A great man once said, "Politics is inherently stupid." That great man was me.

Monday, May 11, 2009

The Press, Doing its Job as Usual

...or not.

"Coalition would have deeply divided Canadians: Ignatieff"

If the proposed coalition of opposition parties had come to power last year it would have deeply and enduringly divided Canadians, says Michael Ignatieff.
“I'm in politics to unify people, not to divide them,” Mr. Ignatieff said.
“There was also a question concerning the legitimacy of the coalition that troubled me.”

But Mr. Ignatieff felt that Canada, entering into a severe economic recession, needed more certainty than the coalition could provide, comparing the tentative deal to an unstable three-legged stool.
“I felt it was very difficult to guarantee the necessary political stability during a time of crisis with three partners in a formal coalition,” he said.

“That was my first doubt. I couldn't guarantee the long-term stability of the coalition under the circumstances."

What's most interesting about this article is the fact that it doesn't deign to ask Mr. Ignatieff a glaringly obvious question:

Sir, your name is at the very bottom of this document; If you believe that the coalition was
'an unstable three-legged stool' that would have deeply divided Canadians, why did you sign your name to the agreement? If you believed then what you believe today - that the proposed coalition would have lacked the political stability necessary to lead the country through incredibly unstable financial times - why is your signature on that document?

Of course, none of us actually expect the media to do their job and ask political leaders tough questions.

You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Ignatieff. You are admitting that you believed the coalition would have been detrimental for Canadians; You therefore either signed out of a lust for power or a lack of courage to stand up for your principles. Which is it?

By your own admission, the coalition would have lacked the political stability that the country would have required to overcome the current economic recession. By your own admission, it would have deeply divided the country - and yet your signature is still on that document. You put the interests of your party ahead of the interests of Canadians; you can't just whitewash your actions by simply claiming that you were 'never fully on board' - your signature says otherwise. What is even more brazen is that you expect Canadians to buy your story. Journalists might not ask the tough questions; fortunately, Canadians will.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

0 Old Comments: