|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
If Harper is Bush, then Ignatieff is John Kerry
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Race
|
| Contributor | Monsieur |
| Last Edited | Monsieur Sep 03, 2009 08:11pm |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | Analysis |
| Author | Haroon Siddiqui |
| News Date | Friday, September 4, 2009 02:00:00 AM UTC0:0 |
| Description | The issue is not that he has not done the rubber chicken circuit or not consumed enough burgers at barbecues but rather that he has yet to say anything to stir Canadians.
The explanation may lie in who he is. His specialty is not domestic politics but foreign policy, on which he's on the wrong side of Canadians (having backed both the Afghan and Iraq wars, "coercive interrogation," excessive executive power, American imperialism, etc.).
He is like John Kerry in 2004, unable to shed the burden of having backed George W. Bush. Given the clarity of Canadians on much of post-9/11 politics, Ignatieff is even less likely to win as Harper Lite than Kerry could as Bush Lite.
This is made all the more relevant given the many domestic implications of the war on terror.
Ignatieff was mostly mute during the controversy over Suaad Hagi Mohamud. Her lawyer, Raoul Boulakia, told me that the Liberals under Ignatieff have been reluctant to touch any case that might turn out to be unpopular. "Once they hear the word security, they run for cover. They don't want to touch it."
That was precisely the problem with Kerry Democrats – cowed into silence on key issues when Americans were beginning to crave principled stands.
So we end up with the irony that while Barack Obama is Canadianizing America – health care, human rights, civil liberties, etc. – Harper is stuck in Bush's policies, and the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada cannot articulate a vision of Canada in tune with the times.
|
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
