Better to be an Idiot than to be a Liar
Wow. Today I am embarrassed to be a Liberal for many reasons. We all knew from the get go that the niceties would not last forever. Yesterday, it all came to a boil at College Maisonneuve in Montreal.
In December 2005, the Tories issued a statement saying Michael Ignatieff supported torture. The party and its leader, Paul Martin, stood to defend Michael as it was a clear and baseless smear.
If Bob Rae was not still cutting checks to the NDP at the time, he would have gotten the memo that in this party there is no room for this kind of smear. This issue was put to bed before Bob even joined the Liberal Party. Why bring the smear up today? In a word? Desperation.
We, Paul Wells' youthful and useful idiots, have defended Michael Ignatieff against a hell of a lot of smearing lately, most of it directly from the NDP handbook used by Jack Layton and borrowed by Mr, Rae today. Bob got booed because he brought up a baseless attack knowing full well Michael does not support torture. It was a cheap political attack, and Rae supporters, knowing of it in advance, got up to cheer the lie that Bob Rae was trying to desperately perpetrate.
However, it pales in comparison to the Rovian Republican drive-by smear that Mr Dion tried to make in his “hit-and-run” conclusion. Dion, saying that some people had things to answer for, after refusing to admit the same thing about his record on the environment the previous week, brings up an article from 2002 where Michael Ignatieff says that if a two state solution is not imposed in Israel, it will degenerate into an inferno. You would think that would be a compliment considering Michael was proven right this year, but that was not where Dion was going with this. Dion was using the title of the article to smear and to claim Michael was a bigger hawk than George W. Bush. For a man who passed the Clarity Act, I would never expect these kinds of smoke and mirrors.
After the crowd took Dion to task for trying to smear (remember Michael was not on stage and could not defend himself) Dion whined about his time allocation and was on the verge of tears. If anything, yesterday proved that Dion will never be leader. Even a senior organizer confided “it’s over.” Today’s headline from Vincent Marissal, Dion flunks/sinks/fails (the word is coule)
This party had decided that the baseless attacks in leadership campaigns were over…I guess that rule only had to apply to Mr. Ignatieff. Paul Wells can call us youthful idiots. However, we have to stick up for our leader should he win, and how will the Bob Rae people stick up for Michael when the NDP accuses him of endorsing torture. What credibility will they have left? Did Paul Wells assume the whole room was Ignatieff supporters? Rae people booed too. So did Dion people at different times. That is not to say that since all three major camps booed at one point or another, that it is ok. But that is what happened.
What happened today was shameful indeed. The desperation came out and true colors were revealed. This race is about choosing someone who will lead, not someone who will mislead. Call us idiots Mr. Wells, but I would rather be an idiot than be a liar.
UPDATE BY ALEX : Chantal Hébert called what Rae and Dion did yesterday "l'énergie du désespoir" which could be translated to desperate last stand. Watch the clip . She called their strategy "scorched earth", she explained that the attacks should have been on the Nation resolution but they didn't have the guts to do it.
BTW, I booed too. It may not have been very classy but we were right and the smears of Rae and Dion weren't very classy either.
par / by Anthony à / at 1:35 p.m.
47 Commentaires:
Ignatieff is clear. he does not support torture. This smear was put to bed last December. We dont need to continue smearing.
It is in some people's interests to throw half-sentences at Ignatieff and make him defend himself but Bob Rae should have known better. Michael Ignatieff does not support torture.
Manitoba Liberal
how can you say I am bad for the party when you are saying you would want to see the party in rubble depending on who wins?
Rae was trying to perpetrate a lie. He knows Michael Ignatieff is against torture. He attacked anyway in an act of desperation. Sorry but it is a lack of class.
You can attack Michael on his Iraq position. Michael did support the War in Iraq. However, saying Michael supports torture is misleading and a LIE. Michael has had his fair share of controversial positions. Attack him on the ones he has actually taken please. It is ridiculous to turn the smear guns on your own party.
do you know what a dialectic is?
have you ever read plato where the author argues both sides before coming to a conclusion?
That is the way Ignatieff writes. It is the conclusion that matters.
You dont care though...All you wanna do is smear.
Iggy's mob. Like the Bushies, they cannot tolerate dissent.
So much for free speech.
Yeah, Iggy IS against torture, but only after giving the arguments for torture to the would be torturers. Sort of like Bill Clinton's "I didn't inhale".
And well, Iggy wants to repeat Mulroney's folly. Maybe he should have been here in Canada when the country was at stake, instead of a wannabee imperialist and hanger-on (a la David Frum) in the imperial courts in London and Washington.
