a true quote?

Geoff Small

Not really.
http://coyne kc

I may be wrong but i’m pretty sure PW did not say the libs did it first, i read it as a qualified maybe. Anyway, they did it first is a childish response. And i see you didn’t bring up PW’s futher point that how on earth you go from a minor y tube add to: ” Now you’ve done it, now’ll we’ll have to spend a fortune attacking the other guy”
I haven’t seen the Ignatieff quote in any kind of context and don’t particularly enjoy Iggy’s work when the subject is himself. He’s a snob, so what! However i’d bet neither the CpoC or yourself are all that interested in quoting Ignatieff in context.

Kat

“And i see you didn’t bring up PW’s futher point that how on earth you go from a minor y tube add to: ” Now you’ve done it, now’ll we’ll have to spend a fortune attacking the other guy”

I agree, but PW said they were trying to justify it to themselves…no, they are trying to justify it to the media. Either way, it doesn’t matter because we’re all talking about them ad nauseum anyway right…the end goal?

And forgive me if I’ve taken a quote out of context…

Maclean’s interview: Q: You were out of Canada a long time. At some point, in the ’90s, I think, you were invited back, and you said that “you can’t go home again,” and you said another time that the only thing you missed about Canada was Algonquin Park. You seemed distant from the country, emotionally and intellectually. So what changed?

A: I don’t see my story that way at all. You know, I wrote, I made films about Canada. Blood and Belonging was essentially about that.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/02/12/maclean%E2%80%99s-interview-michael-ignatieff/

wilson

The question is
How can you come back after 34 years….and insist you are Canada’s next Prime Minister?
How can you refer to yourself as an American….and insist you are committed to Canada?
How can you have 3 years political experience…..and expect no one to question your motivation and judgement?

How is it, a coalition in December is necessary national unity and a stable government,
and 5 months later, in May, a coalition is a risk to national unity and would have been unstable?

T. Thwim

Perhaps you should ask Mr. Harper that.. he who called Canada a third rate socialist country in the worst sense of the word, wrote a document recommending the separation of Alberta and creating a firewall around it, and in 2004 wrote then GG Adrienne Clarkson to request that she consider a coalition comprised of the NDP, Bloc, and Conservatives should the government fall.

Scott M.

I’ve travelled and everywhere I’ve been, I was Canadian first and proud of it.

I think I can forgive a media person for talking to their audience. Yes, “Us Americans” does imply he holds US citizenship, but in reality I think it’s simply short for “All of us in America”, as in Residents of America.

Having worked at Customs, I can tell you that there are LOTS of people who don’t recognize a difference between Residency and Citizenship. I’m sure Ignatieff does, but I think the shorthand used isn’t the end of the world.

Anony Moose

What is Wells’s first rule of politics?

http://coyne kc

If you have to ask…actually i don’t know either. But i suspect he has it locked away and only brings it out on special occasions…like when he’s right about something.
http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

Wells first rule: “For any given situation, Canadian politics will tend toward the least exciting possible outcome.”

I think Wells has only two rules, unless he has added some more over the years, and they both spot on.

Paul Wells

I expanded it to four in a weak moment in, I think, 2004. Sometime I’ll put em all up for reference’s sake.

http://coyne kc

PW
Those brawls with Mr C are aging you dramatically, maybe you should change strategy and go for the ko while he’s warming up with the pleasantaries.

Critical Reasoning

PW: “If he’s willing to cavalierly amend his national affiliation depending on the audience, then is there anything that isn’t negotiable with this guy?”

Oh Paul, your nagging doubts about Iggy’s sincerity are so parochial. Iggy’s “pronoun problem” isn’t creepy, it’s just evidence of Iggy’s rootless worldliness. Why should Canadians care if our absentee future leader chose to present himself as an American when addressing Americans? He was just trying to blend in. I’m sure he had no idea at the time that he would eventually return, for some reason, to the country he left in 1969.

Scott M.

Or, more likely, he was just using “Us Americans” as shorthand for “Us residents of the US”.

Bill Simpson

I don’t mind that Ignatieff is open to negotiation on a great many subjects, but I can’t figure out what he is negotiating for. What is he after? All I can see is a constant need for an approving audience. Canada was the only vehicle for him to get a seat at the big table, so here he is. I think Harper can get a lot of points from this angle. Both PW and AC are fairly astute at picking up on the general drift of these things, and I cannot see any way past this for Iggy> unless, of course, he can find and exploit some corresponding weakness in Harper’s position, and there are surely lots there!

http://coyne kc

I think that’s my biggest fear, that there’s nothing to either man, other than a need for power. Perhaps that’s unfair, they may have their respective visions. But i’m not sure i like either one. Harper seems to hanker back to the glory days when Canada had the worlds 4th largest armed forces [ is that really possible, or a myth] and all the influence that entailed. And who knows what Ignatieff wants – to finish Canada – well maybe, if it’s original and not merely a tired old recycling of the Trudeau time.

Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

I think it was a distant fourth, and only because so many other nations had decimated militaries.

