Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

'That choice is now his'

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, October 16, 2009 12:11pm - 54 Comments

Glen Pearson considers Barack Obama’s Nobel Prize, Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff.

Politics is desperately in need of game-changers – leaders who go for the impossible as opposed to the prudent, for principle over power, peace over pragmatism. Stephen Harper can never be that person because he’s an incrementalist, attempting not to change the channel but to just bore us with all the noise in hopes we won’t catch on to the subtle changes he’s introducing. To accomplish his agenda, he requires stealth. Michael Ignatieff is the only leader close enough to forming government who has the potential to inspire us once again. But for that to happen he mustn’t be so much defined by politics as transcending it. That choice is now his.

Tags: democracy, Glen Pearson, Michael Ignatieff, Nobel, Nobel Peace Prize, Ottawa, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

Jesse

Get a life.

Barack Obama WAS inspiring until unemployment in his country kept climbing and climbing and climbing. Meanwhile it just went down three decimal points in Canada.

Who cares about all that. I'll take boring, steady leadership that out performs the dismal global economic situation any day.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"And so the Nobel committee gave him “street cred” – an advance of moral capital …"

The problem with this argument is as follows:
Those of us who watched with dismay when the Nobel Peace Prize Committee awarded Carter, Arafat, and Gore do not see any "street cred" left in the prize. We see Obama's award as yet another underhanded political move by the committee, in defiance of Nobel's dying wishes, and Obama's acceptance as yet another narcissistic sign of his overweening ego.

Those who were not dismayed by the Nobel committee's prior idiocy are already caught up in Obama adulation. They needed no further "street cred" to support him.

Therefore the prize accomplished nothing beyond confirmation of the disgust many of us already held, the birth of skepticism on the part of many of Obama's erstwhile supporters, and reaffirmation for those (including himself) who already view him as a messianic figure in world history.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"And so the Nobel committee gave him “street cred” – an advance of moral capital …"

The problem with this argument is as follows:
Those of us who watched with dismay when the Nobel Peace Prize Committee awarded Carter, Arafat, and Gore do not see any "street cred" left in the prize. We see Obama's award as yet another underhanded political move by the committee, in defiance of Nobel's dying wishes, and Obama's acceptance as yet another narcissistic sign of his overweening ego.

Those who were not dismayed by the Nobel committee's prior idiocy are already caught up in Obama adulation. They needed no further "street cred" to support him.

Therefore the prize accomplished nothing beyond confirmation of the disgust many of us already held, the birth of skepticism on the part of many of Obama's erstwhile supporters, and reaffirmation for those (including himself) who already view him as a messianic figure in world history.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"And so the Nobel committee gave him “street cred” – an advance of moral capital …"

The problem with this argument is as follows.

Those of us who watched with dismay when the Nobel Peace Prize Committee awarded Carter, Arafat, and Gore do not see any "street cred" left in the prize. We see Obama's award as yet another underhanded political move by the committee, in defiance of Nobel's dying wishes, and Obama's acceptance as yet another narcissistic sign of his overweening ego.

Those who were not dismayed by the Nobel committee's prior idiocy are already caught up in Obama adulation. They needed no further "street cred" to support him.

Therefore the prize accomplished nothing beyond confirmation of the disgust many of us already held, the birth of skepticism on the part of many of Obama's erstwhile supporters, and reaffirmation for those (including himself) who already view him as a messianic figure in world history.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"And so the Nobel committee gave him “street cred” – an advance of moral capital …"

The problem with this argument is as follows.

Those of us who watched with dismay when the Nobel Peace Prize Committee awarded Carter, Arafat, and Gore do not see any "street cred" left in the prize. We see Obama's award as yet another underhanded political move by the committee, in defiance of Nobel's dying wishes, and Obama's acceptance as yet another narcissistic sign of his overweening ego.

Those who were not dismayed by the Nobel committee's prior idiocy are already caught up in Obama adulation. They needed no further "street cred" to support him.

Therefore the prize accomplished nothing beyond confirmation of the disgust many of us already held for it's misuse, the birth of skepticism on the part of many of Obama's erstwhile supporters, and reaffirmation for those (including himself) who already view him as a messianic figure in world history.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"And so the Nobel committee gave him “street cred” – an advance of moral capital …"

The problem with this argument is as follows.