Let send the Ig-ster back to Harvard.
Bob est désespéRAE
While Wells makes an interesting point on Rae's attacks on Ignatieff's musings on torture, in that what Ignatieff is considering is not torture but "coercive interrogation" (itself a problematic concept). But I fail to see how that relates to Dion, who was quoting Ignatieff directly from his previous writings on the imposition of peace in the middle use by US military forces. What Dion said is true, not even Bush was willing to go for that far and for good reason. Trying to impose peace in Israel and Palestine would have been as disastrous as the US foray in Beirut 20 years earlier. In a province that abhors the use of force in settling international disputes, Dion was fully correct in pointing out the distinction between himself and Mr. Ignatieff. But even more damaging for Mr. Ignatieff was Dion's comments after the debate when he said that Layton and Harper would not be so easy on Ignatieff and again he is correct. I originally had Ignatieff as my second choice (I'm a Dionista) but have come to the realization that Layton will make mincemeat out of him in an election. Rae will have a challenge with Harper (although he seems better prepared for it than Ignatieff). That really only leaves Dion. I like Ignatieff, I think he's a brilliant writer, and a great guy but he's simply not up to the job. Which is something that many Iggy supporters I know are slowly starting to realize.
I have been a Liberal since 1968 and will be a delegate to the convention.
The audience behaviour yesterday was disgusting.
Let the candidates speak for themselves and let the rest of us make the judgement.
That's just advice because your candidate will now be my last choice in Montreal.
Say what you want...supporters from Rae's camp and Dion's camp booed at different times too.
Only Ignatieff supporters booing is the problem it seems.
Dion said Bob Rae was right to question (read smear) then raised a paper in the air ready to go on the attack. Was I going to listen to another smear? I think not. I expressed myself democratically to the fact that I did not to hear another smear.
Dion never got a chance to finish because he was whining about his time allocation. It was revealed later by Wells that Dion was going to say Michael egged George Bush on to send troops to the Middle East. That is what Dion was going to say. No context nothing. There is no way Dion was going to explain why, it would have taken too long and Dion was whining about time allocation.
The attacks were desperate and the French media took Dion and rae to task last night, with good reason.
Yes the leader will eventually have to facce off with ahrper but if rae says michael believes in torture in October, how could he possibly say otherwise in December?
I stand by what I did.
Actually Antonio, cyberpresse took Ignatieff to task for avoiding any coherent explanation for his past writings. Secondly, your right to boo notwithstanding, we are choosing a leader to fight the next general election. It will do little good to boo Layton when he pulls out text after text of Ignatieff's writings. If Ignatieff is not able to address the attacks of Dion and Rae, then how can we expect him to be able to repel the attacks of Layton. Thirdly, the incident was eerily reminscient of the "vendu, vendu" incident (spoofed by Wells with his title "Fondue, fondue") in which Martin forces, many of whom were anglophones with no idea of what they were saying, shouted out "vendu, vendu" or "traitor, traitor" to Chretien. It was and still is an act of desperation by a campaign losing steam and showed the weakness of the "Quebec strategy" used by Ignatieff's Quebec organizers, who had failed with the approach previously with Mr. Martin. Needless to say, it does not look good for Mr. Ignatieff.
weakness of a strategy which saw a resolution recognizing quebec as a nation priorized and being brushed off by Dion.
the crowd was hostile to him already after arrogantly dismissing the democratic will of the general council.
Wells views the event thru Dion-colored glasses. The entuire French media lambasted Dion for the desperation of the attack, which is exactly why we were booing.
In 4 months if Michael wins, Harper will say even leaderhip candidate Bob Rae thinks Ignatieff supports torture.
Why hasnt Michael answered? He already has answered. They are quoting bits and pieces and smearing. His words are clear in black and white but Bob is not interested in finding the truth, only in smearing.
Thats not going to matter with Layton, he'll do the same thing. Here is the cyberpresse article to which I was refering.
