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'm with Rae. All the way.

From Warren Kinsella's blog May 27, 2010.

"I'm with Rae. All the way."

Referring of course to Bob Rae's recent comments on the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Liberal-NDP Accord in Ontario while he was Premier and a possible future coalition between the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP.

But is that what Warren really thinks? Is he really with Rae all the way?

From his (now deleted) blog an entry dated October 16, 2006: (highlighting mine)

"Okay, I think I’ve got it all figured out. Call it my pre-Halloween Political Analysis©. After attending the Liberal leadership thing in Toronto – and after reading the learned assessments of the punditocracy, wherein you will find as many opinions as there were journos in attendance – I have figured out that the Liberal Party of Canada is the Party of Fear. Its ultimate leadership selection will be determined by fear.

They are afraid:

• That Michael Ignatieff is too right wing, like Turner or Martin, or too academic, like Kim Campbell;
  
  
• That Gerard Kennedy is too bland, like Al Gore, or too incapable of French, like Preston Manning or John Crosbie;
  
  
• That Stephane Dion is too French, like Gerard Kennedy is too English;
  
  
• That Bob Rae is too much like an NDP Premier who lengthened and deepened a recession, laid off thousands of nurses, oversaw countless businesses shutting down, caused massive economic and social dislocation, seemed indifferent to one of the most scandal-plagued administrations in Ontario history, and only tore up his NDP membership card when it had taken his ambition as far as it could reasonably go. You know, that Bob Rae is, um, still Bob Rae.

The problem is that Stephen Harper doesn’t really scare Canadians anymore, or possibly never did. That’s the Grits’ problem.

Rob Anders, however, remains scary. Also, Liza Minelli. She scares me quite a bit. "



Doesn't sound like he is to me.




Update: Sort of related: Liberals can't remove Iffy even if they wanted to.

More of the same from the Liberals, and proof the coalition lives!

More divisiveness from the Liberals, but this time it is directed towards Alberta and provincial politics.

From the Calgary Herald:Alberta Liberals need to ruthlessly exploit a "civil war" among conservatives if they want to make gains in the next election; or so says Warren Kinsella.

"When the right wing is splitting up, take advantage of it. Play them off against each other, get tough and creative," Kinsella said.

A "Civil War"? Not that this is a surprise coming from the party that wants to start a culture war to divide Canadians in a sad attempt to gain votes, but WK also said something even more interesting that is going to make Peter Donolo reach for the TUMS this morning.

The coalition lives!

Kinsella said the federal Liberals and NDP are inching toward some sort of co-operation, which may put pressure on provincial counterparts to do the same.

"If the other guys are splitting up, is it a good idea to consolidate to take advantage of that? I don't think it's such a bad idea at all," Kinsella said while speaking about a vote on a controversial resolution to co-operate with other "progressive" political parties in the next election.

Warren, thanks for the confirmation on what so many of us already knew was the truth.

Enjoy your Sunday, but if you are heading off to any type of religious services please be careful as the Liberals may use that against you as part of their culture war.

Monday update: The Alberta Liberals have voted for the resolution to cooperate more with the NDP. Brilliant, now there is even less reason to vote Liberal in Alberta.

"I agree with this. Big time."

Things were not always so happy in Liberal land.

Warren Kinsella wrote on his blog October 11, 2006. "I agree with this. Big time." (Note: Link is now dead)


And what is "this"?

October 11, 2006

Mr. Michael Ignatieff, M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Dear Mr. Ignatieff:
On behalf of the Canada-Israel Committee, I am writing to express profound concern about your comments over the weekend regarding the recent conflict in Lebanon. In what appears to be very straightforward language, you accused Israel of having committed war crimes in Qa’na – an assertion you explicitly anchored in your expertise in the area of international law and the conduct of war. Notwithstanding attempts by your campaign team to provide a different context for the remarks, we remain troubled by them and what it may suggest about your overall orientation to the Middle East, Israel’s values as a vibrant democracy and the challenges Israel faces from those determined to destroy the Jewish state.
If your intentions were not to accuse Israel of having committed war crimes in Qa’na, we would ask that you issue an immediate clarification – in both official languages – that clearly sets out your view of the issue and unambiguously rejects the suggestion that Israel is guilty of any such conduct. Should you choose to offer such a clarification, we will undertake to circulate it widely within the pro-Israel community. Should you choose not to issue a statement, we would feel obliged to convey that message to our constituency as well.
Sincerely,
Marc Gold, National Chair

-------------

Related: More blasts from the Liberal Past:

Thomas Hubert, Vice President of Communications for the Young Liberal of Canada (B.C.), wrote the following on his blog:

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter ... History will remember Hezbollah as an organization that stood up to the most vile ‘nation’ in human history.”

