Iggy's "Predicament"

Macleans blog links to an article by Rachel Cooke, in which she empathizes with Iggy's "predicament" in his no longer being able to say whatever he wants. Politically, his predicament is this:

Iggy has spent his whole life speaking on behalf of Iggy and no one else. Wholly uninterested in having to speak the language from other peoples' perspectives, concerns, views, and having never served in a meaningful representative capacity until recently, he now must now try to speak on behalf of all Canadians.

It's been difficult. It seems that Iggy's solution is to keep to a favourite subject: himself.

And so we have yet another discussion with Iggy, about Iggy.
/

Iggy's Answer is Blowing in the Wind

You say Iggy is taking a stand on Cauchont not running Outremont? Get with it. Like, that was soooo eighteen hours ago.
/

The Unbearable Lightness of Media Credibility

The tea party protests involved (and continues to involve) hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans concerned about the rise of government's role in their lives. The media has followed the lead of the Dems' attempt to portray these folks as radicals.

The media commentariate's claim was as follows: oh sure, the crowds were peaceful....for now, but such opposition may be sowing the seeds of future violence, albeit indirectly. As such we must question the legitimacy of this dissent. We need to dig deep and dig hard, in wall to wall coverage, searching for any signs of the potential for violence.

Meanwhile, leftists at the G20 summit (an event which inherently attracts international exposure), engage in physical attacks en masse against the authorities - actual politically motivated violence against the state,

and the media averts their eyes.
/

The Left Sneering At the "Tims" Crowd

Harper is going back to conservative roots which I suggested be done last week - lowering taxes, focusing on long term growth - while at the same time re-staking out his populist "Tim Horton's" position.

It was as if he were daring the liberal elite to sneer down their noses at the common folk, thereby ensconcing him in his chosen position.

As if on cue, the liberal elite, obliges nicely. Leading the way is Susan Delacourt's mocking of Harper's "donut" announcement which she asserted was now "fodder"....

"for research about how politicians see us now as shoppers/eaters now instead of educated citizens. Thanks, PM."

How "uneducated" of Harper to concentrate on a Canadian business success story in the midst of a worldwide recession instead of being "educated" by the likes of the leaders of Iran, Sudan, Cuba and Libya.
/

A Moment of Canadian Pride

Brought to you by the Harper Government.

Icing on the cake was Greta on Fox interviewing our foreign minister regaling Canada for being the first to leave the U.N. assembly and wondering why the U.S. waited so long to walk out - not following Canada's lead.

That's what we in the industry call "strong leadership". In Canada.

And around the world.

UPDATE: Video here, ht Revanche
/

You're Not in Kansas Any More Dorothy

Iggy's taken personal offence. He's worried he's being portrayed as "stupid".

A neutral observer, or even a partisan one lacking extreme narcissistic tendencies, would likely conclude the Conservatives (like all political entities since time immemorial) are attempting to exploit an opponents recent political miscalculation in order to advance their party's interests.

Not Iggy. Iggy thinks its really all about him - a personal attack on his intellect.

Someone in the Liberal party should advise the professor that he's left the the world of having wide-eyed college juniors dazzled by that insulated academic "brilliance" and has entered the bloodsport of politics.

You're not in Kansas any more Dorothy.
/

Time to Focus on Growth not Unemployment Benefits

While Canada's biggest debate right now is about how much more we should be giving the unemployed and in what manner, over in Sweden they're taking a different approach, which also happens to be the correct one: they're lowering taxes in order to create jobs. They have learned that a high cost bureaucracy and high taxes leads to lower employment.

The more the Canadian debate is focused on the back end of the problem, the less political capital there is to expend on the front end - creating conditions where employers feel comfortable hiring more people. The back end - benefits, entitlements, redistribution - is the realm of the left.

It's time to turn the channel and focus on some core conservative principles. Principles that will lead to long term growth. It's time to cut taxes.
/

Iggy, Like Dion But With Less Influence

So notwithstanding Iggy's vow to take down the government, we appear to be avoiding an election yet again. Iggy's recent appearance of bona fides in wanting to take down the CPC may be worse than the waffling and faux blustering of late. It serves as a stark reminder that he leads a party that's in a distant second to the CPC, unable to affect an outcome absent both of the other oppo parties' consent, and apparently unable to secure that consent when required.

He's just along for the ride. How unbecoming a man of such greatness.
/

Follow the Internals

Harper should follow his heart, and his internals polls, but mostly the internals.

Internal polling is expensive but far more accurate than the public press versions. If they show majority territory, he should pull the pin. If not, he should play nice.

It's that simple.
/

NY Times: We're Not Biased, We...Um...Just Didn't Have the Staff

The NY Post absolutely eviscerates the NY Times failure to report the Van Jones affair.

As we watch the NY Times shares turn to junk bond status, among many other major dailies, and as we likewise watch CNN's ratings plummet, we are told by those in the industry that answer lies in structural economics. It couldn't actually be, well, the content. (No word on the reason for the astronomical rise of Fox News in the ratings.)

