Who is this Michael Ignatieff guy?

[Thunderball]

I think more than a few liberals are going to be disappointed with this guy. He's really a Liberal in name only. To the rest of Canadians, that raises an important issue. Did he join "The Power Party" because he feels entitled to be PM, or does he truly have a passion to govern?

I don't think the American angle is going to hurt him much. Canada caught Obama fever, and I don't see the anti-American jabs having the gravitas they once did. What is going to hurt him is the fact he's spent at least half his life away from Canada, and then returns to snag the PM's office. Harper won't have any problems playing that up. Of course, that's if Harper even wants to.

Ignatieff as Liberal leader presents an interesting equation. Canada is on the verge of political evolution... is it to a two-party system to restore majorities, or a multi-party coalition system? With Ignatieff in play instead of Rae, the odds of an NDP-Liberal leftist "Liberal Democrat" merger are slim to none. I'd also say the Lunatic Coalition is dead in the water too. The man has nothing in common with the left, and probably scoffs at the thought of being dictated to by unions. But, what of the leftist Liberals?

Then there's the significant possibility of a Grand Coalition between Harper CPCs and Ignatieff Liberals. The two are cut from very similar cloth. The "power" liberals will be happy to be in power, the "true, blue" conservatives will be happy that the far-left is watching from the sidelines.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

Come on, if you're gonna quote Wikipedia, then don't omit the next sentence after the Young Liberals part, where it says he changed his political allegiance because he disagreed with the NEP.

Maybe he is pretty much a career politician, but if I'm going to compare the two, I'll take Harper's education in Economics (may be useful sometime, who knows?).

Is that all it takes? Vote for me!

And the cutting of GST was a strange policy for an economist to back, but a smart one for a politician.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Innervesting.

My impression? He's had quite the life handed to him... and now he's going to have an entire country given to him as well.

I just hope he isn't as corrupt as the rest of his party.

Edit: This is all just a preliminary reaction, of course. I have no clue what the guy's like, so nothing is in concrete.

Handed to him? Are Oxford and Harvard just handing out degrees now?

[Igottago]

If only he had worked at McDonald's for a stint, then he'd be a trustworthy leader.

[Rerun]

One good thing about him....


he's not a lawyer....

[Slava]

I think that this will be very interesting. Iggy (your welcome FanIn80!) shares a lot of views with the Conservatives both in terms of economic matters and on topics such as Iraq.

Although he was a college professor he isn't some timid, ivory tower intellectual either. He has taken some stands and isn't afraid of a good fight. Conservatives just lost their best target (Dion) and now they have a leader on the other side of the house with some serious credentials and he isn't a bumbling fool. Let the games begin!

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by nik-

That's hilarious.

All these Coalition supporters trying to toss the "Neo-Con" label at Stephen Harper and tie him to Bush and their newly appointed savior basically holds the pure Neo-Con opinion on foreign policy.

I love it.

Which is something he's openly recanted since then...

In the years following the invasion, Ignatieff reiterated his support for the war's aims, if not the method in which it was conducted. "I supported an administration whose intentions I didn't trust," he averred, "believing that the consequences would repay the gamble. Now I realize that intentions do shape consequences."[14] He eventually recanted his support for the war entirely. In a 2007 New York Times Magazine article, he wrote: "The unfolding catastrophe in Iraq has condemned the political judgment of a president, but it has also condemned the judgment of many others, myself included, who as commentators supported the invasion." Ignatieff partly interpreted what he now saw as his particular errors of judgment, by presenting them as typical of academics and intellectuals in general, whom he characterised as "generalizing and interpreting particular facts as instances of some big idea". In politics, by contrast, "Specifics matter more than generalities".[18]

It will be interesting to see how Ignatieff starts acting over the next few weeks. His record and writings scream leftist liberal tendencies, but he has a very different view from many hardcore leftist liberals on the militaristic role of Canada.