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20061021/CPACTUALITES/61021066/5596/CPACTUALITES
Dion knows the score better than anyone else in Quebec, he knows that Ignatieff's Quebec strategy is doomed to fall into the separatist trap by accepting the logic that it is up to Canada to prove to Quebecers why they should stay in Canada rather than the onus for proof lying with the separtists to proof why Quebecers should leave Canada. If Ignatieff is unsuccessful which is a certainty (I'm from BC so I know clearly that no one outside of Central Canada would accept that) then Gilles Duceppe and Andre Boisclair will be able to claim that, yet again, federalism doesn't work for Quebecers. If we follow this strategy, we will continue to get pounded in Quebec. It didn't work for Turner, it didn't work for Mulroney, it didn't work for Martin, and it won't work for Ignatieff. When Dion first came into office, he told Mr. Chretien that he would make him the most popular leader in Quebec in 5 years. When Chretien left in 2003, he was the most popular leader in Quebec (before sponsorship, sigh). Furthermore, the role of the institution of the liberal party in canada has been always to bridge vast regional differences and avoid splitting the country on contenscious issues. Promising to reopen the constitution to enshrine Quebec as a nation (althought Mr. Ignatieff admits that it will be only a symbolic recogntion, but then what would be the point?), it will again split the country into two: Quebec and the rest of Canada, which plays right into the hands of separatists and their need to build a "Sacred Union" of Quebec solidarity against the ROC for "winning conditions". I remember those days, I remember the regional discord and anger that existed back then that has only disipated now. It is the responsibility of the Liberal Party to unite the country, not divide it with symbolic politics.
Finally, as to your assertion that Dion simply brushed of the "democratic will" of the lpc(q), I would respond that if Dion feels that it is wrong for the country, then he should oppose. That is leadership, the ability to take unpopular stands because they are right for Canada (an argument that Ignatieff supporters have availed themselves of before). Secondly, it is important to note that the Ignatieff campaign is using the resolution to mobilize their base of support (to the debate and later to the convention), similar to a tactic used by Republicans in swing states with referendums on same-sex marriages. If you polled Quebecers on their priorities (oh CRIC, how we miss you and your polling) then the recognition of Quebec as a nation in the Canadian constitution is not high on the list.
As for Wells, he certainly does see things through Dion coloured class, he has the unfortunate habit of calling the situation right - see 2006 election and the difficulties of the Martin regime. And he's bang on about Kennedy. Kennedy, if he can get his supporters to follow him, will decide this race.
So if I understand you correctly, you shouted down Dion because you knew that he was about to smear Ignatieff, even before you heard him?
Since then, you've obviously found out that Dion was only just accurately quoting from Ignatieff's article urging the United States to militarily impose peace between Israel and Palestine.
So now it's your position that accurately quoting Ignatieff's more militaristic writings is tantamount to smearing him.
And anytime that you think that Ignatieff is being smeared, or may be smeared in the future, you think that the appropriate form of action is to shout down whoever is speaking, rather than let the electorate decide for themselves.
Unbelievable.
The "do you know what a dialectic is?" defence is right.
The problem with it is most Canadians have not been to a university. Most journalists have problably long forgotten their Plato (if they ever learned it to begin with) and dialectical thought opens one up to much attack, as we have seen with his musings on a carbon tax, and past analysis on torture.
So what does Ignatieff do from here? He cannot go back and change his past. What he can do is to try to limit dialectical exchanges with the media. An attempt should be made to make him a one message a day man. If he can stay on message for the rest of the campaign, it will show he can lead us into an election.
If it is only the conclusion that matters, would it not be better to stick to the conclusion?
People don't want a lecturer in chief, they want a leader.
We found out Dion was going to use the title of an article to smear Ignatieff. You can dance all around it Rob, Dion went for the low blow and we called him on it.
The he threw a temper tantrum whining about time.
Do you really think Dion was going to properly explain the context of the article for Ignatieff because Ignatieff certainly couldnt it was a closing statement and Michael had already passed.
Dion took a cheap shot. The membership of the party of Quebec saw it. Dion's team is already going crazy trying to shore up their support, which on top of the arrogant dismissal of the nation resolution, is costing him some of his elected delegates.
Some people call what we did intimidation. Hardly, Stephane chose to stop speaking and throw a tantrum. Nothing I yelled at him should have been enough to veer him off message.
We found out Dion was going to use the title of an article to smear Ignatieff
So this wasn't just spur-of-the-moment stupidity on your part? It was orchestrated?
So let me get this straight. For now on Iggy supporters will simply boo someone down everytime they say anything about their candidate that they dont want people to hear?
Renewal indeed.
we heard Dion asy what bob was doing was right (we disagreed on that before)...then he held up a piece of paper and said Michael Ignateiff in 2002 was pushing George Bush in the back and going furtehr than George W. Bush
then we booed cuz honestly further than Bush...
we later found out that Dion was gonna use the title of the article to smear...I almost wish I had shut up to let Dion embarass himself further.
It was not planned Rob
We never expected candidates to aim low like they did
Kyle...kennedy attacked Michael for something he actually said.
He did a good job. I think he actually made a good point...not a peep out of us because the attack was fair and Michael could respond.
People have selective memory
It wasn't a debate between the audience and the candidates. There was no justification for not allowing the candidates to speak.
