Michael Ignatieff on Political Judgement

Michael Ignatieff decided that it was best for him to come out a write a piece admitting his error in judgement over the Iraq war. As most know, many people have criticized his past judgement on the issue and he has usually defended his position strongly against such criticism. But today if you had a chance to read his article in the New York Times, you would see that there was no such defence this time.

At first I was a little reluctant to hear that he was writing such a piece in the first place. And not because I feel that he hasn't perhaps altered his views over the situation in Iraq (for he has) or because I feel that it is not positive for somone to be able to admit when they are wrong (for it is good to do so), but because I thought it would do little for him and thus would be nothing more than words of regret. However, after reading the article, I have come to judge it and his purpose for writing it quite differently.

The article was far more than just an admitting of error, it was an eye opener into the reality of being human and being a politican at the same time. He talked about the his personal passions over the Iraq situation getting the better of him -"My convictions had all the authority of personal experience, but for that very reason, I let emotion carry me past the hard questions, like: Can Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites hold together in peace what Saddam Hussein held together by terror?"- but he goes so much further in discussing how this passion is something difficult to deal with as an individual and furthemore as a politician. This is something that nonetheless must be overcome when holding office; you become a person responsible to be the leader people want and need you to be.

He is able to show the reality of political life in a manner so simple that you would think it's common knowledge, but then you realize the reality of political life (that is the pragmatism involved; the lack of intellectual contemplation allowed due to the reality of life's unpredictability etc.) is rarely discussed in a manner that actually comes close to what is true.

Overall Ignatieff's article is a must read for anyone who wants to understand a little more about the reality of making decisions and then being able to hold youself accountable for that decision in a meaningful way. He shows leadership for all of us in being able to say he was wrong and then understand why he was wrong. To understand one's error is the most important element in ensuring better judgement in the future - learning never really ends and thats a point I think he makes quite clear.

And yet even so, the judgement he made back in 2001 and the one that he continued to hold until recentrly, was no doubt premised on the right reasons. He felt strongly about preventing further terror in the country he witnessed so much terror in already, but as he says about prudent leaders, "They do not suppose that their own good intentions will guarantee good results. They do not suppose they know all they need to know". He acknowleges the necessary steps to ensure you are balanced when you make a decision with such grave consequences; something he overlooked but in the most human way after wanting so much better for people who had suffered so much under Saddam and his regime.

And for this I find his words in the New York Times impressive and something I think people can learn from.

Hi, I'm a Liberal - Cross Dressing

Here are the new Young Liberal Ads - check them out at:

http://hi.im.a.liberal.ca/video.aspx?ad=carbonbudget

Harper pushing foward with Elected Senate?!

So Stephen Harper announced today that he will appoint Albertan Bert Brown as the first 'elected' Senator. First off -umm ok talk about contradiction.

First, let me repeat the smart words of Mr. Dion "We know what the Prime Minister wants to do. He wants to have an elected Senate without . . . [clarifying] in the Constitution the role of the two chambers." [Globe and Mail; April 19, 2007]

There will need to be some serious considerations put forward about the role of the 'new' Senate with respect to the House of Commons. What will be the role of the Senate? Which responsbilities will each house take on? Will the Senate have equal power as the House/ more power? Although legislation can normally be introduced in either house, the majority of government bills originate in the House of Commons and rarely do bills passed in the House get rejected by the Senate- would this change with Harper's Elected Senate?

Secondly, an elected Senate? Not only would an elected Senate be a duplicate of the House of Commons, but it would be less effective in pursuing its mandate. Rather than having just one house full of MP's arguing and bickering as they will over issues, over partisanship etc., there will now be two houses bickering over these things. Senate studies as they stand, often have a depth that Parliament rarely achieves. This is a strength of the Senate.

I do not think having an elected Senate will neccessarily give more representation for Canadians the way it is being promoted. I do not think it will achieve much more than an illusion of greater democracy. There is no reason to have two houses that do the same thing; repeatition does not get better results. It is not a bad thing that Senators are not elected. Issues are often shifted aside with MP's who have to spent a significant amount of time on elections; somethig that is not at stake in the Senate. Because their time is not spent on getting ready for elections, they have more time to deal with Issues. And this differentiates them from the duties of an MP.

