Michael Ignatieff's worrisome answer to a simple question
Michael Ignatieff is asked a relatively innocent question, and still manages to answer it in a way that sets off alarms. He gets clever and evasive in a way that could suggest he wants to be prime minister, and that he wants to start immediately after Stephen Harper no longer has the job. Well, then what about Stephane Dion?
After Question Period today, there was a scrum involving Liberal Party deputy leader Michael Ignatieff. Here is the exchange as best as I can figure it:
Question: If you were the Minister, if you were Prime Minister, would you accept the Chief of Defence Staff contradicting something you said (inaudible)?
Michael Ignatieff: I love the hypothesis that I would be a Prime Minister, but let me not go there. Let me just say that any, any parliamentarian wants to be absolutely sure that everybody's on the same page, that we're singing from the same sheet, that we're talking the same language. You can't go out in a throne speech and, and say 2011 and then have your Chief of the Defence Staff saying well actually, it's 2017. And then third, to make it worse, let's appoint a panel to look at a third set of options and then in the House of Commons, to hide behind that panel when you don't know what the heck you're doing. I mean this creates, this creates a very bad impression of incompetence and mismanagement. And the troops deserve better.
I love the hypothesis that I would be a Prime Minister, but let me not go there. Let me just say...
Michael Ignatieff has a problem. Either everyone mistakenly believes he is gunning for Stephane Dion's job, or everyone correctly believes he is gunning for Stephane Dion's job.
Either way, when he is offered up a simple question like this one, an innocent one when asked of anyone else, his answer will be dissected in detail.
The funny thing is that the correct answer is the same whether he wants the job or not. The key is that it is simple and straightforward. If I was prime minister? Gosh, I don't usuallly spend a lot of time thinking about that. But to answer your question,...
Or something along those lines. Just play it straight up and innocent. Answer the question directly in the way it was posed. Don't get clever.
But "I love that hypothesis"? To a someone worried about signs of discontent in the Liberal Party, those words are not encouraging. No mention of Stephane Dion, directly or otherwise.
He doesn't want to "go there"? Why not? What would he have said? Would he have torn a strip off the reporter for setting up that question, or would he have had some choice words for the quality of leadership being offered by Stephane Dion?
"Let me just say"? So what is he leaving out?
A politician ought never say that he has an answer to a question but that he dare not utter that answer in public.
On all counts, this was not a good answer for a deputy leader, and definitely not for this particular deputy leader. Not a good answer at all.
Craig Offman recently wrote this for the National Post:
In a scene in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Caesar, worried that his political colleagues might not be so enthusiastic about his leadership, notes: "Let me have men about me that are fat; yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look." To Stephane Dion, Michael Ignatieff must be looking downright cadaverous about now.
Normally I would prefer to dismiss the answer that Michael Ignatieff gave as nothing more than a clumsy extemporaneous attempt to be funny. But we know Michael Ignatieff is always thinking, and coupled with a tendency to be far too frank for his own good, he has gotten into trouble. His leadership bid was deeply wounded when he said he was "not losing sleep" over civilian deaths in Lebanon during the summer war with Israel in 2006. Ignatieff enraged Liberals when he refused to commit to running in a subsequent election if he did not win the Liberal leadership. Ignatieff sowed confusion with his vague answers with regards to Quebec nationhood.
So now when tossed a softball question with the phrase "if you were prime minister", Michael Ignatieff goes on about the way he loves the hypothesis but that he couldn't possibly share his ideas about being prime minister where people might hear them.
I just shake my head. Is it possible for this guy to answer a question in a way that would not make his supporters groan in severe pain?
Advice for Michael Ignatieff: Don't be funny. Don't try to be witty. And for God's sake, don't be sly! It's not entirely your fault, but in your position, and with what people think of your future ambitions, anything that sounds the least bit evasive just feeds into preconceptions that you are either trying to correct (because they are wrong) or that you are trying to deflect (because they are uncomfortably close to the truth).
This goes double for any question that includes the words "prime minister" or "Stephane Dion" in it.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Michael Ignatieff Stephane Dion Liberal Party Stephen Harper Conservative Party Canada
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
That segment was on CTV Duffy Live, and they also interviewed Bob Rae on the same topic of Afghanistan. Both spoke extemporaneously and presented the Liberal positions quite succinctly.
Also interviewed was Stephane Dion but on a one-on-one format by a Halifax-based CTV journalist, and the setting was well controlled with both seated in big soft sofas. Dion was relaxed, but his english diction still contained annoying hitches.
