Because after all of these years they have yet to be able to spin it positively in any way, shape, or form.
It really is all about character.
BTW for those interested here are the numbers for the amount of times that Ignatieff used the words "We", "Us", "Our" and "Ourselves" in the 2minute and 8 second video above.
Updated with more of the same from Ignatieff:
.
Showing posts with label Iggy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iggy. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Ignatieff's vote pandering on a Quebec City arena. Who is happy, and who is not.
Recently Michael Ignatieff said the following on the subject of tax dollars going towards the building a new arena in Quebec City:
“If you want Ottawa to participate, you have to vote Liberal”
(Link in French as the English MSM have all but ignored it to this point)
I know what my opinion is of his statement and was going to do a big write up on my thoughts, but considering that I am not exactly a big Liberal supporter and I suspect that most of my audience already have a good idea of what that post would look like, I decided against it. But that got me thinking; how would others view Ignatieff's statement? So here is a short list of some who I think will be happy with it, and some who won't.
Liberal MP Joyce Murray must be absolutely livid considering that she tweeted this"another Liberal MP: "Harper's vote-buying stadium scheme in Quebec to benefit a right-wing media buddy: Quebec voters too smart to fall for it..." a short while back, and as far as I know "Harper" never said anything even remotely close to "if you want Ottawa to participate you have to vote conservative."
Poor Ian Davey is must be banging his head against the wall over this recent comment from his old boss? Because the last time a top Liberal, in this case Bob Rae, had made similar comments, Davey went on national television trying to spin hard for the Libs and ended up insulting a large swath of the Canadian population and hurting the Libs the process.
Liberal MP Keith Martin also can't be too impressed: "175 million for a hockey arena in Quebec City from the Cons! The PM is wasting our money..."
At least one Liberal blogger will not be too happy with Ignatieff's offer of tax dollars going into a glorified NHL arena, and there is a certain Liberal candidate for Edmonton-St Albert, Kevin Taron, who is already having a hard time dealing with questions on what Ignatieff said because of his very vocal opposition against funding the Quebec arena, including comments that all Alberta will be getting is the bill.
I am sure there is plenty more where they came from but being the fair and balanced blogger that I am, lets now look at a few who may happy with what Michael Ignatieff had to say.
Surely the millionaires will rejoice: “No public subsidies for the National Hockey League, no public subsidies for millionaires,”
Ralph Goodale must also be ecstatic as he said recently: "The federal Conservative government should be contributing "well in excess of $100 million" to a new domed stadium in Regina," and "Goodale argued it's certainly reasonable to expect Ottawa to fund in excess of $100 million (more than 25 per cent of the costs) of a new football stadium and entertainment facility. Goodale added he would be willing to take that request to a new federal Liberal cabinet." (From the Leader Post: link to story now dead)
And of course Denis Coderre must also be happy: 'Finally, le Journal reports that Liberal MP Denis Coderre is accusing the Conservatives of playing politics with the issue by dragging out the question of whether it will contribute to the financing of the arena: “This is a well-organized project that merits respect and dignity which means that the announcement should not be timed to win votes. They should announce it now.”
The people of Quebec: (But I am not sure on this one as it may be a toss up.)
While there is certainly a group who would be happy to hear what Ignatieff had to say, there are also a large number of Quebecois, who being very familiar with how the Liberal Party of Canada used to operate in their province with the 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine' attitude and with memories of brown paper bags filled with money being passed around in return for favours still in peoples minds, would find Ignaiteff's comment suggesting that if Quebec voters scratch the Liberals back by voting for them that public dollars for the arena will flow to be very disturbing.
Polls seems to back up my view on the way the people of Quebec would lean, but perhaps that may be why Ignatieff promised that he would spend money on a high speed train before he spent any on an arena for Quebec City.
Wait a minute. If Ignatieff said that he would spend money on high speed rail BEFORE spending any on an arena, does that mean that spending on a high speed rail line is already fait accompli? I wonder where Ignatieff plans to get the money for that, and when he plans to tell us about it?
“If you want Ottawa to participate, you have to vote Liberal”
(Link in French as the English MSM have all but ignored it to this point)
I know what my opinion is of his statement and was going to do a big write up on my thoughts, but considering that I am not exactly a big Liberal supporter and I suspect that most of my audience already have a good idea of what that post would look like, I decided against it. But that got me thinking; how would others view Ignatieff's statement? So here is a short list of some who I think will be happy with it, and some who won't.
Liberal MP Joyce Murray must be absolutely livid considering that she tweeted this"another Liberal MP: "Harper's vote-buying stadium scheme in Quebec to benefit a right-wing media buddy: Quebec voters too smart to fall for it..." a short while back, and as far as I know "Harper" never said anything even remotely close to "if you want Ottawa to participate you have to vote conservative."
Poor Ian Davey is must be banging his head against the wall over this recent comment from his old boss? Because the last time a top Liberal, in this case Bob Rae, had made similar comments, Davey went on national television trying to spin hard for the Libs and ended up insulting a large swath of the Canadian population and hurting the Libs the process.
Liberal MP Keith Martin also can't be too impressed: "175 million for a hockey arena in Quebec City from the Cons! The PM is wasting our money..."
At least one Liberal blogger will not be too happy with Ignatieff's offer of tax dollars going into a glorified NHL arena, and there is a certain Liberal candidate for Edmonton-St Albert, Kevin Taron, who is already having a hard time dealing with questions on what Ignatieff said because of his very vocal opposition against funding the Quebec arena, including comments that all Alberta will be getting is the bill.
I am sure there is plenty more where they came from but being the fair and balanced blogger that I am, lets now look at a few who may happy with what Michael Ignatieff had to say.
Surely the millionaires will rejoice: “No public subsidies for the National Hockey League, no public subsidies for millionaires,”
Ralph Goodale must also be ecstatic as he said recently: "The federal Conservative government should be contributing "well in excess of $100 million" to a new domed stadium in Regina," and "Goodale argued it's certainly reasonable to expect Ottawa to fund in excess of $100 million (more than 25 per cent of the costs) of a new football stadium and entertainment facility. Goodale added he would be willing to take that request to a new federal Liberal cabinet." (From the Leader Post: link to story now dead)
And of course Denis Coderre must also be happy: 'Finally, le Journal reports that Liberal MP Denis Coderre is accusing the Conservatives of playing politics with the issue by dragging out the question of whether it will contribute to the financing of the arena: “This is a well-organized project that merits respect and dignity which means that the announcement should not be timed to win votes. They should announce it now.”