It says on the Prime Minister's website, "Canada needs an upper house with democratic legitimacy.And I hope we can work together to move towards that enhanced democratic legitimacy." This talk of 'enhanced democracy' is little more than talk though. I believe this is more a photo opt for Harper to once again make the claim that he is following through with election promises.

If there is to be Senate reform, it should be in a positive way. I do not think an Elected Senate would be a positive step though. Its just unneccessary in terms of becoming more efficient and more representative.

But, What do you think the Senate should be like? Should it be elected like Harper is pursuing? Should it remain in tact the way it is?

Canadian Leadership /Leadership canadien

The Liberal Party has just released a great, positive TV ad (a welcomed change from the conservatives' sneaky attack ads). It shows what real leadership is about.

Have a look!

Penny Collenette takes Ottawa-Centre

NEW FEDERAL LIBERAL CANDIDATE IN OTTAWA-CENTRE:

Congratulations to Penny Collenette who has just won the Federal Liberal nomination in Ottawa-Centre! Thank you to everyone who worked so hard on her campaign and thanks to everyone who came out to vote today. I was happy to see Penny, who gave an excellent speech just before the voting started, win the nomination. She is a wonderful woman who will do a great job representing the Liberals in the riding of Ottawa-Centre during the next election.

A big thanks goes out to Scott Bradley who was also a great candidate during this nomination process.

And for now I continue on with the provincial nomination deciding who will replace Richard Patton as MPP in Ottawa-Centre* .

* Delayed Update: Yasir Naqvi was nominated on June 4, 2007 to become the Provincial Liberal Candidate in Ottawa-Centre. He did a great job during the nomination and continues to work hard in the coming days to Ontario's election. Congrats to Yasir! Time to get him to Queen's park now.

Some musings for the day

So first, a congrats to a Liberal win in Quebec; though a very small win at that for Charest and his team. Though it was amazing to see the ADQ do so well. I believe they had 5 seats prior to the election and now they have 41! Huge jump. Its interesting that this is the first time in well over 100 years that there will be a minority government in Quebec - it surely is something to be remembered.

What does this mean? Mr. Martin told the CBC, "You have … two parties that essentially want to stay in Canada and want to make Canada work, and have another agenda other than an immediate referendum", and I think this is a great thing. I think many of us are tired of hearing about a possible referendum on the issue and its comforting in a way to know that both leading parties in Quebec do not have seperation as their agenda. Bosclair even said of the PQ's significant drop in seats, "Sovereignty is something to wish for, but in the short term, it's not realizable." Perhaps a little food for thought...

As for Harper, well he says he will make no election move based on these results...but we'll have to see how things move forward. I dont think I am alone though when I say I am not eager to have a spring election - so I hope there manages to be some order for the next little bit. Then we can go at the Conservatives in the fall.

Its been while but...

So it has been awhile since I have blogged. Not intentionally though. In addition to the busyness that has been going on in my world, I don't feel as if there was much to blog about in terms about federal politics. I mean of course there were the recent developments such as Graham leaving us, Harper making his jab at Bains (which I was definetely upset about), Trudeau finding his way into a riding to seek nomination in Papineau, and the who can forget the recent terrorism legislation issue being reject by the house. Of all these things though, I wonder if Trudeau will win the nomination and if so, will he win the seat there for Liberals? I dont know, Quebeker's dont generally have the best feelings towards him because of his apparant arrogance.

It was sad to see Graham leave, but for him I am sure it was a good decision.

I can't help but hope an election does not occur this spring. I think we need a little more time with Dion as the opposition to help people get to know him more. I still think he is viewed by the general population of voters as just another guy, who, against Harper, doesn't appear as much more than a small voice.