Since there are no mistakes in advertising, it suggests that Iggy and Rae are the front men in English, scrum-style interviews, while Dion is protected in a calm studio setting.
I also suspect the Liberal party are attempting to mitigate Dion's failing image by offering Iggy and Rae as part of the Liberal "Team" to show Canadians all their talents .. but who's the Boss ..?!
Posted by: Observer at October 26, 2007 08:00 PM
Liberals all looked very good today on the issue while the Conservative Government (now, not so new) looked confused and foolish.
This was not a good day for Stephen Harper.
Iggy, Rae and Dion all looked poised and smooth.
Posted by: sam at October 26, 2007 08:51 PM
I would not have interpreted that comment as "Sticky Mickey" accidentally letting it slip that he'd like to be the PM.
Mr. Ignatieff has an annoying habit of accepting perceived praise very gratuitously. He took it as a compliment and wallowed in it.
Posted by: Okhropir rumiani at October 26, 2007 09:00 PM
Forget Michael Ignatieff. Bob Rae's the guy to watch. Compare Rae's performance on today's Mike Duffy Live to Ignatieff's awkward sallies outside the House of Commons. Your advice to Count Iggy is right on the mark, but he's not the player with game.
Posted by: GDW at October 26, 2007 09:42 PM
"Forget Michael Ignatieff. Bob Rae's the guy to watch. "
I cannot believe that Rae's name is mentioned for any reason other than dirisive purposes and object lessons. He ruined Ontario's economy... who in the hell thinks we should give him a crack at the whole country?
Posted by: Larry at October 26, 2007 11:01 PM
I agree with you about Bob Rae. He belongs (or is owned by) the same cabal that has owned all of our Prime Ministers (except Harper) since Trudeau. PowerCorp, Desmairais and of course, Bob Rae favourite uncle, Saddam business partner, communist China mogul, founded of secret caverns of OUR money funnelled through CIDA - Maurice Strong.
These people are the backroom elite that have controlled our country for more than 40 years. Do you think they are going to let an un-corruptible upstart like Stephen Harper continue his run on THEIR turf.
Here is an article on Bob Rae worth reading:
http://flaggman.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/bob-rae-federalism-editorial/
Posted by: Lorraine at October 26, 2007 11:07 PM
I think you are reading too much into Iggy's grammar and portentous speaking style. I have no doubt that he would love to be PM, and believes himself to be better suited to the role than Steffi - but I don't think this betrays an incipient palace coup.
Posted by: DCardno at October 27, 2007 01:05 AM
My point about Bob Rae is that he is a better and more polished political performer than either Michael Ignatieff or Stephane Dion, and that that ability makes him a real contender for the Liberal leadership. I lived in Toronto during Rae's tenure as premier and am well aware of the objections to him. He's not my guy. But he could well take out Ignatieff in a leadership race after Dion quits, and there are a couple of examples among today's tv videos that show you why.
Posted by: GDW at October 27, 2007 02:02 AM
Iggy has spent too long in halls of higher learning, he's still in the mode of professorial musings.
Ignatieff, Rae or Dion, none of them click with the title of Prime Minister and for varying reasons. The various factions in the Party jostling for the top, have now branched out from the Chretien/Martin camps and splintered off among the also-rans.
They're a long way off from getting their own house in order and in no position to govern the country.
Posted by: Libby at October 27, 2007 07:13 AM
Michael Ignatieff is a good man.
The demographic winter is here.
Aging workforce in the US.
geocities(dot)com/demographic_crash
Website with good information on the subject.
Welcome.
Have a nice day.
Sincerely,
Solange Miller
Posted by: Solange Miller at October 27, 2007 08:08 AM
Iggy has about as much chance of becoming PM as Rob Anders or Jason Kenney or Rona Ambrose, unless of course he joins the Conservatives. Then, his chances improve considerably because he will stand head and shoulders above the airheads that constitute the Harper front bench.
Posted by: at October 27, 2007 09:02 AM
Boy, this is newsworthy. Front page stuff. Are you getting desperate for some trash and bash? Didn't Harper give you tomorrow's story yet?
If you need help, we could oblige - we could get into the CPC scandals, lies, etc. Just in case you're running out of material, you know.
Posted by: Sam at October 27, 2007 10:18 AM
Sam, deal with your Liberal scandals instead of trying to invent them to smear others. You're down to the level of petty politics, lies and innuendo. In the Librano conglomerate of miscreants scandal is the real thing, deal with it there before branching out.