His past work also ties him to Trudeau and Lester B. Pearson. He's racked up dozens of academic and international accolades. And held impressive positions at Oxford, Harvard, UBC and the University of Toronto.

It is going to be very interesting to see how he portrays himself (as he has a tendancy to put his foot in his mouth), how the media portrays him and spins his past and more importantly how the nation sees him.

Who says Canadian Politics is boring.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by troutman

Handed to him? Are Oxford and Harvard just handing out degrees now?

apparently, if you have money, they're for sale. That was always the argument as to how Bush got his Harvard degree.

[Table 5]

I'm definitely willing to give the guy a shot. Tough times call for smart intelligent people to lead the way, not drinking buddies who you can relate to.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Which is something he's openly recanted since then...

from an editorial in the National Post

The oddest part about it all was the manner in which he justified his reversals: In a self-contradictory and somewhat pretentious Aug. 5, 2007, New York Times Magazine article, the academic-turned-politician made the weird argument that a thinker can be naturally expected to switch basic principles -- including, apparently, their attitude toward such big-ticket issues as humanitarian intervention and terrorism -- when he switches jobs. (This suggests, oddly, that if Mr. Ignatieff the politician goes back to Harvard, he will adopt all his old positions on torture and Iraq, in newfound ignorance of how “wrong” they were.)

Mr. Ignatieff’s arbitrarily shifted views on foreign policy and human ethics are hardly beside the point: He didn’t get nine honorary doctorates for his hypothetical future as a politician, or for his knowledge of economics for that matter. What good was done by all those years of navel-gazing on the human condition and the responsibility to protect if it must be ignored when real power is in view?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...of-office.aspx

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I'm definitely willing to give the guy a shot. Tough times call for smart intelligent people to lead the way, not drinking buddies who you can relate to.

I feel you should change this quote.

Ed Stelmach is not a smart, intelligent man... nor is he a guy one could drink with, be buddies with, or relate to.

[Rerun]

Here's an excellent article in the National Post today that sheds a bit of light on who exactly is Michael Ignatieff...

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...10/218518.aspx

Mr. Ignatieff shows a reassuring willingness to stand up to his party's penchant for anti-Americanism. It's one of the uglier aspects of the Liberal party character, one that does nothing but damage for Canadian interests but which Liberal prime ministers can't seem to bring themselves to resist. Both Jean Chretien and Paul Martin decried it, then exploited it when it suited his needs. Mr. Ignatieff has spent more time in the U.S., and is more of an international citizen, than any of his predecessors, and states categorically that "Being anti-American is a lousy way to be a proud Canadian.

Mr. Ignatieff similarly rejects the Liberal tradition of lauding Canada's military past while starving the army of money, material and political support.

He is similarly infected by the chronic Liberal notion that they are the country, that Liberal values -- and only Liberal values -- are true Canadian values. He also seems to have swallowed many of the myths Liberals use to reassure themselves about their achievements, no matter how little they correspond with reality.

[Table 5]

clearly im the stoopid variety. do not vote for me.

[Rerun]

From "Living Fearlessly in a Fearless World" Ignatieff Commencement Address to Whitman College (USA), 2004

"There is only one thing we can do about this: live the way we are supposed to live, as our Constitution commands us to, with dignity and respect for all. Being an American is not easy. It is hard. We are required to keep some serious promises. We are judged by a high standard, one we crafted for ourselves in the founding documents of the republic, the ones that talk about the equality of all people, the ones that tell us that government is of the people, by the people and for the people. We need to live by this, at home and abroad, and it is just about the only thing we can do to face the hatred of those who want to destroy us. Our best defense is to stay true to who we are. Our best defense is to refuse to live in fear, of them, of ourselves, of anyone."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff

[octothorp]

Rrrg, I had a very long post here, and then lost my internet connection here at work. Here's how I see Ignatieff:

The good:

• Leadership: Very well-spoken and firm leader. Pretty much the opposite of Dion that way. Always speaks from a position of conviction and authority moreso than any other federal leader.
• International reputation: will immediately increase Canada's national standing, especially given the emphasis that he places on foreign policy, both in terms of dialogue and action. He has the potential to call up the eras of Pearson and Trudeau, where Canada was a highly-respected international voice.
• Potential for good working relationship with US, in part because he has spent time there, and in part because he and Obama will have similar frames of reference, even if they have dramatically different pasts.
• Strong supporter of Canada's military: While he's very much a supporter of an interventionist foreign policy, he also believes very strongly in international dialogue and coalitions.
• Media: Has a good relationship with the media; Dion and Harper both are pretty awful in their dealings with the media, while Ignatieff has a journalism background that allows him to know what the media wants and how to deal with them.
  

The bad:

• Economics: This is a huge, huge one. He's not too interested in economics in his past, and if we end up with Bob Rae running the economics portfolio, it could be disaster for the country. While I do like Ignatieff overall, for me everything comes down to how he develops an economic strategy.
• Non-patriotic history: Not a big issue for me, but it's something that his opponents will really tap into. I don't think that anyone who runs for PM suffers for lack of patriotism.
• Controversial statements from past: For the most-part he's done a pretty good job about moderating his own comments since entering politics, but there are a lot of things he said, previously, which can be used against him (and rightfully so). He'll need to demonstrate that he'll govern as more of a moderate.
• Foreign policy: may be a little too right for most Canadians' liking. It's further right than some Conservatives. I'd worry about it a bit more if there was a neo-con government in the US, but with current international political climate, I don't think there's any danger in us getting committed to an 'unjust' conflict.

[Rerun]

Boy oh boy.... type in Michael Ignatieff on google and there's lots of stuff out there that the Conservatives can use against him...

Michael Ignatieff : American Wannabe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYvZD4dPyw0

[Table 5]

Oh no, he likes the United States! How dare he! If that really is the biggest knock against the guy, that could spell trouble for the Conservatives.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by habernac

apparently, if you have money, they're for sale. That was always the argument as to how Bush got his Harvard degree.

Bush is a Yale alum who only attended the Harvard MBA program 5 years later, after being rejected on his Law school application and having graduated Magna Cum Ordinary in History from Yale in 1968. How did Bush get into Harvard after being rejected from the University of Texas Law School? Well, the MBA program is a bit of a different animal--but either way, connections are probably more important than money in that case.

But Bush isn't really relevant to this discussion--I think most people can see the difference between an outstanding Oxford graduate who earned a PhD from Harvard and joined their very prestigious faculty and a C student who took an MBA degree after being rejected from Law School. The more apt comparison is Ignatieff to Harper--and in that context it's worth pointing out that comparing Harper's MA in Economics from U of A to Ignatieff's PhD from Harvard is like comparing the San Jose Sharks to the Calgary Hitmen.

Both are hockey teams... but come on, they're not even in the same league.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Bush is a Yale alum who only attended the Harvard MBA program 5 years later, after being rejected on his Law school application and having graduated Magna Cum Ordinary in History from Yale in 1968. How did Bush get into Harvard after being rejected from the University of Texas Law School? Well, the MBA program is a bit of a different animal--but either way, connections are probably more important than money in that case.

But Bush isn't really relevant to this discussion--I think most people can see the difference between an outstanding Oxford graduate who earned a PhD from Harvard and joined their very prestigious faculty and a C student who took an MBA degree after being rejected from Law School. The more apt comparison is Ignatieff to Harper--and in that context it's worth pointing out that comparing Harper's MA in Economics from U of A to Ignatieff's PhD from Harvard is like comparing the San Jose Sharks to the Calgary Hitmen.

Both are hockey teams... but come on, they're not even in the same league.

Yes, but was Ignatieff ever on tv's "Reach For The Top" quiz show like Stevey?

Na na... so there!!!

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Oh no, he likes the United States! How dare he! If that really is the biggest knock against the guy, that could spell trouble for the Conservatives.

Very anti Liberal ethics. Bashing the Americans is almost a Liberal sport.