Jean Proulx

Kudos to Coyne’s insightful analysis about “are you allowed to come home again”?

Ignatieff DID live in the U.K. and U.S. for many years. Perhaps when he was living in these places he thought he would be living there for the rest of his life. If that’s the case it would only be natural for him to start appropriating their national identities and to start thinking of himself as one of them.

Does that really diminish his “Canadian”-nes though? Would it dampen his love of Canada? Does it mean that he understands Canada any less? In other words is nationality a zero sum game? Can you feel simultaneously feel as if you are a member of more than one nation? And if so does that make you less authentic that someone who only has one identity?

As someone who feels like he is a member of both the Canadian and Quebec nations, who feels loyalty to both places, I am unbothered by the fact that Ignatieff may, at one point or another, have thought of himself as British or American. For me that takes nothing away from his Canadian credentials or, more pertinently, his ability to lead the federal government.

I actually think the fact that Ignatieff has a complex sense of identity, and is something of a cosmopolitan, is an ASSET for him in terms of being a potential PM because Canada IS a country which contains many nations. I think this makes him more sensitive to the complex, ambiguous feelings that many people within Canada (not only Quebecers, but also some Newfoundlanders, some members of First Nations, etc.) have towards the country.
Orson Bean

I really wonder about this (apparent) Liberal Party idea of having EI reform be either their prime excuse for taking down the government, or their key plank in an imminent election campaign, or both. Don’t get me wrong — in terms of policy, rather than politics, I fully understand the need for EI reform in general. Our EI program long ceased to be what it actually ought to me, i.e., unemployment insurance, and instead became an often idiotic regional welfare program-cum-boondoggle. But in terms of pure politics, I really wonder whether EI reform is the horse that the Liberals should be riding. First of all, your average non-political-junkie voter with the attention span of a gnat — that person intuitively comprehends and appreciates something like a cut in the GST. But EI reform? And by the “what’s in it for me” yardstick, I don’t see the big political payoff. Yes, we’re currently in a recession. But even so, the overwhelming majority of Canadians who actually vote have jobs, will have jobs at election time and probably won’t be in imminent danger of losing them. I just don’t see huge numbers of voters going to the polling booth and casting a vote based on EI reform.
Jean Proulx

I’m reminded of Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga. Vīķe-Freiberga has born in 1937 in Latvia. Her family fled the country in 1944 to escape the Soviet occupation. She then lived and worked in Canada for most of her adult life before returning to Latvia once Communism collapsed and becoming its first ever female President in 1999. Does the fact that she lived outside of Latvia for so many years make her any less Latvian? Should it have disqualified her from the Latvian presidency?

By the way, by most accounts her Presidency was a great success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaira_V%C4%AB%C4%B7e-Freiberga

Critical Reasoning

Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga’s absence wasn’t voluntary, so it hardly compares to Iggy voluntarily living abroad for his whole career.

Also, while Iggy was pulling his chameleon act in the UK and US, Ms. Vīķe-Freiberga was heavily involved with the expatriate Latvian community for decades while her home country suffered under the Soviet yoke.

Jean Proulx

Ah, so Ignatieff’s sin was choosing to live abroad. Traitor!

Or alternately he could have mitigated the damage by spending his entire academic career writing about Canadian folklore and whatnot. That would have made him MORE Canadian? Or perhaps SUFFICIENTLY Canadian?

Critical Reasoning

If only Iggy’s defenders could make a convincing case without resorting to straw man arguments. Nobody is calling Iggy a traitor, or questioning his patriotism. It’s just too bad that he didn’t choose to spend any time in Canada before running for the highest office in the land.

madeyoulook

I don’t think I can be categorized as an Iggy defender without a painful stretch of imagination. But let me ask you, CR. How long would he have to be back in Canada for you to be satisfied? What would be the average satisfactory length of stay in Canada for the median Canadian voter? How much unpleasantness can we put up with to carry this conversation further?
Critical Reasoning

How long would he have to be back in Canada for you to be satisfied?

MYL, It’s hard to say. Even a few extra years here would have made a difference. A lot has changed in this country in the past few decades, and it would have been nice if Iggy had taken some time to get reacquainted prior to his first run for Liberal leadership.
Jenn

But you are questioning his patriotism. Especially with the stuff about how he wasn’t in the country when he was a young child, which you never took back. As if the young son of an Ambassador to Canada needs to justify why he wasn’t in the country while his father was in service to the country.
Critical Reasoning

Jenn, the only reason why I brought up Iggy’s childhood a few days ago was to refute someone else’s claim that Iggy had lived in Canada for 28 years, which is obviously untrue. For my money, Iggy’s childhood as a diplomat’s son growing up abroad is no different from a kid growing up here, in terms of Canadian content. Also, Iggy gets credit for having parents who were obviously strongly devoted to Canada.

