JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY MICHAEL IGNATIEFF IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Ignatieff yet again proves what a remarkably thoughtless person he is for someone who enjoyed the status of an intellectual concerned with human rights.

But then, even in his old sinecure at Harvard, Ignatieff frequently defended American imperial interests and displayed no concern for America’s increasing violence and authoritarianism in the world.

The horrors in Syria exist for one reason only, and that is America’s effort to determine the future of most of the countries of the Middle East for the benefit of its imperial satrapy in the region, Israel, itself a country which regularly kills, tortures, kidnaps, imprisons, and steals.

Turkey’s behavior in offering the “rebels” refuge and border access and its threats against Syria are all at the behind-the scenes behest of the U.S.

The American Ambassador recently killed in Libya – another American disaster – was involved in smuggling weapons and Islamic fighters into Syria. That’s why no one in Obama’s government can give an honest accounting of the event.

Some of the thugs fighting in Syria are the kind of people the U.S. wouldn’t even admit through its own border, yet it seems perfectly okay for them to go to Syria and murder and destroy.

The hypocrisy and lack of ethics are stunning.

Israel’s murderous thug of a prime minister of course just chuckles at Syria being tied down in such a bloody mess.

The aim here is to destabilize Syria, perhaps dividing it into parts, and removing the Syrian army as a piece on the Middle East chessboard.

The fact is that Assad, like Hussein, provides a secular government in a region torn with religious hostilities. That’s why Islamists hate him. Treatment of women too is better than in many parts of the Middle East.

But none of that counts when the U.S. decides in private that it is time for change in your region of the world.

The country which has killed millions over recent decades now feels entitled to control events anywhere its fancy takes it.

And flacks like Ignatieff – for that is what he is – help form the chorus of support for evil.

He’s trying desperately, I think, to reclaim his sinecure at Harvard.

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO AN EDITORIAL IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

When a Globe and Mail editorial of the Stackhouse Era bestows the word “wise’” upon anything or anyone, it must be taken as prima facie evidence of nonsense being praised.

Of course, in the case of Ignatieff, the more thoughtful and critical have long known him as a rather foolish man.

His record of supporting America’s war and torture made nonsense of his supposed position as a defender of human rights.

But that kind of thing is common enough: great wealthy American institutions often bestow titles and awards and positions – dressed up to sound meaningful in terms of human rights and democratic values – to those who really serve the imperial interest, as Ignatieff very much did.

And Ignatieff’s “political career” is one long painful episode of arrogance and poor judgment, an effort which left the country far worse off than it had been when he returned.

It truly is ridiculous to attribute wisdom to a man like this.

But then so is it to call Tony Blair a man of honor or peace, as the huge stream of awards and sinecures flowing to him all claim.

Ignatieff were best not heard from again and left forgotten, but the man’s bulging ego will not let that be so.

And it is the job of Globe editorials in almost all things these days to make a silk purse of a sow’s ear.
______________________________________________

As to the decline in democracy in the country, what can you say of a man who accepted being parachuted into a riding and refused even to live there?

And a man who was parachuted into the leadership itself by the efforts of a group of party insiders?

Of a man who didn’t face the democratic test in either case?

But I’m not arguing that Ignatieff is worse than Harper.

Harper is an instinctive petty tyrant with no genuine respect for democratic values, as he has demonstrated time and time again.

He is, simply, the nastiest piece of work we’ve had as prime minister.

And he sits there as “majority” prime minister owing to Ignatieff’s inept leadership and Ignatieff’s elevated idea of himself and his abilities.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY ADAM GOLDENBERG IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

I do not even understand why Adam Goldenberg has written this hatchet-job piece.

And I do not understand his qualification to do so, since having been a chief speechwriter to Michael ignatieff is pretty much an overblown claim to nothing.

Ignatieff plainly is the most terribly failed politician of our time, and his poor judgment and lack of skills have given us a legacy of a national government bent on copying the right wing of the Republican Party down to almost every detail.

Many of us knew that it would be so: Ignatieff is by nature a standoffish man and his spoken words have always been considerably less than dazzling. Mr Goldenberg’s efforts appear to have no spice to a dull dish.

Of course, there was Ignatieff’s past service to the worst war crime of this generation, the invasion of Iraq, an event in which a million or so perished. his claims to being a genuine liberal (small “l”) were always tenuous.

He proved himself a much overrated person in a dozen more ways when he took on the Liberal leadership.

He made a dumb speech at the convention attacking his own party which then became useful attack-material for the Harperites.

He accepted being parachuted into a riding, and then arrogantly chose not to live there, after having promised he would.

He accepted being parachuted into the leadership, an act which starkly cast doubt on Ignatieff’s democratic values.

Ignatieff went on that ludicrous Ma and Pa Kettle Cross Country Bus Trip when it became obvious to Party leaders he had no ability to communicate and empathize with people.

Since when does a bus trip change one’s character? It only made him look ridiculous on top of all his other shortcomings.