And this from the comment section on another Liberal Blog



BigCityLib had some thoughts on the "monster" within here.


A run down of Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj quotes can be found here. (Worth reading)

And finally back to Warren again who wrote the following: August 20, 2006 – Why is the author of this blog (deadlink to thelongwalk.ca) a putative supporter of Gerard Kennedy, and claiming to be a member of the Liberal Party of Canada’s executive in BC, writing things like this on Cherniak’s blog?(see photo above) Is anything going to be done about this? If Bill Graham and Denis Coderre have any say in the matter, I doubt it. And people still ask me why I don’t feel comfortable in the Liberal Party of Canada anymore. It’s rather self-evident, I’d say.


and for an added bonus this on

August 22, 2006 - By the by, some folks are asking why Jason and I are now paying attention to the likes of the (for now) anonymous "Big City Lib" and, in Jason's case, Martha's anti-Israel communications guy. It's a fair question.

My grandmother, God rest her eternal soul, had the best view on situations like this one. "Once you've decided to clean out one toilet," said she, "you may as well clean out all the toilets."

Well, she didn't actually say that, but I can see her saying that. And it makes sense, don't it?

Pass the Brillo pads.

August 21, 2006 - Just received this, late, from the Kennedy campaign. Good statement, albeit late. It should have mentioned Hubert, however.

Now - does anyone know who is behind "Big City Lib"? Say this much for Thomas: he at least used his real name when spewing hate. Big City Lib lacks the courage of his convictions, it seems.

***

Those Liberals. One big happy bunch.

The facts on the Liberals spin on Durban1, and as you may have guessed the facts get in the way again.

How did a Blackberry get into the Parliamentary gallery?

How did a BlackBerry get into the Parliamentary gallery?

If you have ever had the pleasure of viewing Parliament live, or even the legislature of your own province, you may have noticed a couple of things during that experience. They all have security, and they take away any electronics you are carrying. Be it a cellphone, Blackberry, camera, tape recorder etc, they all get taken away.


From Jane Taber at the Globe and Mail: "Mr. Kinsella was in the gallery, watching the proceedings. He quickly typed a letter on his BlackBerry to Mr. Baird, calling his answer “lame”

From WK's blog to save you the trouble: "Dear John:

I am sitting above you in the House of Commons gallery as I write this.......


So how did this particular BlackBerry, owned by this particular "Liberal Strategist", make it into the Parliamentary gallery?

ht Maz2

There are none so blind...

There are none so blind as those that will not see. ( warning: a few WK links appear in this post)

Keep on doing what you are doing because so far it is working great and it does not take a "strategist" to see it either.


Warren sure seems to have a hate on for the National Post doesn't he. It appears that he has a hate on for them almost as much as he did for Paul Martin.

You remember Paul Martin right? The guy who became Liberal leader by instigating backroom shenanigans to hurry the departure of Jean Chretien. The guy that sent out the recruiters to the US to bring Ignatieff to Canada, and the same guy who then appointed Ignatieff in Etobicoke Lakeshore over the opposition from the Liberal riding association.


I guess that some hate lasts longer than others, but if you ask me there appears to be something very odd about the entire situation.

A 3 hour Tour.

I wonder what Gilligan will say?

Background: Scroll down to Feb 06 at this link.






(thanks again Mike for the art work)

Your daily Kinsella.

Your daily Kinsella. Today's episode: Why the The Campaign of Fear™ will not work.

Related: please read Joanne's latest at Blue like you.

Enjoy.



October 16th, 2006: "The problem is that Stephen Harper doesn’t really scare Canadians anymore, or possibly never did. That’s the Grits’ problem. "

January 5th, 2006:

"TO: LIBERAL CAMPAIGN BOSSES
FROM: YOUR REALLY GOOD PAL WARREN
RE: TOP SECRET AND SUPER CONFIDENTIAL STUFF

Dear guys: it won't work. Did last time, won't this time. Have a nice two weeks, and good luck in your return to the Liberian shipping industry.

...

As I related to a group of scary-smart U of T political science students last night, there are three reasons for this:

One, every Canadian who is not comatose understands that Harper can't form a majority government, even if he wants to, and he does. Paul Martin's top-notch handling of the Quebec file means federalism is hooped in la belle province for the forseeable future. The numbers for a majority aren't there. Folks know that.

