Opinion

Reading Michael Ignatieff

Whether writing on Iraq, Rwanda or Kosovo, the central character is himself.

By Richard Warnica, 27 Nov 2006, TheTyee.ca

Michael Ignatieff

Ignatieff: Witness to horrors.

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

In a professional career spanning many decades, Michael Ignatieff has been many things to many people: teacher, writer, philosopher and now politician. But in interviews, when Ignatieff describes himself, it is often his work as a journalist that he returns to. It's not surprising. In a 30-year career as reviewer, reporter, essayist and commentator, Ignatieff established himself as one of the most prolific highbrow writers of his generation. Ignatieff has written well over 100 long features of one form or another for non-academic journals since 1976. Their scope and range is remarkably wide. But read together they tell a single story, the story of Michael Ignatieff.

The final chapter of the Ignatieff opus began last year when he jumped from Harvard University to the world of Canadian politics. So far it's been equal parts tragedy, comedy and drama as the lifelong public intellectual has struggled to adapt to the less measured world of politics. We'll know one way or the other whether that story will continue after this weekend's Liberal Leadership Convention. But until then, it's worth examining how Ignatieff has written his own story up till now.

Early arguments

After a brief affair with journalism as an undergraduate -- he interned at The Globe and Mail while at the University of Toronto -- Ignatieff largely abandoned popular writing until he finished his doctorate in 1976. That year, Ignatieff began a long, intermittent tenure as a book reviewer for the American left-ish magazine, The New Republic. Ignatieff's early reviews dissected topics that would consume much of his intellectual real estate for the next three decades. Books on power, punishment and Liberalism all passed through the young intellectual's grinder. His early work reveals a man still creating an intellectual identity, and one struggling to find a voice to express it. In years to follow, that voice would lurch between the blocky prose of a Harvard trained academic and the lyrical flow of a Booker Prize nominated novelist, without ever seeming to find a comfortable middle ground.

Ignatieff's first review, of conservative philosopher Ernest van den Haag's Punishing Criminals, appeared in the May 22, 1976 issue of The New Republic. At the time, Ignatieff had begun work on what would become his first book, a history of jail in the industrial revolution entitled A Just Measure of Pain. In the review, Ignatieff steps gingerly around van den Haag's ideas. He recognizes that Punishing Criminals is a serious work. But at the same time he disagrees with all its central points.

There are two things worth noting about the way Ignatieff dissents in the review. They're notable because both occur and reoccur throughout his career. The first is the way that, even as a fledgling writer, Ignatieff took pains to distinguish himself and his ideas from the common crowd.

"All of this is stern medicine," Ignatieff writes of van den Haag's proscriptions for lower crime -- which included indefinite detention for violent offenders and the reinstitution of the death penalty. "He is sure to be attacked by those who believe that punishment does not reduce crime, but I am not sure that this is the best line of argument to take against him."

Ignatieff's first instinct, then, is not to lay down his argument, but to separate it from the obvious. I disagree, he seems to say, but it's not what you think.

It might be a little much to read into that passage a foreshadowing of Ignatieff's later contrarian instincts. But when you consider the defining moments of the man's career -- breaking with his friends to support Thatcher in the coal miner's strike of 1984; supporting the NATO campaign in Kosovo; risking his credibility on the invasion of Iraq; and publicly musing on the efficacy of coercive interrogation -- it seems almost prophetic.

Caveats enter

Ignatieff, even in 1976, was not one to wrap himself in assumed truths. Even if those assumed truths were, in fact, demonstrably true.

When Ignatieff reaches a conclusion in the van den Haag review, he wraps it in caveats, another recurring feature of his writing, and one that led him to some trouble when he took on torture in post 9-11 America.

"If you believe order is the paramount value, and if you believe order is under attack from all sides, as [van den Haag] does, you might well support measures to forcibly detain those who have already paid the formal penalties of law," Ignatieff writes. "On the other hand, if you believe that it is more important for a society to be just than to be orderly, you would probably let the 'dangerous' go and take the chance that they will do harm again.

Ignatieff goes on to say that he sides with justice, even if he is bothered by the idea of letting the dangerous go. But his wishy-washy 'if this then that' path to conclusion is hardly the most convincing one available. And it was that same over-judicious weighing of both sides, in a 2006 essay entitled "If Torture Works" that led many to believe Ignatieff endorsed the practice.

By the late eighties Ignatieff was writing extensively on topics ranging from the origins of Liberalism, to the limits of state power and his own family's history in Russia. His work appeared in most major English language magazines in England and the United States. The New Yorker, the New York Times Magazine, the New York Review of Books, Harper's Time and Granta all published his writing. But it wasn't until the early 1990s and the ethnic strife bred by the collapse of the Soviet Union that the next phase of Ignatieff's journalism really took off.

Up until that point, Ignatieff had been mostly a book reviewer and commentator. But sometime around the first Gulf War, he became something else entirely: a reporter. It was his reportage, from human disasters such as Kurdish Northern Iraq, post-Yugoslav Bosnia and Kosovo and Northern Ireland, that formed the backbone of his three-part book series on nationalism and human rights. Today, Ignatieff's on-the-ground experience of mass slaughter remains his default excuse for supporting the Iraq war. "I made a decision to stand with the Kurds," he has said more than once. "And I stand with them today."

Ignatieff begins with I

Something else changed when Ignatieff transitioned from reviewer to reporter. More and more he began to write himself into his own work. As the '90s progressed, the main character in more and more of Michael Ignatieff's work became Michael Ignatieff.

Consider this passage from a 1993 essay in the British Literary journal Granta. In it, Ignatieff recalls his childhood experience as the son of the Canadian ambassador to Tito's Yugoslavia:

I had no idea how complicated and ambiguous the division between national and Yugoslav identity actually was. I knew that Method, my tennis coach in Bled, always called himself, first and foremost, a Slovenian. I dimly remembered him saying bitterly that he hated serving in the Yugoslav National Army, because both he and his brother were ragged by the Serbs for being Slovenian.

Was that the only time I saw the cracks that were to become fissures? Everywhere else, I remember people who told me, happily that they were Yugoslavs. In retrospect, I was there at the most hopeful moment.

Or this one from a New Yorker article on Richard Holbrooke, the American special envoy to Yugoslavia in the run-up to the NATO bombing of Kosovo

This, I was being encouraged to believe, was how American diplomacy was carried out; at least when Holbrooke was in charge: on the run, in the street, between a visit to a jewelry store and a meal in a taverna. Diplomacy was not like chess, Holbrooke told me; it was more like jazz¬ -- a constant improvisation on a theme. He had invited me along to watch the performance.

Personal pronouns litter his work. And while, individually, each story is separate, in topic, in quality, in method, taken on the whole, his journalism from this period has a unifying narrative: it is Michael Ignatieff telling the story of Michael Ignatieff as he sees and is changed by some of the worst things humans did to one another in the late 20th century.

The final phase of Michael Ignatieff as journalist, (assuming he is now, somewhat permanently, a politician) grew out of these experiences.

The Great Equivocator?

The late 1980s and early 1990s calcified much of Ignatieff's personal philosophy. The failure of Western states to prevent and arrest violence in Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia took its toll on the now well-known writer. They built in him a conviction that traditional peacekeeping had lost its way. And an equally strong belief that something new, something more muscular, would have to take its place.