He always raged and blubbered against a coalition when it was clear to many – given the Liberal Party’s weakened status – that that was the only way to wrest power from Harper’s minority.

And Ignatieff chose when to call an election – he didn’t have to do so, but he did – and it was the most destructive election call in my lifetime.

Compared to Ignatieff’s fumbling, preachiness, lackluster speechmaking, poorly chosen issues, lack of organizational skills, and just plain boring personality, Bob Rae still looks remarkably good.

“Then he ran and lost, then ran again…”

That is subtly but definitely dishonest. There was no second-time race. Ignatieff was handed the leadership by a small group of Liberal Party insiders.

I and many others believe Bob Rae could have beaten Ignatieff, Rae being one of the most eloquent politicians of our generation, rising to levels of clever observation and well-chosen words Mr ignatieff could only dream of.

Of course, the genuine question is not why the talented Bob Rae ran and is running but why the inept Michael Ignatieff ever thought he had something to offer, other than some kind of legacy claim to crown his family’s achievements. Pure arrogance.
_____________________________________________

“Liberals are now in third place and electing a man with a track record of failing to run provinces well during a recession (which is exactly the situation we are in now) will do nothing to fix that.”

You have it precisely wrong: he ran it well under the circumstances.

There were hard choices to make, and he made them.

“Rae Days” were a thoughtful and decent option to large dismissals.

Union leaders and cheap columnists have never forgiven him.

And that doesn’t say a lot for their speaking in an informed manner or displaying effective intelligence.

For completely different reasons however I think Bob Rae’s day may have passed. I do not see the Liberal Party regaining its position any time soon.

Harper’s potential for growth is exhausted, 39.6% certainly being his high-water mark, a number interestingly which is close to the highest number achieved by the National Socialists when they ran as a democratic party in the early 1930s.

There is a dazzling new star on the political scene, and his name is Thomas Mulcair.

I do believe he has a serious chance of making the NDP Canada’s other major party and of rising above the old sort-of Boy Scout image from which the Party long has suffered.

I don’t see anyone else in the Liberals remotely up to the challenge. Talk of Justin Trudeau is pathetic. He has more of his mother’s genes than his father’s.

Dalton McGuinty is sickening and tiresome to almost everyone in Ontario, and it is only the PC’s stupid moves that have kept him going – first, John Tory’s insistence on committing political suicide and then the Party’s electing the current nasty gnome, Hudak, as leader.

Dominic LeBlanc is an intelligent and attractive candidate, but he never seems to have caught fire in the Party.

While intelligence is important, politics is far from a rational process, many emotional and lucky factors playing roles.

The Liberals cannot succeed without Quebec, and they are now far out-shown there by Mr Mulcair.

 

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY MARGARET WENTE IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Quebec is not leaving Confederation.

There is not the tiniest bit of evidence for saying that.

So why do people keep saying it?

Because it’s such an emotionally charged statement it gets people’s attention, quickly.

Ergo, Ignatieff pathetic comments: words from a man who has proven, over and over, he is not all that perceptive, and a man who sure wants attention.

The man spent most of his life writing books – and as any good professional writer will tell you – that is a lonely business. Indeed Graham Greene wrote of the writer having a splinter of ice in his heart.

Further still, writing books is not necessarily the same thing as either having genuine new ideas or of being a perceptive analyst of current affairs.

The Toronto Liberal Party insiders who lured Ignatieff back to Canada with the promise of his leading the Party never understood these facts.

And, clearly, Ignatieff did not understand them either. He does not truly know even himself.

He has proved a remarkably unperceptive and narrow academic with little ability to relate to society.

It is only natural that Margaret Wente would choose to defend his empty observations. That’s the kind of thing she specializes in.

After all, they are pretty well cut from the same cloth, only Wente has no academic standing.

Two streams of humid air blowing against the realities and subtleties of their time.
_________________________________

“Get off it Cons, Iggy is not really anti-Canadian in any sense. It is only your stupidity (based on Harper’s 15 sec. talking points) that makes it seem so in your own minds only.”

That would be a laughable comment were it not so sad.

You totally confuse the Right Wing with critics of Ignatieff.

Sorry, but there are many, many genuinely liberal-minded people in this world who do not think well of Ignatieff.

Indeed, there is a strong argument for consigning Ignatieff to the softer wing of the neo-conservatives.

His record during his time at Harvard is quite unpleasant, including, of course, writing in support of our generation’s biggest war crime, the invasion of Iraq, which killed about a million people, destroyed a promising society for a generation, and left about 2 million refugees. He also supported “torture-lite.”

Ignatieff has never qualified as a genuine liberal. He is a special interest man, and his aura of being a significant voice in human rights is just that an aura. His record is a poor one if you scrutinize the details.

Ms Wente’s entire background in writing of world affairs reflects the neo-con position, from endless apologies for Israel’s savagery to her almost putrid embrace of the same invasion of Iraq.

