Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Ignatieff: Allow me to slag them . . .

. . . whilst I make my graceful exit.

No sour grapes for our humble prophet Michael Ignatieff. Naw, he's a loser, but not a sore loser:
“This is a Prime Minister found in contempt of Parliament. This was a Prime Minister where the accumulations of what we believed to be abuses of power led to a point at which it seemed to me absolutely my responsibility as the leader of the opposition to stand up for the sovereignty of Parliament,” he said (when asked if he miscalculated by forcing an election.)
Ignatieff went on to say that the *just visiting* ads were:
“absolutely unscrupulous campaign of personal attack.” and “I had a very large square put around my neck for a number of years.”
Sniffle.

But, not one to make a fuss, Michael said:

"The only thing Canadians like less than a loser is a sore loser” and he is “leaving politics with “(his) head held high.”
No, Mike what we like less than a sore loser, is a sore loser who takes his parting shots but pretends his still travelling the high road. Today, and throughout the campaign, you accused Harper of contempt for Canadians, abuse of power, corruption, lies, secrets plans to . . . (fill in the blank with any number of scary scenarios) But you have my sympathy because you've endured being called a political tourist. That must've been painful. Why do you suppose that is. My guess? Truth hurts.

Michael, I think you stubbed your toe on the way out.

canadianna

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

The interesting thing about attack ads is they hurt most and are most effective when they're true.

Martin said...

Actually PM Harper was not found in contempt of parliament, since a resolution was never placed before the House for a vote. This picayune argument will interest historians for years, but most Canadians obviously do not care.

Clown Party said...

Martin, does this mean if the government brought up a vote on this, with Oda, charge of Contempt of Paralament, and it was defeated, then the charges/aquasitations are not recognised? If that is so, lets have a free vote and see the results.

[Note, give reasons why it should be voted upon - mainly the trumped up charges and Oda did not have the opportunity to defend herself while questioned by a coalition of Fools.]

Lets do the vote, and let Paralament decide.

As for the so called attack ads - I looked at them as truth ads.

maryT said...

Just wondering, with so many liberals defeated, and their staff now unemployed, where will the media get all those brown envelopes.

Martin said...

I believe all the contempt reports from the committee died with the last parliament. Certainly the report on Bev Oda never made it to the house. She was never found to be in contempt of anything.
As for the government, proceduralists have argued on blogs and even they cannot agree if the non-confidence motion actually found the government in contempt. The main argument against the claim, is that a separate motion based on the committee would have had to be voted on. This never happened as Iggy was in a hurry to vote on a non-confidence motion. It makes little difference now, except for the continued Liberal claims.

Anonymous said...

The nice thing is Canadians overwhelmingly REJECTED the "Liberal family pack" AND the "contempt of parliament" claptrap. You will note that Jack Layton who vanquished the Lieberal and BQ with his oily massage parlor smile does not mention the trumped up contempt crap anymore. There is a very good reason for that.

Anonymous said...

Revenge is sweet. Canadians found "contempt" in the 3 coalition parties.

Now there is 4 years ahead with no reason for the opposition to play the manufactured scandals games.

Hopefully PM Harper can focus on the country now, not waiting for the knives in his back.

Anonymous said...

".... Now there is 4 years ahead with no reason for the opposition to play the manufactured scandals games."

How I wish that was true .... but it's in their blood.
Remember The Rat Pack ...?

Michael St.Paul's

Anonymous said...

Unlike you, politics isn`t just a game for him to root for a particular team, in which case there`s no need to take `parting shots`. He did this because these are REAl concerns about his country. They`ve gotten worse not better from his perspective and he should mention them.

As for brown envelopes (comment above), have you no brain? The Tories have slaughtered accountability. Talk to Donald Savoie or any of the experts. OR THE PEOPLE HIRED TO HOLD THEM TO ACCOUNT THAT THEY HAVE MUZZELED.

To the author, "sniffle"? What in your privileged run of the mill suburban life really inspired you to become/or pretend to be such a cold, snotty person? Really?

maryT said...

It was Greg Weston who said the brown envelopes would be coming to the media.
Too bad the coalition leaders did not count how long they had to sit before they got a pension. Or maybe they were sure they would be re-elected. Poor iggy, no pension. Those truth ads, with video of him saying the things he did, were not attack. Attack is what the libs and media did to the PM since he first stepped foot in Ottawa.

Canadi-anna said...

Anonymous May 7, 1:26
First, he did this because he's a sore loser and cares about himself. If you lose gracefully, you congratulate the winner and you allow everyone else to slag him on your behalf. Ignatieff took shots NOT at Harper's governance, but at the election campaign. Huge difference.

Second -- Puhlease! Accountability -- you DO remember Trudeau, Chretien, Martin et al? Gimme a break.

And finally -- how dare you speculate as to my life. YOU know nothing of my life. Privilege? You guess as to my life because you are small minded and actually live the kind of life you presume that I have. Just because I choose to believe in things like personal responsibility and merit you've decided that I must be some well off, bored housewife -- you have no idea. What a snotty presumptuous thing to think -- very liberal of you.

maryT said...

Re the Rat Pack, I still remember seeing Sheila Copps climbing over seats to get at Crosbie for calling her baby or something.