Liberals catch up to Harper in the polls.

[icarus]

I think some people who have never left Canada lack the same level of understanding of what Canada, and being Canadian, is about when compared with some of us who have experienced life in other countries.

[CaptainCrunch]

That doesn't make either demographic right.

Hey I heard that boys 6-12 who play with gun like substitutes really liked GI:Joe the rise of Cobra.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I feel semi-qualified to comment on this, having lived in the U.S. for 10 years.

The thing that is different is the political conversation more generally. People who are Republicans tend only to be friends with Republicans--and likewise for Democrats. There's a huge amount of tribalism when it comes to politics in the U.S., which means that both sides are constantly demonizing each other and refusing to listen.

There's a little of that in Canada--but an interesting test is this: ask a Canadian (small "l") liberal this question. "Can you understand how someone could be conservative?" My feeling is that you'll generally get a pretty thoughtful answer that tries to understand how different values lead to different political preferences. The same question in the U.S. is sometimes met with something that amounts to "because they're evil."

I'm generalizing a bit--but my point is that overall, it's not that we don't have liberals and conservatives here, or even that their opinions aren't that strong. It's just that there's a little more willingness to listen to each other here, and less tendency to assume that your side has a monopoly on truth. Not that such an attitude is unheard of--far from it. I just think it's less prevalent on both sides.

And that's a good thing. In the end, democracy only thrives if it's based on the exchange and discussion of good ideas. Canada isn't perfect--but we do have a slightly healthier political conversation than our neighbours to the south do sometimes. And that's not about people not being "extremists" so much as it's about people cultivating a willingness to be reasonable about politics.

I disagree.

While politics in Canada are much more reasonable than in the United States, I find that this is more the product of the system and culture of the United States, rather than a general unwillingness to be reasonable.

The United States is in a curious political position, where 30% of the country is right wing, to the point that they are unreasonable. That sounds like liberal rhetoric, but it's not. The far right wing cannot be debated with because they don't use reason, they use God and other stringent ideologies to justify their beliefs. Why isn't healthcare reform a good idea? Because God doesn't want it. You cannot debate that point and reasonable discussion dies there.

Though 70% of the country is reasonable, they are stuck with the Democrats. The Democrats are driving off the tracks as we speak, so the American people will be looking for a check on this corporatism with a side of incompetence. What's the check? The Republicans. People will vote Republican in order to have some sort of voice, which gives a completely unreasonable party ideologically, a political foothold in America.

The entire political spectrum in Canada would side with the Democrats ideologically, sans perhaps the Wildrose Party.

[CaptainCrunch]

Don't really care that Iggy has traveled the world, don't really care that he taught at harvard, don't really care about his ideas and concepts because I haven't seen anything out of him yet.

Iggy is a tough politician to care about.

To me his pre Liberal Party leader life doesn't matter except for his interesting views on 9/11, Iraq and torture go.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

I disagree.

While politics in Canada are much more reasonable than in the United States, I find that this is more the product of the system and culture of the United States, rather than a general unwillingness to be reasonable.

The United States is in a curious political position, where 30% of the country is right wing, to the point that they are unreasonable. That sounds like liberal rhetoric, but it's not. The far right wing cannot be debated with because they don't use reason, they use God and other stringent ideologies to justify their beliefs. Why isn't healthcare reform a good idea? Because God doesn't want it. You cannot debate that point and reasonable discussion dies there.

Though 70% of the country is reasonable, they are stuck with the Democrats. The Democrats are driving off the tracks as we speak, so the American people will be looking for a check on this corporatism with a side of incompetence. What's the check? The Republicans. People will vote Republican in order to have some sort of voice, which gives a completely unreasonable party ideologically, a political foothold in America.

The entire political spectrum in Canada would side with the Democrats ideologically, sans perhaps the Wildrose Party.

You make a lot of good points. I'll just add that there are some unreasonable people on the left too--up in the Northeast particularly.

But I take your overall point to be that there is really no liberal voice in the political conversation--and I definitely agree. There's a huge disconnect between the political appetites of the people and politics as it's practised in Washington. Health Care reform is a perfect example--there's appetite for reform, people want it, they start demanding it...

And Washington produces a giant **** sandwich, slaps a label on it that says "Health Care for Everyone" and says "OK, America! Chow down!"

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Don't really care that Iggy has traveled the world, don't really care that he taught at harvard, don't really care about his ideas and concepts because I haven't seen anything out of him yet.

Any politician is a tough politician to care about.

To me his pre Liberal Party leader life doesn't matter except for his interesting views on 9/11, Iraq and torture go.

Fixed your post...you're welcome!

[mykalberta]

Polls go up, polls go down.

We will see what the polls say after the Olympics. As a right of centre Canadian I say if blue blood Harvard has a direction for this county, let him propose it during an election and we will see if he can win.