Again, here is a near-demented Ms Wente some years ago on all that death and destruction in Iraq:

http://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/the-iraq-wars-trashiest-piece-of-propaganda/
_______________________________________

“He is entitled to his opinion, but its clear he was never a great choice for Liberal leader.”

But he never was a choice, was he, in the sense of the word choice we assume in a democracy?

He was parachuted into the role by a group of Party bosses.

Just as he was parachuted into his West End riding when he first showed up on stage playing his return-of-the-native act.

Now, what kind of a principled politician, or would-be politician in this case – principled in democratic and human values – accepts such gifts from a group of insiders?

To answer the question is to summarize Ignatieff’s credentials as a principled politician.
______________________________

“To be honest, in travelling across Canada, I have found far more of a sense of separation and even hostility in Western Canada. I have rarely heard from a Quebecker the kind of vitriol towards other Canadians as some of the comments/attitudes I’ ve encountered In B.C. & Alberta in recent years.”

Well said.

Your observation confirms my own over some years.

I’ve never heard such genuine low-life comments as I’ve heard in Alberta.

Stephen Harper serves as a kind of bellows blowing on hot coals in this matter.

Wente’s ignorance here is little short of phenomenal, exceeded only by the man of proven poor judgment she’s defending.

Again, here’s what a woman of genuine perceptive intelligence – one of Canada’s best political columnists – has to say:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1167952–michael-ignatieff-s-bbc-comments-on-shaky-ground?bn=1
__________________________________

The following two postings are mine from the original column by Michael Ignatieff:

Please, go away, boring man.

You were a complete flop as a political leader.

And in your previous efforts to get some attention in the Globe, you’ve demonstrated less-than-Sterling abilities as an idea man.

Indeed, it was your poor judgment and blind ambition which are responsible for the Harper’s licence to act against much of what Canada has represented in my adult lifetime.

Now, you play the old “look out for Quebec” card.

Tiresome and inaccurate.
__________________________

“This is what this guy does best. Babble. Of course in their little world he is known as a deep thinker.”

His reputation as a thinker is immensely overblown, as all thoughtful people came to understand from most of what has come out of his mouth since accepting as an inheritance, as it were, the promise of leadership of the Liberal Party.

I cannot believe how trivial and unperceptive he has proven himself.

But, then, he did support criminal invasion and torture when still doing his blubbering in the United States, didn’t he?

Globe, you do readers no service giving this guy free space for advertising himself.

Indeed, there is almost a touch of black comedy here with a man proven to be so out of touch, and not just concerning Canada, still coming back repeatedly to offer views and advice.

The term “idiot-savant” comes to mind here, but I’m not so sure about the “savant’ half of the phrase.

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY MICHAEL IGNATIEFF IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Mr. Ignatieff proves as dull a writer on this topic as he was a speaker in politics.

Cliches, unoriginal imagery, and uninspired establishment analysis – just about sums it up.

Speaking of parallel universes (a truly dull cliche of Ignatieff’s choosing), isn’t Ignatieff living in one himself if he thinks this contributes to anyone’s understanding?

Some of the truths in this matter include:

1) The United States and Israel wouldn’t know what to do without Assad. He’s almost a silent partner in keeping extremists quiet, just as the House of Saud is and just as Mubarak was.

2) The United States – in its typically blundering way in contemporary foreign affairs, not even understanding its own genuine long-term interests – secretly helped instigate this uprising, and Israel is supplying weapons.

3) A militant and more Islamic-focused Syria represents the same kind of idiot situation created in Libya – a long-term source of militants raging with resentment against American interference.

4) Does anyone remember the American race riots of 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1992/ Police and National Guard (bayonets fixed on rifles) killed rioters by the scores in the streets of major American cities.

One can only imagine how brutally the American establishment would react to the kind of political provocation seen in Syria. America has the greatest mass of troops and weapons on the planet ready to suppress any civil disturbance.

5) And need I remind anyone of Israel’s response to the least provocation? Assad, in putting down a genuine civil disturbance, hasn’t managed to kill the number of people Israel has killed in recent years, and these were people just trying to seek relief from occupation and constant oppression.

This piece seriously raises the question of what anyone ever saw as special in Ignatieff?

__________________________________________

‘I will start by saying the violence and the number of dead in Iraq is a lot higher for the same period as is in Syria. Having said this I have to say the mantra of : “Assad killing his own people” is tiresome.’

Good point.

America left somewhere between a half and one million corpses in Iraq.

The inept politician writing this piece helped praise the effort.

Even today – once the Arab world’s most advanced country, well on its way to eventually graduating to more democratic government –it is an awful place to live.

There is no dependable water and electricity for many.

There are no decent jobs for an entire generation.

Depleted uranium dust is slowly poisoning thousands of kids.

And America’s brutal stupidity created at least two million refugees. Imagine two million out of a population of maybe twenty-five – a huge disruption.

And who took in those refugees?

