That would explain why Bob Rae has been nowhere to be found as of late. So much for the "strong front bench".

Uh, excuse me?

Bob and Scott, and John and many others have been <a href="highly visible.

At some point, you conservatives should try joining the reality based world, the one that is not just a regurgitation of Tory talking points and wishful thinking.

Bob wrote an op-ed in the National Post, and appeared on television in the last two days.

What will the Liberal friendly, PPG call this posturing by the, Liberal leader?
I venture to guess that it will not be, "hidden agenda".
My instincts tell me, that if the best they can do is, Ms Copps, Mr Boudria, Mr McCallum, Mr Brisson...., then they still have some work to do.
My mute button is getting a lot of overtime with the, interrupting, loud and abusive nature of their interviews.
BBDA = Best Before Date, Applies.

Bec. you are so right. My mute button also gets a lot of overtime. In particular if that twit Ruby Dahla comes
on. Can she ever say something that is grown in her own backyard.?

Press release from the Chinese Canadian Conservative Association:



Senior Ignatieff Liberal's "cat meat" comment offends the Chinese community



Chinese Canadian Conservative Association calls on Liberal leader to fire Senior Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella



Toronto – Alex Yuan, chair of the Chinese Canadian Conservative Association called on Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to distance himself from the comments made by senior Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella. In a recent blog posting Kinsella likened the meat found in Chinese cuisine to cat meat.



“Back in the Big Owe for a couple weeks, so what better way to kick things off than with some BBQ cat and rice at the Yang Sheng, hangout of our youth? Yay!”



Kinsella repeated the offensive comment in a video posting on his website.



“Our community is deeply concerned with Mr. Kinsella's comments. Kinsella repeats the most vulgar and offensive stereotypes by associating the meat served by Chinese restaurants to cat meat. He has hurt the feelings of the Chinese people and disrespected the Chinese culture," continued Yuan.



“This is not the first instance of such intolerant remarks by Mr. Kinsella therefore we call upon Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to fire Mr. Kinsella as his senior strategist and apologize to the community.”



Mr. Kinsella was forced to apologize for another intolerant blog posting in 2007. In the 2007, he wrote a post suggesting that Progressive Conservative MPP Lisa MacLeod would rather bake cookies than run for office.



For more information please contact:

Tom Pang, CCCA Director

416-447-0446

All fine and dandy in theory, but how does Iggy enforc this discipline. Like Dion, he doesn't have much in the way of carrots and sticks to use on his caucus. Besides, Iggy's leadership still has to be ratified by delegates at their May Convention. Iggy will have to show the Party something substantial, in the way of donations and polling results. I just don't see Iggy as having earned the kind of loyalty that Harper earned early on as CA, and then CPC leader.

Gee - isn't it funny how acceptable and admirable it all is now that it is a Liberal leader doing it ! Of course Jane has no comments on that story - probably because she knows that she would get lambassed.

I don't see the reason behind the GAG ORDER. It is not to say that the MSM like Taber, Tonda, or who ever may be in the liberal world MSM will speak against the Liberals or say anything to damage the reputation of the liberal party; in fact, the MSM only will speak against the conservatives on a regular basis while protecting the liberals.

If canada had a Democratic MSM like they do in the United States, Canadians may not have to dig into the net for up to date news. because, if one side MSM(dem or rep) decides to hide from the public; the other MSM(dem or rep) will reveal the whole story which makes things much easier.

In the meantime, Canadians who want to know the truth of a story have no choice but to go to the NET and BLOGS.

1. I am surprised that Jane Taber would divulge the information cum commentary lockdown put in force by Ignatieff.

2. Did you notice how other leaders, now that Pres. Obama is in the White House, have adopted the doors to the HoC as background for their pressers?
Both Duceppe and Layton used the same venue to give their reactions to Ignatieff's decision on the budget.
I also notice a podium is now acceptable in the PG press room, which Ignatieff used for his presser.

So, it's no longer considered tacky republican American-style? Or is it OK to like Americans again? (not that I ever stopped liking them).