The answer to the demise of much of legacy media lies in that NY Post story. It's not so much the fact that the Times refused to cover the story, as was its right as a private organization, but the completely dishonest explanation that they were just "short staffed." The Post took great delight in drawing out the Times bogus explanation by pointing to some of the trivial stories the Times miraculously had resources for - beyond shooting fish in a barrel, it was a literary curb stomping.

The Times, like many others, have long since left the news business: reporting just the facts, "all the news that's fit to print", and have entered the advocacy business. The problem is they still portray themselves as impartial purveyors of fact. It could be that they do so because their worldview has rendered them simply incapable of self censure. A more insidious reason is that they're using the guise of impartiality to appear more authoritative as they advocate in favour of the "correct" world view.

Whether the bias is latent or blatant, expect more logical gymnastic contortions as the Times and others continue to attempt to deny the obvious.
/

Iggy: My Solomn Declarations and Public Statements are to be Ignored...Except the One's I'm Making Right Now

Iggy today:

"In January, we did not support a coalition, and we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow,"

In other words, "ignore my signature on the coalition agreement." A signature being different than a mere statement or utterance mind you. It is a solemn act of agreeing to be bound to what you are signing and has been the principal means by which mankind has bound the author for centuries. Perhaps Iggy's signature was taken out of context, or given under duress or coercion?

To the contrary, here are Iggy's public statements at the time:

“I’m prepared to form a coalition government, and to lead that government and to provide Canada with the security and stability it needs.” (Ottawa Citizen, December 11, 2008)

“I told the caucus this morning very clearly I am prepared to vote non-confidence in this government and I am prepared to enter into a coalition with our partners if that is what the Governor General asks me to do,” Ignatieff said (Canadian Press, December 10, 2008)

(Footnote: The link is from the CBC, which simply parrots Iggy's recent statement without mentioning these pesky little contextual statements.)

Update: Video from ST
/

Liberals: Believe Us, Just Because - Elect Us, Just Because

So to recap:

- Pre last election, the possibility of the Liberals forming a coalition with the Bloc was raised and the Liberals dismissed it outright.

- A few months following the election, the Liberals inked a deal with the Bloc in an effort to take control of the government without an election. It didn't work as Harper shut down parliament.

- An election is again on the horizon and the Liberals are again promising not to form a coalition with the Bloc.

Brazen? Absolutely. Surprising? Given that Iggy's election call appears to be premised on the fact that Canadians will agree to hand the reigns of government over to Iggy for no other reason than Iggy's self-proclaimed superior ability to run the country, no. It's not surprising at all.
/

Iggy's Visceral Vote

There are two general ways of losing an election. The first is when voters disagree with the loser. The second is when voters seek to punish the loser.

Take Dion's recent loss for instance. His was a loss based on policy. His major plank - the green shift - although exciting to the fringe left, was not something that most Canadians saw as being central to our national affairs. Further, many disagreed with Dion's perceived style of leadership or lack thereof. But the last election was not about repudiating or punishing one or the other party.

Kim Cambell's loss, on the other hand, was a repudiation of the PC, not only by the left, but also by conservatives. Voters were in a punishing mood and the results were devastating. Punishment is visceral. It induces one directional concrete action against the offender. It is also easy to appreciate after-the-fact, but often difficult to discern before hand. I'll try to find a link to the actual polling, but I recall that Campbell's polling weeks out from the election was not even close to the actual result. They weren't great, but they weren't catastrophic either.

What about this election (assuming Iggy follows through)? Most polling and commentary point to a probable loss for Iggy. But what kind of loss will it be?

That this appears to be one of the few elections in our history where there are no major issues on the table, nearly ensures that the loss will be one of punishment and not disagreement.

Here is the paradox Iggy has created: It can't be one of disagreement if there's nothing to disagree about, and if there's nothing to disagree about why force an election? Voters won't simply be angry that they have to go to the polls so soon after the last election. They'll be angry that they're forced to do so for no discernible reason.

Iggy may be setting up the perfect visceral voting storm.
/

Iggy's First Specific Policy Position: Keeping Harper's Policy

Harper with the chess moves. Iggy vow's to take down Harper at the first opportunity so Harper's first confidence vote will on the ultra-popular home reno tax credit.

The result? Iggy, who has been criticized for not offering specifics on what he'd do differently, is forced to make his first specific campaign promise - keeping Harper's program.
/

Why the Liberals Will Lose Badly

Absent a major scandal, the party in waiting must explain why they should be in power, not simply criticize the sitting government. The burden is always greater, the closer you are to the previous election.

Given that the last election was just a year ago and the fact that Canada is faring far better than other countries in this worldwide recession, particularly as compared to our neighbors to the South, Iggy has a seemingly impossible task.

In this context Canadians will have little patience for Iggy's grand reason to force an elction: "Because I want to be in power".
/