You’d be wrong if you guessed the United States who created their plight.

You win the prize if you said Assad’s Syria.

 

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY MICHAEL IGNATIEFF IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Mr Ignatieff, here’s what I consider serious unfairness in our politics.

A few Liberal Party insiders go down to Harvard to lure a boring academic to return to Canada with the promise of likely leading the party about which he knew nothing.

The boring academic got parachuted into a riding about which he also knew nothing, and he refused to live in the riding, even though he once said that he would.

The boring academic made some speeches, in the course of pursuing the party’s leadership, undeserving of it as he was, with thoughtless statements ready-made for exploitation later by Conservatives in attack ads.

The boring academic later, after the political demise of the politician who beat him out for the leadership, accepts being parachuted into the party’s leadership without being tested by any meaningfully democratic process.

The boring academic proves a boring and genuinely inept political leader.

Every poll and gathering proves Liberals themselves do not like the boring academic, but he persists until he can lead the party to its degrading defeat.

And sure enough, the boring academic makes a dumb decision for an election which dooms Canadians to at least four years of Harper’s slash and burn.

After quitting in a rush and accepting a sinecure at the University of Toronto, the boring academic manages to pound out a boring article every once in a while to be published in the Globe and Mail.

Sound familiar, Mr Ignatieff?

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY MICHAEL IGNATIEFF IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

The genuine issue is not ex-pats as this piece by Ignatieff would have us believe.

Indeed, the claim is a pretty putrid way to excuse your own failings.

It is self-damning when you think about it: “Gee, I didn’t do anything wrong, I was just this wonderful cosmopolitan guy attacked by horrid little people!”

Please, the unexamined life is not worth living, and Ignatieff surely has not spent five minutes examining his own, else he would never write such tripe.

You cannot, anywhere in the world, expect to return from a great long period abroad and assume leadership of a great national party almost immediately.

The very idea is preposterous.

In politics, you earn your credentials, a thoroughly appropriate demand for what is the art of the practical.

Ignatieff spent no time earning his “creds.”

And, really, and I say this as a genuinely (small “l”) liberal-minded person, Ignatieff displayed pure arrogance in thinking he could do otherwise.

And, with this column, he is only demonstrating again that he “just does not get it.”

Pretty damning stuff for a highly educated man.

____________________________

“Michael Ignatieff is a Canadian.

“In every sense of the word.”

Michael Ignatieff is a drip.

In every sense of the word.

Being a Canadian drip doesn’t make any difference.

_____________________

“Mr Harper’s constant attacks on Mr Ignatieff for his time outside of Canada reflects [sic] insularity and insecurity.”

A totally false argument.

Insularity is an issue only in the mind of Michael Ignatieff, busy spinning tales to comfort himself about his utter failure.

Ignatieff was an incompetent politician. Full stop.

He also, as one reader has correctly remarked, proved to have an unappealing personality.

Writers often have unpleasant or underdeveloped personalities: after all, they spend most of their working hours alone with a keyboard or a tablet of paper, almost the polar opposite of what politicians do, glad-handing people as soon as they’re in high school.

He also lacked the largeness of spirit of the great Liberal prime ministers: he is a surprisingly conservative and unimaginative man, considering his education and travel.

Had it been otherwise, Harper’s nasty ads would have been ignored as background noise. After all, Canadians have not embraced Harper, a man of extreme views and unethical behavior, Canada’s first genuinely creepy leader, with a meager 39.6% mandate. They only avoided the unpleasant and incompetent and almost buffoonish Ignatieff.

Ignatieff has none of the fierce intelligence and drive of a Trudeau and none of the ineffable charm of a Chretien.

He showed no judgment, time and time again, as dallying in France when Parliament was prorogued. The insiders of the party made a terrible mistake luring him back, and they soon knew it, desperately putting on silly stunts like Ignatieff’s “Ma and Pa Kettle’s Excellent Adventure Crossing Canada by Bus.”

Simply inane.

_____________________________

“He has principles and stood up to serve.”

God, what complete puffery.

What principles of Ignatieff’s stand out?

I fail to see any beyond the most ordinary.

Stood to serve?

What an overly-dignified description for a man’s being offered and given leadership of a great party without doing anything to earn it.

______________________________

“…there is far more support for Mr Ignatieff then you want to believe.”

You are asserting nonsense in the face of those election results?

That is delusional.

And I wonder, had you heard the previous buzz among some in the party about Ignatieff?

Many observed that he trusted no one but his wife.

He tended to consult no one.

So tense had this situation become that we saw in some Wikileaks material that the American ambassador secretly commented on the bad blood between Ignatieff and Rae.

In the end, I count myself a pretty seasoned “reader” of people, and Ignatieff struck the wrong note with me immediately.

It had nothing to do with his having lived abroad. It had nothing to do with his education. It was just my reading of a politician who could not connect.