I seem to remember Layton using the entrance to the House of Commons as a backdrop a couple of times before Obama was sworn in, and even before the U.S. election happened.

It is funny how, the Dippers and the Bloc not but two short years ago constantly bashed the Republican goverrnment of George Bush, and rediculed the CPC and Prime Minister Harper at every turn. Now under Obama we have to bend over backwards to accomodate him; yet, the Democrats when in power have always been more protectionist than the Republicans. When Canada had a Conservative government the relationship between the US and Canada was always at its peak.

Under the Trudeau, Chretien and Martin eras all that we heard from them was insults. Remember Carolyn Parish stomping on a Bush doll, and Chretiens assistant calling Bush a moron.

What's next is he going to select members of the press to lob pre-selected questions? Now, that would be scandalous....

Here's the thing though. Ignatieff is looking far meaner and mean-spirited lately than Harper. Down right arrogant and nasty if you ask me. Hey, but keep it up. At least Mr. Harper has a good sense of timing and knowing when to fight back smartly, and when to keep quiet.

Actually, it's about time the MSM got its own report card.

Cale, You know Prof. Iggy is running into a problem with all the MP's from Newfoundland & Lab.
I beginn to wonder how long he is going to tolerate this. Of course Premier Williams is shooting off his mouth again. You think Iggy may pay special attention to him. Or are the Lib's doing what they did in the past abstain from voting. Only time will tell.

Re Ted's comment: "Bob and Scott, and John and many others have been <a href="highly visible."

At first, I totally agreed, because I thought Ted had said, "Bob and Scott, and John and many others have been highly RISIBLE."

Calgary Junkie: "I just don't see Iggy as having earned the kind of loyalty that Harper earned early on as CA, and then CPC leader." Good point. Iggy was parachuted into the Etobicoke-Lakeshore riding and now has been parachuted into the leadership position. The guy's a poseur. I especially love his furrowed brow, which passes for gravitas and professorial wisdom. Nice try, Count Iggy, but no cigar. On the other hand, PMSH has actual gravitas and is a pretty shrewd political strategist, something that really irks the Liberal patsies in the MSM. Well, tough.

As for Tonda McCharles and other journalists' whining about the CPC and PMSH's reticence to be open with the media: Why would they after the abysmal abuse of the PM and his party by the MSM? 'You kick someone in the solar plexus over and over again and then get sore because they won't shake your hand or invite you home for dinner? What kind of sadists are these folks?

Your statement is full of ridiculous contradictions.

First of all, Michael Ignatieff is world renowned as a public intellectual. Stephen Harper is has an M.A. but that's hardly public intellectual material.

Secondly, for Ignatieff to show up on the scene and so quickly move to the top (and replace Harper at the top of popularity polls since) clearly demonstrates his ability as a politician and strategist. He couldn't have done the things you allege unless that much is true.

I haven't seen polls saying Ignatieff is on top, but I'll take your word for it. That said, he has a total of about 5 minutes of opposition leader experience under his belt. (Pardon my exaggeration.) If he is on top, it has absolutely nothing to do with abilities as a politician and strategist, but rather to do with the honeymoon new prominent politicians get in the polls shortly after they step into the limelight. People always have high hopes for the new guy. You can't scan the numbers in the paper a week after the new kid strolled into town and expect them to read like tea leaves.

Secondly, you are equating intellectual knowledge with political ability and strategy. Apples and oranges! Even if such a thing DID matter, Ignatieff has a PhD in HISTORY. Of the Social Sciences, history might be the least useful in the political arena. (Somewhere between anthropology and linguistics.) On the flip side, Harper's MA is in economics - something that arguably comes in handy considering the recent market conditions.

I hate getting into tit for tat arguments, but I just had to point out that the 'ridiculous contradictions' are in fact all yours.

