For almost one daily news cycle, it was reasonable to presume that Michael Ignatieff’s campaign had taken a fatal turn when, on Radio Canada, he stated war crimes had been committed in the Israeli defensive invasion of Lebanon this past summer And then Stephen Harper rescued Ignatieff with his over-the-top description of the Liberal Party and most of the almost all the leadership candidates as “anti Israel”. Needless to say, Bob Rae (some of my best friends, my wife and kids are Jewish) and others were deeply offended and remembered that the name of the game is to attack Harper and not their fellow candidates. So by this morning, Ignatieff’s possible blunder was off the news.
Ignatieff’s controversial words led to the resignation of his GTA campaign co-chair and my MP, Susan Kadis. But put this in perspective; I am unaware of any other MPs who have withdrawn their support and the resignation of a local campaign co-chair will hardly decimate the organization. In fact Kadis’ reaction, almost as over the top as Harper’s, was probably politically necessary for her to hold her seat here in Thornhill where only unquestioning support for Israel is permissible. That Israeli citizens in Israel demonstrated against the Lebanon invasion and vigourously protested the attacks on civilian towns and villages is lost on the majority of the Jewish community here, which rallies against any criticism of Israel. So Kadis gave her little rant hoping to save her seat in Parliament and the rest of the country will carry on. A riding or two away from Thornhill, Kadis and the local media might be surprised at how many Canadians agree with Ignatieff.
It was no surprise that Ignatieff’s “war crimes” statement was not challenged on its factual content, except in the esoteric sense that only a court can decide if a crime was committed. Yes, well only a psychiatrist can diagnose someone as mentally ill, but that doesn’t stop most Canadians from knowing who is a bit off balance. Rather, Ignatieff was criticised for stirring controversy and offending a small minority of voters when it is expected that politicians will avoid controversy at all costs. As Ignatieff himself has responded, good friends speak up when they think their friends are wrong. Many Canadians may very well respond positively to a politician who does not run from controversy and is not afraid to criticise friends when appropriate. Canadians have responded positively to Stephen Harper when he has been most forthright; even if they disagree passionately with what he is saying they are happy to have a PM who says what he’s thinking and were much less happy when Paul Martin tied himself in knots trying to cater to every minority and whim.
The final all candidates’ debate happens this Sunday in Toronto and, no doubt, the anti-Ignatieff demonstrators will be out in force. We have to wait to see if the other candidates turn their attacks towards Ignatieff or remember that the PC government is the enemy. Yesterday Stephen Harper did Ignatieff an immense favour by uniting Rae and Kennedy and others as Liberals first and leadership competitors second.
Ignatieff’s controversial words led to the resignation of his GTA campaign co-chair and my MP, Susan Kadis. But put this in perspective; I am unaware of any other MPs who have withdrawn their support and the resignation of a local campaign co-chair will hardly decimate the organization. In fact Kadis’ reaction, almost as over the top as Harper’s, was probably politically necessary for her to hold her seat here in Thornhill where only unquestioning support for Israel is permissible. That Israeli citizens in Israel demonstrated against the Lebanon invasion and vigourously protested the attacks on civilian towns and villages is lost on the majority of the Jewish community here, which rallies against any criticism of Israel. So Kadis gave her little rant hoping to save her seat in Parliament and the rest of the country will carry on. A riding or two away from Thornhill, Kadis and the local media might be surprised at how many Canadians agree with Ignatieff.
It was no surprise that Ignatieff’s “war crimes” statement was not challenged on its factual content, except in the esoteric sense that only a court can decide if a crime was committed. Yes, well only a psychiatrist can diagnose someone as mentally ill, but that doesn’t stop most Canadians from knowing who is a bit off balance. Rather, Ignatieff was criticised for stirring controversy and offending a small minority of voters when it is expected that politicians will avoid controversy at all costs. As Ignatieff himself has responded, good friends speak up when they think their friends are wrong. Many Canadians may very well respond positively to a politician who does not run from controversy and is not afraid to criticise friends when appropriate. Canadians have responded positively to Stephen Harper when he has been most forthright; even if they disagree passionately with what he is saying they are happy to have a PM who says what he’s thinking and were much less happy when Paul Martin tied himself in knots trying to cater to every minority and whim.
The final all candidates’ debate happens this Sunday in Toronto and, no doubt, the anti-Ignatieff demonstrators will be out in force. We have to wait to see if the other candidates turn their attacks towards Ignatieff or remember that the PC government is the enemy. Yesterday Stephen Harper did Ignatieff an immense favour by uniting Rae and Kennedy and others as Liberals first and leadership competitors second.
