The Harper CONbots are up in arms twisting in circles and trying to create a controversy over Michael Ignatieff's response to Peter Mansbridge's question on what happens if a minority government is elected on May 2nd.
This is what Ignatieff said...
“[I'd] talk to Mr. Layton, or Mr. Duceppe, or even Mr. Harper, and say, ‘We have an issue, and here’s the plan that I want to put before Parliament, this is the budget I would bring in,’ and then we take it from there.”
... and this is different from this in what way?
If ignorance is what Canadians are when it comes to their own governance, then Stephen Harper has provided the perfect platform. However, it is also obvious that there is someone on the hustings who is only in it for himself, and that person is Stephen Harper.
Which leads us to something completely different...
2 comments:
I wouldn't mind if you would calm my nerves I'm worried Ignatieff might have blown the election here.
It's true that Harper's all-armageddon message that dominated his spiel at the start of the campaign seemed to have lost steam and power as we entered the 2nd week and that MI's discourse with Mansbridge yesterday may give Harper another window to pile on... however, I think the specific reason why Harper's theme fell out of favour was because people saw the hypocrisy of it and also had shed some of their fears. Now they are more aware that Harper's demand is both self-prophesizing and hollow and that this threat of a coalition is just his own making and not based in reality.
Also, I think people are gaining an understanding of MI that possibly makes them see that their best choice of good governance without the constant threat of elections is to settle for a possible coalition, but hopefully just more minority parliament.
Does that help?
Post a Comment