Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Finally, some conservative policies? | Main | Unexpected insight from Ottawa »

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

So Michael Ignatieff wants to be Prime Minister?

According to a front-page story in The Globe today, yes he does. (Type in Michael Ignatieff at news.google.ca if the story is behind the subscription wall.)

This is not too surprising, as the signs have been present for a few months now. Michael Valpy, who's very much "in" with the bien-pensant Rosedale crowd who would be behind an Ignatieff candicacy, writes:

The 58-year-old author, broadcaster and director of Harvard University's prestigious Carr Center for Human Rights Policy is on the edge of announcing his decision to run for Parliament for the Liberals in the next election.

He has met regularly with an informal group of influential Liberals in Toronto and elsewhere over recent months to discuss his political future.

He has painstakingly -- almost stealthily -- laid the foundations for his return to Canada after an absence of more than three decades.

He has been negotiating with the CBC to produce a four-part TV documentary series and companion book, reportedly exploring an academic appointment at the University of Toronto, circulating word of his availability to address influential Canadian audiences and quietly looking for Toronto accommodation.

How perfect: the CBC will give him a nice fat taxpayer-funded budget to produce a TV series, U of T will give him a plum teaching post and he'll charge $10,000 to give speeches to the Canadian Association of Hotel Owners for a while. He'll be running the place in no time!

And talk about carpet-bagging! He leaves the country for 30 years and thinks he can just come back and take over the place?

Where's the outrage?


Posted by Adam Daifallah on June 29, 2005 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference So Michael Ignatieff wants to be Prime Minister?:


Michael Ignatieff: old friend of the Rae family. He went to university with Bob Rae, even organized pro-China seminars with him at U of T in the sixties, as noted in Thomas Walkom's book, Rae Days: The Rise and Follies of the NDP.


Ignatiff is just latest Power Corp / Desmarais proxy. Busted.

Posted by: Kevin Steel | 2005-06-29 9:57:51 AM

I recently saw a lengthy speech of his on TVO, and I must say, he's a Liberal we can live with. In many ways, he's to the right of the CPC as it stands now.

Posted by: NCF TO | 2005-06-29 9:59:30 AM

I was musing that Belinda Stronach was being set up by the PowerCorp/Desmarais/Magma Cartel that runs Canada..as the next Prime Minister.

Ignatieff is pro US; he has a book out on the 'Lite Empire', saying that the US has essentially the duty to assist and 'democratize' the world; and, he's in favor of the Iraq War. The Cartel won't like that.

Can the Cartel run him; can they control the gov't and its money, its unelected positions, its huge contracts, its international contracts and via him, can they continue to run their own empire - that's the key point.

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-29 10:18:44 AM

In a recent little Ignatieff essay in the NYT he refers to Canada as "them" and America as "us". I don't think I need to say anymore.

Posted by: Dylan Sherlock | 2005-06-29 10:19:23 AM

Well, I'd prefer Ignatieff to the current Liberal gang.

Posted by: dr_dog | 2005-06-29 10:29:27 AM

If this is right then it indicates to me that the Demairses/Power Corp. cartel are concerned about a Conservative comeback under Harpar. I believe that Stronach was set up as a mole that *might* have just slipped into the leadership of the CPC. She was also set up to do exactly what she did, cross the floor when her vote was needed. The leadership failed and she's now crossed the floor. So what are they left with? Martin and more Martin. Obviously they don't think that Stonach would win an election in Canada. She has server her usefullness and is history. But a Liberal who has right wing leanings and "likes America?"? Well, that might just work.

Not a good thing.

Posted by: John Crittenden | 2005-06-29 10:32:17 AM

Good points, John Crittenden. But the key issue is, can the Cartel continue to control the political system in Canada? That is their sole interest.

I think that Stronach was set up to take over the CPC -and failed - and was then moved over to the Liberals. My view is that she wasn't moved over simply as a vote, but to take over from Martin. I am presuming that the Cartel is worried that with Martin alone, the Liberals might lose to Harper.

Now, maybe they are worried..and are bringing in Ignatieff. Yes, I'm sure he would win for the Liberals. The key is - can he be run by the Cartel? They wouldn't permit him to run if he couldn't be 'theirs'.

With reference to dr_dog- remember that whether Ignatieff is 'preferable' to the current Liberals, if he is not 'owned' by the Cartel, he won't be allowed to run. Therefore, despite his amenability, he'll be EXACTLY like the current corrupt Liberal gov't. Exactly. He won't be able to restore democracy in Canada.

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-29 10:45:54 AM

Oh Say Can You See

Michael Ignatieff writes in the New York Times about a mission whose outcome is not yet known. It is the American mission to spread the Jeffersonian dream of freedom to the world. He asks two questions: first, whether any set of flawed human beings can set out upon a such a missionary enterprise without being guilty of self-righteousness; second, whether the Americans are willing to pay the high price for this endeavor. (Hat tip: MW)

John F. Kennedy echoed Jefferson when, in a speech in 1961, he said that the spread of freedom abroad was powered by ''the force of right and reason''; but, he went on, in a sober and pragmatic vein, ''reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men.'' The contrast between Kennedy and the current incumbent of the White House is striking. Until George W. Bush, no American president -- not even Franklin Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson -- actually risked his presidency on the premise that Jefferson might be right. But this gambler from Texas has bet his place in history on the proposition ... If democracy plants itself in Iraq and spreads throughout the Middle East, Bush will be remembered as a plain-speaking visionary. If Iraq fails, it will be his Vietnam, and nothing else will matter much about his time in office.