Those of us who watched with dismay when the Nobel Peace Prize Committee awarded Carter, Arafat, and Gore do not see any "street cred" left in the prize. We see Obama's award as yet another underhanded political move by the committee, in defiance of Nobel's dying wishes, and Obama's acceptance as yet another narcissistic sign of his overweening ego.

Those who were not dismayed by the Nobel committee's prior idiocy are already caught up in Obama adulation. They needed no further "street cred" to support him.

Therefore the prize accomplished nothing beyond confirmation of the disgust many of us already held for it's misuse, the birth of skepticism on the part of many of Obama's erstwhile supporters, and reaffirmation for those (including Obama himself) who already view him as a messianic figure in world history.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"And so the Nobel committee gave him “street cred” – an advance of moral capital …"

The problem with this argument is as follows.

Those of us who watched with dismay when the Nobel Peace Prize Committee awarded Carter, Arafat, and Gore do not see any "street cred" left in the prize. We see Obama's award as yet another underhanded political move by the committee (in defiance of Nobel's dying wishes) and Obama's acceptance as yet another narcissistic sign of his overweening ego.

Those who were not dismayed by the Nobel committee's prior idiocy are already caught up in Obama adulation. They needed no further "street cred" to support him.

Therefore the prize accomplished nothing beyond confirmation of the disgust many of us already held for it's misuse, the birth of skepticism on the part of many of Obama's erstwhile supporters, and reaffirmation for those (including Obama himself) who already view him as a messianic figure in world history.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"And so the Nobel committee gave him “street cred” – an advance of moral capital …"

The problem with this argument is as follows.

Those of us who watched with dismay when the Nobel Peace Prize Committee awarded Carter, Arafat, and Gore do not see any "street cred" left in the prize. We see Obama's award as yet another underhanded political move by the committee (in defiance of Nobel's dying wishes) and Obama's acceptance as yet another sign of his overweening ego.

Those who were not dismayed by the Nobel committee's prior idiocy are already caught up in Obama adulation. They needed no further "street cred" to support him.

Therefore the prize accomplished nothing beyond confirmation of the disgust many of us already held for it's misuse, the birth of skepticism on the part of many of Obama's erstwhile supporters, and reaffirmation for those (including Obama himself) who already view him as a messianic figure in world history.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

Yeah we need big thinkers in government, men of action, like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Franco, Kim Il-sung…

http://azmattressoutlet.com mesa mattress

good point, the american left is so strangely reverant of people like mao, it's kind of a scary thing.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"And so the Nobel committee gave him “street cred” – an advance of moral capital …"

The problem with this argument is as follows.

Those of us who watched with dismay when the Nobel Peace Prize Committee awarded Carter, Arafat, and Gore do not see any "street cred" left in the prize. We see Obama's award as yet another underhanded political move by the committee (in defiance of Nobel's dying wishes) and Obama's acceptance as yet another sign of his overweening ego.

Those who were not dismayed by the Nobel committee's prior idiocy are already caught up in Obama adulation. They needed no further "street cred" to support him.

Therefore the prize accomplished nothing beyond confirmation of the disgust many of us already held for its misuse, the birth of skepticism on the part of many of Obama's erstwhile supporters, and reaffirmation for those (including Obama himself) who already view him as a messianic figure in world history.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"And so the Nobel committee gave him “street cred” – an advance of moral capital …"

The problem with this argument is as follows.

Those of us who watched with dismay when the Nobel Peace Prize Committee awarded Carter, Arafat, and Gore do not see any "street cred" left in the prize. We see Obama's award as yet another underhanded political move by the committee (in defiance of Nobel's dying wishes) and Obama's acceptance as yet another sign of his overweening ego.

Those who were not dismayed by the Nobel committee's prior idiocy are already caught up in Obama adulation. They needed no further "street cred" to support him.

Therefore the prize accomplished nothing beyond confirmation of the disgust many of us already held for its misuse, the birth of skepticism on the part of many of Obama's erstwhile supporters, and reaffirmation for those (including Obama himself) who already view him as a messianic figure in world history. It has contributed nothing positive, but rather accentuated the polarization now dominant in world politics.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"And so the Nobel committee gave him “street cred” – an advance of moral capital …"

The problem with this argument is as follows.