Dion and Rae loose credibility when they speak. So let them speak!
I fail to see how quoting Ignatieff's own words counts as a low blow or as a smear. If we are not to take Mr. Ignatieff's words as credible, then why should we accept Mr. Ignatieff himself as credible?
A dialectic:
Thesis: Trudeau
Antithesis: Ignatieff
Synthesis: Anybody but Iggy
Antonio, you admitted you shouted down Rae and Dion because you hated what they had to say about your candidate.
So, in politics, if one side hates what the other side is saying, that's an excuse to seize the TV station and declare a one-party state?
Give me a break.
If you don't like what others have to say, you fight them with words. In debates, candidates don't always get a chance to respond. That's why campaigns use the media to clarify positions or make comments afterwards. They usually don't use street thugs. A party once did. They called those thugs stormtroopers.
Le comportement anti-démocratique des supporteurs d'Ignatieff m'a rendu furieux au point que j'ai établi ma première blogue. The odious behaviour of Fuddle & friends made so furious I started my first blog, http://eugeneforseyliberal.blogspot.com.
I watched the debate in French in full. Stéphane Dion. Booed so he can't quote Ignatieff's own words. In MONTREAL!!! By supposed Liberals! Not a lot of liberal ideals, like free speech, there. Ta-ber-nac! Last time I felt this sick was in 1990 when Martin supporters shouted "vendu" at Chrétien.
I worked hard on the 1995 referendum. I went to l'Université de Montréal, where I did Political Economy, from 1996-2000. I am a Montrealer. It is hard to express to outsiders just how vicious the campaign to defame Dion was, and remains, and just how much intellectual and moral courage it took for him to make the case for Canada and confront his critics. And he did it knowing full well what the reaction would be. I was at many a conference or meeting in UdM where he would address a large crowd, 60% rabid separatists who honestly, if the security detail hadn't been there, would have attacked him. They would ask what they thought were difficult questions and calmly he would sip his water and respond, destroying their premises and then their entire argumentation, so clearly and cogently it couldn't be denied. Which just made them angrier and ended with angry senseless sulky tirades and insults, to which he would respond politely if harshly, turning into some sort of question he could address. BUT NEVER EVER IN ALL THAT TIME WAS HE EVER PREVENTED FROM SPEAKING HIS MIND!!!
It took supposed Liberals to do that. Like Fuddle Duddle.
To the author of the Clarity Act. The man whose strategy, as promised when he came in 1996 (see Goldenberg book), led the Liberals to get the highest percentage of vote in the 2000 election, pre-sponsorship scandal. Whatever his faults, Rae would never ever let his supporters behave that way. And Ignatieff for me is now the 9th choice out of 8 (whereas before he was just 8th out of 8:) There are things never forgotten and never forgiven. Not doing anything to stop supporters shouting"vendu" at the architect of the 1980 referendumvictory, and never apologising. Not doing anything to stop supporters drowning out the architect of the Clarity Act and the Federal Government's reassertion of confidence in intergovernmental affairs, and not apologising, but saying people should also check out Dion's writings: go ahead you schmuck, it's all golden. Never has such crystal clear prose been put to work for national unity.
I want Dion to win. More than anything. But if he can't, it can't be Ignatieff. He and his supporters aren't fit to clean Dion's shoes.
I generally don't comment often here anymore, but I have to say you've got it right on this one Antonio.
The Liberals in the room were booing smears. We're not stupid. We see these baseless attacks for what they are.
I hope Dion reconsiders this tactic, because he certainly got what he deserved. Mr. Ignatieff and Kennedy are the only ones of the top four who have respect for all candidates. There are mountains of evidence for this. Indeed, in December we'll see that this 'hit and run' type politicking isn't going to cut it in the new Liberal party.
Sorry fellas, but we're going to choose a classy leader who unites, not divides, Liberals.
Dion may know something about national unity, but he has a lot to learn about party unity.
we shouted them down because they were lying..they were trying to gain political points by smearing.
Saying Michael Ignatieff supports torture is a smear. Simple as that. It is dirty politics and there is no place for it in this party. PERIOD.
So is the booing...I wont lie. We fought fire with fire.
Stephane Dion has turned to the style of attacks that separatists used on him for so long...it is shameful. Federalists wont haev as much sympathy for him as they used to. Dion burned alot of political capital yesterday.
My, my, this thread is waaayyyy over the top.
That's why campaigns use the media to clarify positions or make comments afterwards. They usually don't use street thugs. A party once did. They called those thugs stormtroopers.
As The Cyber Menace has made an oblique reference to the Nazis, I am invoking the variant of Godwin's Law that states that the first person to refer to the Nazis automatically loses the debate and further discussion must cease.