It was from this environment that Ignatieff's most famous, and infamous, journalism appeared. In a series of articles, mostly in the New York Times Magazine and The Guardian, Ignatieff came out strongly in favour of invasions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a different Ignatieff that emerged in these articles, both from the globe-trotting reporter of the 1990s and the cerebral reviewer of the seventies and eighties: an Ignatieff calling for clear, precise action and vigorously defending those choices. In retrospect, it should have come as no surprise that it was this Ignatieff who leapt to the world of politics.

At the same time, though, the old Ignatieff was still clearly there. Ignatieff, even when convinced he had the right answer, couldn't help arguing the other side. Consider this passage, from an article supporting the Iraq invasion, published in The Guardian in 2003:

Who wants to live in a world where there are no stable rules for the use of force by states? Not me. Who wants to live in a world ruled by the military power of the strong? Not me. How will we oblige American military hegemony to pay "decent respect to the opinions of mankind?" I don't know. When the smoke of battle lifts, those who support the war will survey a battle zone that will include the ruins of the multilateral political order created in 1945.

Equivocating is not a habit that has served Ignatieff well as a politician. Since entering politics he has seemed muddled on policies domestic and foreign. But Liberals can hardly argue that he didn't warn them. After all he's been doing it for years, and the evidence, in hundreds of articles and a good many books, is all available at your local library.

Related Tyee articles:

[Tyee]

Richard Warnica is a senior editor of The Tyee. Read his previous articles here.

77 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • apollyon

    5 years ago

    Comments on "Reading Michael Ignatieff"

    A good piece. I've heard the criticism before from fellow academics that say Ignatieff writes himself into all his articles and books. This is a confirmation of that fact.

    I'm afraid I can't support the man. Although I can hardly blame him for demonstrating two sides of a problem. It seems right and left prefer someone whose a dogmatist in whatever stand they take.

  • murdock

    5 years ago

    Like any shallow self-promoter, he will win the hearts and minds of LIEberals, this will do him well in the cutthroat world of 'national' party poli-ticks.

    Since Mr. Dithers did his coup on Darth Cretinous, the real opponent to any LIEberal leader is the rest of the party...led by the 2nd fiddle.

    If, Iggy wins watch the look in the eyes of the 'loosers' on the final ballot...the one that looks hungry is the new 2nd fiddle (no matter whether they are smiling or not).

    As for, the Canada, lets hope we can all pull-off another 'minority' parliament for whichever party, since neither of the 'main contenders' looks any different any more...

  • Tom Lal

    5 years ago

    There is no doubt that Michael Ignatieff is a brilliant man. There is no doubt that he has in a lifetime accomplished many things. But equally there is no doubt that this man is not the person to lead Canada either from opposition of as Leader of our country. His time spent here has at best been minimal. He has little first hand knowledge of life on a day to day basis as a Canadian. The difference between him and Trudeau for instance is that Trudeau traveled the world as a young man always returning to Canada. . Michael Ignatieff on the other hand made choices to be elsewhere. Its not that there is anything wrong with that, however it does cause one to question his ability to lead. Does he for instance wish to lead this country for his own personal fulfillment or for the good of our nation. These are important times for us as a nation. Quebec continues to teeter on leaving, First Nations wish to stand up and be counted. International events continue to challenge us to identify our place and role on the world stage. In order to deal with these and other issues I feel we need a home grown, Canadian who knows our intricate parts and who feels Canadian. Not some pseudo intellectual who sees himself as our new savior. Descended from on high to lead us to the promise land. What Canada needs at this juncture is a Man or Woman who knows us. One who feels Canada in their veins, and who lives and breathes Canada. Someone who has been here through two referendums. The stand off at Oka etc. In my opinion that person is not Michael Ignatieff..

  • G West

    5 years ago

    I've always been more troubled by Ignatieff's personal failings, the way he treated his brother at Upper Canada College, the thoughtlessness toward his whole family around his using them as characters in works of semi-autobiographical fiction, the way he dumped his first wife and deserted numerous friends and colleagues as his 'life' unfolded. The man sees himself as a master of the universe to whom the rules don't apply. In my view.

    We don't have a presidential form of government in Canada so Ignatieff's philosophical and academic baggage aren't so important to me. But we do need a man, or woman, leading this country who has a good character and a strong sense of personal morality and integrity. I don't think Ignatieff fits the bill - based upon what I've learned about his 'personal' life. In fact, the sense that we’ve often, of late, had leaders who don’t fit that bill is one main reason why Stephen Harper was able to wrest the Prime Ministership from Paul Martin’s hands.

    According to that measure, another alternative would be preferable. Since the choice has nothing to do with me, I hope the 'Liberals' choose to send Ignatieff back to academia where he so clearly belongs.

  • freebear

    5 years ago

    I agree with G West who said:

    "According to that measure, another alternative would be preferable. Since the choice has nothing to do with me, I hope the 'Liberals' choose to send Ignatieff back to academia where he so clearly belongs."

    Sure everyone has a choice to leave Canada for whaterver their reasons are, but do not expect to return in 30 years and run for Federal Party Leadership and a seat in the House of Commons!

    How much of a sense of place and sense of Canadians would he have not having lived in Canada for 30 years!

  • anarcho

    5 years ago

    I always felt the guy was a light-weight and a self-promoter. This article only confirms it.

  • murdock

    5 years ago

    With agreement about:

    Quote:
    Since the choice has nothing to do with me, I hope the 'Liberals' choose to send Ignatieff back to academia where he so clearly belongs.

    and

    Quote:
    How much of a sense of place and sense of Canadians would he have not having lived in Canada for 30 years!

    Why then, G West and freebear, do we not protest more the current choice for HEAD OF STATE! The Governor General of Canada from Haiti?!?

    With a GG like that why not a PM that has not lived here for 30 Years.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    I guess, Murdock, because I don't feel troubled either by Ignatieff's sojourn outside this country, or the fact that Michaëlle Jean was born in another country or, as the wife of a French citizen, she also held (for a time) dual French/Canadian citizenship.

    I'm completely sanguine about accepting both of these people as fully-fledged Canadians and I think they are every bit as appropriate for the jobs they have, or the jobs they aspire to, as any other Canadian might be.

    My problem with Ignatieff is, clearly, what I explained above.

    On the other hand, I will be more than happy when some future government decides we no longer need to pay homage to the titular head of state of what's left of 'Great Britain'

  • BC Mary

    5 years ago

    Here's my theory. Ready, Trolls?

    Humans, in my opinion, are able to read other humans (or dogs, or bears, whatever), for risk assessment.

    I think that humans possess an innate sense of danger which (if they've learned to trust the signals) enables them to steer clear of anyone who poses a threat to their safety or wellbeing.

    Test it by looking into the eyes of George W. Bush or O.J. Simpson. Come on, don't tell me you felt nothing.

    Now look at Michael Ignatieff's eyes. Got it?

  • alive

    5 years ago

    Maybe Iggy should run in the states?
    We surely do not need him here!

  • maestro

    5 years ago

    Interesting re: " the innate sense of danger " etc. comments...

    Thus , in theory, in seemless consistency , one should give oneself free license to create a blog about a pending trial and hang em' high " pre-trial " ?

