Yeats, Dion, Iggy &...Liberals?
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. Observing fellow Liberals furiously contradict themselves on Iggy is dispiriting. When I read this, Spector's & Gardner's insightful comments made me think of another piece, I (Dion) am more Liberal than you and Dion's point: "Ignatieff didn't just support George W. Bush's adventures; on more than one occasion, "He was pushing Bush in the back."" Were I to be bothered to review Liberal blogs & commentary from the majority who neither supported Iggy for the 2006 leadership nor he & his supporters' subsequent machinations, I wonder whether I might find they consistently made many of the same points as the Cons are now? Poser la question, c'est y répondre, non?
Moral: this is what happens when Liberals renounce liberalism and have a "coup de chefferie tranquille", installing a leader whose core positions, in his field of supposed expertise, are contrary to established Liberal (& liberal) traditions.
Moral: this is what happens when Liberals renounce liberalism and have a "coup de chefferie tranquille", installing a leader whose core positions, in his field of supposed expertise, are contrary to established Liberal (& liberal) traditions.


13 Comments:
At 6:52 PM,
Anonymous said…
Yawn.....get over it will you? Grow up - no one is listening to you, the cry baby.
At 7:11 PM,
Eugene Forsey Liberal said…
Dear Anon,
you rather make my point, eh?
At 7:25 PM,
Arturo said…
Actually, you make the point with each successive boring tirade against Ignatieff.
Quit the party would you. And yes, grow the fuck up you whiny child.
Clueless.
At 7:52 PM,
Anonymous said…
Wow, all hail Iggy the Ignorant.... by ignorant....
There is little difference between liberals and connies...
At 8:00 PM,
Quixotique said…
Actually, Artuto (the dumb ass you claim to be), to use your term and Anon, EFL is the grown up in this discussion. Party associates - and their leaders - who accept and follow blindly, are little more than supplicants, not adherents to a party philosophy or tradition.
Ignatieff is proving himself to be a decent leader, and as he and his more rampant supporters like to point out a good listener. Why would you automatically assume that he (Ignatieff) would be opposed to hearing and/or debating (both healthy things in a democracy/democratic institution) EFL's pov?
Why should EFL "quit" the party because it has a new leader that EFL would like to infulence/hear him? It's his party. Because a new CEO is in charge, doesn't make ir less so, nor his opinion less valid.
You have blithely pointed out what's amiss in Canadian politics today.
At 8:00 PM,
Eugene Forsey Liberal said…
Dear Arturo,
you also make my point in delectable troglodytic fashion.
Thanks,
EFL
At 8:03 PM,
Eugene Forsey Liberal said…
Q & CWTF,
Cheers.
At 8:09 PM,
Quixotique said…
Back
At 8:19 PM,
Liz said…
Eugene is 100% right - I am a Liberal and find Iggy's history dispicable ... Eugene is only raising valid points, and he has a right to do so.
At 8:24 PM,
Eugene Forsey Liberal said…
Cheers Liz.
At 11:29 PM,
James Curran said…
JUST CHECKING IN TO SEE IF EVERYONE'S OK. CARRY ON. ;-)
At 12:12 AM,
CautionaryLib said…
Iggy's an interesting person. I'm still not entirely sure I even like him. Some things endear him to me, others? Make me want to run screaming.
And I can't quite commit to the idea of him as a longterm leader, which will probably get me pummeled by other Liberals. If anything, he'll get a minority, if that.
It's a love/hate relationship with Iggy.
I wonder if this is how Conservatives feel with Harper?
At 10:14 PM,
Eugene Forsey Liberal said…
JC:)
CL: Intriguing.
Post a Comment
<< Home