The people of Quebec: (But I am not sure on this one as it may be a toss up.)
While there is certainly a group who would be happy to hear what Ignatieff had to say, there are also a large number of Quebecois, who being very familiar with how the Liberal Party of Canada used to operate in their province with the 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine' attitude and with memories of brown paper bags filled with money being passed around in return for favours still in peoples minds, would find Ignaiteff's comment suggesting that if Quebec voters scratch the Liberals back by voting for them that public dollars for the arena will flow to be very disturbing.
Polls seems to back up my view on the way the people of Quebec would lean, but perhaps that may be why Ignatieff promised that he would spend money on a high speed train before he spent any on an arena for Quebec City.
Wait a minute. If Ignatieff said that he would spend money on high speed rail BEFORE spending any on an arena, does that mean that spending on a high speed rail line is already fait accompli? I wonder where Ignatieff plans to get the money for that, and when he plans to tell us about it?
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Ignatieff stretches the truth on his position(s) on asbestos
Michael Ignatieff stretches the truth on his position on asbestos while happily attending a big bucks Liberal fundraiser hosted by a businessman leading the charge to reopen one of Canada’s last-remaining asbestos mines. (ironic no?)
"I think that Canada cannot export a product that is dangerous and cannot be handled safely,” Ignatieff said in Montreal. I’ve said that for a long time.”
Well he did say something like that in the past but on one occasion when questioned on that statement that he had made just days earlier, Ignatieff said something else completely.
"We have had 60 years of experience with this product. What I said in answer to a question is that we have an obligation to international agreements to the countries that we export to, to make them aware of the risks. That is all I said."
Causing Kathleen Ruff, senior adviser on human rights for the Ottawa-based think-tank Rideau Institute, to comment on Ignatieff's denial: "I knew he would be under pressure to retract what he said but that's an out-and-out lie"
Confused? Don't worry, you are not alone. Even Liberal candidates don't know Ignatieff's position.
Bérubé (the Liberal candidate selected for the Richmond-Arthabaska riding) argued that Ignatieff did not use the word asbestos and that he was talking hypothetically when asked the question by the Devoir.
“He did not state his opposition to the asbestos industry specifically, just to things that are toxic.”
“I don’t believe our asbestos is a toxic substance and the question of its safety should be examined by a committee after we are elected to government.”
Long-time Liberal Lucien Richard from Asbestos agreed with Bérubé that his party leader did not target the industry in the Devoir interview and hopes to discuss the matter further with Ignatieff.
“I want to hear him say it to me,” said Richard.
“I don’t believe he said the asbestos industry should be stopped.”
Local Liberal organizer André Beaumier said Ignatieff met with industry officials in early June and argues the industry will not be shut down by a future Liberal government.
“Our studies have shown that the fiber mined here is safe if handled carefully. “
“If Ignatieff said it was a dangerous industry, I don’t think he knew all the facts then. I am sure he will change his mind on this issue.”
and who can really blame them for not knowing Ignatieff's position, it is always hard to hit a moving target.
"I think that Canada cannot export a product that is dangerous and cannot be handled safely,” Ignatieff said in Montreal. I’ve said that for a long time.”
Well he did say something like that in the past but on one occasion when questioned on that statement that he had made just days earlier, Ignatieff said something else completely.
"We have had 60 years of experience with this product. What I said in answer to a question is that we have an obligation to international agreements to the countries that we export to, to make them aware of the risks. That is all I said."
Causing Kathleen Ruff, senior adviser on human rights for the Ottawa-based think-tank Rideau Institute, to comment on Ignatieff's denial: "I knew he would be under pressure to retract what he said but that's an out-and-out lie"
Confused? Don't worry, you are not alone. Even Liberal candidates don't know Ignatieff's position.
Bérubé (the Liberal candidate selected for the Richmond-Arthabaska riding) argued that Ignatieff did not use the word asbestos and that he was talking hypothetically when asked the question by the Devoir.
“He did not state his opposition to the asbestos industry specifically, just to things that are toxic.”
“I don’t believe our asbestos is a toxic substance and the question of its safety should be examined by a committee after we are elected to government.”
Long-time Liberal Lucien Richard from Asbestos agreed with Bérubé that his party leader did not target the industry in the Devoir interview and hopes to discuss the matter further with Ignatieff.
“I want to hear him say it to me,” said Richard.
“I don’t believe he said the asbestos industry should be stopped.”
Local Liberal organizer André Beaumier said Ignatieff met with industry officials in early June and argues the industry will not be shut down by a future Liberal government.
“Our studies have shown that the fiber mined here is safe if handled carefully. “
“If Ignatieff said it was a dangerous industry, I don’t think he knew all the facts then. I am sure he will change his mind on this issue.”
and who can really blame them for not knowing Ignatieff's position, it is always hard to hit a moving target.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Mr. Ignatieff. Please answer your own question.
On Wednesday Michael Ignatieff again went out on the road in an effort to (re) introduce himself to the Canadian public as if somehow the forth time will be the charm. At a Liberal Party function, which was held in the back of a restaurant located in a small suburban Ottawa mall, Ignatieff lead off his stump speech with what the LPC hope will become the 'ballot question' in the next federal election.
Aside from the fact that the line was blatantly stolen from Ronald Reagan, which I mentioned yesterday, something else has been bothering me about Ignatieff's campaign query. What would Michael Ignatieff's answer be if he was asked his own question?
Seriously, assuming that he would be honest and give a straight answer, what would Michael Ignatieff's answer be?
(Perhaps someone in our fine Canadian media establishment would be so kind to ask him so we all could find out. Hint Hint)
I say the answer has to be a resounding yes. Micheal Ignatieff is indeed much better off now than he was 5 years ago. (Speaking only on the financial aspect, which considering that we have just been through a nasty recession, I assume was what Ignatieff was referring to with his question) Here is why:
On January 14, 2006, after recently returning to Canada after 27 years away, Michael Ignatieff was busy running in his first election to be the LPC MP for Etobicoke Lakeshore. He won his riding but the Paul Martin lead Liberal Party lost power and Ignatieff made his way onto the Liberal back benches where he would be compensated with a wage of $147,700. Assuming that he sat on a couple of committees etc, I think we can safely round it up to $160K. (plus travel, office etc)
5 years later in January 2011 Micheal Ignatieff is now the leader of the official opposition with a salary $233,247, a residence (Stornoway), an office budget of $3.2 million, a car allowance of $2,122, and perhaps even some kind of top up or other perks from the Liberal Party itself. Not to mention that the job of leader of the opposition carries with it much more prestige as well as other intangibles that no ordinary MP enjoys.