    That , in theory, reduces the need for "risk assessment", one form of justice via a societal message to any/all others allegedly so pre-disposed otherwise...excluding the mistrial potential .

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Hang whom high maestro? What exactly are you talking about?

  • Just me

    5 years ago

    I won't be voting for Michael Ignatieff, but my reasons have nothing to do with his mooted wishy-washiness. In fact, his most appealing characteristic is an ability to see that there are many sides to an argument. If only zealots such as Stephen Harper and his "daddy," George W. Bush, recognized as much.

    Nor does it bother me that when Ignatieff writes he puts himself, and his interior processes, into the story. Has no one here heard of New Journalism, the transparently subjective narrative practised by the likes of Norman Mailer, Truman Capote, Helen Lawrenson and Hunter S. Thompson? One of the key failings of "objective" journalism is that it so often speaks - falsely - as if it had the eye of God. Who, for instance, is Richard Warnica, who is so absent from his own reporting?

    Ignatieff's record, working back from his support for the Iraq invasion, is enough to stop me from voting for his party. But it gave me pause when he accused Israel of war crimes, which was obvious but which no other candidate would dare say, even though Ignatieff then had to contend with the usual preemptive outrage staged by the Israel lobby within the Liberal party. And, again, Ignatieff's defence of Quebec as a nation is the kind of long-overdue common sense no one would admit to till he broke the silence.

    It is our folly that we want simple politicians who present themselves to us as if fully formed, not as capable of evolution in their thinking. Most of what writers here find unappealing in Ignatieff is exactly what I find appealing. It is not how he thinks but what he thinks. I've stated there are topics on which I applaud his positions. But on the larger question of expanding the use of coercive power to do "good" - through invasions and torture - he has embraced an ugly expediency that, having failed anyway, we know to be the wrong answer.

  • nightbloom

    5 years ago

    Ignatieff has already proven his talent for generating liabilities for himself and everyone else (and he's not even a party leader yet, let alone an elected one). Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole reason Parliament now has to debate passing a motion on Quebec's "nationhood" is because Ignatieff couldn't resist making a headline when he felt the spotlight touch his smug face.

  • maestro

    5 years ago

    Alci:

    Please refrain from use of your personal tracking satellite...its Lunch Time.

    What part of " you don't get it " don't you get ?

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    I don't GET any of this---->

    Quote:
    Interesting re: " the innate sense of danger " etc. comments...

    Thus , in theory, in seemless consistency , one should give oneself free license to create a blog about a pending trial and hang em' high " pre-trial " ?

    That , in theory, reduces the need for "risk assessment", one form of justice via a societal message to any/all others allegedly so pre-disposed otherwise...excluding the mistrial potential .

    Pls Clarify

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    nightbloom,
    you haven't been paying attention. You need to read Chantal Hebert a lot more assiduously. This Quebec thing was an Ignatieff 'liability' vis a vis the rest of Canada until our DEAR LEADER decided that he was in danger of losing the tiny foothold his party had gained in P.Q. in the January election.

    Check out Chantal. The columns are all still up on the Star Website. go --> Toronto star/columnists/Chantal Hebert/ for regular service and read the last half-dozen pieces.

    My view anyway.

  • BC Mary

    5 years ago

    dear maestro,

    take a deep breath. now let's begin again. The topic is Michael Ignatieff ... and the question is: do we trust him with the keys to our country?

    Michael Ignatieff. OK? And I described my personal belief that humans can detect danger in "others", be they snakes, bears, or humans. OK? Then I suggested you test my theory on Michael Ignatieff. OK?

    You don't absorb information very well, do you, maestro.

    And BTW, it's nice to know who the "Anonymous" commentor is, on The Legislature Raids, who make that phony "hang 'em high" piece of unfounded rudeness.

  • BC Mary

    5 years ago


    Tories see Rae as a 'formidable' opponent

    The Conservatives see a Liberal party led by Bob Rae as the toughest scenario they could face in the next federal election, but senior government officials and party members say they hope that Michael Ignatieff, who is considered a gaffe-prone, rookie politician, will ultimately win the hard-fought contest this week.

    [Just in from Canada.com]

  • nightbloom

    5 years ago

    ...and not to be outdone, a bright idea breaks over the land from the West Coast...

    Quote:
    British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell is calling on Ottawa to extend the same acknowledgment of Quebeckers as a nation within Canada to the country's aboriginal peoples, opening another front in the fractious debate.

    In an article he wrote that was released to some media organizations, Mr. Campbell praised Prime Minister Stephen Harper for moving to recognize the uniqueness of Quebeckers within Canada. But he said there is a "third solitude" out there that now needs to be given the same honour.

    "Indeed, I would urge the Prime Minister to work with aboriginal leaders to develop a similar motion that offers a positive affirmation of Canada's three founding nations -- French, English and aboriginal alike," he wrote, under the heading Setting A More United Canada in Motion.

    Mr. Campbell, who in recent years has championed a new government-to-government relationship with first nations in B.C., said he could understand why aboriginal people might feel "confusion, frustration and disappointment," at not being included in the Quebec motion.

    That omission should be put right by Parliament, he said.

    "Canada's first nations, Métis and Inuit people should not be further marginalized by dint of this effort to unite Canada, which leaves them noticeably out of the picture," Mr. Campbell said.

    "It is high time we formally acknowledged Canada's 'third solitude' -- the aboriginal peoples of Canada. We should do that formally, proudly and emphatically in a similar resolution that embraces our heritage as a nation of many nations."

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061127.NATIONCAMPBELL27/TPStory/National

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Nightbloom.
    Ah yes, Premier Campbell will do and suggest practically anything to keep the public's attention from what he's been up to in this province - behind closed doors and involving a string of broken promises and sell-outs longer than the chain which hampered the movements in the netherworld of Jacob Marley (to inject a seasonal note).. And it has nothing whatever to do with Michael Ignatieff or First Nations. Although there are other characters in this drama who are worthy of Charles Dickens.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    And now Michael Chong has resigned over the issue - definitely a unifying gesture I'd say!!!!

  • Nana

    5 years ago

    I have a feeling that we just got delivered a piece of dis-info through canada.com(remember the Aspers!)

    I think rather than Ray, Dion is the man to beat...if he gets the Leadership this weekend.

    Ray is what's called an "upwardly mobile failure".

    I want someone who not only knows what he's doing and what means what, but whose instincts are to fact check.
    http://thetyee.ca/Books/2006/10/12/StephaneDion/

    I wager that most of us are tired of being jerked about, and Ray's performance in Ontario is a big factor working against him. Also, my gut tells me not to trust him or the NDP because they are going along with the NAU agenda although there are good people in the party.

    Dion's biggest drawback is his accent, which I'm told is more France than Quebec. I will try to atune my ears to both his accent and his attitudes...I don't know what his attitude is to the NAU, but David(Diogenes) Orchard is backing him.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    The spectacle of having pee wee Rambo carrying the freight for a 'national reconciliation' in this country - after having been involved through his friend Ted Morton with the 'provincial firewall' letter is redolent of a degree of irony worthy of some particular notice.

    I'd suggest a certain Tyee editor, with his well-known affection for the literary device, would want to make some observations of his own. I'll be waiting David.

    Go get 'em.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    And don't forget to trace the connections between Michael Chong and Garth Turner. There is something going on there too.