I think Dion is a neutral figure right now. He was a neutral figure that everyone at the convention could handle as leader - but there wasn't huge emotion either way about him. And I think that lack of passion is a set back and we are seeing the result of having a leader that is viewed by most Liberals as okay. Sure he can do the job, sure he is a smart man, sure he is a great Liberal MP, but can if he cant instill much passion in Liberal, its hard to see how he will be able to instill passion in Canadian voters. I dont think I am saying anything that anyone can really disagree with. He just doesn't really have that charisma that draws people's attention.

I'll be sure to post more frequently - for now I hope all you Liberals are doing great.

Ignatieff New Deputy Leader of Liberals

I think this was an excellent move on the part of Dion. Just as many of us have predicted the Liberals are going to have a great team. The fact that there is very little resentment on part of any of the ex-candidates is proof that we have built our party up and we are going to be stronger together because of it.

Whether we end up having a spring election or not, I think we have earned respect from Canadians. Though we will have a lot of hard work ahead of us, I truly think the Liberal party is evolving and becoming a party that Canadians once again can feel connected with.

Ignatieff and Dion side by side - you couldnt ask for a better pairing.

Liberal Christmas Party Fun!

The Liberal Caucus Christmas party was held last night and it was absolutely amazing! Monsieur Dion made his way throughout the room mingling about, posing for pictures with everyone and I think a lot of people were still 'star-struck' by his presence; Mr. Kennedy was dancing the place up - and he is pretty good if I do say so myself - he lasted as long as I did up there! Mr. Ignatieff was up on the dance floor with wife Szusanna doing the twist- and fairly well at that, I was impressed to see Iggy getting "iggy with it" for real! Hall-Findlay joined us along with Kennedy over at Wall Stones for the after party as well. It looked like the Liberal party was back together - "tous Emsemble" having the good time that we always do. If you were there it was fun to watch all the ex-candidates let loose and dance it up with the rest of us on the floor - they are phenomenal people!

I noticed a lot of familiar faces that I met at the convention in Montreal and it was great to see so many Liberals once again together sharing all their stories.

Harper

Oh, ah.... so it looks like you've found out how bad we are doing?
Huh, I guess that'll be all then Mr. Speaker

Tribute to Micheal Ignatieff - Congrats to Stephane Dion/ Liberals Forever!

To so many of us out there, Michael Ignatieff has been a true asset to our party. He has done and will continue to do tremendous things. As he has said "I am not going anywhere" and I for one am greatful that he has come into politcs and given us all something to remember. He is a great leader, a great intellectual and although he did not win the race this party has still won in having him rejoin us in this historical way.

This past weekend has been absolutely phenomenal! Seeing so many Liberal from across the country come together to choose our new leader has been one of the most memorable things for myself as I am sure it has been for many of you. The momentum that was built goes far beyond anything I could have imagined. Every campaign - Dryden, Brison, Kennedy, Dion, Hall-Findlay, Volpe, and Rae- has worked so hard and each and every one of us ought to be proud of what we have accomplished! None of our work has gone to waste; It is truly the result of individual dedication that made this weekend a success and that will always make this party great. I welcome Mr. Dion as our Leader and I think that "tous ensemble" we will be able to defeat the Conservatives. He is a man of good values and has such a deep connection with the work that he does and for that I know he will be a strong leader that we can all be proud of.

I just want to take this moment to say a big THANK YOU to Michael Ignatieff for his inspiration, his determination and his onward dedication to the Liberal Party and to Canada. He truly has been a man of greatness throughout his life and this moment is only the beginning for him. I know we can expect great things to come.

And THANK YOU to all of you who have helped make this convention a great one that will be remembered for decades!

Convention Starts Tomorrow

So the time we have all been waiting for is finally here! The Convention officially starts tomorrow and continues all the way throught the weekend. I don't know about everyone else, but this is exciting!

With Gerard now becoming the only canadidate to dismiss the idea of Quebec as a nation all together, and Ignatieff showing pure confidence in his chances, and Rae of course assuming the race is in his back pocket and Dion perhaps gaining momemtum by teaming up with others - the outcome is sure to be eventful.

For all who will be there, we'll see you. For those who won't be, I am sure you'll be watching the updates as they occur.