The reason I question the extent of Iggy’s national commitment is that he hardly spent any time here as an adult. The adult years (the independent years) are the only years I care about.
Jenn

CR, I’m beginning to wonder if you are lying to yourself. Embassies are considered to be the soil of the country they represent. So if Iggy was living in an embassy as an Ambassador’s son, he was living on Canadian soil. And as I also said in the prior thread, you just seem to be discounting that bit of Canadian soil as somehow not Canadian enough or whatever, but it doesn’t count. So, let us at least agree that he spent 28 years here–after all, we both know this isn’t the point.

As to saying you are not questioning his patriotism, how can you suggest that, because he chose to be outside of Canada during much of his ‘independent’ years, he shouldn’t be compared to someone who was forced to spend much of their ‘independent’ years outside their country of origin, and not think you are questioning his patriotism?

Finally, I get from your last sentence in this May 20 5:57 post that you will consider Iggy tainted for all time because he chose to run for the Liberal leadership in 2006. The very fact that he had the arrogance and conceit to put his name in the ring. I actually agree it was an arrogant and conceited thing to do, and I’m glad he didn’t win it at that time. I’m glad his ego received that reality check. But no matter what the future holds, when the next election is called, etc., you will consider history to stop at that point in time. If that is the case, why not come out and say so, and stop this ridiculous “time in Canada” argument.

wilson

The difference Jean is in their committment to their country of birth.

MI’s committment to Canada appears to be ‘when it’s not inconvenient to be a Canadian’.

Jean Proulx

And Harper’s commitment to Canada appears to be predicated on whether or not the federal govt adopts policies he advocates. Otherwise he talks about building firewalls around Alberta.

I can only imagine how he’ll behave when he gets the boot next election. I predict he’ll hole up Waco-style in a bunker in Calgary :P

http://coyne kc

Yeesh CR you’re really hung up on this one aren’t you? I don’t know if you’ve had an opportunity to travel and more importantly work abroad, but more Canadians should. Narrow minded provincialism is one of the least attractive aspects of Canadian life. – or life anywhere. We aren’t necessarily the best, or number one, nor does that matter. I’m sure you’re well aware of this, but really we’ve got to get over the chopping down of the tall poppy thing…it’s absurd.

Critical Reasoning

I love the fact that Iggy is a “tall poppy”, but not all tall poppies are qualified to lead us. The verdict is still out on Iggy. I’ll be watching him closely in the coming months.

http://coyne kc

Fair enough. Pity the Conservatives aren’t as high minded.

Paul Wells

There was no independent country of Poland for the entire lifetime of Chopin. Who did he think he was kidding calling those things “Polonaises”?

This comment sponsored by the Brahms Party.

Critical Reasoning

Interesting parallel between Chopin and Iggy. Chopin was part of the Great Emigration of the Polish intelligentsia in response to the tyranny of the Russian Empire. Iggy was part of the Great Emigration of Canadian intellectuals in response to the oppressive mediocrity of his native land.

Sisyphus

Uh, Ignatieff’s family was firmly involved in the hierarchy of that Russian Empire.

Subsequently there was a revolution leading to a different empire.

There is hope for us yet ?

Neil

Iggy came back to Canada for one reason, and one reason only: he was promised that he would become leader of the Liberal Party, and assumed that would make him PM one day. This makes him not an idealist, not a patriot, not a genius, but a pure opportunist. If not for the Liberal Party promises, he would be in Cambridge to this very day, pontificating about what he and his fellow Americans should be doing next. Actually, he’d probably be in Washington with Samantha Power.

The Tory ads, while bold and somewhat crass, are right on-the-money, and hold him to account on his crass opportunism. The networks, The Globe, The Star, all they do is either ignore the issue, or offer excuses for it. Like Andrew & Paul.

Critical Reasoning

If not for the Liberal Party promises, he would be in Cambridge to this very day, pontificating about what he and his fellow Americans should be doing next. Actually, he’d probably be in Washington with Samantha Power.

This kind of speculation is not entirely fair, but it’s still interesting. If Iggy hadn’t been recruited by the Liberals, would he now be employed by the Obama administration, like many of his close friends?

http://coyne kc

Neil
What i love about many Cons is just how fair minded and non-judgemental they are. As a matter of interest, the Liberal Party has a long and slighty weird history of selecting non conformist individuals to lead them. Trudeau and King being two, but i believe there were other unconventional choices – and it worked. I have not read much of Ignatieff, but it is entirely possible he always had some residual ideas about returning for just such an opportunity. It seems a bit strange for a calculating man like him to just pull up stakes because some Liberal recruiters turn up on his doorstep. I would hope some concept of this country was at least subconsciously embedded in his Canadian dna – given his family connections to this country.

pete d

Now there’s a brand new definition of worked.

http://coyne kc

Obviously nothing short of a Tory tyranny work work for you, but it worked for the Liberal Party and to a large extent for Canada.
http://coyne kc

…would work.

Jenn

You mean like in his UCC yearbook, when he said something about becoming a politician?

BC Voice of Reason

Was Ignatieff a major player in the US or Britain?

Was he ever on Canadian TV, espousing either an American or British POV as a Canadian living abroad. Was he on anyone’s list of important Canadian’s? Did anyone in Canada follow or know about or care one whit on his apparently public desertion of his family for the favours of the beautiful (not in a photgenic way) Zsussanna?