    Nana, I like Dion too. But, he hasn't a hope and Rae gets way too much stick for what happened in Ontario while he was premier.

    The BQ has very successfully whip-sawed this issue back to the top of the political agenda - whether or not M. Harper has the jam to handle what he's now unleashed is the next question. I doubt it. In the end it's going to play to the advantage of the Federal Liberals, in my view.

    I think it's time for another quick trip to Afghanistan.

  • maestro

    5 years ago

    See Alci:

    Patience is a virtue...

    While I waited for the predicted result, I helped shovel snow at a seniors' residence.

    It finally came full circle...the shoe fit.....(the foot that is, not just the mouth).

    PS Keep THIS post handy for NEXT time.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Just stop chewing on my shoe!

  • maestro

    5 years ago

    Alci...

    Just so you know...it wasn't your shoe , if ya catch my drift.

  • freebear

    5 years ago

    Murdock noted my point and responded with:

    "Why then, G West and freebear, do we not protest more the current choice for HEAD OF STATE! The Governor General of Canada from Haiti?!?"

    You missed my point; Ignatieff has not been living in Canada (according to media reports) for the last 30 years.

    GG Michele Jean has been living in Canada for a number of years (I do not know exactly how long).

    All I am saying; for the Liberals (feds) to pick Ignatieff would be a mistake because he has not experienced life (allbeit it would have likely been a 'priveledged one') in Canada for the last 30 years.

    Besides, the GG also brings her refugee/immigrant experiences to her position. I have no issue with her being GG.

    I think they should pick Bob Rae, if only to take some votes from the Conservatives in the next election, but I wager whoever the Liberals choose he/she will be a lame duck leader (as John Turner was). The hope, if any, will be the cleaning up of the Liberal Party of Canada by whoever they choose to be leader.

    The Race for Leader and P.M will be the next Liberal Leadership race; provided they clean up their 'house' beforehand.

  • freebear

    5 years ago

    As Gregory D. Morrow on the blog Democratic Space noted:

    "a new Liberalism based on principle and real renewal. Kennedy is the only candidate that understands what the new Liberalism is about — mobilizing the grassroots and empowering individuals — and he’s the only candidate that has commited to reduce the power of the Leader (and ultimately, the Prime Minister) in order to achieve that individual empowerment. This marks a contrast with the kind of “renewal” offered by Ignatieff and Rae — that is, a re-play of old battles. Liberal delegates must choose which direction they want for their party, and for their country."

    I see it the same way, see my previous posting.

    It will also be interesting to see the Windsor by-election results this evening; how did the Greens do?

  • TimL

    5 years ago

    Dion & Dinning, the Nuclear candidates: Bringing nuclear power to the West.

    According to the excerpts below, Dion says he would only support it if there is a "solution" to nuclear waste, but there is little doubt that he is fully aware of the results of the three year indusry-led inquiry by Canada's Nuclear Waste Management Organisation and that their "solution" would suffice for him (i.e. bury it: out of site, out of mind).

    If Dion has indeed already made up his mind, he wouldn't say that during the election. But fellow Chretien-ite John Manley's words might be indicative of Dion's currently hidden position: "While safe long-term disposal of spent fuel is vital, there is a cooperative process under way between the federal and provincial governments to ensure this will be done." (source: OPG Review Committee, 2004, by John Manley and others)
    _________________

    FORT MCMURRAY (CP) - Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion says he's open to the idea of using nuclear energy as a source of power for Alberta's booming oilsands.

    Dion, who was in Fort McMurray on Sunday drumming up support for his leadership bid, said he'd like to hear more about the nuclear idea, particularly on the issue of safe options for nuclear waste disposal.

    "I'm always concerned about what do we do with the nuclear waste," said Dion, who is a former Liberal environment minister.

    Last week, Alberta Tory leadership candidate Jim Dinning told a candidates' forum that nuclear power must be an option in the oilsands.

    Dion said he will work with Dinning if they both win. But he said he will not proceed with nuclear power unless there is a "strong solution" in place.

    "If I succeed in becoming the leader of my party and subsequently the prime minister of Canada, Alberta will have the best partner it can find."

  • steerpike

    5 years ago

    Its sad that so many of these guys start out as thoughtful, knowledgeable people with new ways of looking at the world...

    then at some point they turn into brain-dead corporate hacks like Ignatieff.

  • alive

    5 years ago

    I hear it repeated that Iggy sees things from both sides, and that supposedly is a good thing?
    One could also say he is sitting on the fence?
    I would prefer a candidate who states up front what he aims to do, bafflegab cuts no ice with me!

  • The brain

    5 years ago

    Something about Icky Iggy gives me the creeps. Not sure if its got anything to do with the teacher who got busted for sexing up his students. Maybe its Iggy's posture combined with his full on eyebrows that only Russians can grow... but somethings most definitely "off" with him.

    He's egocentric. His words are ultimately written with this in mind. Here is a man who projects and prides himself on being able to see all views and perspectives from all angles and in the end, as it comes through in his writings, it is ultimately his "own" view that he is found most proud of.

    And some of those views are very... questionable.

    I'm with the 5 senses with this one as well, BC Mary. The guy simply gives me the creeps.

  • Worrywart

    5 years ago

    I agree with the brain as the man also gives me the creeps.
    Furthermore, he has supported wars that history has shown were predicated on falsified data and the MSM's ongoing propensity to shove history down a rathole. This false data and media propoganda were and are seen through by many, however individuals such as Iggy choose to ignore much of history and in return are put forward by big money as "the front runner".
    Finally, any political figure that supports and suppress's information on the North American Union is treasonous.

  • murdock

    5 years ago

    freebear:

    Quote:
    The Race for Leader and P.M will be the next Liberal Leadership race; provided they clean up their 'house' beforehand.

    Thus the reason why I posted the need to watch for the 2nd fiddle...

  • satyricon

    5 years ago

    I have always voted NDP, but I will vote liberal if Iggy leads them. The very fact that he has been outside of Canada means he has not been part of the old-boy liberal circuit. Have any of you read his material? Some of it is truly enlightening. His reasons for going into Iraq have been misconstrued. Iggy has time and time again advocated for a strong and assertive, militarily if necessary, stand on Human Rights. Any one who throws traditional ideas about left/right stances on the military out the window, and advocates using it under the banner of Human Rights has my vote. How many more years are we going to sit by apathetically as another Congo or Darfur or Rawanda scar the dignity we claim to possess? His very muddling nature comes from operating in an intellectual environment which has no specific left/right rigidities and, hence, easy talking points and soundbites. Maybe someone who is practiced in reaching across political traditions for the sake of coming closer to the actual reality can help us navigate through the briar patch.
    Iggy has my vote.

  • satyricon

    5 years ago

    Also, "Just Me", I agree with you entirely. However, have you read Romeo Delaire's book about Rawanda (Shaking Hands with the Devil)? Have you listened to testimony from UN commanders serving in Africa? Iraq may have not worked, couldn't have worked, what was the logic behind the invasion? What was the its effects on the ground? However, UN missions in Africa do work, and are working currently. The only thing lacking are resources, which in turn need political will. We need someone who is willing to get their hands dirty, but for the interests of Human Rights, not nationalistic priorities. Iggy has talked much about this, though left/right biases seem to want to pull his argument one way or the other instead of thinking about what he is saying.