Although Ignatieff plainly wants to see freedom spread, one of the sources of his unease is the role of God, or something like it, in the missionary endeavor. How much better it would be, he seems to ask, if any claims to universality or transcendence could be kept out it. Then we could bring the Europeans and the Canadians in on it.


(scroll down)


Beware the jubjub bird. (L. Carroll).

John who? Turner was the great white hope a few weeks/years past.

Can a spot change leopards?

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-06-29 10:47:36 AM

"negotiating with the CBC to produce a four-part TV documentary series"

Thank you very much, I've heard enough. Now if you'll excuse me, I must continue my research into immigrating to countries with better economic prospects and less corruption:


Posted by: Justzumgai | 2005-06-29 10:53:27 AM

He's exactly what the Quebec oligarchs think they need. Being out of the country for so long they believe will have kept him “clean." And they desperately need a clean lackey in office. As well, the proxy should be a little more pro-US because the Americans are paying a little more attention to Canada these days, especially after it was revealed how Canadians—Frechette, Strong—have been dicking around at the UN.

The Trudeaupian deal was, you Quebec oligarchs keep the separatists at bay and in exchange you get to run the country, do whatever you want. That's how we ended up with Martin--a man who owns his life to Power Corp, as Prime Minister--as well as all this morally bankrupt pro-Communist China stuff, not to mention Chretien’s garbage (“Pepper, I put that on my food!” I’m sure that went down like gangbusters in Victoria Square. Cringe.)

But the Quebec oligarchs have blown the deal. My guess is that they got too distracted with globalization thingees--Power Corp in China and Europe, Bronfman moving all that dough to the U.S.--and couldn't really be bothered with what was happening in their own backyard. They delegated it to bozos like Chretien and Gagliano. So, we have the scenario, as revealed at Gomery, where the Benoit Corbeil dials up a Power Corp exec, John Rae, every time the Liberal Party in Quebec needs more dough and Rae just gives it to them. I speculate Rae would hang up the phone on those occasions, wonder for a second, "What the hell are those guys up to? Whatever." and then forget about it and move on to bigger things, BNP Paribas merger, Total Oil, Axa, etc.

But Gomery exploded the Quebec myth of honest politics, showing the culture was being corrupted by bozos, and they don't like it. We hear Duceppe saying the Liberals tried "to buy the soul of Quebec." Well, we all know they had been bought off for years, but now it was too obvious to ignore. That's why Gomery resonated so deeply in that province. And Martin is too tainted, having been the star Liberal minister during the peak of the corruption, and in finance to boot. Besides, they’ve known the guy for a long time, and they know he’s not as sharp as they’ve made him out to be and probably not capable of delivering a majority government. So the Quebec oligarchs need a "clean" proxy with a real reputation for intelligence. Enter Ignatiff. The question is not; WILL Canadians be fooled again by a group of businesspeople who obviously put their own interests ahead of the country's? but, Do Canadians WANT to be fooled again.

Posted by: Kevin Steel | 2005-06-29 10:54:03 AM

This is almost funny...no wonder Belinda always looks like she's sucking on lemons in the HoC!

Posted by: Polly | 2005-06-29 11:01:14 AM

In reply to maz2 - I wonder if Bush had, ethically, a choice? I consider that his actions will earn him the title of quite possibly one of the greatest US presidents - ever.

He had two options and only one choice. One option was to do nothing about terrorism and to treat it as due to 'rogues and criminals'..[much as the Liberals are treating their own corruption]. In the terrorist case, if you viewed their actions as due to their being 'rogues and criminals' then you considered that the causes of their behaviour stemmed both from their own innate criminality and the Israel-Palestinian situation. How would you deal with this? By negotiation, by criminal courts, by ignoring them...This is the Democratic view, the Kerry view, the 'legalistic' view.

Another option was to treat terrorism as a symptom of deeply dysfunctional societies of the whole ME. Dysfunctional in themselves and not due to any Palestinian/Israeli conflict. This dysfunctionality - of a military dictatorship - had reached a boiling point threshold where the disempowered peoples could not mount an internal civil war..but turned their rage and violence against the country that they saw as supporting those same military dictatorships - the US and the West.

I think that Bush accepted this analysis - that terrorism had almost nothing to do with Israel/Palestine and everything to do with a critical threshold point within military dictatorships. There could be only one response. Take out the dictatorships and thus, enable the people there to develop democracy..and thus, empower themselves.
That's exactly the choice he made.