Sounds to me like Micheal Ignatieff better hope that nobody in the media can take a hint and asks him to honestly answer his own question, because financially speaking he certainly is better off today than he was 5 years ago.
Sort of related and good news for all Canadians including Ignatieff, not that he would ever acknowledge it though, as Canada's economy outperforms the G7.
"Are you and your family better off now than five years ago?" .
Aside from the fact that the line was blatantly stolen from Ronald Reagan, which I mentioned yesterday, something else has been bothering me about Ignatieff's campaign query. What would Michael Ignatieff's answer be if he was asked his own question?
Seriously, assuming that he would be honest and give a straight answer, what would Michael Ignatieff's answer be?
(Perhaps someone in our fine Canadian media establishment would be so kind to ask him so we all could find out. Hint Hint)
I say the answer has to be a resounding yes. Micheal Ignatieff is indeed much better off now than he was 5 years ago. (Speaking only on the financial aspect, which considering that we have just been through a nasty recession, I assume was what Ignatieff was referring to with his question) Here is why:
On January 14, 2006, after recently returning to Canada after 27 years away, Michael Ignatieff was busy running in his first election to be the LPC MP for Etobicoke Lakeshore. He won his riding but the Paul Martin lead Liberal Party lost power and Ignatieff made his way onto the Liberal back benches where he would be compensated with a wage of $147,700. Assuming that he sat on a couple of committees etc, I think we can safely round it up to $160K. (plus travel, office etc)
5 years later in January 2011 Micheal Ignatieff is now the leader of the official opposition with a salary $233,247, a residence (Stornoway), an office budget of $3.2 million, a car allowance of $2,122, and perhaps even some kind of top up or other perks from the Liberal Party itself. Not to mention that the job of leader of the opposition carries with it much more prestige as well as other intangibles that no ordinary MP enjoys.
Sounds to me like Micheal Ignatieff better hope that nobody in the media can take a hint and asks him to honestly answer his own question, because financially speaking he certainly is better off today than he was 5 years ago.
-----------
Sort of related and good news for all Canadians including Ignatieff, not that he would ever acknowledge it though, as Canada's economy outperforms the G7.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Congratulations Michael Ignatieff, You are now Number 1!
I believe in giving credit where credit due, and Michael Ignatieff deserves full credit and a hearty congratulations for finally reaching #1.
Number one at what you ask; read on...
Michael Ignatieff has now reached the top spot on the list of Members of Parliament absent from recorded votes in the House of Commons and is clearly #1 at skipping out on his job of representing the people who elected him to be their voice in Ottawa in order to do other (and I assume more important to him) things. In essence proving that he is in it for himself.
Ignatieff's voting record:
In the 40th Parliament, 3rd session (March 2010 - Present) out of the 125 recorded divisions, Michael Ignatieff was recorded as absent a total 96 times which works out to him missing votes 76% of the time.
While you may be personally shocked by the 76% figure, missing votes in Parliament is really nothing new for Ignatieff.
In the second session of the 40th Parliament (Jan 2009-Dec 2009) Ignatieff was recorded as absent on 76 separate recorded divisions. When taken together with his 3rd session record (above) it brings the total to a whopping 172 times that Ignatieff has been absent from recorded votes in the House of Commons since hiselection undemocratic appointment as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in Dec 2008.
That is a lot of absences by anyone's standard but what makes it even harder to understand is that it is Ignatieff and the Liberal party who scream the loudest in front the media about getting back to work, working hard for Canadians, padlocking parliament, and spinning to the people that the Liberals are working hard at being a realistic alternative in the next election. They like to talk a good game but the record of Ignatieff and the Liberals proves otherwise. ( Note the total number of Liberals in the top 50 of that list. 72% are Liberals while just 6% are Conservatives. Bonus: for added fun scroll down the list to the bottom and note which party clearly has the best voting record.)
So stand proud Michael. The top spot is now yours and you continue to be a shining example of how hard the Liberal Party of Canada worksfor themselves on behalf of the people of Canada. Today is your day Michael; enjoy it.
Preemptive counter spin: You may hear that one of the reasons that Ignatieff missed so many votes was because he does not vote on private members bills, but don't believe it because that is nothing but a flat out lie.
Number one at what you ask; read on...
Michael Ignatieff has now reached the top spot on the list of Members of Parliament absent from recorded votes in the House of Commons and is clearly #1 at skipping out on his job of representing the people who elected him to be their voice in Ottawa in order to do other (and I assume more important to him) things. In essence proving that he is in it for himself.
Ignatieff's voting record:
In the 40th Parliament, 3rd session (March 2010 - Present) out of the 125 recorded divisions, Michael Ignatieff was recorded as absent a total 96 times which works out to him missing votes 76% of the time.
76%
While you may be personally shocked by the 76% figure, missing votes in Parliament is really nothing new for Ignatieff.
In the second session of the 40th Parliament (Jan 2009-Dec 2009) Ignatieff was recorded as absent on 76 separate recorded divisions. When taken together with his 3rd session record (above) it brings the total to a whopping 172 times that Ignatieff has been absent from recorded votes in the House of Commons since his
That is a lot of absences by anyone's standard but what makes it even harder to understand is that it is Ignatieff and the Liberal party who scream the loudest in front the media about getting back to work, working hard for Canadians, padlocking parliament, and spinning to the people that the Liberals are working hard at being a realistic alternative in the next election. They like to talk a good game but the record of Ignatieff and the Liberals proves otherwise. ( Note the total number of Liberals in the top 50 of that list. 72% are Liberals while just 6% are Conservatives. Bonus: for added fun scroll down the list to the bottom and note which party clearly has the best voting record.)
So stand proud Michael. The top spot is now yours and you continue to be a shining example of how hard the Liberal Party of Canada works
Preemptive counter spin: You may hear that one of the reasons that Ignatieff missed so many votes was because he does not vote on private members bills, but don't believe it because that is nothing but a flat out lie.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Ignatieff tries to bridge the enormous gap between men and women.
Michael Ignatieff was busy campaigning again yesterday holding another open mike event and taking questions from the public. The previous one didn't go as well as he had hoped and from initial reports it looks like this one may have ended up the same way.
Some have said that last night Ignatieff discovered his feminine side, but if you take a look at what he actually had to say I would suggest that it was more like Ignatieff found his inner caveman rather than any so called 'feminine side'.