Posted by: Libby at October 27, 2007 10:33 AM
Don't sell Iggy short.
After all, it's been about two whole years since he came back to Canada after spending most of his adult life lecturing abroad from his academic pulpit, back when suddenly Liberal MP Jean Augustine "decided" not to seek re-election in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, leaving an opening for the coronation nomination of Iggy, a contest which was rife with allegations made by his Liberal competitors of dirty tricks.
After losing the Liberal leadership to Stéph-The-Incincible, Iggy signaled his continued pursuit of the Red Throne firstly by not beating a hasty retreat back to his foreign lectern, and secondly, by flip-flopping on his long-held support for the ouster of Sadam. In his summertime mea culpa in the New York Times, Iggy nonchalantly dismissed his previous stance as the impractical and naive musings of a former (and since cured, thank goodness!) academic:
"As a former denizen of Harvard, I've had to learn that a sense of reality doesn't always flourish in elite institutions. It is the street virtue par excellence. Bus drivers can display a shrewder grasp of what's what than Nobel Prize winners. . . ."
I agree that Ralph Kramden might make a better PM than Iggy, but, I doubt that the wily professor is quite finished with his Great Northern Adventure.
Posted by: aek at October 27, 2007 11:27 AM
Ignatieff and Rae are not 'unity' leaders, and should either one be chosen as Liberal leader, it would disasterously split the Liberals apart. Both are yesterday's men and do not represent Canadian aspirations for a leader.
The Liberal party is still tainted with their past corruption, and the next leader must remove those stains by their unifying and pacifying presence.
The next Liberal leader must be a woman ... and who better than MARTHA HALL-FINDLAY .. a woman of impecable credentials and proven abilities.
Go to her website at: www.votemartha.ca and read her bio. She is just what the Liberal party needs to win back the Liberal vote, and particularly women who constitute 52% of the Canadian population.
You heard it here first.
Posted by: Observer at October 27, 2007 11:37 AM
Sam's been into the kool-aid again.
Posted by: Bruce Randall at October 27, 2007 12:30 PM
ah, Sam realizes that Liberal scandals were 12 years ago - the CPC scandals our now - 2007.
By resorting to 12 years ago doesn't take away what's happening now.
This Johnnie hit me first kid stuff is tiresome. It's time for Harper, et al to take responsibility like their suppose instead of blaming everyone else for their failings - that's just kid stuff.
Posted by: Sam at October 27, 2007 01:17 PM
Posted by: Observer at October 26, 2007 08:00 PM
I saw that interview with Dion also. Wow, was that ever a soft one eh? When Dion slagged Mr. Harper's numbers, the interviewer asked him very quietly about his own numbers. Dion did not answer the question and the interviewer did not ask again. Dion is like a delicate little egg that they are all handling ever so carefully.
It was a bad day for LIberals. That they would twist and use this mission for their own political gain is just shameful. Hillier said that it would take 10 years to train the Afghan army, and yes it will. However, he never said it would be Canadian troops doing the training. There are 37 other countries involved in Afghanistan who can take over training any time. Rae & Iggy both know that. They are creating confusion and disgusting political spin for the Liberal party fortunes. How absolutely low can you go?
Leasa
Posted by: Leasa at October 27, 2007 01:36 PM
Dion was interviewed in Halifax by Steve "Couch Potato" Murphy.
Posted by: James alker at October 27, 2007 02:30 PM
Sam: you realize one thing, it's kid stuff being tossed around by none other than your desperate Libranos. Small stuff scraped from the dregs in the barrel is so much easier to deal with than facing up to the colossal quagmire of the Liberal Party at this time and you know it. Denial is the first hurdle to get over, go for it.
Posted by: Libby at October 27, 2007 03:32 PM
Libby - nice try - doesn't work. Lies are lies - no matter who's involved.
Gee, I see Leasa is doing her troll thing - she's all over the place trashing and bashing - what a way to spend your day - sad, sad.
Posted by: Sam at October 27, 2007 03:53 PM
As a newcomer to this 'debate', I must point-out re that last comment - Look in the mirror, Sam.
Posted by: Jim at October 27, 2007 04:03 PM
Sam: Yeah, right, whatever!
Posted by: Libby at October 27, 2007 04:39 PM
Sam: one more thing, what's your definition of a Troll?