Harper Recognizes Quebec as a Nation within Canada & What about Ignatieff?

So Nobody saw this coming??? Nobody? For me it wasn't all that unexpected. I mean Harper had two choices: 1) Take the same stance as Ignatieff and use it as leverage for himself or 2) Disagree with Ignatieff and hope the rest of Canada will see him as a sort of savior from this disuniting force. He chose the former and I would have to say did good. Good for who exactly? Well we'll see.

It turns out that not only does Ignatieff feel this way, in addition to the renewel commission, but so do most members of the house. This idea was not and is not new; it is not revolutionary or completely absurd. The issue with separtism will not be fueled, for at the heart of serpartism is extremism and with that there is not common ground; its all or nothing. This is not an issue of separtism - it just isn't. It is a means to bring Canada closer together - something that the Seperatist's do not want or ever will want. Therefore I see this step - that was first deemed an Ignatieff proposal, and now as a Harper proposal to the house- as one that has great capabilities. If for nothing else should we appreciate Stephen Harper, it would be for bringing this out directly for all to see and hear.

What does this do for the Ignatieff Camp?? Well I think it has enourmous potential to capitalize on it. Now that the Conservatives are supporting the idea of Quebec as a nation, should the Liberals (under new leadership) oppose this notion, then what? We are all of a sudden hypocritical and anti-quebec; at least that is what Harper and his conservatives will use. Do we really want to debate this issue and sweep it under the rug yet again? I really do think we can make this work and I think that Liberals at the convention will see realize this when it comes time to vote on it. Quebec as a nation does not have to be a scary sentence - if we think about it, understand it there is nothing frightening about it.

Let's be reasonable, no one wants to see Quebec leave Canada (even most quebekers)but we do want to ensure that the problem that does exist gets the attention it deserves. This is the time to talk about it, and this is the time to do something about it.

Iggy Tube

Check it out! IggyTube has short clips of Michael talking about different issues and personal stories.

I enjoyed it and just thought I would share.

In Response to: "The Iggy and the Damage Done"

Click HERE for the artcile printed in the National Post by Ian Macdonald.

I would like to point out first that this article is fundamentally flawed. Where he says that the phrase "Le Quebec, c'est ma patrie; le Canada, c'est mon pays." he makes an translation or interpretive error by claiming that it means "Quebec is my home". And he does this on two accounts within the same sentence.

1st account: "Le Quebec, c'est ma patrie" - translates into "Quebec is my fatherland" - not necessarily "my home". (translation erro)

2nd account: even if he knew that the translation was 'fatherland' , he substitued in 'home' and it is an interpretive error. Fatherland is in reference to the concept of a nation. Saying, quebec is my fatherland is making reference to the notion of the Quebec nation. To say it means home in the sense that he presumes it does, is to miss the point.

Anyone who has studied what the concept of a nation is, would know that it has a strong relationship to the idea of a fatherland. It is encarved in its very meaning.

What really is a nation?: One very influential view is that "nations are merely "imagined" but somehow still powerful entities; what is meant is that belief in them holds sway over the believers. (A.D Anderson) In this sense it is a feeling more than it is any type of sovereign claim of statehood.

Deeming Quebec a nation is not this evil thing that people have made it out to be. Turning it into a project - that is turning it into a license rather than a responsibility- is most certainly an evil that we do not want to touch. But that is not what is being proposed by Ignatieff.

I spoke with Mr. Ignatieff the other day about the negativity that has been shown towards his quebec as a nation idea. He looked at me and said, "in no way do I suggest we open up a constitutional debate on the issue, but just that we acknowledge something that everyone - especially Quebekers- knows to be real". (paraphrasing) The concept of the nation is an internal feeling that, not all, but a lot of Quebeker's relate to and that is something that is necessary to recognize.

I can't take anything in this article as fact or evidence of anything. It has failed to grasp the idea of "Le Quebec, c'est ma patrie; le Canada, c'est mon pays" and it has therefore failed in arriving at any plausible conclusion of Ignatieff's position on the issue - since the misinterpretations are obvious flaws.