Here is what he had to say while speaking about the recent Russell Williams murder trial:
"I don't quite know what it's like to look at that news through a woman's eyes, but I can sort of imagine how difficult that week has been,"
"The thing that's so awful about this week is the breaking of that basic trust that we have to have between men and women in order to raise families, live with each other, work together as citizens. And a very bad man did that a lot of harm this week."
Yup, that was Michael Ignatieff claiming in one breath that he can't imagine what women must have thought about the Williams trial, but yet arrogantly claiming in another breath that relations between men and women ( every single one of us) has been somehow set back because of what some individual wacko did. I am sure every woman in the country is now eternally grateful for having Michael Ignatieff around to tell them about their future relations and trust with men and how they should be feeling rather than allowing them to think and feel for themselves. A true feminist ever their ever was one!
Think I am taking that a little bit too far? Just take a look at what else Ignatieff had to say, this time after a female University of Ottawa student asked him if he's in touch with his "feminine side" and able to represent the concerns of women?"
"I think it is true, in fact, that men and women both have a feminine side and a masculine side.
Some have said that last night Ignatieff discovered his feminine side, but if you take a look at what he actually had to say I would suggest that it was more like Ignatieff found his inner caveman rather than any so called 'feminine side'.
Here is what he had to say while speaking about the recent Russell Williams murder trial:
"I don't quite know what it's like to look at that news through a woman's eyes, but I can sort of imagine how difficult that week has been,"
"The thing that's so awful about this week is the breaking of that basic trust that we have to have between men and women in order to raise families, live with each other, work together as citizens. And a very bad man did that a lot of harm this week."
Yup, that was Michael Ignatieff claiming in one breath that he can't imagine what women must have thought about the Williams trial, but yet arrogantly claiming in another breath that relations between men and women ( every single one of us) has been somehow set back because of what some individual wacko did. I am sure every woman in the country is now eternally grateful for having Michael Ignatieff around to tell them about their future relations and trust with men and how they should be feeling rather than allowing them to think and feel for themselves. A true feminist ever their ever was one!
Think I am taking that a little bit too far? Just take a look at what else Ignatieff had to say, this time after a female University of Ottawa student asked him if he's in touch with his "feminine side" and able to represent the concerns of women?"
"I think it is true, in fact, that men and women both have a feminine side and a masculine side.
And thank God we do. It's one of the things that allows us to get over that enormous gap that separates men and women."
I will leave the stereotypical comment about the so called 'feminine and masculine' sides alone because Ignatieff was more than likely just searching for a quick way to respond to the question and didn't realize how utterly cookie cutter and un-progressive it was, but I do need some serious clarification on his next comment about that "enormous gap" that separates men and women.
What exactly in Michael Ignatieff's mind makes up this enormous gap? I doubt that he was referring to biological differences or even something like wage parity because those would make no sense in terms of context, so just what was Ignatieff talking about.
Are all women more emotional or have different emotions than men, do they think or act differently, are they less rational, capable, or intelligent than men, or maybe women really are from Venus while men do come from Mars.
I don't know the answer to what he meant with his enormous gap comment but believe me when I say that I am looking forward to watching professor Ignatieff trying to spin answer that question today. That is if some in the media care enough to call him out for these obviously stereotypical remarks.
Time to be open with all of us Mike. If you would be so kind as to please define for us what you believe that enormous gap that separates men and women is, those of us who believe that men and women are equal would appreciate the clarification and no doubt we all would be better off for it.
Update: so far no one in the media has asked Ignatieff to clarify his comments but Scott Feschuk called them 'beyond f'ing stupid' and Andrew Coyne called the comment 'beyond asinine'.
Charles Adler deals with Iffy's comments in his monologue. Brings up a good point about Ignatieff dividing men and women.
Update: so far no one in the media has asked Ignatieff to clarify his comments but Scott Feschuk called them 'beyond f'ing stupid' and Andrew Coyne called the comment 'beyond asinine'.
Charles Adler deals with Iffy's comments in his monologue. Brings up a good point about Ignatieff dividing men and women.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Michael Ignatieff lies to highshool students.
Michael Ignatieff took yet another day off of work on Monday and went to Guelph Ontario where spoke to students at
During the 40th Parliament’s 3rd session Michael Ignatieff voted 6 times on Private Member’s Bills and 3 times in the 2nd session)
40th Parliament, 3rd Session: C-391, C-471, C-309, C-310, C-311 40th Parliament, 2nd Session: C-291, C-308, C-391
During the 40th Parliament’s 3rd session Michael Ignatieff voted 6 times on Private Member’s Bills and 3 times in the 2nd session)
40th Parliament, 3rd Session: C-391, C-471, C-309, C-310, C-311 40th Parliament, 2nd Session: C-291, C-308, C-391
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Ignatieff working on his quest to be Number 1!
Michael Ignatieff wants to be #1 and he is 'working' hard to gain the title.
No, I am not talking about the PM's job, although I am sure he wants that as well, but rather Mr. Ignatieff seems to be trying hard to be #1 on the list of MP's who are absent from work and miss votes in Parliament.
Ignatieff is currently sitting in second place behind Bloc MP Jean-Yves Roy ( who is expected to retire in October 2010). With Roy's retirement upcoming and judging by his record since Parliament returned just last week, Mr.Ignatieff has already missed 4 out of the 6 recorded votes, Micheal Ignatieff is a sure bet to reach the number one spot very soon.
Good luck on reaching your goal Mr. Ignatieff, we will be watching your progress closely as you set out to become the #1 dead beat in the House of Commons all while at the same time telling us how hard you and your party are working for Canadians.
Here are some details on a couple of the votes that Ignatieff has been absent for since the House resumed sitting:
C 308 to amend the Employment Insurance Act. (Yes, it is true. Ignatieff was absent for a vote on changing EI, the very thing that only 1 year ago he had threatened to force an election over!)
C 440 Gerard Kennedy's latest attempt to allow war resisters, who knowingly volunteered to enter the US military, to stay in Canada. (Way to support your own MP's Iggy, but to be fair I don't think Iffy likes Kennedy very much. Hey, it is not like Ignatieff is not being consistent on the subject. Wait a minute...)
Update: Ignatieff wonders why the Liberals are not doing better in the polls (This guy shows us time and time again that he has no clue but yet expects Canadians to support him and his CONSTANTLY changing positions. What arrogance.
No, I am not talking about the PM's job, although I am sure he wants that as well, but rather Mr. Ignatieff seems to be trying hard to be #1 on the list of MP's who are absent from work and miss votes in Parliament.