  • IAMC

    5 years ago

    Harper has maneuvered himself into both the Federal Leadership race but as well the Alberta PC race. This guy is a brilliant politician.
    By this nothing Nationhood for Quebecois promotion, he has thrown a life line to Iggy as well as Morton in Alberta.
    Morton is trying to justify the " firewall " thing and Harper just threw him a way to legitimise this view.
    By helping out Iggy, he has set up a scenario, where he can concentrate on strategies for the next election.
    No matter who the next Liberal leader will be, Harper has no fear. He has clouded the landscape so much, he has left his oppositions head spinning.
    This guy doesn't play by the same dumb strategies of past politicians. He goes for it. He uses his brain to run at a far higher speed than his enemies.
    I am really enjoying this New Government of Canada.
    I hope I enjoy the New Government of Alberta.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    I'm sorry satyricon, but unless you think Canada has pretensions to overtake the US’s role as nominal leader of the world, what exactly do you see as the positive outcome of a human-rights based military option for this country? Given the fact that the rising international strength of China is based in a ruling party whose concerns for human rights is smaller than George Bush’s will always eclipse ours – to mention just one obvious example, where do you see Canada being able to apply it’s new found commitment to the rights of others? Israel? Iran? Syria? Sudan?

    We've already seen how compromised and ill-considered an effort to bring democracy and human rights at the point of a gun actually is in practice.

    Moreover, I have read his stuff. What in the world leads you believe that Ignatieff's efforts are anything more than academic musings and journalistic wishful thinking?

    Canada was much more helpful and supportive of human rights when our main emphasis was on promoting an independent (from the Americans) dialogue and actually working to feed the hungry while it interposed our troops between warring parties rather than engaging in the warring ourselves.

    The concept of the warrior's honour is mostly about warriors and not very much about the people who actually need help building a decent society. In my view, your sanguine attitude about Ignatieff is unjustified on the basis of anything he's written. And, it’s putting far too much trust in a military option which almost always fails at the kind of projects you seem to support.

    Taken as a whole he's almost as confused and conflicted as his campaign for the leadership of the Liberal party has been.

    That being said, I suspect he'll still win because he has the support of party insiders. If he does, I hope he will be able to disregard and rise above much of the nonsense he wrote and promoted during his academic career - none of which appears to have prepared him well for the job of being Prime Minister of a very small and insignificant player on the international scene.

    And, I hope he’ll be a team player because, God knows, this country couldn’t stand another vainglorious idiot like Harper as Prime Minister.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    that 'it's' in the second last line of paragraph 1 should be 'its' - sorry!

  • aorangi

    5 years ago

    alcibiades, it shouldn't be 'its', it should be its!

  • aorangi

    5 years ago

    I've known in my long lifetime 5 highly-qualified academics who wrote lots of "stuff", and none of them would I ask to run a tea-party let alone a country. All of their personal lives are a veritable mess-up. Look at what the candidates have done, not what they've written or lectured on. Iggy is out, Bob is in.

  • The brain

    5 years ago

    Spoke a mouthful there, aorangi. I concur. But I'm just not a Rae fan. He's not my first pick. I'd like to see where Dion and Dryden and the king maker, whats his name, young Kennedy there... I'd like to see where these guy's are headed first before I make my mind up with Bob Rae.

    I think Rae is the most electable... just not the most qualified. He's got baggage. Deficit spending, two directorships, longtime NDP turned Liberal... I'm going going to kick a few more tires before I lay any money down. :-)

  • The brain

    5 years ago

    IMAC:
    Are you a Republican strategist that spends your days thinking in a tank about how the U.S. should best run Canada, and spend your nights cheerleading your troops onward to victory for our pleasure, at the Tyee?

    We already got their playbook.
    - own Alberta oil.
    - own Alberta economy.
    - own Alberta media.
    - plant Republican into Conservative party leadership of Canada.
    - own Canadian economy and resources.

    Somehow, when the bill on the environment comes due, I doubt that the Republican oil cartel will "own" up to that one.

  • dangrice.com

    5 years ago

    I don't have any problem with people speaking in the first person. I, like most of the readers here, do it all of the time :-)

  • pure

    5 years ago

    We need Bill Clinton to run this country. It is called the test of time.

  • The brain

    5 years ago

    We need someone who is willing to get their hands dirty, but for the interests of Human Rights, not nationalistic priorities. Iggy has talked much about this, though left/right biases seem to want to pull his argument one way or the other instead of thinking about what he is saying. - satyricon

    And I hope that the next PM of Canada see's fit to make Iggy a good foreign affairs minister for this country, he's just what we need! Haw!! lol :-) (and he might make a good choice for ambassador, too!)

  • The brain

    5 years ago

    Quote:
    Iggy has time and time again advocated for a strong and assertive, militarily if necessary, stand on Human Rights. - satyricon

    Yup, Iggies an advocate for peace... or else. Yup, Paul Martins corporate buddies are lining up to make buddies with his truly. Defense spending should go back to Chretien levels... not! Wuppie, more dead Canadians!

    Quote:
    Any one who throws traditional ideas about left/right stances on the military out the window, and advocates using it under the banner of Human Rights has my vote. - satyricon

    Lets see, that narrows down who one could vote for throughout history, there was Constantine, and then Napoleon... and then there was Hitler! They also threw any predispositioned left right stances on the military out the window and advocated military use under the banner of Human rights. But I think it was more along the lines of feeding their troops the oft told line, "it is our predispostioned place in human history to rule." Born into it, better than everyone else, that sort of thing.

    But seriously, if Iggy is for human rights, than Iggy would be less versed on the balancing act of polical controls and justice systems of a nation, and more versed on the prevention of the need for controls and justice to begin with, through education and enforcement. I don't expect Iggy to come up with anything we don't already know.

  • Peter Evanchuck

    5 years ago

    I think his nickname says a lot - IGGY now if one adds that other famous guy's name to it POP - we have IGGY POP and that's what I think Ignatief seems to wanna-be - a pop type of guy who like most pop entertainers wants to be a 'Pop Star' He belongs back in the USofA where he's really from.

  • Tom Lal

    5 years ago

    Lets all watch the convention this weekend and see Iggy go pop

  • anarcho

    5 years ago

    I would personally rather watch Iggy Pop go!

  • freebear

    5 years ago

    Of course its the Liberal Party of Canada brass and delegates that will decide. As a Party Member you have to place your trust that some Party delegate will choose the canadiate that you support, but there is no firm commitment-the delegate can choose any candidate!

    Why would I want to join any political party that does not allow me to make my choice for Party Leader?

    My guess is they will choose Bob Rae.

    But wwe will still end up with a minority government next election, unless PP Harper really goofs up.

  • George Kosinski

    5 years ago

    "I made a decision to stand with the Kurds," [Ignatieff] has said more than once. "And I stand with them today."