He was a bit useful to the Republicans as an academic was pro-Iraq war. Sort of taking the contrary position to grab some spot-light. Perhaps his 15 minutes was the decisive factor in his coming “home”?

He was definitely not moving in Obama’s circles. His major coup to dateas Canadian Liberal leader was forcing some face time with Obama. I don’t imagine he would have taken on the great task of becoming Canadian leader had he a realistic chance to control the American/Global levers of power in Obama’s administration.
sf

If Iggy could have joined the Owe-bama administration he would be there already. Right now.

Jean Proulx

This is absurd. No one can “promise” the LPC leadership. Some influential Liberals went to Harvard and encouraged Ignatieff to enter Canadian politics and seek the leadership of the party. But there was never a a promise or guarantee that he would get it.

Also what’s this opportunist criticism? Firstly, show me a a politician who isn’t opportunistic? Show me a HUMAN BEING isn’t opportunistic?

Actually Ignatieff had a pretty sweet career going on as an international jetsetter, star academic and successful author. He would have been making more money than he would as an MP (or even a PM). A lot of people would opt for that lifestyle rather than slugging it out in Canadian politics. Seems to me that Ignatieff had a lot more opportunities open to him than say…Stephen Harper.

So why is it “opportunistic” – by which I guess you mean unprincipled and self-serving – for him to enter Canadian politics?

wilson

Why would a an international jetsetter, star academic and successful author,
with no political experience, never held office,
think that he will be Canada’s next Prime Minister?
MI thinks he is heir to the throne.

Jean Proulx

Are you suggesting that to be a bit of an egomaniac to aspire to be PM? I suppose that’s true enough, but it would hardly make Ignatieff unique would it?

Neil

If no one promised him the leadership, then how did it suddenly land in his lap without so much as a vote?

And of course all politicians must be opportunistic. However, not all politicians are opportunists by definition. Quitting Harvard for the sole reason of becoming Prime Minister of another country is crass opportunism in the absence of any other possible reason why he might make the move (oh, I guess he really pined to debate Green Party pinheads in Church basements in Etobicoke, yeah, that’s it). If you think Iggy left Harvard without a guarantee of becoming leader and (his assumption) PM, then I want some of what you are smoking, Jean.

Jean Proulx

a) He became interim leader after Dion resigned and Bob rae and Dominic Leblanc dropped out of the race when they realized Ignatieff would easily win a vote of the Council of Presidents (caucus plus some senior party officials, riding association presidents, etc.)

b) He became leader at the recent LPC convention when delegates endorsed him officially.

Both measures in line with the LPC constitution (if somewhat unconventional). It’s not the way Liberals usually choose leaders but the circumstances were extraordinary.

Again, no one is in a position to “guarantee” the leadership of the LPC. If the party’s “elites” had that kind of power than Dion would never have been selected as leader. The Liberals that drafted Ignatieff may have pledged their personal support, but could not have “promised” anything.

You can have some of what I’m smoking, but I think you should prepare yourself for the possibility that you’re beyond help.

Neil

If the best you can offer is that Iggy’s back-door ascendancy to leader was that it was “in line with the LPC constitution”, then I rest my case.

Gene Rayburn

I apologise if my memory’s a bit spotty, but wasn’t there that one character — oh what was his name, Steph… Stephane… Dior? Dion! That was it — who defeated Ignatieff in a free and fair leadership vote in 2006?

I’m not defending the optics of the recent acclamation of Ignatieff, but I don’t consider having to wait two years as second-in-command behind the worst leader in modern Liberal Party history qualifies as having the leadership ‘promised’ to you.

Jean Proulx

Neil – Good. Your case needs a rest.
Neil

Are you saying that, because he had to wait two years (two years! gasp), that proves he wasn’t promised the leadership? Weak.

Actually, your comment supports my point. In a free and fair leadership vote, Iggy did not get what he was promised, even though it was assumed he would. Therefore, to give him what was promised, Iggy’s power backers had to subvert the free and fair process, and hand it to him through the back door.

pete d

Gee, the plethora of MSM columns decrying the Tory tactics are in stark contrast to the absence of same when the Liberals were pulling every dirty trick in the book for a decade and a half.

One expects the contortions a Liberal has to make to put the best face on their latest leader dud, but you guys really have to stop being so surprised at the fact that the Conservatives actually practice the art of politics.

It truly is nice to see the Liberal Party get it’s come-uppance.
Orson Bean

I’m definitely not a Harper fan or a fan of our current government. But I do see a certain amusing irony in seeing Liberal partisans being compelled to stand up for one of their own on account of accusations that, among other things, he’s too “American” and spent years living in the US. For example, I recall Liberal partisans claiming that Harper was a traitor of the highest order and not a “good Canadian” because he would travel down to the US from time to time to address a right-wing think tank there — AND occasionally say things about Canada that weren’t entirely flattering. That, in the eyes of said Liberal partisans, was enough to make Harper some sort of double-agent for the Bush Administration. My, how times have changed . . .

catherine

Harper went to the US and said that Canada was a has-been socialist nation in the worst sense of the term. That is not the same thing at all and that would bother a lot of people, Liberal or not.
Jean Proulx

He didn’t “say things about Canada that weren’t entirely flattering”. He described Canada as a”a northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term,” to a U.S. think tank.

