Well.
More examination today of the lies, damn lies, and the Liberals who tell them, specifically, from the high lama of lies, Michael Ignatieff.
Rather than editorialize, I'll leave the talking to his slyness himself:
Toronto Star, September 11, 2009, quoting Michael Ignatieff:
"Let me be very clear, the Liberal party would not agree to a coalition," he said. "In January we did not support a coalition and we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow."
Seems pretty unequivocal, no?
What a minute..
“A coalition is legitimate, but my intention, my plan is to form a Liberal government,” Mr. Ignatieff said during a news conference after a meeting with Quebec party members. “I will play the cards the Canadian voters deal. I’m not going to deal with those cards until they are dealt, until they are on the table.”
Oh, sorry, I must have misunderstood you a scant nine months ago Michael, obviously you DO think that if you can't win an election clean, you will be happy to co-manage Canada with Jack Layton.
Well.
At least we know where Liberals stand on the coalition issue now, they're obviously good to go, right?
Well, Jeffrey Simpson, at the Globe and Mail, appears to still be confused, responding to what he describes as Conservative "exaggerations, inaccuracies and, when it comes to describing opposition politicians, distortions", and specifically, in response to the suggestions of the Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s warnings of the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition in waiting:
“Mr. Ignatieff made it clear then [i.e., two years ago] and certainly subsequently, that he did not favour a coalition.”
I see.
"Exaggerations, inaccuracies, and distortions"?
Seems to be that all that's happening is the reporting of Michael Ignatieff's lies..err.. "confusion" regarding his intent on forming a coalition.
Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada.
Power at any cost.
Lies, damn lies, and Liberals.
3 comments:
Nothing wrong with cheerleaders for the Liberal Party that feel compelled to rewrite the facts that are not in public domain.
We don't know about any side deals that Layton had on the Bloc to keep them onside. Does he?
We do know Simpson tries to do the heavy lifting, move goalposts for the coalition by introducing slower growth in the developed economies is controlled by the FM.
Simpson was too busy to look up the 2% GST increase loss of jobs estimate from Jack Mintz.
http://blogs.canoe.ca/eyeonthehill/liberals/the-source-for-flahertys-charge-that-liberal-plans-would-kill-400000-jobs/
It took me less than two seconds to find the reference with Google. Sheesh is Jeffery too lazy to use the web?
''did not favour a coalition''
meaning it's not Iffy's first choice.
So Simpson in fact does not rule out a coalition of losers either....
Good communications from the CPC on this.
The media can't quit writing about Iffy and his on-off-on coalition,
since Minister Flaherty's statement.
haha
And check out those new poll numbers, Iffy Liberals in Dion election territory, 26% again.
It sure is fun watching Harper roll out his coalition narrative. The provocative statements will just keep coming.
On last week's At Issue Panel, Peter Mansbridge missed it, but Allan Gregg noticed it ... that Flaherty called it the "Ignatieff, NDP, Bloc coalition"
The obvious reason for this change, is because Iggy polls lower than the Liberal Party. And it's a good idea to remind voters that Iggy, who voters don't trust, and see as incompetent, will be the leader of this unholy alliance.
It's pretty easy to see how Harper is going to play this out during a campaign ... at his daily press conference, he throws out something like "Mark my words, if we don't have a majority, then on the day after the election, Mr. Ignatieff will be knocking on the Governor General's door, with a coalition agreement, laying out Cabinet positions ...".
And then, a reporter at one of Iggy's scrums will throw out that statement by Harper, and we will be all ears, listening to Iggy's response.
It's going to be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Post a Comment