"I hate getting into tit for tat arguments, but I just had to point out that the 'ridiculous contradictions' are in fact all yours." EXACTLY! I'm afraid Iggy has yet to experience how fickle the MSM is. It will be a tad bit more difficult than he thinks. His arrogance is up front and center as he condescends to Canadians whenever he speaks. Pretty words that prove how "intelligent"" you are will not be enough in the long run. it will be fun to watch.

Your assessment of the study of history clearly shows that you never studied it, and therefore have no frame of reference on which to judge its merits with any degree of accuracy.

And it was the previous poster who called into question Ignatieff's professorial wisdom.

Au contraire my leftist friend, my second minor is history. Why? Because I enjoy it. However, It would be a cold day in hell if I ever thought that such area of expertise would assist me if I ever ran the country. While I am not dismissing the subject's usefulness in areas of academic life, there are few advantages that history would directly provide that would come in useful while campaigning for office or verbally battling across the green carpet.

However, the entire argument is moot, for as I mentioned before, intellectual knowledge has very little to no bearing on political ability. Perhaps no better example can be found than in Stephane Dion. He has a doctorate in sociology, and I think it can be easily accepted by both the left and right that he is perhaps the worst politician in Canadian history. (Aside from possibly Kim Campbell.)

While I disagree with him on almost everything that comes out of his mouth, I am not saying Ignatieff is a bad politician. All I am saying is not to form any preconceptions just because he has a couple letters after his name.

Second minor...isn't that like saying you wandered into a history class by accident one day, thought it was interesting, and decided to stick around for a while?

We're not talking about an expert in the enlightenment in the principality of Lichtenstein during the late 16th century. We're talking about world renowned expert on human rights and international relations - present and historical.

dbo789.....Harper may have a degree in economics but an economist he is not. He has scrwed us royally for many years to come with his populist stupidity.

And you think that all economists magically agree on how the economy works and what should be done to stimulate it? There are as many views in economics as there are in politics - perhaps more.

Furthermore I'm confused about how you feel he 'screwed us'? Are you naive enough to think that a the world economic recession, which has affected every country from the USA to China, was single handedly caused by our very own Prime Minister? And furthermore, that anyone could have saw it coming or prevented it?

The market moves in cycles. Some highs are higher and some lows are lower. Thus is the nature of the markets, and while the public may not like to hear it, the leaders of the free world don't actually have very much control over what happens. What defines a world leader is what they do in the low times and high times, and the plan Harper has proposed follows the same ideals most other industrialized nations are following. (Not to mention that it is seen as acceptable to the Liberals, who had surprisingly few qualms with the budget and promised to pass it less than 24 hours after Mr. Flaherty sat down.)

Due to your seeming inability to understand the basic concepts of the market system, how do you feel you that you have the qualifications to determine exactly who and who shouldn't be called an economist?

I personally do not believe this is Harper's fault, or that it can be controlled in Canada. But the questions I must always ask are these:

1. Have the actions of the Harper government affected us at all?
2. If not, why not?
3. If so, how?
4. And at the end, is life in Canada better or worse for their decisions?
5. Or, could someone else have done better?

And when I look at things like the GST cut which did virtually nothing to stimulate the economy, but which cost the government $13 billion - the same amount as the pre-stimulus deficit in fact - and all this after blowing a rather large buffer, I see a government that spent unwisely when times were half-decent, and therefore had no money to respond with better stimulus sooner when things really went south.

I also see a government that introduced no stimulus when every other major country when every other major country is doing so (the November F.U.) and a P.M. that shut Parliament down for a holiday to save his own skin.

Now you may or may not agree with the idea of stimulus, but as you say "There are as many views in economics as there are in politics - perhaps more. "

But (a) when the majority of nations are led by politicians who, (b) relying on the majority of credible economists, said (c) stimulus was needed many, many months ago...and (d) Canada's Conservatives decided not to deliver...

...I see a government that certainly hasn't (a) made life any better, (b) may have in fact made it worse, (c) definitely responded later than everyone else, and (d) abandoned it's principles in the process - to a much larger tune than it might have had to, had it responded more wisely sooner.

