Iggy and Afghanistan
A lot of people seem to think that Michael Ignatieff's support of the Afghanistan mission would hurt him in a general election. Personally, I don't think that would be the case, especially considering 57% of Canadians now support the mission. Will this cause Liberals who had brushed him off before to perhaps give him another look? Maybe. And with 30% of the delegates, if I were betting on this, I'd put money on Iggy.
posted by Ryan Ringer @ 10/06/2006 02:05:00 p.m.
5 comments
5 Comments:
The problem Iggy will have is not w/ swing voters or independents depending on what you prefer to call them. It's with the Liberal left-wing, who are hardcore pacifists & hardcore anti-American bigots. They will flee into the waiting arms of smilin' Jack! & thus the LPC will be screwed, which from my POV is a very good thing
Whether you agree or not with the Afghanistan mission, face it can only go south. Get more bloody and unpopular. These kind of no-win wars always go that way. An Iggy victory would be a disaster for the Liberal Party. The war could very well become the biggest fault line in the country, and the Liberals wouldn't be able to attack Harper over it. The NDP may have fumbled the Afghan war issue so far. But an Iggy victory would provide them with the biggest opportunity they've ever had to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Instead of the other way round...
Iggy's problem will only marginally be about Afghanistan. For every vote he loses for supporting the mission, he will gain another.
His problem will be his support for the war in Iraq, which is far less popular (and rightly so). With 30% of the delegates its pretty undeniable that he is a favourite to win this thing, but all it takes is 51% of the delegates to feel passionately about our non-involvement in that quagmire and he can be defeated.
I guess I just can't understand someone feeling so strongly about a position taken by a scholar that they would base their entire perception of him as a politician on that single position. I mean, I can imagine that for one issue, of course, but that issue is very much personal to me. I guess as someone who only has one make-or-break issue, I find it hard to understand why anybody would just outright refuse to give Iggy a chance just because he supported the war in Iraq - especially considering he has since denounced the catastrophic handling of the war, and he has said quite explicitly that if he were prime minister at the time, he would not have sent Canadian troops to Iraq without the support of the Canadian public.
I don't think Iggy's position on Iraq will hurt him, since he's qualified it to death it was so long ago, and Canadians didn't die in that war.
But if he does become Liberal leader his position on Afghanistan will definitely cost the Liberals. There are about six months to go before an election is called. Six months in Afghanistan is a long time, especially if you're counting coffins. By the time the election is called Afghanistan could very well be THE wedge issue, as Lloyd Axworthy called it yesterday. Remember we haven't had our mini version of Vietnam and Iraq as the Americans have. And everyone knows how it polarized public opinion there. It split that country in half.I think it's an illusion to believe the same thing won't happen here. I think that eventually the split in this country will be 30 for 70 against. But let's say it was fifty/fifty. The Liberals and the Conservatives will split the yes vote. In English Canada the NDP will be the only option for people who want to vote against the war. While in Quebec, where the Van Doos will be coming home in coffins to add to the general anti-war fervour, the Bloc will clean up big time. Add it all up and it's not good for the Liberals. Hey I'm not a Liberal myself. I'm for the Anyone But Harper Party. But if you Libs make that historic mistake, that fatal error, don't say I didn't warn you...
Post a Comment
<< Home