Those of us who watched with dismay when the Nobel Peace Prize Committee honoured Carter, Arafat, and Gore do not see any "street cred" left in the prize. We see Obama's award as yet another underhanded political move by the committee (in defiance of Nobel's dying wishes) and Obama's acceptance as yet another sign of his overweening ego.

Those who were not dismayed by the Nobel committee's prior idiocy are already caught up in Obama adulation. They needed no further "street cred" to support him.

Therefore the prize accomplished nothing beyond confirmation of the disgust many of us already held for its misuse, the birth of skepticism on the part of many of Obama's erstwhile supporters, and reaffirmation for those (including Obama himself) who already view him as a messianic figure in world history. It has contributed nothing positive, but rather accentuated the polarization now dominant in world politics.
jarrid

"That choice is now his."

I'm not so sure. Chantal Hebert on her blog yesterday said that many Liberal MP's are presently contemplating a Plan B who's name is Bob Rae. This is being talked about by everyone in the press although here at Blog Central it's like there appears to be some kind of informal gag order in place. No one here has posted about it or is talking about it. But it's out there. Iggy is very vulnerable at the moment. Indeed, he has never been more vulnerable than now.

knick

OK, I give up. I've tried to find Hebert's blog from yesterday in which she says that many Liberal MPs are presently contemplating a Plan B whose name is Bob Rae without success. Are there any links anywhere to anyone in the press talking about this? Thanks.

jarrid

I'm going to have to learn how to link. But if you google "le blogue de Chantal Hebert" you'll get it, but it is in French. A recent column by Vincent Marrissal's column in La Presse and there are some other ones in English but I don't remember them off hand.

Out There

The Conservatives would like nothing better than to see Rae as the leader of the Liberals.

While Rae might make a better prime minister than Ignatieff, he is absolutely unelectable in Ontario – which is where the Tories are hoping to pick up seats to obtain their long-sought-after majority.

I shudder to think what the anti-Rae attack ads would look like.

http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

Ughh….I just threw up a little bit on my mouth ….
http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

Wherry, why do you keep citing Pearson as though he's some sort of post-partisan deep thinker, and not just another extremely party-line backbencher who happens to have the time to blog?
http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

I never thought I would say this in a million years….rather see Rae as the leader!
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

Wherry, why do you keep citing Pearson as though he's some sort of post-partisan deep thinker, and not just another party-line backbencher who happens to have the time to blog? I mean, even Garth Turner is typically more interesting (albeit not for the reasons he intends).
http://intensedebate.com/people/psiclone psiclone

hey don't forget the roots of the big thinkers with grand visions like Alexander The Great, Genghis Khan, All Hail Ceasar etc etc etc ….
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

This might just be the single dumbest thing I've ever read on the internet. Congratulations!
michael

‘Cuz it’s really worked so far.
Dakota

Wow, a Liberal hack that thinks Ignatieff is great! What next? A Liberal that likes taxing and spending?
Boethius

Yeah, because Harper had anything at all to do with Canada's performance. Here I was thinking that ordinary Canadians keeping their heads down, working hard, etc. was the reason. Oh, and the banking system being the best in the world, despite Harper's previous attempts to ruin it. Don't forget that as well!
Michael

Or a Conservative that likes borrowing and spending.
http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"Politics is desperately in need of game-changers – leaders who go for the impossible as opposed to the prudent"

I don't know how many ways I find this thought to be stupid but here's two main ones:

1) Traditionally 'game changers' bring death and destruction with them. Incremental change is the way to go.
2) Why would I want my leader to focus on things that are impossible. I can certainly think of many ways I would rather our PM spends his time than coming up with cockamamy ideas that are unachievable.

And how do you transcend politics, exactly, when you are a pol?
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Glib moment: I thought that role was well-played by the NDP? *ducks and runs for cover*

Seriously, though: it's one thing to put policy over politics, it's quite another to shove prudence to the wind. With all this budgetary spending and no real way for Canadians to know how much and where it's being spent, I would think that's where we are now.