Not a good track record for an "economist" Prime Minister.

What do you see?

To start with, I do applaud your ability to realize that Harper is not the cause of all the world's problems. It is a rather unique quality to find in a leftist Canadian. However, that is the only part of your post I can agree with.

There was no stimulus in November because it would have been premature. While Canada is now feeling the effects of the recession more, at the time we were better off (and still are) then our American friends. Not to mention, had Harper launched a bailout program at that point, it would have been without the input from the provinces, without substantial input from Canadian business and community leaders, and without knowing exactly how bad it was going to get. Simply throwing random amounts of money at a problem is completely ineffective if you don't know where to aim.

Secondly, I am not getting into another 'confidence of the house' argument, but I have to comment on the prorogation. Shutting Parliament down was needed because it was non functional. Period. There was no way that anything was going to be passed by Duceppe, Layton and their puppet Dion, even if the stimulus had outflanked the NDP to the left. (If that's possible.) There weren't acting on what they felt was right for Canadians, they were conspiring solely in a power grab. Even if they Conservatives had been ousted and the coalition took over, it would have taken them just as long as it has to put together a bailout plan. Just recently there was a comment by good ole' Taliban Jack about how he would vote against the Conservative budget without even seeing it. If he has that attitude now, imagine what he was like when there was a chance he would get a cabinet seat.

Lastly, judging the Conservatives' performance in the recession right now is like trying to write a book review after you've read only the first chapter. Everyone likes to think they know what is going to happen and how it is going to work, but the honest truth is that no one can read the future. Making judgements now, before the budget is even PASSED, is not just pointless, it is immature and unreasonable. At least wait until the clouds clear, so you have some numbers to back up your partisan arguments.

First off, I am not a leftist Canadian; just a Canadian. I am a pro-life Christian, but in practice, I follow the mantra of to each his or her own. I am strong believer in legal rights, but also believe that no right exists without a corresponding responsibility, and no right should be executed irresponsibly (i.e. as to grossly impede the rights of others). Perhaps it's too complicated for a black-and-white, right-and-wrong conservative to understand that someone can straddle the left-right divide in spirit and practice, and vote Liberal by something other than apathy or mistake.

As for your points:

1. The storm has been coming for a long time; Flaherty admits so much. He claims to have seen it coming two years ago, which provided the impetus for cutting the GST. If he is to be believed, the process of consultation with the provinces ought to have happened sooner, and since the Liberals were weak under Dion before the (unnecessary) election, Harper could have easily passed whatever measures he wanted then. But, he wanted a majority, saw a weakness, went for the throat, and tried to avoid the fallout of a downturn before it became overly apparent to Joe Sixpack.

2. I was never a huge fan of the coalition in and of itself. I found it to be a useful tool for a specific time with narrow scope, but frankly I'm glad it's dead now. But even ardent Conservatives have to admit it changed things by shaking the previously unshakable Harper. But, despite the vocal few, I would perish the thought that most Liberals are in favour of joining forces with the NDP. We're no't.

3. I wasn't making future judgment; I was judging track record (and clearly stated this using that exact term).

To date, I do not feel that my life, or the lives of my family members, friends, neighbours, or majority of my co-workers are any better after three years of Stephen Harper...and while I cannot predict the future, I have little reason to believe that if Harper stays in power (heaven forbid) my life will be better in a year, two years, or five years from now, and certainly no better than it was before 2006, from a political perspective.

You seem to fall into the same trap as all the people who thinks Harper should
have acted differently. As a Canadian, I could see no other alternative. Besides
If we had ended up with a Coalition we would have been much worse off. None of the other jokers would have been better for Canada, in fact I believe infinitely worse. Besides things started to happen very fast. I still don't believe that Canada needed such a huge stimulus. We were pushed and panicked into this.

DB0789
If the Ilberals were'nt so desperate after Dion and the last election, I don't think Iggy would stand
much of a chance. Frankly to watch his arrogance and condescention on TV makes me want to vomit.

