This post reminds me of the cover story Ignatieff did with Zoomer magazine back in the spring. The article begins with Michael taking notice of interviewer Kim Izzo's footwear. "Nice shoes" he says to his wife as he meets Ms Izzo and prepares for their sit-down. It was a nice little compliment that resonated with me greatly and I think points to the man's personality and character. Can you imagine Harper complimenting a woman on her shoes? I sure as hell can't.
So now Ignatieff has changed his mind and has decided that he doesn't want an election after all. What happened? Why the sudden change of heart? What happened to "your time is up, Mr. Harper"?
BTW: With reference to the pictures with kids - don't read too much into kids having an innate sense of good and evil - by all accounts small children and pets tended to gravitate to Hitler!
I'm not comparing anyone in Canada to Hitler. I'm just saying that by all accounts he tended to charm little children and pets. ergo, we should not defer to the intuition of children.
For what its worth, Hitler was a serious animal lover, a vegetarian, and banned hunting within Nazi Germany because he thought is was cruel and inhumane. Just adding this weird factoid for its irony factor.
As much as DL gave a lame comparison, I have to agree with his overall point. Children are not infallible judges of character.
That said, it's a nice clip to show that Iggy isn't quite as aloof and plastic as SweaterBoy. Hell, Harper's own kids only get a handshake from him.
Tomm & DL – I’m in full agreement with you both. Kissing babies is part of the quintessential campaign trail repertoire for any politician, probably since the beginnings of democracy. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out about some unearthed engraving of a Roman senator kissing babies dated from 200 BC. However how good (or bad) a politician is at this practice, is hardly a marker of how they would perform once elected to public service.
These kinds of acts simply play on the electorate’s emotional side and sometimes, sadly, do act as a bounce, or an anchor (re: Stanfield’s dropped football) to a politician in the polls – regardless of the fact that they are quite trivial and meaningless in the overall context of things.
Would Iggy make a better PM than Harper because he’s supposedly better with children? What a silly question, of course it’s irrelevant. Likewise Harper’s recent piano performance is an asinine basis for people to think that makes him a better choice for PM. Yet there was the media lapping it up and sending his numbers into majority territory.
And, quite frankly, I find these incidents simply harden my thoughts that the Canadian electorate have become dumber and dumber with each passing election - and soon the vote will have little difference from episode of Canadian Idol.
'My understanding is that Ignatieff's children are now adults and the relationship has not always been a good one.'
Who are you? Alice the maid? Nice bit of conjecture on ya Tomm. Got any other stories in that reform crystal ball?
FWIW Harper's kids are probably afraid to act up in case Harper carries out a smear campaign on them or worse. libel chill. Hey this conjecture thing is fun!
15 comments:
This post reminds me of the cover story Ignatieff did with Zoomer magazine back in the spring. The article begins with Michael taking notice of interviewer Kim Izzo's footwear. "Nice shoes" he says to his wife as he meets Ms Izzo and prepares for their sit-down. It was a nice little compliment that resonated with me greatly and I think points to the man's personality and character. Can you imagine Harper complimenting a woman on her shoes? I sure as hell can't.
So now Ignatieff has changed his mind and has decided that he doesn't want an election after all. What happened? Why the sudden change of heart? What happened to "your time is up, Mr. Harper"?
BTW: With reference to the pictures with kids - don't read too much into kids having an innate sense of good and evil - by all accounts small children and pets tended to gravitate to Hitler!
DL
I don't recall all these questions a few weeks ago ;)
What else is going to say, at least we can admit it. Come on.
DL: A Hitler reference, really?
Is the threshold that low now?
Yes, classy DL. My apologies, I missed that. Your comment had such a juvenile flare, I didn't bother to read it all :)
I'm not comparing anyone in Canada to Hitler. I'm just saying that by all accounts he tended to charm little children and pets. ergo, we should not defer to the intuition of children.
Hey, DL - Hitler played the piano very well. He also liked his photo everywhere and he had a funny nose like Harper does.
Good grief - talk about the green eyed monster rearing its ugly head.
Stephen Harper has a dog.
You know who else had a dog?
Hitler.
Adolf Hitler.
That's who.
Did Stephen Harper train his dog to attack racial minorities on command?
We don't know.
He's not saying.
Choose Your Canada.
(with apologies to Damian)
I'm not sure that Harper has a dog. From what I've read he and his wife are big cat lovers.
For what its worth, Hitler was a serious animal lover, a vegetarian, and banned hunting within Nazi Germany because he thought is was cruel and inhumane. Just adding this weird factoid for its irony factor.
As much as DL gave a lame comparison, I have to agree with his overall point. Children are not infallible judges of character.
That said, it's a nice clip to show that Iggy isn't quite as aloof and plastic as SweaterBoy. Hell, Harper's own kids only get a handshake from him.
TofKW,
My understanding is that Ignatieff's children are now adults and the relationship has not always been a good one.
To make the case that one is stiff and formal with children and the other isn't and then choose the wrong ones, is pretty funny.
With respect to the baby squeezing Harper's nose, it is priceless.
Tomm & DL – I’m in full agreement with you both. Kissing babies is part of the quintessential campaign trail repertoire for any politician, probably since the beginnings of democracy. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out about some unearthed engraving of a Roman senator kissing babies dated from 200 BC. However how good (or bad) a politician is at this practice, is hardly a marker of how they would perform once elected to public service.
These kinds of acts simply play on the electorate’s emotional side and sometimes, sadly, do act as a bounce, or an anchor (re: Stanfield’s dropped football) to a politician in the polls – regardless of the fact that they are quite trivial and meaningless in the overall context of things.
Would Iggy make a better PM than Harper because he’s supposedly better with children? What a silly question, of course it’s irrelevant. Likewise Harper’s recent piano performance is an asinine basis for people to think that makes him a better choice for PM. Yet there was the media lapping it up and sending his numbers into majority territory.
And, quite frankly, I find these incidents simply harden my thoughts that the Canadian electorate have become dumber and dumber with each passing election - and soon the vote will have little difference from episode of Canadian Idol.
'My understanding is that Ignatieff's children are now adults and the relationship has not always been a good one.'
Who are you? Alice the maid? Nice bit of conjecture on ya Tomm. Got any other stories in that reform crystal ball?
FWIW Harper's kids are probably afraid to act up in case Harper carries out a smear campaign on them or worse. libel chill. Hey this conjecture thing is fun!
Is this picture of Ignatieff with those toddlers supposed to be an example of "adult conversation" with canadians he said he wanted to have?
The sad part, you probably think that's clever.
Post a Comment