Categories: Coyne v. Wells, Video

Coyne v. Wells on Obama’s Nobel and Iggy’s month from hell

Our Weekly Video Podcast

by macleans.ca on Friday, October 16, 2009 3:00pm - 20 Comments

Download | Feed | iTunes

Tags: Andrew coyne, Barack Obama, coynevwells09, Michael Ignatieff, paul wells

http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

I have the perfect strategy for Ignatieff. He should simply tell the voters that if they put the Liberals back in charge the media will once again pay attention to what their government is doing.

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

Well Iggnatieff was purported to be the next Truedeau. His 1980 election strategy of I'll resign after this election worked well. Maybe thats his strategy

murray logan, Regina

I would like to suggest that since you are a magazine printed for the purpose of being read, that you print the comments by Coyne and Wells for those of us unable to download the Adobe Flash Player. I mean why have a magazine if you can't read the blasted article.
Thanks, Murray Logan

http://www.macleans.ca Jonathan McKinnell

Hello Murray,

We also have the video available for download from this site and also on the iTunes music store. You'll need either quicktime or itunes to play it.
Both links are available below the video.

Thanks for your interest in the podcast. Have a good weekend

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Regarding Iggy, wasn't there a time when he was a less scripted and disciplined politician, which led to moments such as describing events in Lebanon as "war crimes" and leaving open the possibility of hiking the GST? In the end, you still have to be a politician, and maybe Iggy just isn't a good one. Some can make the transition, and some can't.

Regarding Obama's Nobel Prize, I think much of the world is currently suffering from long-term memory loss. In fact, it was only a few weeks ago that Obama described Afghanistan as a war of necessity. Indeed, most of the world, including folks like Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore endorsedthe effort. So, not sure what Bush did wrong there, especially since not even Obama advised a different course of action.

I think it should also be pointed out that beefed up military actions are sometimes necessary. Iraq would probably be a far worse place today if it wasn't for Bush's surge, which Obama opposed. So, simply being nice and passive isn't necessarily a path towards peace and security, is it?

The problem with Obama's Nobel award is that it was nothing much more than leftist ideologues giving a fellow leftist a pat on the back. There's no guarantee at all that Obama's worldview will make the world a better place. In fact, it could make things even worse. It's why you rely on events to determine merit, and not misplaced political sentiment.

I also wouldn't let Obama have his cake and eat it, too. He can say anything he wants about not deserving the award. Not accepting it would indicate that he actually meant it. But I guess the cult of Obama must live on. All hail the One! The saviour need only breathe to receive the love and accolades that the world has to offer.

adam

Well maybe iggy is aware that Canada has over one million Lebanese citizens in its population and cares about them.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

and he doesn't care about Israelis? But thanks for sticking to the topic. Next.

further clarify

Check the major cities these days. The Jewish electorate is not only in relative decline in terms of percentages but in absolute decline in terms of numbers. The muslim population is increasing.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Oh, and regarding the preference for a war that is cold rather than not, one could argue that a more sustained hot effort at the end of World War II might have led to a far more tolerable peace. Instead, a Nazi menace on the European continent was replaced with a Soviet version. In other words, so-called cold wars can be minimized and even avoided, too, and done so with hot tactics.

While the word "peace" is often praised, it usually can't come without "security", too. And it's the latter word that that doesn't come attached to a Norwegian price, does it.

OK, time for a hot coffee in a cold room.
http://gapingwhole.wordpress.com/ Em.

I think either Wells needs to speak more quietly or Coyne needs to speak louder. Or is it just my computer?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

lol. On my computer, it's definitely Coyne who needs to speak louder. Had to turn the volume way up when it was his turn. Btw, great points made by both sides. Maybe the Liberals should use these weekly chats as their source for big ideas!

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

I would like to learn more about consultants and why pols/parties are so enamoured of them. I don't know much about them but I am convinced they are the ones who have 'smoothed' the rough edges off Iggy and turned him into the platitude spouting mess that he is today. I also think part of Iggy's problem is that he's not in the correct party, I think he would be more comfortable in Cons. With Iggy, I always have the sense that he's not really saying what he thinks. I expect PM of the day to obfuscate but those in opposition should be in alignment with their beliefs because they are not making any choices.

And I think Wells comparison of Obama and dissidents receiving award for idea was slightly off the mark. Dissidents were fighting for freedom, mostly, and they were jailed for their beliefs. So far, Obama has done little except mouth a few vacuous statements about world peace. I guess the dissidents put their money where their mouth is while Obama gets to talk about nuclear-free world from the comfy confines of the White House.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Lord_Bob Lord Bob

Yeah, definite level problems between Coyne and Wells. As much as I enjoy Paul sounding more like Welles than Wells with his booming Skype-enhanced timbre, it's rather difficult for a conversational podcast.

As usual, the best part of the video was when Wells and Coyne started engaging on ideas that had already been in print: specifically, Coyne's assertion that Ignatieff would be better served as a human being rather than a political animal. The idea had been analyzed and Coyne had the benefit of having put a lot of thought and research into it rather than speaking more off-the-cuff, which naturally improved the quality of dialogue. I'm reaching a bit for specific input because I can't think of anything to add: not sure if that's a good sign or not.
http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

Perhaps the issue with Coyne's suggested strategy is what he hinted at over the cuts. It isnt that Ignatieff wont convinve Canadians, its that he'll ignite a firestorm within his own party.

He doenst control it, isnt a man of party machinery, and unlike Trudeau (who was the same) doesnt have trusted minions in place who can sew the fields with salt of those opposing him.

Letting Iggy be Iggy might light the fire under the left wing of the Liberal party even further. Fundamental problems that until he acheives consensus or better yet control within his own party he cannot breakout of his box.

Right now, Ignatieffs best payoff stategy is to hold Harper to a minority that is no worse than he has or a seat or two less and then play for however they are going to spin NDP and Bloc support. Too convoluted. Strategically Iggy needs time and he needs a year to learn his job, exert control in the Liberal party and restock his policy arsenal with stuff he is comfortable with.

But yes he isnt a politician, he is trying to play one on TV
http://intensedebate.com/people/Lu_Galasso Lu_Galasso

everyone wants to nail harper to the wall. But the Cons. are great at media subversiveness.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Except for Canadian voters, of course.

some thoughts

Actually the majority of Canadian voters do want to nail harper to the wall. Last time I checked 35-40 support means 60-65% dont. Only our antiquated electoral system maintains the illusion (sometimes) that governments are majorities. Some kind of proportional representation or a system of runoff elections (no seat in parliement of fat pension unless you get 50%+1 of the votes in your riding) would do away (not a moment to soon) with this electoral equivalent of the horse and buggy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

According to that logic, even more voters want to nail the Liberals, who got less than 30%, the NDP, who got about 20%, and the Bloc, who got much less than that. Next.

further clarify

For proportional representation you would be right more or less (NDP do not get 20% more like 14%). Under this system Harper would have approximately 120 seats, the liberals approximately 90, the NDP roughly 45 and the greens about 20 or 30. The Bloc would be reduced to less than 30. (I know it does not add up to 308 but this is in aproximations). In a typical run off system (my preference, as a french citizen I am used to it) second election is held a week after the first where the first and second place finishers run again. In such a system the winner must represent 50%+1 of those who cast their votes. If the first place finisher in the first round gets 50%+1 (a possibility for some conservatives in alberta) there is no second round.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Which still doesn't support the claim that "everyone wants to nail Harper to the wall." Does it?