As far as History is concerned, I have to disagree with you. History is so close to politics that you often cannot tell where one starts and the other ends. We historians( I am one of them) say:"No event in history stands ever alone. There was always something else before ,that led up to it.
I think the same thing can be said of politics.

I agree with your sentiments on history; disagree with your take on Ignatieff.

Michael your are out to lunch. Being intellectual does not mean being a good politician.

Mr. Iggy stayed 30 years in the USA (I guess Canada was not good enough). Now he wants
to be MP. Parachuted one at that. No Convention, No election. Yea, right.

Boy. You're doing an awful lot of griping for someone whose party is in government. It must be pretty embarrassing to have your hard man Harper so emasculated in front of your eyes.

Michael ,jealousy will get you nowhere

And the Liberals were perfectly content and happy during the Paul Martin minority days? As for emasculation, it is funny you use that term, especially considering Mr. Ignatieff's predecessor. I've seen larger cahones on Sheila Copps.

ZING! One point for the blue team!

Ok, all jokes aside, your comment is childish, not constructive, and obviously intended only to evoke the type of response I just gave you. I do sincerely hope you enjoyed yourself.

Ignatieff is starting to get to the point where a politician is ridiculed.

I wonder how many hours he stands in front of a mirror practicing his "stern looks".

"I wonder how many hours he stands in front of a mirror practicing..."

Not nearly as long as Harper does telling himself he didn't run away from a non-confidence commons. All praise President Harper.

michael said:
''First of all, Michael Ignatieff is world renowned as a public intellectual. Stephen Harper is has an M.A. but that's hardly public intellectual material.''

Are you fool enough to think that because some dude has 37 letters behind his name, he can run a country?
Less than 15% of Canadians can relate to a guy who likes the smell of cowpoop yet has never had to shovel any.


''Secondly, for Ignatieff to show up on the scene and so quickly move to the top (and replace Harper at the top of popularity polls since) clearly demonstrates his ability as a politician and strategist. He couldn't have done the things you allege unless that much is true.''

Iggy's numbers didn't even come close to the highs Dion got from his 'bounce':

Liberal popularity peaking with Dion: poll
CanWest News Service
December 08, 2006

• 38 per cent of decided voters would cast their ballots for the Liberals, up by seven percentage points since the last Ipsos Reid poll in November;

• 32 per cent would vote for the Conservatives, a drop of five percentage points;
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id...

Dion Liberals jump in poll
Leader's upset win puts party six points ahead of Tories, new survey shows
It shows that if an election were held today, the Liberals led by Mr. Dion would garner 37 per cent of the vote, compared with 31 per cent for the Conservatives.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RT...


New poll out today, first post budget poll for Iggy:
Cons 38
Libs 29
http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/page...

That's where we were on election day, Liberals worst showing in 100 years.
Iggy has done nothing for you.

wilson, I hope you read the full poll and noted that Harper's credibility has nosedived and pleas read the articles out tonight that has everyone of his old mentors and coworker at the NCC being severely critical of him. His days are now numbered after his major screw up in November.

The adjective that comes to mind for Iggy is 'BULLY'.

Wouldn't it be nice to start hearing that in the MSM?

Gee Terri, you don't have to go far to find an article critical of PMSH, and that's been the case since at least 2003 when 'opinion was' Harper was unelectable, even from 'supposed conservatives'.

Did you read the numbers Terri?

Voting intentions, Cons 38, Libs 29
41% say Harper has a clear plan to deal with the economic crisis; 26% say Ignatieff does

In Ontario, the Conservatives hold an eight-point advantage over the Liberals (41% to 33%)

The Conservative leader also edges the Liberal leader on having a strong team (40% to 31%).

After issuing the budget, at least three-in-ten Canadians perceive Harper as a leader they trust to deal with taxes (35%), boost the national economy (34%), get Canada out of a recession (33%) and minimize the federal deficit (31%). Ignatieff cannot clear the 30 per cent mark in any of these issues.