Nothing is stopping him the next time by proposing a non confidence motion. We know the Separatist Canada Haters will say yes, NDP is as always the wild card.

I honestly cant seen an election until September at the earliest. The Oilympics and Haiti should give the government some sort of boost which would put a spring election out of the question, maybe a late June if there are some harper screwups.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Polls go up, polls go down.

We will see what the polls say after the Olympics. As a right of centre Canadian I say if blue blood Harvard has a direction for this county, let him propose it during an election and we will see if he can win.

Nothing is stopping him the next time by proposing a non confidence motion. We know the Separatist Canada Haters will say yes, NDP is as always the wild card.

I honestly cant seen an election until September at the earliest. The Oilympics and Haiti should give the government some sort of boost which would put a spring election out of the question, maybe a late June if there are some harper screwups.

I can see the boost because of the Olympics, but how does Haiti help?

I know Rush Limbaugh figured Haiti played right into Obamas hands, but he is an idiot! Surely in Canada that disaster doesn't favour one party over another does it?

[zuluking]

I find it interesting that Ignatieff did not come back to Canada because of his desire to lead the Liberals and the country. He was brought back by the Liberals as (what they thought) would be a palatable figurehead to lead them back to power. I haven't read anywhere that he voluntarily came forward and put his name in the leadership hat. He was dropped in by the Liberal string-pullers for the sole purpose of regaining power, not setting an agenda or policy platform to improve / stabilize the country.

Sure, it's my opinion, but is it really that hard to see why many people end up with this opinion.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

The entire political spectrum in Canada would side with the Democrats ideologically, sans perhaps the Wildrose Party.

Pardon me? Just because we're fiscally conservative doesn't mean we want to scrap universal health care or education. And our social policies don't exist for a reason. I'm not sure where you came up with that load of tripe.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Pardon me? Just because we're fiscally conservative doesn't mean we want to scrap universal health care or education. And our social policies don't exist for a reason. I'm not sure where you came up with that load of tripe.

I think he just meant that WRA is more conservative than the average Canadian. Don't see how you dispute that. After all, WRA doesn't need to appeal to the average Canadian--just the average Albertan. They're doing a pretty fair job so far.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by zuluking

I find it interesting that Ignatieff did not come back to Canada because of his desire to lead the Liberals and the country. He was brought back by the Liberals as (what they thought) would be a palatable figurehead to lead them back to power. I haven't read anywhere that he voluntarily came forward and put his name in the leadership hat. He was dropped in by the Liberal string-pullers for the sole purpose of regaining power, not setting an agenda or policy platform to improve / stabilize the country.

Sure, it's my opinion, but is it really that hard to see why many people end up with this opinion.

Oh no, you are completely wrong. Igantieff intended to return to Canada even before those Liberal bagmen paid him a visit at Harvard. Canada was his home and after being away for 30 years he missed it terribly. Its just a huge coincidence that they (the Liberal moneymen) showed up at the same time as he was preparing to move anyways.

I personally know someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows Mikey and let me tell you this... he absolutely HATED pretending he was an American while he was down there teaching and he couldn't get out of Cambridge and England fast enough (damn Brits and there high faluting ways and all that).

You won't find a truer Canadian than Mikey. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking that the only reason he came back to Canada was just to run the country. Thats just Conservative propaganda. Mikey's here because he knows that just by being here makes Canada a better place! Three cheers for Mikey!!! Ra Ra Ra!!!!

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Slava

I can see the boost because of the Olympics, but how does Haiti help?

I know Rush Limbaugh figured Haiti played right into Obamas hands, but he is an idiot! Surely in Canada that disaster doesn't favour one party over another does it?

Well, the pollsters said that they were surprised that Haiti didn't help the Conservatives because Canadians see our aid and personnel going in to help and they think "gee, our government is on the ball helping these people out as quickly as they could". The CBC article gave two possibilities: (1) Canadians don't typically think that way (associating our help in Haiti with Stephen Harper) or (2) the EKOS poll ended only couple days ago, so the people polled at the beginning of the poll taking may not have taken the Haiti situation into consideration.

But I agree with you... it shouldn't be an issue that moves the numbers. For the Olympics... well it depends on how much we see of the Canadian logo. That logo is great set-up for people to associate any medals we haul in to the Conservative party. That logo was brilliant politicing on their part.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Well, the pollsters said that they were surprised that Haiti didn't help the Conservatives because Canadians see our aid and personnel going in to help and they think "gee, our government is on the ball helping these people out as quickly as they could". The CBC article gave two possibilities: (1) Canadians don't typically think that way (associating our help in Haiti with Stephen Harper) or (2) the EKOS poll ended only couple days ago, so the people polled at the beginning of the poll taking may not have taken the Haiti situation into consideration.

