Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Headline revision - "Statement reveals 'real Ignatieff'"

(previous post title: "The Arrogant Minded Professor?")

The headline of a CBC article is "Video reveals 'real Harper': Ignatieff".

Instead, after reading the Globe & Mail's article, I'm thinking,
"Statement reveals 'real Ignatieff'"
Mr. Ignatieff points to the fact that after he became Liberal Leader he declined to defeat the Tories eight weeks later on their January budget, killing off the coalition.

“I could have been standing here as prime minister of Canada, but I turned it down,” [Ignatieff] said.
Say WHAT? In other words, when translated into Iggy-speak...

"You see, I could have been Prime Minister if I'd wanted to... but you, the little people of Canada, you weren't yet ready for me. Now, perhaps the time has come where you are finally ready...

Therefore, should I decide that you are indeed worthy of my leadership, I shall hereby force an election, in an effort to be magnanamous with my divine power, and bestow upon you the privilage of making me your Presiden... er, Prime Minister.

And then, should you decide to reject my ovatures of peace and enlightened despotism, then I'll just take the reigns of power anyway."


Like I've been saying all along... No coalition? I WANNA SEE IT IN WRITING.

UPDATE: Oops, I guess I'm not getting it in writing... Ignatieff has publicly admitted that he would govern with the assistance of the NDP and the Bloc should he be in a minority situation.

I guess Harper's comments weren't that far off the mark after all, since that very left leaning government would have to select Judges and Senators who are acceptable to the socialists and seperatists...
Asked by reporters point-blank if he rules out forming a governing coalition with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, Ignatieff said he has already been "very clear" on that.

He said he "already refused a coalition" last January because he didn't think it was "in the national interest," and he does not believe he has to "revisit" that question. He said he will be seeking a mandate for a moderate, progressive, competent Liberal government.

"But to have a minority government work in a situation such as that, I would respect my political opponents and I would try to work with them," Ignatieff.
And before any Liberal supporters sqwak at me saying "That's how a minority Parliament is supposed to work!", I'll save you the trouble of commenting, because I won't post the talking-points anyway... Ignatieff's statement proves Mr. Harper's case that a majority is in Canadian's best interest, if they want to avoid a high-taxing leftist agenda being foisted upon them by an Ignatieff government that will be supported by the NDP and the Bloc.

Labels: , , ,

3 Comments:

  • At Thu. Sep. 10, 05:58:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You accuse Ignatieff of arrogance. (No argument from me on that point). But consider your characterization of Ignatieff:

    "...you, the little people of Canada, weren't yet ready for me..."

    Are you saying that the sort of arrogance that defines Ignatieff is the arrogance of the Philosopher King, who knows what is best for the majority, though they do not know it themselves?

    (I'm not inclined to argue against that either).

    But: how is this at all different from your position on the coalition, and perhaps proportional representation in general--I'm referring to your blog on MPP from 28 July 2007 -- http://canadaconservative.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-im-not-supporting-mmp-this-october.html).

    You say that "Ignatieff's statement proves Mr. Harper's case that a majority is in Canadian's [Canadians'] best interest, if they want to avoid a high taxing leftist agenda being foisted upon them" etc etc etc.

    This "agenda" would be "foisted" upon them by a government formed from the majority of the members in the House of Commons, representing a majority of Canadian voters. The same could be said about the "Judges and Senators who are acceptable to the socialists and separatists."

    Are you not saying, then, that the majority of Canadians does not know what is in their best interests?

    (I am much more inclined to argue against that).

    It does, however, sound anti-democratic. Or, more accurately, unrepresentative. If this were a true democracy, we would fill the legislature in the same way that we (ideally) fill a jury box: legislators would be chosen by lot.

     
  • At Thu. Sep. 10, 06:02:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Fay said…

    Well said Christian conservative! The Liberals and NDP are already working as a tag team with the support of Craig Oliver and Jon Ibbitson of the G+M.Just watched it in Power Play.

     
  • At Thu. Sep. 10, 06:03:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger cantuc said…

    Poor Iggy , Most Canadians don't identify with fawning , preening liver spotted , arrogant , elite , creeps who think they are entitled to rule because their great grandfather kissed a czars ring .

     

Post a Comment

<< Home