Ignatieff is currently sitting in second place behind Bloc MP Jean-Yves Roy ( who is expected to retire in October 2010). With Roy's retirement upcoming and judging by his record since Parliament returned just last week, Mr.Ignatieff has already missed 4 out of the 6 recorded votes, Micheal Ignatieff is a sure bet to reach the number one spot very soon.
Good luck on reaching your goal Mr. Ignatieff, we will be watching your progress closely as you set out to become the #1 dead beat in the House of Commons all while at the same time telling us how hard you and your party are working for Canadians.
Here are some details on a couple of the votes that Ignatieff has been absent for since the House resumed sitting:
C 308 to amend the Employment Insurance Act. (Yes, it is true. Ignatieff was absent for a vote on changing EI, the very thing that only 1 year ago he had threatened to force an election over!)
C 440 Gerard Kennedy's latest attempt to allow war resisters, who knowingly volunteered to enter the US military, to stay in Canada. (Way to support your own MP's Iggy, but to be fair I don't think Iffy likes Kennedy very much. Hey, it is not like Ignatieff is not being consistent on the subject. Wait a minute...)
Update: Ignatieff wonders why the Liberals are not doing better in the polls (This guy shows us time and time again that he has no clue but yet expects Canadians to support him and his CONSTANTLY changing positions. What arrogance.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Why did Bob Rae and the 18 other Liberal MPs miss oral questions yesterday?
Bob Rae was noticeably absent from oral questions in Parliament yesterday and he wasn't alone; 18 other Liberal MPs were also too busy doing something else rather than showing up to do their jobs even though Michael Ignatieff's office ordered everyone to be there.
In total 19 out of 75 Liberal MPs, almost 25% of the entire Liberal caucus, were absent yesterday, which must really tick Ignatieff off considering all of the time he invested this summer telling Canadians just how hard he and his party were going to work for them when they returned to work this fall. Another leadership fail, but there is something else revealed here which could be much much worse for his Iffyness.
If he can't get his own caucus to bother to show up on the first day back to work this fall, even though he instructed them to be there, what is going to happen when it comes time for that same Liberal caucus to show up to the whipped vote on the long gun registry?
Remember that Ignatieff has at least 8 MPs in that caucus who had previously voted to represent their constituents wishes against the long gun registry and who now are being directed to change their vote under orders from Ignatieff. If 1 or 2 decide not to show up rather than go against the whip, the long gun registry just may die. Considering the amount of taunting and name calling that the LPC and their minions have been directing towards Jack Layton and the NDP these past few weeks on this issue, if it turns out that Ignatieff and his party are the ones that cause the demise of the LG registry, it would be absolutely devastating to his leadership; in fact I think it would all be over for him as leader of the LPC within a few short months.
You are not on the bus anymore Mr. Ignatieff.
In total 19 out of 75 Liberal MPs, almost 25% of the entire Liberal caucus, were absent yesterday, which must really tick Ignatieff off considering all of the time he invested this summer telling Canadians just how hard he and his party were going to work for them when they returned to work this fall. Another leadership fail, but there is something else revealed here which could be much much worse for his Iffyness.
If he can't get his own caucus to bother to show up on the first day back to work this fall, even though he instructed them to be there, what is going to happen when it comes time for that same Liberal caucus to show up to the whipped vote on the long gun registry?
Remember that Ignatieff has at least 8 MPs in that caucus who had previously voted to represent their constituents wishes against the long gun registry and who now are being directed to change their vote under orders from Ignatieff. If 1 or 2 decide not to show up rather than go against the whip, the long gun registry just may die. Considering the amount of taunting and name calling that the LPC and their minions have been directing towards Jack Layton and the NDP these past few weeks on this issue, if it turns out that Ignatieff and his party are the ones that cause the demise of the LG registry, it would be absolutely devastating to his leadership; in fact I think it would all be over for him as leader of the LPC within a few short months.
You are not on the bus anymore Mr. Ignatieff.
Friday, September 17, 2010
The MSM catches up and Ignatieff spining history away.
The MSM finally catches with a story I broke almost 1 year ago about how PM Harper is in cahoots with the Montreal Canadians for what can be described only as nefarious purposes.
From the MSM Yesterday: “I believe that federal powers have taken over the Canadiens,” (PQ language critic Pierre Curzi) and “It helps federalism more than it does our interests,” (PQ Leader Pauline Marois) CBC, the Sun and the NP.
My posting from October of last year.*
Sources close to the Liberal Party have revealed to me that they are planning a press conference later today condemning the fabled NHL team, the Montreal Canadians, for this logo.
According to my source (Thanks Hedy) not only does the "C" look remarkably like the "C' on the current line up of Olympic apparel , the "H" in the middle obviously stands for "Harper".
*related to this.
Also related:
Michael Ignatieff showed us yesterday just how skilled he is at keeping a straight face while simultaneously speaking out of both sides of his mouth to the media.
"John’s not off to a great start, but we still have to take the high road. I have a responsibility to be tough but civil." and “Canadians don’t like that kind of politics. That’s one of the reasons this guy’s in trouble,” Mr. Ignatieff says. “He thinks it’s all so clever to play these games. Canadians don’t think that’s clever, they think it’s stupid.”
Seriously, the leader of the Party that played political games with: (a small sampling from just this last year.)
the Olympic logo (see above)
abortion
the Jaffer story
the budget vote
prorogation
photo contests
10% ers, H1N1 and FAKE body bags stories
stimulus spending (this one is still on-going)
the home renovation tax credit
threatening elections on principle and then denying it
wants us to believe that his is the party that is trying to make Parliament less toxic.
Sorry Mike but I am calling BS. A party, that to this day refuses to apologize for trumping up a made up story about a communion wafer at a funeral with which they used to try and make political hay out of, can't run around claiming to be the party of the high road and get away with it.
Why the media lets him get away with it I will never know.
More examples of the Liberal high road.
From the MSM Yesterday: “I believe that federal powers have taken over the Canadiens,” (PQ language critic Pierre Curzi) and “It helps federalism more than it does our interests,” (PQ Leader Pauline Marois) CBC, the Sun and the NP.
My posting from October of last year.*
Sources close to the Liberal Party have revealed to me that they are planning a press conference later today condemning the fabled NHL team, the Montreal Canadians, for this logo.
According to my source (Thanks Hedy) not only does the "C" look remarkably like the "C' on the current line up of Olympic apparel , the "H" in the middle obviously stands for "Harper".*related to this.