I never had any doubt he would lose and lose big.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY JOHN IBBITSON IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

I do have a problem with “visions” generally, but, when someone has no legitimate right to be called a liberal, talks of the “liberal vision,” I can only laugh.

I cannot think of one evidence of Ignatieff’s having a genuinely liberal spirit.

Here are just some of the facts:

He does not speak out on any of the great issues of our day.

He didn’t subject himself to a democratic contest to gain his leadership job.

He provided the ammunition – his own foolish words at his first convention – for Harper attack ads against the extremely decent and thoughtful Mr Dion.

He came back to Canada rasping and blubbering on one occasion about how you cannot ever oppose America because they’ll make you pay.

Presumably that absolutely amoral advice applies even when what America engages in is mass murder, as it was in Iraq.

He was published and broadcast in the United States defending the mass murder in Iraq and accepting “mild” torture.

He has distinguished himself in nothing, shown no political courage, since becoming leader.

He well deserves to fall on his face.

I will always hold his ambition and ego responsible if Harper gains a majority and proceeds to tear down the decent Canada we all love.

Intellectuals are supposed to “know themselves,” and it couldn’t be more clear that Ignatieff either has no idea of his own limited political capacities or has such an ego he believes himself capable of tasks for which he has no talent.

Good-bye, Mr Ignatieff, you won’t be missed.

As the saying goes, don’t forget to close the door on your way out.
____________________________

Again, so long as Quebec has been out of play for the Liberals and Conservatives – the very basis for the horrible minority freak show we’ve experienced for some years – the only way to defeat Harper is through a coalition.

Mr. Dion and Jack Layton both understood this basic truth, but the Don Quixote of Canadian Liberal politics, the one wearing the colors of the Pentagon on his sleeve, did not.

This silly man actually sneered at Dion’s signing up to a coalition.

Ignatieff is so ineffective a politician, he countered Harper’s appeal to ignorance with his dishonest “stab in the back” stuff about coalitions “stealing elections” only by the most insipid statements.

Well, Harper has been a prime minister with the support of only one-third of Canadians. The two-thirds against him all represent some degree or other of progressive vote.

That’s not democracy.

A coalition of the two-thirds would have been.

And just try telling the dozens of governments in the world who have been or are ruled by coalitions that they stole elections.

Only the truly ignorant repeat this Hitler-like mantra.

Coaltions are everywhere and always a valid part of parliamentary government.

You blew it, Ignatieff, big time.

Unfortunately, we’ll all have to pay for your blundering and meddling.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO AN INTERVIEW IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Ignatieff just becomes more pathetic with each passing day.

First, he played Pa Kettle in the re-make of “Ma and Pa Kettle Take the Bus.”

Now, he’s knee-deep in Facebook, one of the most trivial and meaningless sites on the Internet.

And all that comes after the clear identity of rather dull academic.

Oh, and then there’s his long-term role as Defender of the American Empire.

Please, Liberal Party, you have become as trivial and tending to dumbness as CBC Radio One these days.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY JEFFREY SIMPSON IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

“Desperate measures don’t have to be stupid measures…”

Jeffrey Simpson, as one who regards your analyses often with admiration, I must say you could not be more wrongheaded here. This column suggests a party insider blubbering.

Getting rid of a political liability like Ignatieff is not extreme: it is the most usual, work-a-day politics, much like dumping a poorly performing minister.

Even further, since Ignatieff was never properly elected as leader, being parachuted into both his riding a few years ago and then into the leadership by backroom insiders, he is owed nothing by most voters.

And one might perhaps have developed a different view, had he taken command and proved a Trudeau of Chretien, but, no, he has proved a Stanfield. Actually that is unfair to Stanfield, because, despite his weaknesses as a politician, he was an admirably honorable man.

Ignatieff is uninspiring and even boring, and he is unimaginative, surprisingly so, considering his much-vaunted academic background.

And when it comes to honor, Ignatieff stands before us in a badly tarnished suit of armor indeed. I can never respect a man who has said the things he has said in the past, most especially one pretending to be liberal (in the best sense of that word).

He is a crypto-neo-con. He is anti-democratic. His is no genuine voice for human rights, despite the risible pretensions of his past chair at Harvard. He comes off as a wine-and-cheese fop without having any of the devastating wit of a Disraeli.

I think my views in this have some valid application, because I’m the kind of voter the Liberals are seeking, progressive in all social matters and traditional and sound in finances, as well as one who votes for integrity and character regardless of party.

And for me, those qualifiers mean I can never vote for Ignatieff.

I am deeply distressed over the national political impasse we are at. Ignatieff can never be elected prime minister. Harper can never command a majority.

Yet the narrow extremist Harper is cunning and aggressive, and he is permitted to rule much as though he had a majority, and the man is trashing all our traditions of civility and decency in politics, aping every shabby view and technique of Newt Gingrich twenty years ago.

We need change, but not just empty gasbag change.

Until sentiments in Quebec come into a new balance, the only genuine changes I see possible are leadership change in the Liberal Party and a merger or coalition with the NDP.