The governing party is holding on to 91 per cent of those who supported it last year, even after the first deficit in more than a decade.

Iggy is not likable. He just isn't. He is not nice, he is not fair and Iggy is not loyal to anyone or any country.
Iggy loves Iggy, and it shows.

The Ekos/Globe and Mail poll suggests the Liberal Party is gaining momentum as economic concerns grow, with a majority of Canadians now holding a negative view of Conservative Leader and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Of the 1,000 respondents, 55 per cent disapproved of Mr. Harper's handling of his responsibilities, while 35 per cent offered their approval.

Wlson you can quote that poll, which is speculative based on its timing, but underneath it Harper's reputation has suffered immeasurably and when people in your wn party start talking about his time being over you know he's toast sooner than later.

The governing party is holding onto 91% of its voters you say. That decline of 9% will cost him the next election if it holds. Losing 9% of his voters when we know Lib voters sat on their hands could be the best present ever for IGGY who will sooner than later be PM.

Running a deficit right now is fine but Harper is paying the price for his November fiasco and will continue to pay the price for that. It looks good on him.

Michael: "Stephen Harper is [sic] has an M.A. but that's hardly public intellectual material. ... for Ignatieff to show up on the scene and so quickly move to the top ... clearly demonstrates his ability as a politician and strategist."

When I read this, I laughed out loud and asked myself, "What planet is this guy living on -- or is he just very young, inexperienced, and naive?"

GOOD G*D!! The LAST thing Canada needs in a prime minister is a "public intellectual." There's more than a small connection between the world's oldest profession and "a public intellectual." The "public intellectual" has often sold his/her soul for all of the adulation, some of it deserved, a lot of it not.

I have to confess, I've read only one of Iggy's many tomes, the novel whose main character's mother has Alzheimer’s (definitely autobiographical, as The Iggster's mother, Alison Grant Ignatieff, suffered from Alzheimer’s) and have to admit that I was underwhelmed. Iggy's "public" intellect has a lot to do with a) the silver-spoon-in-his-mouth he was born with, b) the connections he made at Upper Canada and Trinity Colleges, c) his connections through his father's diplomatic, and latterly, academic career, and d) his exposure to the public via the CBC and the BBC, neither media corporation exactly known for its objectivity. In case you are unaware of it, Michael, both the CEEB and the BEEB have a reputation for listing heavily to the left of the political spectrum and, essentially, pillorying anyone who doesn't fall into lockstep with their socialist ideology.

'Just so you know, Michael. Mr. Ignatieff''s reputation as a "public intellectual" isn't the pinnacle of either high moral or political ground that you've cracked it up to be.

The point of this post, unless I'm mistaken, is that the PPG is not very objective in its treatment of politicians. There's plenty of evidence of that, in addition to the obvious characterization of Ignatieff as disciplinarian vs. Harper as control freak.

Personally, I would like Conservative MPs who agree to appear on shows like Don Newman's Politics to politely insist on getting equal time on MPs' panels.

Again yesterday, for example, Conservative MP James Rajotte was cut off at the end of a segment with no possibility to rebut some of the silly stuff spouted by Lib. motor mouth Ruby Dhalla and to a lesser extent NDP Nathan Cullen, who's also prone to verbal diarrhea himself, but whom Newman interrupted at one point.

Maybe Don Newman could "manage the time" better if he asked less convoluted questions.

Type your comment here.
If, in comparison to Harpo, you consider Iggy to be a control freak, you must live on a planet far from the sun where there is very little light.

Hear ye and hear him.

Geeze, I can't look at the picture of Iggy on this thread too long, I'd have nightmares. He looks like an eagle about to pounce on it's prey.

Gabby I did notice them using the HOC doors as a background. I also recall all the chatter when PM Harper did the same. Alas, that's all changed, Bush is gone, the US has a Democrat in Office , all's right with the Lefty world.
Problem is, Obama has a conservative edge they can't see through the stars in their eyes.