And he went on Fox News and tried to undermine Jean Chrétien’s very wise decision not to involve us in the Iraq invasion by arguing that “most Canadians outside Quebec support the US-led invasion of Iraq” i.e. trying to play one part of the country against the rest to advance his political agenda.

Orson Bean

Ok, Iggy Good, Harper Bad. Is that better?

Derek Pearce

In terms of what Harper’s said to US audiences compared to what Iggy’s said, yes, you’re spot on.

matt

Sarcasm and self-deprecation at the introduction of the speech to break the ice with his unfamiliar American audience. Anyone who thinks that was a serious, heart-felt critique of the nation is being deliberately disingenous.

Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

That isn’t a joke or sarcasm.

matt

The full quote: “Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.”

He’s exaggerating for the sake of humour. While it is true that in 1997 there was concern about all of the above policy issues in the media (Clinton’s boom was taking off whereas Canada was not far removed from it’s own currency crisis), he’s working his audience. For example, consider the following quote from the same speech:

“The NDP could be described as basically a party of liberal Democrats, but it’s actually worse than that, I have to say. And forgive me jesting again, but the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.”

Emphasis on jest – exaggeration for the sake of humour, albeit while touching on policy concerns of the day.

wilson

And was was MI doing at exactly the same time Jean?

As an expert on human rights, MI was giving torture the thumbs up.

Jean Proulx

No he wasn’t. He wrote a philosophical article that grappled with the ethics of using torture against terrorists, and ultimately concluded that it was unjustifiable.

Observant

The impression I am getting from the behaviour of the Canadian MSM is their desperation to ensure that Ignatieff is not rejected by Canadians, and more importantly not rejected by Liberal party grassroots workers who are demotivated by the Conservative ‘truth’ attack ad.

Just imagine if Ignatieff tanked as Liberal leader and had to step down before any next election. Personally I think the Liberals are insane for allowing Ignatieff and his backers to hijack the Liberal party and steal the leadership.

Perhaps these ‘truth’ attack ads are aimed at the Liberal party faithful to stay home in any next election in disgust over their “we Americans” leader Ignatieff.

Jean Proulx

Ha! More than a little wishful thinking in this post. I sense very little appetite in the LPC for any additional internal bickering.
Derek Pearce

How has Ignatieff “hijacked” and “stolen” the LPC leadership? The two closest front runners after him graciously dropped out, and Ignatieff got a 97% endorsement from the membership. If 97% is a hijacking then what would 100% have been? A mere hostage taking? Puh-lease.

Observant

You got your Liberal math wrong because Iggy only got 29% support of the 7500 Liberal party delegates who could have attended the Vancouver coronation convention. Yes, Iggy got 95% of 2300 attending delegates or about 2200 votes … which is only 29% of the 7500 Liberal potential delegates.

I believe Iggy only received 29% of the first ballot vote in the legitimate 2006 Montreal leadership convention, which represented the vote of the Liberal grassroots members … and after that the brokering started and it became a ‘Stop Iggy’ movement.

Somehow I suspect the BobRae-led Liberal left wing are sharpening their knives should Iggy falter … and these CPC ‘truth’ attack ads are great ammunition for Liberal party malcontents who shudder under Iggy’s leadership going into any next election. My bet is that Liberal delegates in any next election will stay away from Iggy like poison and only run on the beloved Liberal brand.

Derek Pearce

Yes yes fine, if Iggy falters– and others in the CPC are sharpening their knives should Harper falter, and others in the NDP are sharpening their knives should Layton falter, and others in the Greens are sharpening etc etc etc. My bet is that local Conservative candidates in any next election will stay away from Harper like poison and only run on their beloved Conservative brand.

We could do this all day… as for speculating that if all 7500 delegates had attended in Vancouver, Ignatieff would have only got a 29% endorsement– pass that over dude, I want what yer smokin’ !

Observant

The Vancouver leadership coronation was a farce, because only about 2300 delegates out of 7500 possible delegates showed up to vote. 97% of 2300 is 2200 which is only 29% of 7500 … the same grassroots support that Iggy got on the first vote in the Montreal 2006 leadership convention ….!!!!

Iggy is not only a faux-Canadian, he is a counterfeit leader of the lububrious Liberal party …!!!!!

sf

the behaviour of the Canadian MSM is their desperation to ensure that Ignatieff is not rejected by Canadians

Wherry is doing his best to air Iggy’s video.

Justin Wordsworth

Ig Leaf

The problem that Canadians might have with Mr. Ignatieff is not that he hasn’t shared their land mass, it is that he hasn’t shared their values.

Among the most Ig-regious of his past positions are supporting the Iraq War and defending torture. Each of which will prove a tough sell to a disparate country that is only ever able to unite under the banner of Anti- or Un-Americanism.