    As I see it, the great Michael Ignatieff is just another hypocrite whose primary goal is realizing the ambitions of Michael Ignatieff. The above statement is a good example. He claims to stand with the Kurds, and yet he has said absolutely nothing about the active collaboration of the U.S. in the slaughter of Kurds during the first Gulf War. Consider the following quote from the book, "War After War":

    The third phase of the conflict began
    immediately after the cease-fire, as Iraqi elite units, who had been largely spared by the U.S. attack,proceeded to slaughter first the Shi'ites of the South
    and then the Kurds of the North, with the tacit support of the Commander-in-Chief, who had called upon Iraqis to rebel when that suited U.S. purposes, then went fishing when the "iron fist" struck. Returning from a March 1991 fact-finding mission, Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff member Peter Galbraith
    reported that the Administration did not even respond to Saudi proposals to assist both Shi'ite and Kurdish rebels, and that the Iraqi military refrained from
    attacking the rebels until it had "a clear indication that the United States did not want the popular rebellion to succeed." A BBC investigation found that
    "several Iraqi generals made contact with the United States to sound out the likely American response if they took the highly dangerous step of planning a coup against Saddam," but received no support, concluding that "Washington had no interest in supporting revolution; that it would prefer Saddam Hussein to continue in office rather than see groups of unknown insurgents take power." An Iraqi general who escaped to Saudi Arabia told the BBC that "he and his men had
    repeatedly asked the American forces for weapons, ammunition and food to help them carry on the fight against Saddam's forces." Each request was refused. As his forces fell back toward U.S.-U.K. positions, the Americans blew up an Iraqi arms dump to prevent them from obtaining arms, and then "disarmed the rebels." Reporting from Northern Iraq, ABC
    correspondent Charles Glass described how "Republican Guards, supported by regular army brigades, mercilessly shelled Kurdish-held areas with Katyusha multiple rocket launchers, helicopter gunships, and heavy artillery," while journalists observing the slaughter listened to General Schwartzkopf boasting to his radio audience that "We had destroyed the
    Republican Guard as a militarily effective force" and eliminated the military use of helicopters.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Although Ignatieff's oft-quoted statement about solidarity with the Kurds represents one facet of a complicated man and his approach, it would be unwise to make too much of it.

    Here's something else he had to say about the Kurds. Which indicates, to me at least, that the man is not blindly adhering to a particular point of view or that his support of the Kurds is characterized by a lack of critical analysis.

    "....We require blameless victims, and when they fail to be sufficiently blameless, we cover our disillusion by holding them responsible. Why do we demand that victims be blameless? The Kurdish political factions continued to feud with one another inside the haven provided by American sir cover; when one group failed to get support from Washington, it turned to Baghdad, and the liberal interventionists who had supported their cause in 1991 then watched the edifying spectacle of Kurds leading Iraqi secret police agents to round up their Kurdish opponents within the enclave. Making alliances with the Kurdish people's worst enemy in order to settle scores within the Kurdish movement is certainly calculated to make Western friends of the Kurds proclaim, "A plague on all your houses." Ignatieff: The Warrior's Honour

    Despite whatever else one may say about him, and while I think his political naïveté is extreme, it would not be fair to say he is blind to nuance. Given the current prime minister's predilection for making decisions without even consulting the cabinet minister involved, it is at least arguable that Ignatieff would be less of a klutz than Harper.

    Faint praise, I know.

  • Avicenna

    5 years ago

    I concur with many of the asutue observations above (G West, Brain, freebear et al) who have sensed that a man who has to look so far outside of himself to find a moral compass - only to find one that points 4 different directions is hardly a good choice as a leader of a progressive nation. Ig-noramus's main schtick is that he doesn't need another for a dialogue, and he fails to hear the other in the room when someone else is talking. However, the greatest danger signal is how easy his own mind is changed by his own convenient hypocrisy - it would be much better if Ig made himself with the Hippocratic argument of first do no harm - then there is no need of delusions (of grandeur or otherwise) as things are greatly simplified.

  • maestro

    5 years ago

    Re Federal Liberals.

    Who cares ?

    The Federal Liberals should have looked in the mirror and observed the BC Provincial NDP tragic- comedy reflecting back .

    Both parties have plateaued and flatlined. Either(i) the majority of the voting public has finally had the epiphany of what the minority have realized all along...or (ii) the voting public are bored with the same old magic act and its' same old bag of tricks to sequester power.

    Now this same mirror is getting cracked more and more , the various "non-party unity" parties madly off in all directions. They should have seen it coming, but are often the last to realize it. Call it Hubris or whatever, but the Paul Martin vs Jean Chretien coup and collapse set this all in motion...but it was inevitable via the last of the old guard meets the young turks. Good-on-ya Jack Layton simply pulled the plug and closed the lid.

    Bob "IQ" Rae? Leopards don't change their spots...in politics red is the same as pink , ( give or take a billion dollars).

    Conclusion: No heir apparent, just a bunch of clowns.

  • The brain

    5 years ago

    Avicenna, you've read my brain. :-) He reminds me of the ultimate "flip flopper", if I can aptly borrow the Republican expression, somone seen as directionless, a leaf floating helplessly in a storm. Iggy is is his own best audience with his own words, combined with the attention span of a poodle when it comes to the words of others... hardly the prerequisites required to run the nation.

    Some look at Iggy and think, Harvard prof, avid traveller, journalist, writer, intellectual... and they hear him speak and wait for clarification.

    The rest of us hear Iggy speak and think, "What a poor communicator! He's either really confusing for no apparent reason, or he's really confused..." Hardly possessing the opinion of percieving Iggy as an "intellectual".

    His latest gaff was when Iggy and Co was celebrating Harpers proposed recognition of Quebec as a nation. They first claimed credit for putting it on the radar (as if the Bloc doesn't have it on their consciousness 24/7), and then take credit for the PM's move (of which is highly dangerous, now that the international community can recognize a percieved nation within Canada BY Canada paving the way for Quebecs separation to be recognized by the international community where it really counts), a move that was never needed. We know Harper is a western separatist. Is Iggy a federalist? Don't see one.

    Whether or not Iggy is an intellectual is highly debatable, but I'll offer this. Anyone with true intelligence needs to ask the question when pursuing leadership of a nation, "can I win?", no thats not it (another good question though), its "am I the best man for the job?" If he's the opportunist most Iggy supporters turn a blind eye to see, he would run. If he was the intellectual he self projects himself to be, he wouldn't have run.

    With a past record personal life such as his, I wouldn't have run, possibly even as an MP. He is either piss poor in self introspection, blinded to his own short comings for pursuit of "opportunity" and pride, or simply isn't all that smart. Or maybe smart and savy enough to get his Martin supporters on side to give him the best chance to win, meaning he's not dumb, but not an intellectual. Either way, there are better candidates running than Iggy both privately and publically. My view.

  • maestro

    5 years ago

    Good point "Brain"

    The Federal Liberals always thought " can I win " was the equivalent of " am I the best man for the job ? ", at least since P'Herr Trudeau.

    That created tunnel vision, inbreeding, and a major narcissitic complex. It cost Canada big time.

    They have disenfranchised the West, which will likely become the major economic force in Canada...which they should have seen coming,( except for the aforementioned reasons).

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    They took your vote away maestro, how awful!

  • Bobb999

    5 years ago

    A new poll (Strategic Counsel/Globe)
    challenges the conventional wisdom that Bob Rae is likely best positioned for gaining support from other candidates at the convention.

    Dion picks up steam in homestretch(Globe)
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061128.LIBSPOLL28/TPStory/Front

    "...the poll found that Mr. Dion is well ahead of Mr. Ignatieff in second-choice support, which will be critical once also-rans begin dropping off the ballot.