John Baird Dubbed

The Rick Mercer Report is looking for submissions of John Baird Dubbed. During a 'rant' in the house of commons by Treasury Board President Baird, a Child's voice filled in that of mr. Baird's. This example can be seen on the link above under " The Rick Mercer Report Audio Challenge"; it is absolutely hilarious!! Watch it and should you be inspired to do so, create your own.

Oh how I love you Rick Mercer.

Toronto Leadership Debate

I was not fortunate enough to be in Toronto for the debate, but from what I watched on TV I wish I would have been!

It seemed there was quite the lively debate - if we can even call it that- between Iggy and Rae. Iggy was the first to point out Rae flip floped on the issue of Afghanastan, in which Rae jumped all over Iggy's flip flop on the issue in the Middle East. I found this humorous and useful in pointing to the character traits of the candidates. Mr. Rae was not progressive in his purpose, and you could tell that from his smugness when paired up against Iggy.

I only hope that other people recognize the difference between a candidate who wants to win the game and one who wants to lead the party. Rae I dont think is interested in the latter; Dion I think is. Dion was passionate in the debate, he did not back down against the Front runners and voiced his perspective loud and clear for all to hear. However, my criticsm for Dion is that he was to emotional. He lacked focus, he lacked calmness and it worked against him when you think about his debate skills. But I will say that his passion was excellent and from talking with him on previous occassions, I do not doubt that his motives in this race are good.

I do think that Ignatieff did well. I wasn't overly impressed, but than again there wasn't much new that any of them could offer here except better presentation I suppose. The one thing I like the best about Ignatieff is his straightforwardness about any issue. He doesn't choose to use rhetoric in his speech, and doesnt fall into the "whos better than who" game. I particulary enjoyed his forceful statement of "absolutely not!" to Rae when questioned about the Middle East. Because Rae knows fulls well of Michael's positions, yet still judges it acceptable to play on the subject. I think he was putting on a show for television, as Marth Hall findlay put it; who I might add did an excellent job on almost every issue. She is very smart and debates well.

I know that I only mentioned four of the eight candidates, but I have my reasons. I do think that the Race will come down to Ignatieff, Rae and Dion (And I know what the delegate numbers are). I mention Findlay because I think she is doing excellent. Of course she wont win, but she is sure making a name for herself. And I think she adds a lot to the party and to the leadership race.

Ignatieff's Defends Liberals Against Harper - Israel-Hezbollah

Michael Ignatieff, during his speech at U of T dismisses Harper's accusations that he or any Liberals or Liberal Candidates are Anti-Israel. As I watched a Ignatieff speak from U of T I was thoroughly impressed with his clarity as he defended himself and the party. He pointed out the obvious point that Mr. Harper sees things in only black and white; there is no grey area for him. A point that Ken Dryen equally agreed with. There is always grey in politics; divisive action is not healthy for anyone, no matter which party they relate with.

I am appauled, but not shocked, that Harper said the things that he said. It is repulsive to have the Prime Minister of our country make erroneous accusations about any memeber of the legislature; especially when he knows full well that the Israel-Hezbollah conflict was anything but black and white. There were "war crimes" from both sides - says Ignatieff- but saying that does not denounce any of the members involved in the conflict. Ignatieff's comments were deemed controversial by many, even some of the other leadership candidates, but they were logical, honest, reflective and progressive. There was no rhetoric in his statement about Israel, and there was no attempt to decieve people about his views. And with that, his views are most certainly not Anti-Israel and he did a fantastic job of pressing that point during his speech today.

It's upsetting that Harper is compelled to divide the country for his own political gain; that's not something any Canadian should stand by. And on that note, I was very impressed with Ken Dryden's perception of the situation. He was calm, collective and dealt with the direct issue facing the Liberals after Harper's claims. He did not attempt to criticize other Liberal Leadership contenders, nor did he resort to simply pointing the finger at Harper.