Also related:
Michael Ignatieff showed us yesterday just how skilled he is at keeping a straight face while simultaneously speaking out of both sides of his mouth to the media.
"John’s not off to a great start, but we still have to take the high road. I have a responsibility to be tough but civil." and “Canadians don’t like that kind of politics. That’s one of the reasons this guy’s in trouble,” Mr. Ignatieff says. “He thinks it’s all so clever to play these games. Canadians don’t think that’s clever, they think it’s stupid.”
Seriously, the leader of the Party that played political games with: (a small sampling from just this last year.)
the Olympic logo (see above)
abortion
the Jaffer story
the budget vote
prorogation
photo contests
10% ers, H1N1 and FAKE body bags stories
stimulus spending (this one is still on-going)
the home renovation tax credit
threatening elections on principle and then denying it
wants us to believe that his is the party that is trying to make Parliament less toxic.
Sorry Mike but I am calling BS. A party, that to this day refuses to apologize for trumping up a made up story about a communion wafer at a funeral with which they used to try and make political hay out of, can't run around claiming to be the party of the high road and get away with it.
Why the media lets him get away with it I will never know.
More examples of the Liberal high road.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Just one of us. The 10 things Ignatieff can't live without.
A list of 10 things Michael Ignatieff can't live without. Proving that he is just like your average Canadian.
Weird, I can't find hockey, beer and the natural wilderness anywhere on that list.
ht Paul Wells.
Related: LPC President Alfred Apps stirs up the ghost of Pierre Trudeau.
Ignatieff messes up again. "No one has ever said or will ever say in this party that Canadian soldiers were involved in torture"
Errr wrong, Bill Prout Liberal candidate for Dufferin Caledon , did just that. (make sure to read the editorial comment.) I would call this one a lie but maybe he was unaware of Prout's comment(s) on Canadian troops being involved in torture.
I do believe however that he must know that other prominent Liberals have been saying that Canadian troops are implicated in war crimes. What does Ignatieff say about that. (hint: this would be a great question to ask Ignatieff if you happen to be near Meet the commoners bus tour. He is too scared to even visit Alberta on his , so I won't get the chance to ask him.
Weird, I can't find hockey, beer and the natural wilderness anywhere on that list.
ht Paul Wells.
Related: LPC President Alfred Apps stirs up the ghost of Pierre Trudeau.
Ignatieff messes up again. "No one has ever said or will ever say in this party that Canadian soldiers were involved in torture"
Errr wrong, Bill Prout Liberal candidate for Dufferin Caledon , did just that. (make sure to read the editorial comment.) I would call this one a lie but maybe he was unaware of Prout's comment(s) on Canadian troops being involved in torture.
I do believe however that he must know that other prominent Liberals have been saying that Canadian troops are implicated in war crimes. What does Ignatieff say about that. (hint: this would be a great question to ask Ignatieff if you happen to be near Meet the commoners bus tour. He is too scared to even visit Alberta on his , so I won't get the chance to ask him.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Ignatieff's leadership skills: Loyalty.
Is it any wonder why Liberal candidates seem to be running away from the LPC lately?
Take a look at what Ignatieff said to former Liberal MP Hec Clouthier:
“I met Mr. Ignatieff and he said to me: ‘Hector, I would like you to consider running for me because you’re the only one who can win the seat back for us.’ ...
Clouthier to his credit did not accept the offer, not because there was already a nominated candidate, but rather because Ignatieff would not allow him to properly represent the views of his constituents.
I said I will consider running, but ‘I am going to vote the wishes of my constituents’,” Clouthier recalled.
Listening to constituents is something Clouthier knows only too well due to his election loss 10 years ago when he toed the party line on the gun registry against the wishes of his constituents and lost to Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant. Something that 8 other Liberal MP's should seriously think about before they vote on the gun registry in September.
Take a look at what Ignatieff said to former Liberal MP Hec Clouthier:
“I met Mr. Ignatieff and he said to me: ‘Hector, I would like you to consider running for me because you’re the only one who can win the seat back for us.’ ...
This all sounds nice but there is one small problem: current Liberal candidate Christine Tabbert.
I may be wrong but is asking Clouthier if he wants to run in for the Liberals in Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and telling him that he is the "only one who can win the seat back" for the Liberals really the best way to show loyalty for Christine Tabbert or respect to the people of the EDA that nominated her? If Michael Ignatieff is the straight shooter who calls him as he sees them, as the Liberal spin machine would have us believe, does he really believe that Tabbert does not have a chance against current MP Cheryl Gallant, and more importantly has he told Tabbert his thoughts? Way to show your support there Michael!Clouthier to his credit did not accept the offer, not because there was already a nominated candidate, but rather because Ignatieff would not allow him to properly represent the views of his constituents.
I said I will consider running, but ‘I am going to vote the wishes of my constituents’,” Clouthier recalled.
“He said: ‘I am the leader. If I whip the caucus you have to follow in line.’ I said: ‘No, I’ve been there, done that.’ I toed the party line and lost in 2000. I refuse to do that again.”
Listening to constituents is something Clouthier knows only too well due to his election loss 10 years ago when he toed the party line on the gun registry against the wishes of his constituents and lost to Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant. Something that 8 other Liberal MP's should seriously think about before they vote on the gun registry in September.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Ignatieff's throne was a rental.
Michael Ignatieff held a little garden party yesterday for members of our ever vigilant media; the same media who have been running with the fake fake lake cost story for the last few day.
There were lots of tweets about having Ignatieff serve them food, and about the lake set up to mock that other famous lake, but not one comment on Ignatieff spending big money on a rented porta-potty so our poor media could sit in comfort after being fed meatballs along with an extra large helping of Liberal spin on extravagant spending.
The $1,500 "Taj Mahal of portable toilets with granite countertops, wood panelling and almond-scented hand soap" sat near the Liberal's "Fake Lake" which consisted of a children's wading pool, plastic ducks and a remote-control boat surrounded by plastic Muskoka chairs and a printout picture of a lake posted on a stick. Staffers boasted that the whole thing had cost them $19.95 a fraction of the money the government was spending on its Muskoka backdrop.
Funny how this was missed from most comments/tweets/reports on the garden party, but as long as our media were comfortable I guess it is understandable. /sarc off
There were lots of tweets about having Ignatieff serve them food, and about the lake set up to mock that other famous lake, but not one comment on Ignatieff spending big money on a rented porta-potty so our poor media could sit in comfort after being fed meatballs along with an extra large helping of Liberal spin on extravagant spending.