    The poll found that 23 per cent of delegates would pick Mr. Dion, while 13 per cent would choose Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Rae is the second choice of 10 per cent of delegates with Mr. Ignatieff at 6 per cent." …

    -And here I'd been thinking Rae likely had it close to sewn up, that delegates would flock to him after the 1st ballot.

    I still wonder that if Rae gives an impassioned speech that goes over better than others, maybe he can still pull it off.

  • The brain

    5 years ago

    I can't help but say it, Bobb999. This election race has me excited. Its a nailbiter cliffhanger PR buildup, cause thats exactly what it will be. I think more than ever now, after thinking about it carefully, it will come down to speeches. I think Iggies support has gone soft and will be evident after the second ballot. As well, I believe Rae's second choice support leans towards Dion as half of Rae's support base comes largely from Quebec.

    There are 8 leaders who want to see how many delegates voted for them. Each round, the lowest delegate will drop off and throw in their support for another delegate. Each round, the leadership hopefuls support will be tested for "firm" and "soft" support, including the endorsements of the drop out candidates.

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061127/liberals_poll_061127/20061127?hub=TopStories

    But after the first ballot, everything will change and the support that has the potential to be soft? Guess who.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/liberals/ignatieff.html

    Whats interesting to note is the difference in the second choice support over two months ago. A couple of months back, Rae had the second choice vote.
    Now its Dion. Iggies second choice support has all but collapsed. So, what's changed?

    Rae and Iggy have become polarizing candidates, I believe, over their behavior in the last 2 months and this has to help Dion, Kennedy and even my personal favorite, Ken Dryden, especially since Iggies support is concentrated there.

    And going down the list of who grows in numbers after that all important first ballot that delegates are only loyal to, the soft support moves around in the second ballot and indicators are that Iggy's support base is soft over the last 2 months of blunders. And, it won't go to Rae, so who picks them up? Dryden and Dion in Ontario, and Dion in Quebec, thus, the numbers reflect the change in second choice momentum for Dion. But in the end, I think, it will come down to speeches and convention energy.

    Somewhere in the last 2 months, Canadians Liberal and otherwise, have suggested a second look at Dion and Kennedy. I predict Iggy will lose 5 to 6% of his support from prior statements and positions held with Israel/Lebanon this year, among other blunders. Only a barnburning speech could save him. I don't expect it.

    As well, Dion should gain support with the issue of Quebec nationality popping up in the commons. But in the end, it will come down to speeches, soft support for Iggy, and endorsements from bumped candidates, particularly Ken Dryden and I believe it could easily go four rounds with Drydens 5% endorsement as becoming pivotal to whoever gets it. Brison's support combined with Volpe's could also influence the tides of change. Mary has pledged for Bob, Joe won't go with Iggy, probably Rae instead, but where will Dryden go? And how much Iggy support will drift towards Rae and Kennedy? Will Dryden support Kennedy? Dion? What if Kennedy wows the convention with speeches? Stay tuned...

  • Bobb999

    5 years ago

    I agree. Brain, Iggy's gaffes have helped sink him. He's a political novice and it shows. I'm kind of hoping for Rae, despite his baggage. He is experienced and I prefer someone like Rae who's likely to lean left.And his French is excellent and he's liked in Quebec.

    It may come down to speeches as you say, but I just read a sobering Star article http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid about the '92 Ontario Lib leadership race, which hinged on a Machiavellian secret deal involving what are called "ex officio" delegates and how their more "flexible" voting can be
    organized and manipulated from the very 1st ballot...the secret deal was between Lyn McLeod and Charles Beer. McLeod won, unexpectedly, in a squeaker,helped by the deal involving the ex officios.
    The article's theory is that this close '06 race is a perfect set up for such predetermined deals to be worked out. These kinds of maneuvers sound something
    less-than-democratic.

    I like to think virtually any of the potential leaders will be able to keep Harper from ever gaining a majority, but some may be more likely to deliver a Lib gov't, including a majority, than others.

  • Skookum1

    5 years ago

    The brain:

    Quote:
    Lets see, that narrows down who one could vote for throughout history, there was Constantine, and then Napoleon... and then there was Hitler!

    Howzat? Constantine? I guess you mean by vote of the Roman Senate, but his succession was not democratic in the usual sense (a modern equivalent, and not accidentally, is the election of the pope by cardinals). If you were looking for an ancient-West example, I guess Cleon might do; maybe the Thirty also, as they were also voted into power...

    Voting also gave us shills like Van der Zalm and Gordon Campbell; it's not like you have to go too far back in history to find examples of electoral folly and the public "being an ass".

  • The brain

    5 years ago

    lol, quite right Skookum 1, I stand corrected and in error. Thanks buddy, I get carried away sometimes, thanks for grounding me, pal. :-)

    Tried your link Bobb999, but no luck. This one confirms what I've been saying about soft support for Iggy.

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/29/liberal-convention.html

    Its safe to say at this point, that Dion will pick up Iggies defectors, along with renewed federalists in Quebec, possibly even in Ontario but I see Dion and Kennedy as being the beneficiaries of the Iggy meltdown that will be quite evident in the second ballot.

    Rae is claiming momentum, but Dion has it with reflected polls. And while I like Rae in terms of how he handles reporters and makes common sense decisions, (he is a smart guy), I see his vision for Canada as weak and with this, what I see is a leader hopeful who has been a Liberal since... this spring? A man who has spent a whole lot of time shoring up his electability, and a whole lot less time spent on his ability to run the nation.

    So while Bob most admittedly has statesmanship ability, does he have any vision beyond his lust for power? I think not. At best with Bob, what we will see is someone who is good at stealing the good ideas of others. And thats at best! This isn't to say that it isn't a bad trait... certainly helped Bill Gates along his path in life... but we are talking about a leader of one of the most centralized powers in the democratic world. Don't want to sound to preachy or spielly, but we need someone with vision that goes beyond their own needs. Borrowed vision just doesn't cut it with me, it has to come from within these Candidates. Rae's two directorships, Iggies cut and run from child support... who's that leave? Who's left? And Iggy support from the machine itself, will melt. To quote Dryden,

    "Right up to the end of the first ballot, it belongs to the machines," Dryden said Wednesday. "After that it belongs to the people." - Ken Dryden

    The fix is in until the end of the first ballot. From there, the word on the street will be, vote for Canada.

    And the facts are, they all have their pro's and Cons. We read the pundits... Iggy's foot in mouth disease, Bobs baggage, Dions nerdy thick accent, Drydens "aloofness", Kennedy's inexperience and lack of support in Quebec...

    And for all the Rae bashing I've done on how little vision he lacks, he knows how to assess a team and pass the ball to the winners who want it. What's the phrase I'm looking for, one that thing a leader must possess... "the delegation of authority", spreading out the responsibilities.

    But the facts remain permanent, frozen in rock. Leaders are only as good as their followers and vice versa and these birds will find their own feathers soon enough! ;-)

  • Skookum1

    5 years ago

    About Iggy, and "Stop Iggy":

    With the conservative forces of the Big Media gunning for the guy, to me that's all the more reason to support him. As I said maybe here or in another forum, he's not an appartchik the way Rae or Dion or Kennedy or Dryden or any of the also-rans; not a career bureaucrat, more a career diplomat.