Furthermore, there does have the stink of something seedy and opportunistic when a politician is, in the span of a few days, supporting the party leader, usurping the party leader, and making back-room deals to extinguish the bids of all other contenders for the crown.

No, what Canadians might have trouble getting iggy with about Michael is not where he’s been, it is where he’s going, and how he’s getting there.

The Liberals new brand of Ig-alitarianism contains numerous initiatives to help us spend our way out this recession – the economic equivalent of trying to drink away a hangover.

Loose Libs sink ships. And besides, we already have a far left-of-centre party, completely bereft of economic understanding, hell-bent on welfare statism to save our economy, even if it takes bankrupting every last one of us – they’re called the Conservatives.

Observant

It basically comes down to does Iggy represent “Canadian Values” … or does he just represent devious Liberal values of more taxes, more government, more corruption?

Just imagine … if a Conservative had ever said what Iggy said when he was a Harvard professor, namely:

“To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils : indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war.” – Michael Ignatieff, NY Times Mag, 2004

…. the Canadian Liberal MSM would have crucified him as the second coming of Hitler … but since it was only Liberal Iggy, they give him a pass and even suppress this knowledge from Canadians. Now that the CPC has fairly exposed Iggy for what he is, the Liberal goebbellian MSM are up in arm declaring that Canadians consider the attack ads as ‘unfair’. Makes ya wonder ………

DR

Those “Soldiers in our streets” ads never actually aired. A bit different.

orval

Yes they did. They were playing in Quebec in French right until the day before the election.

matt

My concern about Ignatieff is that he may not “get” parts of the country. That his decision-making would willingly sacrifice parts of the country in pursuit of the greater national good in an ultimately destructive way. What leaps to mind is the NEP. I had the exact same concern about Dion, ironically, on his indifference to the effects of his various environmental proposals. He seemed very “tant pis” and I attributed that to the fact that, despite his academic mastery of the unity file – and full credit there – much of Canada just didn’t resonate with him owing to his relative isolation in Quebec/France academia. Beyond that, I ask myself if Ignatieff would have returned to Canada just to feel at home again, and not because he was drawn by the prospect of the highest of offices in the country. And I ask myself whether, if Rae had won, Ignatieff would remain in Canada to work, and if Ignatieff will stay in Canada once he retires. I’m not convinced. There’s nothing wrong with working abroad, or retiring abroad. But for some intangible reason, I want the person who leads our country to be personally rooted here, with an intuitive feel for the issues of our day.

http://coyne kc

What intuitive feel did Harper have before he ventured outside of AB? Judging by Harper’s take on atlantic Canada and his bungling in Quebec, i’d say Ignatieff doesn’t start from very far back.
Your musings on persuing the national good over provincial concerns shows how far national identity has become a non issue in this country. Everytime anyone even hints at a national project or programme someone yells nep. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s possible to regard this as one country anymore.

Neil

Harper grew up in Toronto, his parents were from Nova Scotia.

Orson Bean

I can only imagine the political/partisan discourse that would ensue if a Tory leader came along who had spent as much of his working life residing in the (Evil) United States as Iggy has. Liberal supporters would be having (or at least feigning) fits of the vapours. Cue the Liberal ads from 1988 showing the US-Canada border being erased! American soldiers! On our streets!

Jean Proulx

Let’s test your theory. Start up a draft-Davd Frum-to-replace-Harper movement.

Orson Bean

“Let’s test your theory. Start up a draft-Davd Frum-to-replace-Harper movement.”

I think there are certain theories that don’t even need testing — self-evident, judicial notice, res ipsa loquitur, that sort of thing. If Frum were leader, personally I would want to draft Dion to come back as Liberal leader just so I could hear Dion repeatedly call Frum a “Booosh clone” on the campaign trail. I always got a kick out of Dion butchering those canned talking points that were fed to him by the Liberal War Room . . .

Calgary Junkie

The Tories have the money advantage, so why not use it ? It’s unconventional, hitting just above the belt, to air attack ads outside of a writ period, but so what. This is politics. There are no Marquis of Queensbuy rules, like there are in boxing. Just about anything goes. One big check on the Tories is, if they overdo the attack, then there is a backlash, possibly even sympathy for poor picked on Ignatieff.

If these ads force the Libs to spend lots of their war chest, then that makes the Libs less likely to force an early election. Harper gets to govern longer, which is what he clearly wants. Basically, the Tories are pressing the advantages they have, putting the Libs on the spot, forced to make difficult choices.
orval

Journalists interviewing other journalists, while surrounded by web advertisements for computers, French education in Ontario and of course subscriptions to Macleans. Not much is happening in politics right now for only that can expalin this banal discussion amongst the “chattering classes” that goes on and on and on.

A couple of points. Advertisements work. Otherwise no-one would advertise. The recent Conservative ads remind me a little of the cute PC vs Mac ads. They’re clever, catchy, they’re fun, they are humorous but make no mistake, the point is to ridicule the Microsoft brand and by comparison promote the Apple brand. They are appealing, but they are still “attack” ads.They work.