The $1,500 "Taj Mahal of portable toilets with granite countertops, wood panelling and almond-scented hand soap" sat near the Liberal's "Fake Lake" which consisted of a children's wading pool, plastic ducks and a remote-control boat surrounded by plastic Muskoka chairs and a printout picture of a lake posted on a stick. Staffers boasted that the whole thing had cost them $19.95 a fraction of the money the government was spending on its Muskoka backdrop.
Funny how this was missed from most comments/tweets/reports on the garden party, but as long as our media were comfortable I guess it is understandable. /sarc off
The top ten reasons Ignatieff will win
After the crazy day that was yesterday with the aftermath of the CBC story, the denials, and the affidavit, I thought I would remind everyone of the reasons Ignatieff will win the next election; courtesy of Warren Kinsella. (WK link warning)
I like reason #2: 'The Liberal Party of Canada will win the election, because we’ve got the most impressive leader: he’s super-smart, he’s accomplished, he’s decent, he has an extraordinary ability to bring people together....' but personally my favorite* has to be #7: 'The Liberals, meanwhile, will continue to embrace communications discipline – because, as Michael Ignatieff clearly has shown them, communications discipline works. The Grits will utterly dispense of the Chrétien-Martin era internecine warfare, because nobody remembers anymore what they were fighting about in the first place. (I sure can’t.)'
*Yes it is my favorite and I am willing to swear an affidavit to this fact.
Updated: I am reminded that the author of the above once held a different opinion of Ignatieff.
Which position does he take today? I will leave that up to you to decide, but going on the CBC National and dropping the bomb shell that he did while most likely knowing the after shocks that it would cause might be a clue.
I like reason #2: 'The Liberal Party of Canada will win the election, because we’ve got the most impressive leader: he’s super-smart, he’s accomplished, he’s decent, he has an extraordinary ability to bring people together....' but personally my favorite* has to be #7: 'The Liberals, meanwhile, will continue to embrace communications discipline – because, as Michael Ignatieff clearly has shown them, communications discipline works. The Grits will utterly dispense of the Chrétien-Martin era internecine warfare, because nobody remembers anymore what they were fighting about in the first place. (I sure can’t.)'
*Yes it is my favorite and I am willing to swear an affidavit to this fact.
Updated: I am reminded that the author of the above once held a different opinion of Ignatieff.
Which position does he take today? I will leave that up to you to decide, but going on the CBC National and dropping the bomb shell that he did while most likely knowing the after shocks that it would cause might be a clue.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Ignatieff, Mr. Charisma.
Ignatieff needs work, lots of it, and the good folks at CTV have brought in some outside help to assist.
An American academic has some advice for Canadian Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff: stop talking issues and start talking morality. George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at University of California Berkeley, told CTV's Power Play that his studies of the language of politics show that the most successful politicians are those who connect with voters by using a few simple principles.
How very nice of CTV for trying to help out like that, but I am not sure if this guy really knows anything about Michael Ignatieff.
"What Ignatieff does is he talks about the details of policy rather than start with the moral principle … and saying: ‘Here is why this is right,'" he said.
An American academic has some advice for Canadian Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff: stop talking issues and start talking morality. George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at University of California Berkeley, told CTV's Power Play that his studies of the language of politics show that the most successful politicians are those who connect with voters by using a few simple principles.
How very nice of CTV for trying to help out like that, but I am not sure if this guy really knows anything about Michael Ignatieff.
"What Ignatieff does is he talks about the details of policy rather than start with the moral principle … and saying: ‘Here is why this is right,'" he said.
"Secondly, you have to connect with people. People have to feel that you're authentic, that you're believable and that you care about them."
Ignatieff talking about the details of policy? What is this guy talking about? What policy? The only thing the Liberals do is complain about conservative policy and whatever meager policy they may have or even agree with, they end up changing their mind later and flip flop on it. Afghanistan, HST, asbestos, free votes, immigration policy, corporate taxes, etc.
As for Ignatieff trying to be authentic; well that is kind of hard to accomplish when you are just playing a role and pretending rather than being truthful and authentic with yourself. Remember Ignatieff's own words ""Nothing is personal in politics, because politics is theater. It is part of the job to pretend to have emotions that you do not actually feel."
Too late CTV, your obvious attempts to resurrect the political fortunes Ignatieff are not going to work. Perhaps you might want to take George Lakoff's advice to be authentic and honest for yourself and just report the news, quit trying to influence it.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Grab a beer and some popcorn, and sit back and watch..
Grab yourself a beer and some popcorn, and sit back and watch as the Liberals tie themselves into knots.
...trouble is brewing once more, as Liberal support continues to slide and some of Mr. Rae’s advocates openly agitate for a debate about a coalition with the NDP.
It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
More from the NP story: My good buddy Scott Reid had some thoughts on this:
“This is a merger by any other name… A slippery slope to sacrificing our political identity. It would amount to a total betrayal of the Liberal party’s history, identity and success,”
“Would we run 100 fewer candidates? Would we abandon Saskatchewan and Manitoba to the NDP and ask Ralph [Goodale] to step down? I think the notion is absurd. The only person who advocated it was Jean Chrétien on CBC but I have a hard time believing Jean Chrétien thinks the Liberal party shouldn’t run 308 candidates at the next election.”
The party that is more united than it has been in a generation has a funny way of showing it.
UD: Watch Scott Reid in action here @ the Iceman's place.
...trouble is brewing once more, as Liberal support continues to slide and some of Mr. Rae’s advocates openly agitate for a debate about a coalition with the NDP.
It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
More from the NP story: My good buddy Scott Reid had some thoughts on this:
“This is a merger by any other name… A slippery slope to sacrificing our political identity. It would amount to a total betrayal of the Liberal party’s history, identity and success,”
“Would we run 100 fewer candidates? Would we abandon Saskatchewan and Manitoba to the NDP and ask Ralph [Goodale] to step down? I think the notion is absurd. The only person who advocated it was Jean Chrétien on CBC but I have a hard time believing Jean Chrétien thinks the Liberal party shouldn’t run 308 candidates at the next election.”
The party that is more united than it has been in a generation has a funny way of showing it.
UD: Watch Scott Reid in action here @ the Iceman's place.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Michael Ignatieff: The perfect Canadian
Remember when Iffy said this:
“As everybody knows, I’m just visiting,” Ignatieff said, joking.
“As everybody knows, I’m just visiting,” Ignatieff said, joking.
“They say it makes me less of a Canadian,” he said, of his former ex-pat status. “But I’m here to tell you it makes me more of a Canadian.”