    I think the reason CanWest and Globe are targeting him is because he's the one guy who stands a chance of overwhelming the Harper Tories with a crushing defeat, i.e. a defeat that Rae or whomever could still bring off, but not so convincingly, i.e. as something more than a Tory vote. Like him or hate him, Ignatieff seems to be the one guy who has some kind of vision; being "out in the cold" all this time may prove to be a good thing, as he's not got the inbuilt loyalties and perceptions of someone who's spent all this time shovelling the proverbial snow (or shit) of "Canadian politics as usual" - as have all the rest. I think he might also be the guy most open to major electoral reforms and other moves for a wider and more open democracy.

    I'm not a Grit and won't vote for him; but I think it's worth sitting up and taking notice how the media are gunning for him, above all others.

  • Skookum1

    5 years ago

    CanWest and The Globe; I meant the two main networks; I don't get CTV or Znaimer's stations as I'm on broadcast, but I imagine they have the same anti-Ig thing going on as they're no more small-l liberal than the other papers/networks. Not sure who the French networks are favouring, if they're favouring anyone at all (certainly not Dion, I'd think).

  • The brain

    5 years ago

    Sorry Skookum 1, not my view. Iggy to me, is just another dead beat dad cut and run child supporter, a man who spent 25 years internationally abroad only to suddenly have the epiphany that his failed relationships, bachelorhood and views to support the Iraq war and torture makes him the best man to lead Canada, with a vision that includes Quebec as a nation, and a vision that supports U.S. foriegn policy, a policy that wages war built on lies and has been for the last 4 decades, and for a man to not catch on to this fact... a professor who wants to lead this country, of all people... but then again, he did take his schooling in the U.S.

    Vision Skookum? The man is as deep and transparent as a 1/2 inch muddy street puddle. I simply can't warm up to supporting another egomaniac. We've had too many already.

  • The brain

    5 years ago

    Offering further, the one who the Cons would most fear to face in an election is anyone else but Iggy. Rae is too much of a statesman, Kennedy too visionary and charismatic, Dion and Dryden too Canadian... The other contenders are also married, strong federalists, have a past that isn't half so questionable, and have, quite frankly, less personal baggage.

    Iggy likes to put his foot in his mouth. The other candidates, including Dryden, likely have a lock on a minority government with a change of the tides. But Iggy is the weakest link. Of all candidates, Iggy is the one who is most likely to blow it. And the Cons know it.

  • Skookum1

    5 years ago

    Quote:
    I simply can't warm up to supporting another egomaniac. We've had too many already.

    Well, admittedly we have, and the only intelligent one of the lot is maybe the one who did the most damage (Trudeau). That's the risk of the "great man" theory of politics.

    I don't think being divorced is to his discredit; it means he's his own man, dedicated to his work if anything, and without a secondary loyalty to the bedroom (and the bedroom's friends). It's why eunuchs occupied positions of high power in the Ottoman, Roman and Chinese empires; no succession, no other loyalties.

    Don't know the story of his divorce. But I don't think someone should be disqualified from serving, or doing anything, if they're not married. It is a common prejudice still in hiring and other matters, including just judging someone else. But 8 out of 10 marriages I've seen, or should be, so why is being married a good thing? You would forgive him something if there were a Mila Ignatieff?

  • Skookum1

    5 years ago

    Mila Ignatieff:

    Actually properly Mila Ignatyevska, I think, or Ignatyeva, since they're both Slavs...

  • Skookum1

    5 years ago

    Correction on brainslip"

    But 8 out of 10 marriages I've seen ENDED IN DIVORCE, or should be - so why is being married a good thing? [i.e. in politics or as any kind of credential).

    You may have seen my earlier post in another forum about the law in ancient Athens that someone who had been a boy prostitute could not serve as politics, because they could be bought, or their old lovers/clients might have influence over them, or through them. cf. Against Timarchos by Aeschines, in which the latter - by filing charges of paid submissive sex against the latter - thereby prevents him even from testifying in court, since his participation would be forbidden upon passage of the motion Aeschines is speaking to. True or not, Aeschines' charges drove Timarchos to get outta town (lawsuits were expensive, as well as potentially deadly).

    At least Ignatieff doesn't have THAT hanging over his head, if simply being unmarried is an issue.....

  • Skookum1

    5 years ago

    Timarchos, ever the handsome playboy, went to Corinth. Which had WAY better parties than even Athens (life in Corinth was dedicated to the pleasures....).

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    It's not the fact that Ignatieff's first marriage ended in divorce that troubles me Skookum1, it's the way he treated his first wife before and during that divorce proceeding. Everyone deserves a chance to he happy - it shouldn't come at the expense of someone else's misery.

    Ignatieff's life is littered with dropped friends and injured family members who were no longer part of one of his frequent personal re-imaginings or re-inventions.

    I will make a small wager with you that his political career in Canada will be extremely short if he doesn't win the leadership.

  • haraldkann

    5 years ago

    A lot of thoughtful commentary on IGGY by many posters.

    Now BC Mary had the gut feeling that happens when we look into the eyes of a dangerous creature...FEAR.

    We have been conditioned over our existence to FORMULATE and FIGHT OR TAKE FLIGHT,in milliseconds.

    So,I, would say most want nothing to do with IGGY,because he looks dangerous.Opening his mouth and proving it really scares the sh!t out of many of us.

    So he is NARCISSITIC,HIGHLY INTELLIGENT,HAS NO REGARD FOR FRIENDS OR FAMILY,TALKS DOWN TO HIS LESSERS(did ya see the cbc interview with evan salomon,wow!)

    Just what we need ,another P.E.TRUDEAU.

    Of course when you got a bag full of hammers,one is as good as another.

  • The brain

    5 years ago

    Here's a quote:

    When The Hill Times asked Iggy a childishly simple yes/no question about international human-rights law, he couldn't handle it.

    Quote:
    "I want to ask a few questions on human rights, because of your expertise in this area. Some American human rights organizations are pursuing in Germany a legal investigation of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for potential war crimes and human rights abuses in the Iraq war, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay. Do think it is appropriate that he is tried for war crimes?"

    "I think it's for those organizations to take those decisions. It's not for me to comment on that one way or the other. - Micheal Iggy"

    If it is not for the founding director of the Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy to comment on such a question, for whom in the entire world could it possibly be? No, sorry--it's simply not conceivable that the real Ignatieff, who has stood so firmly for intellectual courage and unambiguous language, would have ducked this one in such a cheap, cheesy manner.

    There is a good interview that exploits Iggy's shortcomings on this site:

    http://weblogs.macleans.ca/paulwells/archives/week_2006_11_19-2006_11_25.asp#002827

    Skookum 1:
    Yah, I quite agree with you, but the issue is not so much a question of marital status, but how he arrived to such a place. How did he treat his former wife? How did he treat his child? These are valid questions and what is being heavily implicated here, is that he's a dead beat dad. Under such circumstances, the Cons will eat him for breakfast before he even has a chance to put his own foot in his mouth, and so far, he's making hoof in mouth a routine.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Happy Truman?

    • No best comments selected by an editor for this story yet. To see all comments, click the All Comments tab, above.
    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.