Posted by: Libby at October 27, 2007 04:42 PM
You Reform/Tory supporters love to berate Dion to the point that he will become a national hero for putting up with your lies, innuendos and plain rumour mongering.
The Liberals are not about to give any information out that is meaningful simply because Harper's policy book is so bankrupt and devoid of anything he can sell to Canadians and he's looking to steal Liberal policies and ideas so he can portray himself as a centrist.
Maybe your party faithful should focus on how he treats his MP's that don't follow the puppet master faithfully. and maybe you should be building your defenses over the upcoming scandal about your election spending processes. Stop hammering the court system with your stonewalling tactics and admit you all lied and cheated the public.
Get used to Dion he will be yourPM one day..... a day he chooses, not one of your own.
Posted by: Terry in Toronto at October 27, 2007 04:53 PM
Sam, what I said is true. Liberals are using the mission as a tool to help rebuild their party. Problem is, their nasty plan won't work.
Terry? Are you the same 'Terry' that latched on to Martin? ha ha ha...sounds like it. How's Scott and the rest of the Earnscliff gang. Are ya still under investigation? If anyone needs to "reform" it's the old Martinites. Got to give Chretien credit, he nailed your asses, now if someone would return the favour...
Leasa
Posted by: Leasa at October 27, 2007 05:28 PM
Terry, you been living in a bubble without any insight into what's been going on in Canadian politics?
If you need a glance at trained seals following the party boss, have a look back to your Liberal leaders.
At this point the fractured Liberals can't even stand for their own stated "principles", they sit on their asses or don't show up. Why?
Well let's start with they're broke, can't raise the bucks, they're divided into factions which have branched out from the Chretien-Martin hate-in into further splinter groups for the also-rans. It's a freaking mess.
Let's talk about a Liberal government in about a decade.
Posted by: Libby at October 27, 2007 05:42 PM
Terry, remember? The fiberals have no policies
Posted by: Jake at October 27, 2007 06:37 PM
"A politician ought never say that he has an answer to a question but that he dare not utter that answer in public."
spoken like a true Librano
Posted by: kelly at October 27, 2007 06:58 PM
OMG! hahaha! The Day Dion becomes MY PM, is the day Hell freezes over! Thanks for the laugh Terry in Toronto! You Libs may have nothing much going for you, but you sure do have a sense of humour. But, enjoy having Harper as YOUR PM, because he's going to be one for a long, long time.
Posted by: Barbara in Wpg. at October 27, 2007 07:24 PM
Hey Sam, how many years ago was it the Liberal's were caught taking donations from minors, and, if I remember right, dead people?
How many years ago was it Liberal cabinet ministers were caught taking free flights and fishing vacations from the Irving family?
And how much did Canadian Steamship Lines get in federal contracts up until the 2005 elections? Just round it off to the closest million if it's easier.
And hey, who do you think will clear their name and reputation first, O.J. Simpson or Lawrence McCauley?
Posted by: jccs at October 27, 2007 09:12 PM
Interesting you mention Earnscliffe.
Have you not noticed that it is now dominated by Harper pals?
I think Harpers former communications boss Geoff Norquay is now a senior partner ther.
But, I guess all is well now, as untendered contracts to Conservative firms are fine, right?
Stats show there have been more untendered contracts under Harper than previous Lib governments.
Enjoy your koolaid.
Posted by: tory_watcher at October 27, 2007 10:40 PM
Umm... I still don't see the big deal with this comment. People are now getting to the point of reading everything into anything Iggy says...
What's that? Iggy said he's going out for lunch and he's not going to order poutine? Must be a change of heart on Quebec.
Posted by: Ivan at October 28, 2007 01:14 AM
Abstract paintings
Angel painting
animal paintings
ballet paintings
beach painting
Boat painting
building painting
Children painting
Christ painting
church painting
City painting
Cottage painting
Dancer painting
field painting
Floral paintings
Garden painting
Hunting paintings
impressionist painting
Knight painting
Lady painting
Landscape painting
Lighthouse paintings
Music painting
Nude painting
Oriental paintings
Piano painting
Seascapes paintings
Still Life paintings
street painting
sunset painting
Tropical paintings
Venice paintings
Village painting
wine paintingsalvador dali paintings
thomas kinkade paintings
pablo picasso paintings
vincent van gogh paintings
claude monet paintings
diego rivera paintings
Posted by: aswkin at July 17, 2008 09:45 AM
 
|
|