Two, (Shameless Book Plug Alert) as noted in no less an authority than Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics, in order for an attack ad to work, it has to be factual or, at the very least, plausible. The Liberals' planned Harper Is Satan™ campaign is not plausible. Canadians have now had a couple years to see how Harper operates. He isn't neceessarily(sp) someone you'd cuddle with on the basement couch to watch 'Friends' reruns, but neither is any other politician. In this case, familiarity breeds a comfort level.

Three, as my sage pal John Wright opined a while ago, Canadians gathered around family Christmas/Hannukah tables at the end of last month and came to a collective decision: we want change, and if Harper's the only way to achieve that, so be it. Pass the cranberries.

The coming ad war won't assist the Liberals, but it certainly will have their bankers wondering if they plan to repay that fat line of credit.

Now, where is that helmet?"

---------------------

I disagree with the man politically but I must say that he does have a certain flair for writing.

A Must Read Scathing Criticism of Ignatieff

An absolute must read on Michael Ignatieff.

Who is the author you ask. Well you will find that out at the end of the post.

"It is not very often that one gets to witness a "leadership frontrunner" immolate his own candidacy so blithely, so recklessly, but if you click here and you peer inside, you will see the corpse of Michael Ignatieff’s vaulting ambition. He is done – and if he isn’t, he should be.

Now, it is true that I objected to the learned professor before reading this essay, posted over the weekend on Pierre Bourque’s site. I objected to the manner in which his supporters trampled on democracy in a Toronto riding – literally locking out opponents. I objected to his support of George W. Bush’s illegal war in Iraq. I objected to the fact that he mocked Canada (Link dead) during the three decades he was abroad, and that he likened Israeli policy to the fascism of apartheid. I objected to what I perceived to be breathtaking arrogance – calling Canada a "herbivorian boy scout" one day, then jetting up here to run it the next.

And then came this essay. Below I have culled a representative sampling of some the things Ignatieff says about torture in his just-published tour de force. His Kool Aid drinkers – and he has many already, rest assured – will bombard me with emails, braying and screeching that I quoted him out of context. But the fact is that they are his words. And the fact is that, in politics, voters and reporters are not patrician Harvard students, willing to keep quiet until the very end of the great man’s hour-long treatise, or until the end of a 10,000 word essay in the New York Times Magazine. They can be counted upon to object right away to the objectionable. Up here in the frosty herbivorian Boy Scout camp, all that it takes is a few sentences, usually, to permit a glimpse into what passes for a soul. We have that skill, boy scouts that we are.

That said, here’s Michael Ignatieff on torture. If you don’t read them now, you’ll be reading them enough during the next election campaign.

"…torture is not served by collapsing the distinction between coercive interrogation and torture. Both may be repugnant, but repugnance does not make them into the same thing."

"…necessity may require the commission of bad acts…"

"An outright ban on torture and coercive interrogation leave a conscientious security officer with little choice but to disobey the ban."

"…it must be the case that other acts of torture occur because interrogators believe, in good faith, that torture is the only way to extract information in a timely fashion…"

"The argument that torture and coercion do not work is contradicted by the dire frequency with which both practices occur."

And, finally, the epitaph:

"I am willing to get my hands dirty."

"I am willing to get my hands dirty." That much, it seems, is true."

Wow. There is a lot of info there to digest including the "herbivorian boy scout" comment which I have not heard of until reading this.

If you were thinking that the author of this is not big fan of Michael Ignatieff you would be wrong because today he is in fact a big booster of Ignatieff, but back on March 27, 2006 when this first appeared on his blog, it was obvious that the author Warren Kinsella was not the fan that he is today.

Related: More from Warren and here.

Well what are you gonna do Iggy?

Michael Ignatieff has many times stated that he is going to do politics differently, with no attack ads and with much more "civility and common purpose."


This does not look very civil to me and if someone in your party is responsible for this, what are you going to do about it?


My guess, nothing. More hollow words from the hollow man.

Hollow Words.

More from Michael Ignatieff, but this time he has gone international with his hollow words.

Canada's "fragile" unity is being rattled by a rigidly Conservative government that plays "region against region and language group against language group, "In our country, a politics that arouses ethnic and regional resentment, creating wedges in order to mobilize a conservative base vote, is playing with fire."