Well, it appears the bloom is off the Obama rose, given the news about the protectionist measures threatened in the "Buy America" bill set to wend its way through Congress.

However, I'm sure the blame will be placed on PM Harper, instead of where it belongs, should the Americans pass the bill as is. Already some of the talking heads are saying that Obama cannot possibly veto the bill at this time, given the dire US economic conditions AND the infancy of his presidency. Pres. Obama has already been absolved of any blame, and PM Harper is being measured for another hairshirt.

Gabby, When Obama Mania started I said: they will rue the day. Well ,they are already on the way.
Our left danced in the street when Obama was elected. I wonder if they continue to dance if this bill goes through.

Well, you know who will be fingered if the bill does go through.

Canadians are free to react the way they like towards Pres. Obama. I just wish they knew what they like about the guy - i.e. maybe have a vague idea of the policies he wants to implement. That done, they can worship the ground he walks on if they like.

Gaby. You are so right. I wonder how the press is going to portray this. In the past it was Bush
You think they now switch to link Harper with Obama? It would be realy far fetched.
But with our so " unbiased " Press you never know.

Mr. Ignatieff is not a leader. He is into lofty rhetoric, spin, and public lecturing where he comes across as angry waving his finger impolitely at us! It is hardly the message of hope.

You can't call a budget flawed and then go and support it! He should have led instead either by becoming leader of Jack's coalitiion and presented his own budget or go to an election with a better budget plan if he had one. But he has nothing to offer Canada. He doesn't understand Canada because he thinks with an American mindset. He does not think as a Canadian and he scares me and my children.

Michael: "Stephen Harper is [sic] has an M.A. but that's hardly public intellectual material. ... for Ignatieff to show up on the scene and so quickly move to the top ... clearly demonstrates his ability as a politician and strategist."

When I read this, I laughed out loud and asked myself, "Where’s Michael BEEN all these years -- or is he just very young, inexperienced, and naive?"

GOOD G*D!! First, Michael Ignatieff is neither a politician nor a strategist, just well connected, and second, the LAST thing Canada needs in a prime minister is “a public intellectual." What IS “a public intellectual" anyway, except a writer or professor who has heavy exposure in the media or is declared to be “a public intellectual” by Wikipedia? So, how is it that The Iggster got all this media attention?

Might it have something to do with the silver spoon in his mouth, or the connections he made at Upper Canada and Trinity Colleges, or his connections through his father's diplomatic, and latterly, academic career, or his exposure to the public via the CBC and the BBC, neither media corporation exactly known for its objectivity? Or all of the above?

Just so you know, Michael, Mr. Ignatieff''s reputation as a "public intellectual" isn't the pinnacle of either high moral or political ground that you've cracked it up to be.

Iggy does like to use finger pointing for added drama, it's the professor on him. He may not be quite as forceful with the fingers a Lizzy May , who I thought was going to poke the PM's eyes out in the bogus/pseudo Debate, but he's every bit as arrogant.

And, Gabby, I'm in total agreement about Don Newman's BROAAAAAADCAST: He needs far fewer convoluted questions, he needs to give the Conservatives far more air time and the Liberal and NDP's windbags far less, and he needs to try and make his clear Liberal bias far less obvious.

Are these requests for fairness and balance too much to ask the publicly funded CBC and their political commentators?

batb. I have banned the CBC from my house for the last 20 years. The CBC is on outhouse of misinformation
and distortion. I wished we could cut out they money they receive from the taxpayer.

Here are a couple of clearer images of Ignatieff for your viewing pleasure and/or amusement:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v714/stevekog...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v714/stevekog...

Omanatur: I gave up watching the CBC evening news for Lent one year, well over 20 years ago, and it was the best thing I ever did. 'Slept like a baby. But Lent lasts only 40 days -- and nights.