Parties appear and disappear over time. They are not a set of Egyptian pyramids to stand forever. In Britain, the Whigs disappeared, the Peelites disappeared, the Liberals disappeared, and today Labour is fading.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

My, how refreshing to read Ignatieff actually speaking to an important issue.

It could not be clearer what Harper is doing.

The Globe has even published one of Tom Flanagan’s trashy columns in which the American neo-con advisor to Harper said in defending prorogation that it was a good idea not to let discrediting information be released concerning Canadian military activities.

Of course, the trouble is that Ignatieff is utterly impotent to do anything.

He can’t normally even speak to great issues, much less act on them.

When we need a hero, we have a clownish idiot-savant.

A coalition or merger cannot come too soon.

Harper is a miserable Republican extremist with a tyrant’s temperament, and he is a good chess player with Ignatieff no match.

Harper’s behavior reminds me of a saying by the late Lyndon Johnson, “It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in”

Only in Harper’s case, he is inside the tent pissing in.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY DAVID BERCUSON IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Silly David Bercuson is at it again.

“Ignatieff needs to rein in Dosanjh and Rae to restore sense to his party’s defence policies.”

Actually I think the Globe needs to rein in David Bercuson to restore sense to its op-ed page
______________________

Ignatieff will never be elected prime minister no matter what he does or doesn’t do.

And Harper will never receive a majority.

So Canada remains stuck in a political twilight zone, and we receive only disingenuous advice from the neo-cons like David Bercuson.

The truth is that Harper has violated many traditional and fair-minded principles in our foreign policy, his absolutely outrageous comments about Israel being a prime example.

But we have no one else to turn to right now.

Ignatieff has a record as a man of no principles: support for the killing of a million people in Iraq, support for torture, opportunistic return home, opportunistic parachuting into riding, and opportunistic parachuting into the party leadership.

But that kind of record is just fine with the David Bercusons of this world.

Dosanjh and Rae, for all their faults, are two of the most intelligent, thoughtful, and well-informed national politicians we have.

Either of them beats Ignatieff in eloquence. Either beats Ignatieff in dedication to human rights.

JOHN C HUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

“…he squandered a rare chance to strengthen our democracy…”

Absolutely.

And what is so amazing is the colossal ineffectiveness of the Liberals in allowing the Conservatives to repeat, over and over, the big lie that a coalition is not democratic, unparliamentary.

The truth is, of course, just the opposite.

They also let the dumb slur about deals with separatists prosper.

What hypocrisy, when Harper has never refused their support for something he wanted.

We’ve paid a price for the Liberals’ ineptitude, but I am glad Ignatieff will never be prime minister.

Nothing he has done or said proves he has the talents, the views, or the ethics for the office.

And when it comes to “strengthening democracy,” Ignatieff’s record in entirely in the opposite direction.

Parachuted back into our country, parachuted into his riding, and parachuted into the leadership – all with a charming record of public support for American aggression and imperialism.

And, on top of everything, he is simply boring as a speaker.

_______________

“@John Chuckman

“Ignatieff is . . boring as a speaker”

* * *

For those with attention-deficit problems, and inability to pay attention for more than 30 seconds to anything that isn’t shiny or makes loud noises.”

That’s a pretty pathetic effort at personal attack.

As someone who graduated with honors from University of Toronto, served as chief economist in a major corporation, published a book, published many essays, has had a column in a metropolitan newspaper, taught university courses, and doesn’t even turn on a television, I do think it fair to say the writer doesn’t know what she/he/it is talking about.

I have heard Ignatieff interviewed at length, and he is dull. No new ideas, no fresh thought, just a stream of words, and he secretly worships at the feet of the American Imperium. Then there’s the rather raspy voice and the sense one gets from him of never revealing what he really thinks.

And clearly it is not just my judgment.

He has completely and utterly failed to engage the Canadian people, and that miserable failure comes in the face of a political opponent as widely disliked as Harper.

Proof, if ever there were, of a man totally unsuited to his grasping ambition. He simply does not have the goods.

It really is tiresome to see Ignatieff defended by a small band of enthusiastic (and likely delusional) supporters for the supposed merit of being so impressive an intellectual.

First, I defy anyone to produce a truly original idea from Ignatieff. There aren’t any.

Of course, true intellectuals rarely if ever run for office.

And finally, politics simply is not about being intellectual. Being smart is important. Paul Martin is smart. Jean Chretien is smart. Harper is smart. Pierre Trudeau was very smart.

Ignatieff wrote books, not very interesting ones in my view, and he blubbered on television at lot – but those are precisely the talents of a David Frum or a thousand other talking heads.

Hardly the stuff of leadership.

__________________

“…why do the most ardent Harper supporters hate the BLOC so much?”

Simply because it has stood in the way of the Conservatives winning a majority.