The ME has never been democratic; it's always been tribal, but tribalism is only suitable for a medium sized, no-growth population. The population increases in the ME over the last two decades meant that tribalism was dysfunctional, and trying to maintain it with a military dictatorship...was the 'root cause' of terrorism.
Why Iraq? Because it was the weakest, run by a vicious dictator, with a population that might, just might, move into democracy. This would function as a 'dominio' effect.

Of course it isn't easy..and the nay-sayers who expect results as if they were standing at a MacDonald's take-out...are naive. It will take time, but..the results are obvious and positive and incremental.

Now- would Canadians accept this via Ignatieff? Sure; Canadians tend to be easily brainwashed; it's part of their 'tolerance'..which means that if the MSM repeats it often enough..they'll suddenly find themselves agreeing.

But - my point about Ignatieff is - what's his role within the Cartel? Is he theirs? If not- he won't be allowed to run.
After all - Canada is not a democracy, and the electorate have essentially, no power over their governance.

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-29 11:14:25 AM

You can express your outrage Adam when you don't vote for him.

Are you jelouse? You sound jelouse that Ignatieff will get there before you.

Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-06-29 11:15:51 AM

In reply to Kevin Steel's question of whether Canadians want to be fooled again...I wonder if Canadians have the power NOT to be fooled.

What I mean is that Canadians have been brainwashed for over 40 years into a state of mind where they cannot, absolutely cannot, dissent. To dissent is akin to being 'not tolerant'. And Canadians are told, again and again and again, that the definitive characteristic of 'being Canadian' is 'being Tolerant'. Therefore, if you express any hint of opposition to, if you question, if you stumble over, any thought, behaviour, lifestyle, actions....this is 'unCanadian' and simply unacceptable.

So- yes, Canadians will be fooled, because they are afraid to dissent, to question, to disagree.

Notice how our Liberal ruling party treats questions in Question Period. With disdain, with contempt..and without answers.

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-29 11:39:45 AM

If Jesus ran as a Liberal, I would still vote Conservative.

Posted by: EBD | 2005-06-29 3:21:28 PM


Posted by: Quidnunc Savant | 2005-06-29 3:29:53 PM



Posted by: Quidnunc Savant | 2005-06-29 3:30:43 PM

President Bush's verbal response to the news given to him of the 9/11 attack was that someone was going to pay.
This was a President who made this decision on the spot while seated with the school children. Leftists used the 7 minutes against him as a criticism; however, the leftists would not/cannot imagine that he was in communion with his groundedness. Another way to say this is to say he was at prayer.

He arose and took his nation to war against its enemies, the terrorists,the Islamic Jihad.

History turned on its ear during those few minutes of communion.

God bless George Bush.

God bless America.

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-06-29 5:03:19 PM

Quidnunc Savant:

It seems Gamblog is trying out puns, much like Robert's "right whingers" phase...

Posted by: dr_dog | 2005-06-29 6:55:48 PM

Mr Ignatieff has a much greater international reputation than perhaps his closest counterpart, J.R. Saul. If the latter can be the GG consort by relationship and prime ministerial selection, why should not the former be given a chance actually to win a democratic mandate--first in the party (assuming any internal Liberal selection process is democratic) and then in a national election?

By the way, Mr Ignatieff's great-grandfather, Count Nicholas Pavlovich Ignatieff, appears in "Flashman at the Charge" and "Flashman in the Great Game" by George MacDonald Fraser.

Note also this, about Michael Ignatieff's father George, regarding Count Nicholas:

"As he relates with humour in his memoirs, The Making of a Peacemonger, his father was the Tsar's last education minister; and his father's father, an adventurous soldier and diplomat, who settled 'a border dispute with China in 1860 and then rode on horseback from Peking to St. Petersburg - a two-month journey-to bring first word of it to the Tsar, and to stop the British and French from undermining the treaty!"


Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-06-29 7:36:06 PM

Tell Michael to go to hell!!!!!!!

Posted by: themaj | 2005-06-29 8:06:11 PM


O tempora! O mores!

[Posted 5:25 PM by James Panero]
The other day we received a Penguin paperback edition of Lewis Lapham's latest book Gag Rule: On the Supression of Dissent and the Stifling of Democracy. Here is the blurb, in part:

... Never before, Lapham argues, have voices of protest been so locked out of the mainstream conversation, so marginalized and muted by a government that recklessly disregards civil liberties, and by an ever more concentrated and profit-driven media in which the safe and salable sweep all uncomfortable truths from view.

Gag Rule.

Penguin Press.

Now in paperback.

By the editor of Harper's Magazine.

Oh, will the supression ever end?


Lapham: The diva of the elitist left blathering about dissent, gag, & etc.

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-06-29 8:11:10 PM

In the first 45 pages - up to Berlin entering Oxford - Mr. Ignatieff dedicates
... On page 91 Mr. Ignatieff describes Berlin's meeting with Sigmund Freud. ...


Berlin & Freud.... very interesting account. Berlin was from pre-revolutionary Russia; spoke Russian from that era.

(Not Irving Berlin.)

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-06-29 8:18:59 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.