Igantieff knows that policy announcements are dangerous. They make him a target, and risks the “brand ” if a “product “doesn;t catch on. Harper learned this early on. His famous “Belgian” speech, which introduced the federalisme d’ouverture policy, and which the media (especially A. Coyne) as well as the Liberals lampooned mercilessly, seriously jeopardized the inroads Harper was trying to make in Quebec. Ignatieff is one “Belgian” speech away from having his leadership ambitions shattered. His strategy for now has to be to focus on regaining brand loyalty, but not to do something foolish by promoting a product that many won’t like (like Green Shift, for example).

By “attacking” the Ignatieff = Liberal “brand”, the Conservatives will force Ignatieff to respond by announcing something more than his ancestors’ biographies – he will actually have to enunciate some sort of policy. The Conservative would immediately respond by emphasizing the disconnect between the reality of that policy and the expectations of the brand-loyal (remember Danny Williams and the Newfoundland 6?).

Last point. The Conservatives are doing it because they can. They have the money and the talent to be relentless. The Liberals can’t match it. The “Grit-Girl” youtubes are pop-guns compared to the onslaught the Conservatives can and will unleash. Ignatieff is going to have to realize that his constant threats of election will only weaken his grip if he backs down time after time as Dion did. That’s politics.

I agree with a poster above who said that these ads are not election ads – they are designed to prevent an election.
hollinm

It was interesting watching the discussion between Coyne and Wells. I found it to be rather superficial to be frank. Like all the other meida and high brows in this country they simply don’t get it or will not admit why Canadians should be concerned about somebody dropping in to be PM.

Ignatieff came back to Canada after 34 years living abroad not because he had a concern for the country but because the back room boys of the Liberal party promised him the leadership of the party and potentially the opportunity to be PM. That’s it in a nutshell.

There was no other reason and I suspect without this inducement by the party Ignatieff would still be teaching at Harvard and calling himself an American. Now Ignatieff is trying to justify his return by saying what is wrong with living outside the country for most of ones adult life.

Over the last 34 years there were many important issues being dealt with in the country including two referendums on the potential breakup of the country. What did we hear from Michael Ignatieff? Zero…ziltch as far as I know.

The other reason that the truth ads are being run is because the media in Canada and Coyne and Wells are two perfect examples have not asked Ignatieff to explain himself in any fashion about some of his controversial statements. Instead they allow him to dance around the issues.

Well that’s not good enough for those of us who care about this country. We want to know a hell of a lot more about the guy who wants to replace the current PM.

Thus far Ignatieff has reversed himself on virtually any subject he has publicly talked about but that doesn’t seem to bother the Canadian media.

So from my perspective if the media does not want to do their jobs and put Ignatieff under the microscope as they have done Stephen Harper I might add the Conservatives will help Canadians to get to know the carpetbagger who deigns to be PM.

Observant

Exactly why does the Canadian MSM ignore Ignatieff’s many warts and gaffs … and finish him off in true democratic form??? I’ll tell you why … Iggy is also a journalist, a brother in arms with the Canadian MSM … one of their own … and if they did a proper hatchet job on him, the Liberal party would disintegrate with BoboRae attempting to pick up the pieces and merge with the NDP a la PC-Alliance.

No Canadian media conglomerate want to destroy the near-defunct Liberal party by garroting Iggy out of existence in Canada. That would make them unpopular with the liberal chatting classes in the big cities of Montreal and Moronto … where they have their biggest circulation and audience. Of course their is the CBC with it’s vested interests in the survival of their beloved Liberal Beast.
Paul Wells

That’s not actually what “deigns” means. And you were doing so well, too.

hollinm

I knew I should have looked it up. I took the lazy way out. Replace deign with the more simple “wants”.
Thanks for taking the time to read my comments.

http://andrewcoyne.com Andrew Coyne

“Coyne and Wells … have not asked Ignatieff to explain himself in any fashion about some of his controversial statements. Instead they allow him to dance around the issues…”

Oh for the love of pete.

Ignatieff, from both sides now
So many questions, so few answers
The left side of Iggy’s brain vs. the right
Ignatieff is getting better, but is he good enough?

That’s from the last two months.

Paul Wells

I, on the other hand, want to make it clear that I have been sucking up to the guy big time. Oooooh, Iggy…flex those muscles again, big boy….

hollinm

The media have been doing just that. It appears that the media does have the attention span of a hummingbird and has predetermined its heroes and villains (Palango-”Dispersing The Fog”). We know it is not Mr. Harper who is the predetermined hero.

So the media and the chattering classes will continue to put a negative spin on these truth ads in an attempt to convince Canadians that Iggy is on the side of the angels and Harper is the devil incarnate.

It really must be quiet in the news rooms of both the electrnic and print media when so much time ts being spent discussing such an inane topic.

Canadians will make up their own minds what they think of the ads and don’t need the media telling them how they should think.

hollinm

I presume you are referring to columns that you have written. I want the media to get in his face and force him to answer the questions directly. I do not want reporters to allow him to avoid answering the questions being posed. Columns can be ignored and often are.