He has gone from coast to coast saying that he will not play the divisive politics game, but to date we have only heard the words. But the words mean nothing if they are not backed up with actions and so far Ignatieff has waffled on pretty much everything he has ever said or written. Seriously, has there been anything he has stood by? Yes Ignatieff is that predictable, and I expect him to again shy away from taking a stand or show any type of real leadership.

So you tell me. Will he waffle again or will he stand by his oft spoken words and for once show some balls and publicly distance himself from his alleged 'war room guy' for playing perhaps the most divisive card possible, religion. At the funeral of the Godfather of his own daughter no less.

It doesn't get more divisive and blatant than that people.

I say he waffles again even though he really can't afford to do it again. The man has almost no credibility left and the polls are starting to reflect this.

I guess this means...

I guess this means that Michael Ignatieff is done messing with PM Harper.


And I bet the PM is so relieved too. (sarcasm off)



The Liberals are desperately trying to spin this capitulation of everything Ignatieff has been saying since January as a win, and that is OK because with a couple of more 'wins' like this Ignatieff is going to resemble the Black Knight in the video below.



h/t

update: The Hill Times on how Ignatieff overplayed his hand and how Ralph Goodale has no clue.
"I think undoubtedly he came out of this week as a winner. He was faced with a nose to nose challenge with the Prime Minister and he won," he said, noting all of the concessions that were made with regard to the EI file, the third accountability report and changes to the House Standing Orders, or rules".

When they start laughing at you, it's all over. Fini.

February 2008: "when they start laughing at you, it's all over. Fini."

June 2009: From the Toronto Star: Pickles or onions? Iggy needs time.

Chantel Hébert (CBC At Issue Panel) on Ignatieff says "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".

Kinsella on Ignatieff

SUBJECT: ZZZZ

---

-----Original Message-----
From: Hxxxx@aol.com
To: Liberal Convention
Sent: Fri Dec 01 20:00:13 2006
Subject: CTV cut away from IGGY

CTV NewsNet cut away from Iggys speech.

Were they bored too?
Posted by Warren Kinsella on 12/1/2006 9:27:05 PM

Feeling lonely? Me too.

As a former Chrétien staffer and I agreed yesterday, you always feel a bit, well, alone in the circumstances in which Michael Ignatieff has placed us.

In the initial handshaking and glad-handing, one wonders (fleetingly) if one shouldn't just get onside and join the frat party. It's truly that seductive, this devolution stuff - and, to be honest, it conforms with our national personality: to compromise. To try and be conciliators. I've seen it before at Meech, and Charlottetown, and any other time a politician wants to write him or herself into the constitutional history books. The elite consensus is so strong, and so pervasive, you start to question yourself.

You shouldn't. As before, as with Meech and Charlottetown, the elites are way, way behind the people. In both of those cases - as now - the people will eventually take notice, and rise up, and put an end to it.

-------

Source. (it looks like it has gone down the memory hole but it is a good thing I have most of the good stuff copied)

Kinsella sues again

and again and again.

His latest can be read here: Paradis Libel Notice

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Court Filings Business Uncategorizable-Unca Tutorial-Dating-Advi

Am I missing something here? How is that statement quoted in any way libelous?


Update: There is more than 1 person claiming that the above obscure reference is referring to them.

I Googled the quote as listed in the libel notice since the it made the following claim:

"The words complained of were accurately published by various media sources and therefore constitute a broadcast. The words complained of were picked up by various news wire services and were spread throughout the world on the world wide web."

I got exactly 1 hit! That one hit being Ezra's latest blog post which quotes the libel notice itself.

It has gone viral I tell you, viral!

A little word association game for a Sunday

Liberal Party.

Advertising.

Money.

Mistake.

Kinsella.

Michael Ignatieff.

Small town cheap.

---------------------------------------

Ht Joanne.

Sorry for my absence.

Sorry for my absence, but I have been busy writing a book and did not want to disturb your Christmas.

Ht BLY

Hidden Intelligence Update

I am sorry to say that, for this guy at least, the intelligence remains hidden or perhaps may not even exist at all.

Tired old lines from a tired old party hack who jumps on and off the bandwagon when he sees it as a benefit, not for the party, but for himself.

Pathetic yes, but a perfect fit with the ideals of the Liberal Party and his boy Iggy.

--------------------

BTW, do you honestly think even WK believes it when he writes crap like this: " Message to Canadian women: if they get a majority, they plan to take away your right to choose. Period. " ?

IMHO, it says a lot about what he thinks of the intelligence of his own readership.