I find that I need to check in on the CEEB from time to time. After all, they're using MY money to fund their lib-left crapola. I guess I feel that if I don't know what they're doing, I can hardly comment with any authority, so I tune in on a regular basis. I'm always disappointed and quite often enraged, but I'm then able to speak truth into lies whenever I can -- and to point out to whomever I'm talking that the CBC is often full of cr*p. I give them chapter and verse of the CEEB's take on things and then use the opportunity to correct the inaccuracies. I'm hoping to get the other person thinking about Canada's "national" broadcaster and questioning their integrity.

When it comes to fight or flight regarding the CBC, I usually go into fight mode. ;-)

Batb, you've paraphrased Sun Tzu:
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Those who've been burying their head in the sand, shielding their eyes and ears from the propaganda, may have helped their own peace of mind but in the process surrendered to the leftist tilt of country.

Well, Gabby you are wrong in my chase I was very very busy on the hastings instead.
I want to throw something at all the bloggers. Its an Idea which originated in the history of my life, post war Germany. You Economist better read up on the German Wirtschafts wunder. Remember. They devalued the Reichsmark ten to one and printed new money. Within 6 month the economy was booming Investor pured in, rebuilding like you have never seen and the economy kept booming for another 20 years. I am asking myself if such a measure would save the USA. As it is right now their debts are so enormous that the next 6 unborn generations will be in debt. I remember when I came to Canada - I belief it was Diefenbacker who froze our $ at 75 cents and it stayed that way for several years. If the US devalued their money, they would be able to manufacture cheaper and be more competitive on the world market. Of course a lot of people would loose their saving at 10 to one as well.
But how many are hurting now? I am not so convinced that the stimulus package will work. What do you think?

Just because half of the Tory caucus is gunning for Harpers position doesnt mean hes less controlling all of a sudden, it just means hes an ineffective control freak.

Apparently not, as it now looms that 3 Libs are desirous to buck the vogue and vote anti the budget. We shall see in about 10 mins on "News watch". Should be very interesting...standby for fallout!

Watched Prof. Ig at the "Power Play " How amazing. When PMSH anounced that he would cut Equalisation PAYMENTS to the Provinces across the board, because they were growing at an alarming rate,the Prof did not have a word to say.
Now that Williams is throwing himself on the floor and drumming his heels, Iggy's spinn is, its only New Foundland and Lab. and is threatening to bring the house down. He is the best spinn doctor I have ever seen. I almost wish he would bring the house down and we could have an election.

If Tom Clark keeps his word, some of the screamers we saw under Richards will not be allowed on the program.
We will wait and see. As far as Oliver is concerned someone should tell him to retire. He is a very good spinner too. Obviously he likes the Liberals now. For any one to suggest, that Harper did not try to reform the Senate is insane. What was the PM to do, wait until the Liberals had the chance and stacked the Senate some more. There was also the possibility that we would have new Senators that were members of the Block, whose aim is the destruction of Canada. Of Course Mr. Oliver would not talk about that.

Gabby in QC: Thanks for that. I'm not familiar with Sun Tzu, but his words are wise ones. Isn't one of the first rules of combat, that you have to study, understand, and know what your enemy is about? Surely, that's the only way to successfully plot your strategies.

Unfortunately, it seems that most Canadians want only peace (of mind) where there is no peace, and that's why life's become such a mess.

Iggy is not likable. He just isn't. He is not nice, he is not fair and Iggy is not loyal to anyone or any country.

You wish.

He's the MP in our riding, and I've had the chance to meet him a couple times at some charity functions. I've also read some of his writing.

If you're really students of Sun Tzu, then open your eyes. Ignatieff is formidable. He also happens to be a personable guy. This is very early days; sit back and watch him for a few months.

Also, what's with this "Iggy"? is this Grade 2? I haven't seen anyone refer to the Prime Minister as "Harpy" or "Harpo".

You may like the Prof. Iggy. Some people liked the Empress Katharina of Russia too. I cannot help see
in the Prof. only the Russian Aristrocrat. We are treated like the dumb peasants and are supposed to scrape and bow. After eo years his comes back to " save the country" This man's condescention gets on my nerve.
His contempt for Canada for 30 years is the most telling story.