Has the media asked him directly his position on taxation
Has the media asked him directly his position on torture
Has the media put to him what I would call inflamatory statements about Canada he made while he was living abroad.
Does he believe Israel committed war crimes and what does he consider to be a war crime.
Have you asked him specifically his position on the coalition and the 3 positions he has taken on it.
Does he agree that the military mission in Afganistan ends in 2011.
What are his plans for economy that are different than Harpers. He criticizes but offers nothing of substance.
Why does he think that 360 hours of work (approx. 10 weeks) should qualify someone to collect one year of employment insurance

You get my drift.

For the love of pete that is the job of reporters. Instead the public is fed a diet of puff pieces that are enough to make one throw up.
Observant

“To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war.” – Michael Ignatieff, NY Times Mag, 2004

If a Conservative leader had ever made any such a statement, you in the media would have declared him the second coming of Hitler and proclaimed him not having Canadian values. There would be no discussion, no explanations, no consideration … it would be an open and shut case of total condemnation.

But since it’s the leader of the Liberal party, you are silent in your judgement … and thus reveal yourselves for what you are … Liberal goebbellian shills and fearful of your privileged positions.

Orson Bean

I think orval’s on to something in that post above. By running these ads, the Tories may well be putting Iggy and the Liberals in an uncomfortable box. To wit: the Liberals can either:

1. do nothing at all, in which case they run the risk of these ads sinking in and having their desired effect;
2. respond in kind, in which case the Liberals risk being pulled into a petty schoolyard pissing match, which would, among other things, eliminate the Liberals’ ability to claim the “high road”; or
3. try to counter with some substantive policy stuff — the problem there, as has been pointed out by lots of smart people, is that the Liberals don’t seem to really want to do that right now.

I think the smart people in the Liberal War Room know that Iggy, like just about every other “fresh face” politician (or party) that comes along, is currently enjoying the benefit of being the fresh face. That means he is, for many Canadians, a blank slate upon which they can project all sorts of nice thoughts and sentiments. Once Iggy starts talking substantive policy, that advantage starts to melt away.
Justin Wordsworth

This little iggy that the Liberals have brought to market might prove not to be the boon they had expected.

What the Liberals wanted out of Ignatieff was for him to give a face to their brand. Unfortunately, he’s given them two.

Michael Ignatieff accuses Stephen Harper of running “soaring deficits” while advocating even bigger ones. Canadians already have a term for Liberal leaders who are fountainheads of fallacies and failed reasoning: Stephane Dion.

Ignatieff’s next strategy is to promise to dispense with Canada’s shrinking productive capacity in doll payments to every special interest group that muster enough strength to hold up a plastic cup. He plans to say “yes” more times than the proverbial your mother at a frat party.

Michael Ignatieff says it is time for change, but, at this time, we just can’t spare it.

It is quite possible that, come election time, Canadians will this little iggy to go “oui, oui, oui” all the way home. Wherever that is.
madeyoulook

Sigh.

Is the man legally entitled to vote in Canada?

Is the man legally entitled to hold public office as an elected Member of Parliament in Canada’s House of Commons?

Has he been legitimately declared the leader of his federal political party?

Can we then please start to discuss policies and platforms, or lack thereof?

The Conservative plan is working like gangbusters BECAUSE EVERYBODY KEEPS YAPPING ABOUT IT!
Gene Rayburn

First one to get a copy of Igantieff’s birth certificate wins. This time, though, we’re looking for one from the Province of Ontario, not the State of Hawaii.
Observant

But Canadians may tend to be a tad more discriminating in their decision who they prefer living at 24 Sussex …. Stephen, Laureen, Benjamin and Rachel ….. or …. Ignatieff and his second wife Zsuzsanna Zohar (does she even have Canadian citizenship) ????
madeyoulook

Wow, let’s see just how far we can get from issues that really matter. Anyone care to top Observant?
Jean Proulx

Just watch. Once they get desperate enough the Cons will start comparing fathering ability. Pathetic.
sf

Does she really have the initials ZZ? If Iggy wins an election, she’ll be ZZ Top.
Derek Pearce

Heh. I bet Observant thinks Laureen’s goulash is better than Zsuzsanna’s goulash.
Observant

I suspect Zsuzsu will adjust her surname to Zsuzsanna Ignatieff … or at least Zsuzsanna Zohar-Ignatieff … should Iggy become Canada’s next prime minister. She doesn’t need to bother with Canadian citizenship and passport unless she intends to visit the USA … given their new cross-border Homeland Security Policy … LOL
Observant

At least Laureen’s goulash is 100% Canadian … not like interloper Iggy’s wife’s Hungar goulash. The real question is does Zsuzsanna have Canadian citizenship, or is she still a Hungar ciitzen?? Canadians want to know.

Oh, Zsuzsanna,
Oh don’t you cry for me
For I come from Alabama
With my banjo on my knee!!!

(Just imagine the next election with Laureen Harper out on the hustings making speeches on behalf of her 100% all-Canadian family man …. LOL)