Duceppe, despite his views on Quebec nationalism (and it is thanks to Mr. Harper that is a legitimate phrase in our national political dialogue), is an astute and capable politician, and I credit him with views that are in the finest traditions of Canada.

The absolute stupidity of Conservative arguments about coalition with separatists is demonstrated by several glaring facts.

First, the people represented by the Bloc are Canadians, and they have elected this party to represent them.

Second, we all have included the Bloc in national leadership debates.

Third, the party is a legitimate part of the Parliament of Canada.

Fourth, Mr. Harper uses their support whenever he can benefit by it.

Last, it was Mr. Harper who passed a formal resolution on Quebec as a nation within Canada.

Of course, if Conservatives wanted to be honest and consistent in this matter, they would oppose including the Bloc in debates. They would oppose admitting them to Parliament. And they would never accept their support on legislation.

But we don’t see any of that, do we?

It would be the death sentence for Conservatives in Quebec. Talk about hypocrisy, this is as rich as it gets.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY LAWRENCE MARTIN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Let Ignatieff be himself?

God, what a treat that will be for voters.

Let him drone on in his drab tone.

Let him display his arrogant and stand-offish attitude.

Let him display his striped trousers and silk stockings while crossing his legs on podiums across the country.

Let him speak about relatively trivial points while the great issues of the sweep past him.

Let him blubber about the democratic values his entire sordid little political career in Canada has worked against.

Let him smile his sardonic smile and be self-satisfied about his changing his mind about past support for torture and mass murder in Iraq.

God, I wish the Liberal Party would come to its senses and dump this political albatross.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY NORMAN SPECTOR IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

I have no use for separatism, but I think it more than fair to say that Mr. Duceppe is by a good measure the more statesmanlike of the three, comparing him with Harper and Ignatieff.

Duceppe also has demonstrated a solid concern for the kind of values most Canadians are comfortable with.

Harper is a nasty political accident, an extremist who has managed to enjoy power only owing to a set of circumstances beyond his control.

Ignatieff is not worth discussing. The man represents no values whatsoever. His voice is never even heard on important matters. And his past is a disgrace, whether speaking of his support for torture and mass murder or his receiving his position through anti-democratic manoeuvering. And to put the cap on it, he isn’t even interesting to listen to, rather drab in fact.

The press, and columnists like Norman Spector, actually make far more out of the separatist affiliation of Duceppe than is warranted. He has no chance ever of achieving separation, the majority of Quebec’s people not supporting that end. But he has been a more respectable and, in my view, responsible member of Parliament than Ignatieff or Harper.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Thank you, Ms. Krieber.

You’ve spoken the simple truth.

Ignatieff is a disaster.

A disaster by every possible measure.

He has no political skills.

He has no idealism.

He has no charm.

He is simply dull and uninteresting as a speaker.

There is no spark in the man.

He is a dry academic observer, and an academic of not especially outstanding abilities.

And he carries a record of views that are unacceptable to all ethical Canadians.

Dion is a good and intelligent and perceptive man, but he made a serious political mistake with his Green Shift going into an election.

Had the party allowed him to recover in the normal fashion, I think he would be embraced by many Canadians.

Instead, the blind people running the party shoved Ignatieff down our throats.

Ignatieff’s record for his few years in Canadian politics reads like something from the old Poliburo.

Parachuted into his riding. Parachuted into the leadership. Uninteresting to the people.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY TOM FLANAGAN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

“I think the media hate Ignatieff because he is a successful author.”

That kind of comment indeed confirms Churchill’s sarcastic view on the average voter in a democracy.

Oh, please, it has nothing to do with books.

Ignatieff has simply proven a dreary public persona. Anyone with ears and eyes understands that.

He has no charm and sparkle like Chretien.

He has no piercing intelligence and commanding presence like Trudeau.

He has no sense of being a man of the people, a la Pearson.

He is almost totally unsuited to the job he has taken on, and it has nothing to do with this or that member of his staff.

The sooner he steps down – from a job he did not even get democratically – the better off our country will be.

We need an admirable, sparkling leader to stop that creature Harper, that walking assemblage of pieces of corpses, who is wrecking much of what most Canadians hold dear.

Ignatieff’s little political career by appointment is nothing more a continuation of the disastrous split in the Liberal Party when Martin pushed out Chretien.

If Harper gets a majority, we are all going to be very sorry.

The ghastly crew of creatures who are Harper’s loyal legion – ever see Tom Flanagan’s picture? Unsmiling tight thin lips, he could have a career doing roles like Silas Marner or a remake of the Night of the Living Dead – are just getting going in anticipation of Harper’s being able to sweep away everything they hate.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY DENIS SMITH IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

‘“Can I trust this guy?” And he hasn’t given us the answer.’

I disagree with that point in your otherwise excellent article, Denis Smith: he very much has given us the answer.

The truth is Ignatieff has always been a politician, and a rather shallow one. Anyone who listened to him carefully years ago knows that.