But I agree with you... it shouldn't be an issue that moves the numbers. For the Olympics... well it depends on how much we see of the Canadian logo. That logo is great set-up for people to associate any medals we haul in to the Conservative party. That logo was brilliant politicing on their part.

Seriously? You think that Harper put in the call to HBC and 'made' them use that logo?

[Devils'Advocate]

You don't think he's that smart? However it was done, it was brilliant.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

You don't think he's that smart? However it was done, it was brilliant.

Do you even think it was within his control to even influence that? On the same basis I guess it was a brilliant move by the Liberals back in the 60s to make the Canadian Flag Liberal colors and exclude proposals that had blue in them.

[nik-]

What logo are we talking about here?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Oh no, you are completely wrong. Igantieff intended to return to Canada even before those Liberal bagmen paid him a visit at Harvard. Canada was his home and after being away for 30 years he missed it terribly. Its just a huge coincidence that they (the Liberal moneymen) showed up at the same time as he was preparing to move anyways.

I personally know someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows Mikey and let me tell you this... he absolutely HATED pretending he was an American while he was down there teaching and he couldn't get out of Cambridge and England fast enough (damn Brits and there high faluting ways and all that).

You won't find a truer Canadian than Mikey. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking that the only reason he came back to Canada was just to run the country. Thats just Conservative propaganda. Mikey's here because he knows that just by being here makes Canada a better place! Three cheers for Mikey!!! Ra Ra Ra!!!!

Here's the second funniest part of your post:

MP Salary: 155,400.
Full Professor at Harvard: varies, but well in excess of 250,000 USD. Plus consulting income, income from books and lecture tours--probably well in excess of 300,000 USD a year.

Those must have been some nice plums that the "Liberal Moneymen" offered him to make up for what amounts to more than a $150,000 pay cut for Ignatieff.

But the funniest part is this: Ignatieff actually came back to Canada before he went into politics. In 2005 he accepted a job at the U of T, and at a Toronto policy center. He became an MP in 2006. Now, it's pretty clear that running for office was on his radar. It's equally clear that he had a back-up plan in place for staying in Toronto should politics not work out.

But please, carry on with the nativist nonsense. Because the thing is, even if your allegations were in line with the facts, they still wouldn't add up to a good reason not to vote for him. It just seems a little... desperate to me. Like you know you haven't got a leg to stand on, so you lean on the nearest emotional hot button and hope it never stops working.

There are a lot of things I don't love about Ignatieff. He's professorial, he's a bit inexperienced politically--which is a big disadvantage when your opponent is a seasoned operator like Harper--and he doesn't seem to have a very effective communications strategy.

But criticizing him because he worked at Harvard for a while? I'm sorry--but that's just dumb.

[mykalberta]

The Haiti boost because of what some thought as a mis-fire vis a vi Lebanon. I think the stance on Lebanon was right on but I dont live in a region that they need to win to get a majority.

I think the polling was done more with the parliment time out in mind. It will take a while before we see whether the response in Haiti have been appropriate enough to those voters in regions the Cons need to win to form a majority.

With Haiti you also have the stink of are we there really to help (prior to quake), or only there cause the GG is from there. It has a somewhat foul odor about it if you think about it long enough.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

But the funniest part is this: Ignatieff actually came back to Canada before he went into politics. In 2005 he accepted a job at the U of T, and at a Toronto policy center. He became an MP in 2006. Now, it's pretty clear that running for office was on his radar. It's equally clear that he had a back-up plan in place for staying in Toronto should politics not work out.

"In 2005, Ignatieff left Harvard to become the Chancellor Jackman Professor in Human Rights Policy at the University of Toronto and a senior fellow of the university's Munk Centre for International Studies.[15] He was then publicly mentioned as a possible Liberal candidate for the next federal election."
...
"In 2004, two Liberal organizers, Ian Davey (son of Senator Keith Davey) and lawyer Daniel Brock, travelled to Cambridge, Massachusetts, to convince Ignatieff to move back to Canada and run for the Canadian House of Commons, and to consider a possible bid for the Liberal leadership should Paul Martin retire.[42] As a result of the activities of Brock and Davey, assisted by former Liberal candidate Alfred Apps, in January 2005, speculation began in the press that Ignatieff could be a star candidate for the Liberals in the next election, and possibly a candidate to succeed Paul Martin, then the leader of the governing Liberal Party of Canada."

Wikipedia is sometime less than accurate, but I think it is safe to say that his move to the U of T was a means to the end, not the end in and of itself. He moved back because the Liberals wanted him; he got a job at the U of T because running for a Toronto riding out of Harvard was probably unwise. You're splitting hairs on the timeline.