You all sound ridiculous and deserve a lengthy timeout.
Once again, I make my point because you antonio have not addressed it.
How is quoting Mr. Ignatieff's own words a smear?
I am still waiting for your answer.
Winnipeg Liberal obviously doesn't like dissent. Neither do thugs like Antonio.
If you think something is a lie or a smear, you say so. Other people have different opinions on it. That's why they're called debates.
Some people think Iggy endorses torture. They even use his very own words to justify that view. If you think they're wrong, say so. Why resort to the verbal thuggery?
There are obviously people here who prefer to silence critics rather than deal with them democratically.
I hoped that using an "oblique" historical reference would cause some to reflect upon their endorsement of thuggery. I guess I was wrong.
Next time, I'LL JUST SHOUT YOU DOWN!
Better?
Better check your facts about Dion and the Clarity Act:
Chretien/Dion deserves little, if any, credit for the Clarity Act, which has taken some of the wind out of the sails of the Quebec separatist movement.
Instead, that credit belongs to Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and former Reform party leader Preston Manning.
Following the narrow victory for Canada in Quebec's 1995 referendum 10 years ago this past Sunday, Harper and Manning came up with the idea of a Clarity Act.
Initially, their idea -- insisting that any province seeking independence must ask a clear question and have a clear majority -- was ridiculed by Chretien and his cronies.
missed the h/t for previous excerpt from:
Calgary Sun
Licia Corbella
Thu, November 3, 2005
Winnipeg Liberal obviously doesn't like dissent.
Actually, no, I dislike foolish, posturing twits, regardless of whether they share my views or not.
I particularly dislike people who make spurious comparisons to the Nazis - not only is it completely over the top, but it's totally overdone.
But Cyber Menace has always been distinguished by the quantity rather than the quality of his posts, which no doubt reflects how much time he has on his hands.
Hey, WL, if I'm a windbag, then it should be easy to offer a rebuttal. So far, all you've done is try to dismiss dissenters. Not one rebuttal of note. Keep up the good work. No wonder you seem to enable the thugs. Coming up with words to defend yourself is something you and them seem incapable of. And if you find my posts to be too long, you can always print them up and burn them. Seems like it's the kind of thing you like to do when you come across words you can't handle. Cheers. ;)
Last time I checked a thug is a criminal and I committed no crime.
I do not tolerate sleazebag attacks. Can you refrain from calling me a criminal please?
I'm not interested in debating you, Cyber Menace. It'd be like picking on a child.
Oh God...Joe Volpe...Are you serious?...
Can this comment section get any more gong show?
Okay, all this arguing is nutshit insane. And pointless. And turning this party into Conservative rapebait.
Everyone shut up. Someone light up. I'm gonna put on a Melvins record.
Antonio
Michael is a big boy who can refute any unfounded criticisms on his own. He didn't need the goon squad protecting his honour.
That Ignatieff didn't try to suppress the booing and allow his opponents to speak freely, considerably lowers my respect for him. A true leader -- and a decent man -- would have allowed dissent.
Let's Vote on Anyone-but-Iggy:
Anyone-But-Iggy Web POLL
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
rae and dion did not stop their boo-birds either...
should they be condemned as well...
The Nation resolution was the only real news of that forum, orchestrested by your candidate for his own ambitions. This is the most disgusting and tragi thing to have been attempted to date in this campaign that Mr. Ignatieff would be willing to flirt with losing the entire country so he can satisfy the desires of his ego. You all should have had your asses turffed by the chair from what i heard of your poor behaviour by the way. Nothing to be proud of Antonio and ALex, neither is that resolution.
Behave yourselves next time or I'll cuff you both up side the head myself, like any good italian grandmother would. I'm violent you know. lol
we only get condemned cuz we were louder? Keep spinning Rae people...
It is pure Despe-RAE-tion
This comes from several sources Antonio and since when am i or Chantal Hebert a Rae person? Yeah and louder counts more. Its ruder and more subject to discipline.
If we don't want Ignatieff, then who?
Anyone-But-Iggy Web Poll
(Please don't pick Rae!)
In response to S.B. and all of the other anglos from outside Quebec.
The nation resolution is not all about Iggy. Dion's wife voted in favour of the resolution.
Lucienne Robillard who is absolutely neutral was the first to come out of the room to tell the journalists she was in favour of that completely.
It's the reaction of the people from the rest of Canada that might be the problem and cause trouble.
Alex
what about Rae and Dion to their supporters heckling as well...Rae's are clearly caught booing...their buttons are so big.
Post a Comment
<< Home