Most importantly, Ignatieff’s stuff on human rights has always seemed more of a cocktail-party view than a bred-in-the-bone characteristic: it is precisely the kind of stage persona shallow politicians assume.

He reminds me of a rich blue-haired Boston matron attending a dazzling gala to benefit some cause somewhere out there in the third world. She doesn’t much care in about the nitty-gritty of the cause, and perhaps even knows little about it, but she is concerned with her reputation among a certain social set.

Ignatieff has always given us words with little or no substance, and different words to different audiences, nicely calculated to appeal to each with half truths.

I believe there is no center, no “there,” to Michael Ignatieff, and that has always been the case. His writing and lectures betray that. They are characterized by mannered ambiguity and not particularly insightful or exhibiting the thirst for justice.

The Liberal Party has made a terrible choice in Ignatieff, and it was not even a democratic choice.

The fact that he accepted the leadership in this fashion speaks volumes.

God, we desperately need a genuine leader, a person of eloquence and driving concern for justice. It is regrettable to have to say that Gilles Duceppe displays these characteristics immensely more than Harper or Ignatieff.

That great thumping political cretin, Harper, is shaming our country in a dozen ways, from handing out orders in Foreign Affairs to have the term “child soldier” not used to condemning the UN for deaths of observers in Lebanon murdered while bravely doing their jobs.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY JEFFREY SIMPSON IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Yes, indeed, Jeffrey Simpson, but I think the problem goes deeper than that.

Ignatieff was parachuted into his seat.

Ignatieff was parachuted into the party leadership, and indeed over the heads of better men than himself.

He is an “insiders’ leader,” a backroom boy, not a people’s leader, and I think the public “gets” it.

No man who genuinely respects democratic principles could have accepted those terms of having a political career in this era. It might have been acceptable in the 1950s, but it is not today.

The trouble is Ignatieff’s whole background is replete with such contradictions in ethics and principles.

He was always touted as an academic who represented human values, but the reality was glaringly at odds with that claim.

I cannot imagine one of our great humanitarian writers – say a Graham Greene – ever doing what Ignatieff did in supporting torture and Nazi-like invasion of a country, an act which ended in a million deaths and a couple of million refugees.

I heard Ignatieff interviewed on several occasions years ago, saying things which were totally at odds, at least to my sensitivities, with strong humanitarian values.

He virtually worships American power and influence in the world. He actually warned Canadians against opposing American excesses, and, as we all know, he so identified with that imperial power that he went around there bragging of being an American.

He actually competed in his first bid for leadership by attacking the party’s achievements, providing Harper with film clips to use against Liberals.

Now, of course, other past statements of his own are used against the party.

Ignatieff is a disaster. The faster he steps down, the better.

Sadly for my country, Harper is an equally unfit man to represent Canada.

A political nightmare, surely.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY LYSIANE GAGNON IN THE TORONTO GLOBE AND MAIL

The only cases of Iggymania ever reliably reported were discovered in Ignatieff’s immediate family.

Even there, Iggymania apparently is a somewhat insipid contagion, known to have caused one or two relatives to experience a brief sniffle when exposed to one of his speeches.

However, some researchers have come forward with the theory that even these sniffles are not Iggymania but Iggyphobia.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Bob Rae is, of course, absolutely right here.

What Ignatieff is showing us now is what a very close twin to Harper he is.

Secretiveness is a basic Harper characteristic, as is being an angry control-freak behind the scenes.

We already understood Ignatieff was a divisive man. We already knew he supported the state-terror of the Iraq invasion. We already knew he was arrogant and aggressive. We already knew he had little of what honestly can be called ethics.

With this behavior, he proves he cannot be distinguished from Harper. The only differences are style.

Which monster do you like? A Frankenstein-like creature who smiles with a two-second delay to any stimulus (Harper) or do you like a low, cunning were-wolf type (Ignatieff)?

With Ignatieff, the Liberal Party becomes an irrelevant copy of the Conservatives.

I would not vote for the one over the other under any circumstances.

_______________

Ignatieff unquestionably represents a watershed in Canadian national politics.

It will be the end of the coalition of interests we have called the Liberal Party for decades.

There is no reason on earth to vote for this unethical man over Harper.

Any success he could hope to achieve would only reflect old sentiments and associations people have in their minds concerning the party.

But these emotional connections are already frayed.

They will snap altogether with the emergence of this dark, unpleasant man as leader.

_____________

M. LeBlanc is actually the Liberals’ greatest prospect.

He is altogether an energetic, intelligent, informed, and likeable man.

He has the French name and language so important in Quebec.

He could create some real excitement.

But no, the boundless, unwarranted personal ambition of Ignatieff will prevent that happening.

It is a very troubling set of circumstances.

____________

“…but Iggy is the better liberal.”

A ridiculous statement.

The traditions of the modern Liberal Party – the party of Pearson, Trudeau, and Chretien – are violated in almost every aspect by what Ignatieff represents.

There is no connection whatever, anymore than there is between Harper and that tradition.