We all know that Liberals are not Anti-Israel; we know that none of the candidates for leaderhship are Anti-israel. However, we also know that it has been said, but the response from Ignatieff directly to Harper was phenomenal; I couldnt have said it better myself. I think Harper needs a lesson in leadership and unity.

In terms of the leadership race itself now: Does Ken Dryden's comments show any leanings on which candidate he will support at the convention? Does the fact that he answered to the accusations from Harper in the same way Ignatieff did, indirectly put him in line with Ignatieff's thinking?

Accusations of Ignatieff clarified

Sent out today from the Ignatieff Campaign to clarify the accusations against Ignatieff.

September 26, 2006

VIA E-MAIL

Steve McKinnon
Executive Director
Liberal Party of Canada
81 Metcalf Street, Suite 400
Ottawa, ON
K1P 6M8

Re: Complaint filed against Michael Ignatieff Leadership Campaign

Mr. McKinnon:
Late yesterday, we obtained a copy of the allegations against the Michael Ignatieff Leadership Campaign (“Ignatieff Campaign”) filed with Nikki Holland, RRO for Ontario earlier in the day. We have since reviewed all memberships cited in that document. Of the 60 memberships cited, we have confirmed that only three were signed up by the Ignatieff Campaign. The remainder either pre-date the leadership contest, were signed up through competing campaigns, or took out their memberships independent of the leadership contest. The deceased member cited joined the Party with a five-year membership in 2004, prior to Michael’s involvement in Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

I have attached a file outlining our detailed findings.

The complaint also attached a number of signed statements, alleging that “fees were kindly paid for by the Michael Ignatieff leadership campaign”. As you will see from an examination of the membership lists, all of these memberships pre-date the leadership contest, making it impossible for this to be the case.

Of the three memberships signed up by the Ignatieff Campaign still at issue, none fall within the purview of the Leadership Expenses Committee, as no allegations of misspending by the Ignatieff Campaign have been made. These three memberships are properly the jurisdiction of the regional challenge process, which deadline passed last Friday, before this complaint was filed. I personally signed up two of these members and can confirm that they paid their own membership fees. The third is a senior woman who suggests that her membership was paid by another member of her senior’s club, not the Ignatieff Campaign.

I feel compelled to add one point. The Ignatieff Campaign did not receive a copy of the complaint from the Party itself, despite our request. We were left to defend against these baseless allegations without knowledge of them, when we could have reviewed and defended within an hour of receiving a copy. It was only at the end of the day, after media filing deadlines, that we were sent a copy by a third party. The result was harm to the Ignatieff Campaign in advance of delegate selection meetings, and harm to the Liberal Party of Canada.

While we support the process the Liberal Party has in place to handle such allegations, the moment the media becomes aware of them, it is incumbent on the Party to provide the affected campaign(s) with the tools necessary to respond to the allegations.

I trust our analysis will be confirmed through the Party’s review and I await your findings.

Most sincerely,
Sachin Aggarwal
Chief Agent and National Director of Operations
Michael Ignatieff Leadership Campaign
cc. Michael Eizenga, President, LPC
cc. Nikki Holland, RRO Ontario
cc. David Pretlove, Executive Director, LPC(O)
cc. Leadership Expenses Committee

Conservative plans: What they will do with the surplus.

Today, the Conservative Government has announced what it will do with the 13.2 Billion dollar Surplus. As many analysts have suggested, the presumed dealings would be to lower taxes or to give something back; since a surplus is a good indicator that Canadians are being over taxed.

But that is not how they Conservatives view things. John Baird and Jim Flaherty announced cuts to a vast amount of public programs. They do not plan on cutting taxes and have taken away a large amount of spending on to name one, the Status of Women. They want to focus on paying the national debt. While Baird says he wants to focus on "real priorities for real Canadians", however will it suffice for them to balance the budget rather than give any breaks to Canadians - particularly ones with the lowest income?

I think Belinda Stronach has a poin t when she says the Conservative government is working to cut programs that work counter to their political agenda. She says, "it will be limiting the opportunity that people have to push for equal rights and it worries me greatly" {paraphrased slightly}

Typical Conservative move that is only going to hurt Canadians in the end.