Rex Murphy's take: This last claim was merely excess and nonsense since, in logic, he’d be the perfect Canadian, by his terms … if he’d never come back at all.
More:
"Michael Ignattief’s core weakness is that so many Canadians are withholding assent to him as their leader because they do feel that, at the most profound level, perhaps he does not know their country."
Rex Murphy is a national treasure.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Ignatieff's ever shifting position on MP audits.
Ignatieff's ever shifting position on MP audits:
1. A bad idea: “I understand what Canadians are saying. They want accountability and transparency, but I don’t think they want us to be going through our receipts for this meal and that meal” (May 19, 2010)
2. A good idea: “What I mean is, it’s important Canadians know the money we spent is honestly accounted for, and that’s the kind of solution that we need to look for.” (May 19, 2010)
3. A bad idea: ”There is accountability that is in itself a waste of public money. Do you understand what I am saying?”
4. A good idea:” is “entirely in favour” of Fraser making sure the financial controls are “good and right and serving Canadians.” (May 26, 2010)
5. A bad idea: Iggy asks Liberal MPs not to post their expenses online. (May 26, 2010)
What it will be tomorrow? Who knows.With leadership like this, is it any wonder the Liberals are lost?
Michael Ignatieff preached transparency to the cameras outside of caucus Wednesday but inside he was warning MPs not to be acting as freelancers or mavericks by posting their expenses online.
“Everybody is very confused about what is going on,” a well-connected Liberal MP says.
Liberal MPs – those who have been pushing for more transparency and have posted their expenses online – are being given the cold shoulder by some of the Liberal caucus senior players, according to an MP. Independent thinkers, it seems, will not be tolerated.
“Michael doesn’t want anybody else to put up their budgets,” says the source, who noted the hypocrisy in the fact that Liberals want to be able to manage taxpayers’ money as a government but “don’t want to disclose” the taxpayers’ money they are managing now.
“It’s amazing that we are fighting this,” says the MP.
How dare rookie Liberal MP Michelle Simson post her expenses online. She is going to pay for that one.
Today's EKOS numbers continue to reveal an ugly truth for the Liberals.
They really are lost.
Conservatives: 33.9
Liberals: 25.7
NDP: 16.4
Green: 11.9
Bloc Quebecois: 9.4 (37.4 in Quebec)
Other: 2.7
CPC 36
LPC 27
NDP 16
GRN 11
BQ 8
Related: Thomas Walkom (not a friend of the CPC) acknowledges how the Liberals are failing as an opposition under Ignatieff.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Iffy and the LPC in Quebec. More turmoil.
From the Globe and Mail: The president of the Liberal Party of Canada’s Québec wing, Marc Lavigne — who’d been in his position for only four months — tendered his resignation on May 14.
La Presse also reports that one of the Quebec directors of the Liberal Party, Marc Bélanger, sent out an e-mail in April denouncing the increased role being played by Michael Ignatieff’s office to the detriment of party structures in the province. And, on Monday of this week, another director of the Party, Michel Faure, denounced the on-going treatment of the Liberal Party’s executive director in Quebec, Louis-Philippe Angers: “I’ve been able to observe, contrary to official denials, that several attempts have been made to get rid of Philippe Angers…without anyone saying what he’s done wrong. In my view, he’s being harassed, which is unworthy of our Party and unacceptable,” Mr. Faure wrote.
And Denis Coderre still has no idea what the consequences are that Ignatieff said he will have to face.
The LPC. More united than ever!
La Presse also reports that one of the Quebec directors of the Liberal Party, Marc Bélanger, sent out an e-mail in April denouncing the increased role being played by Michael Ignatieff’s office to the detriment of party structures in the province. And, on Monday of this week, another director of the Party, Michel Faure, denounced the on-going treatment of the Liberal Party’s executive director in Quebec, Louis-Philippe Angers: “I’ve been able to observe, contrary to official denials, that several attempts have been made to get rid of Philippe Angers…without anyone saying what he’s done wrong. In my view, he’s being harassed, which is unworthy of our Party and unacceptable,” Mr. Faure wrote.
And Denis Coderre still has no idea what the consequences are that Ignatieff said he will have to face.
The LPC. More united than ever!
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
1 year ago....Ignatieff threatens an election (again)
One year ago Michael Ignatieff was all about EI. So much so that it looked to everyone that we were going to be headed to a summer election and with quotes from Ignatieff like the following, it is easy to see why.
"I'm trying to protect these unemployed workers across the country who badly need help and if the government will work with me, we can get it done," Ignatieff said. "If they won't, we'll have to have an election."
and "And I'm telling you straight and I'm telling you clear: I cannot continue to make Parliament work unless we get substantive EI reform before this Parliament rises in June." "But I can't back down on an issue as fundamental as EI. This affects hundreds of thousands of Canadians."
It sure looked like Iffy was serious but as it turned out he wasn't and Ignatieff got lucky when the PM tossed him a bone and gave him an out by agreeing to hold talks on EI over the summer; which once over, he quickly forgot all about EI.
Some quotes on how bad Ignatieff messed up with his threats.
Gilles Duceppe on Iffy: "He just choked. He looked in the mirror this morning and saw Stéphane Dion.”
Chantel Hébert: "If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck, and in this case it looks like a dead duck." and "I know that he is not Stephane Dion, but even Stephane Dion with all of his language challenges I don't think could have muffed a message that much".
Pickles or Onions.
One year ago, the beginning of the end for Ignatieff.
"I'm trying to protect these unemployed workers across the country who badly need help and if the government will work with me, we can get it done," Ignatieff said. "If they won't, we'll have to have an election."
and "And I'm telling you straight and I'm telling you clear: I cannot continue to make Parliament work unless we get substantive EI reform before this Parliament rises in June." "But I can't back down on an issue as fundamental as EI. This affects hundreds of thousands of Canadians."
It sure looked like Iffy was serious but as it turned out he wasn't and Ignatieff got lucky when the PM tossed him a bone and gave him an out by agreeing to hold talks on EI over the summer; which once over, he quickly forgot all about EI.
Some quotes on how bad Ignatieff messed up with his threats.
Gilles Duceppe on Iffy: "He just choked. He looked in the mirror this morning and saw Stéphane Dion.”
Chantel Hébert: "If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck, and in this case it looks like a dead duck." and "I know that he is not Stephane Dion, but even Stephane Dion with all of his language challenges I don't think could have muffed a message that much".
Pickles or Onions.
One year ago, the beginning of the end for Ignatieff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
