Paul Wells Blasts Ignatieff

Now I have articulated my stance in contrast to Michael Ignatieff's, and made clear I disagree with certain portions of his platform, however I must say that different ideas are what the Liberal Party needs. Even if they aren't the best or most proper, different ideas lead to a more thorough debate which in the end gives a stronger conclusion. I believe Gerard's ideas are the best, but if it wasn't for Ignatieff, perhaps I wouldn't have been able to compare and contrast as I did and recognize it. I say this of Michael Ignatieff, as by appearances he is becoming less popular or more of a target of attack, especially in the recent Paul Well's Blog.

The Paul Wells Blog attacks Ignatieff's stance in referring to Quebec as a nation, and goes deep into this argument. Paul quotes the Montreal Gazette:

"None of the Quebec commentators who have been cheering [Ignatieff] on suggest there is even a remote chance of success of his constitutional proposal in the foreseeable future.

"And while the mere word 'nation' might be too much for English Canada to swallow when applied to Quebec as well as aboriginals, the recognition he is proposing is purely symbolic, and so empty that no Quebec government could accept it.

"The campaign manifesto in which he made the proposal says recognition would not be 'a prelude to further devolution of powers.'

"Nor would it be an interpretive clause like the 'distinct-society' clause in the ill-fated Meech Lake accord, directing governments, legislatures and the courts to take Quebec's nationhood into account in interpreting the rest of the constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For Ignatieff 's 'fundamental principles' that are to be respected in the constitution include 'the unity of Canadian citizenship' and 'the primacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.'

Then Paul sums up the tirade on Ignatieff by making the same observation I gave weeks ago. My observation, under the title, "University of Toronto Professor: "Ignatieff denies what he said meant what it means," I stated:

So as you see it is fascinating, instead of having to apologize, which most jewish groups want, Ignatieff pretty much denies what he said meant what it means; so any need to apologize evaporates.

I find this ridiculous, and troubling that a scholar could make such a claim without knowing or grasping he is double-speaking. And if he is doing it on purpose, I would rather have a leader who is clear and tries not to mislead.

Paul Wells gives how that opinion is actually applied to reality:

Turning to the Globe, we see Raymonde Folco, an MP who wavered in her support for Ignatieff after he called Qana a war crime. "But after speaking to him at length, she said she believes that Mr. Ignatieff did not say what he really meant."

Precisely. A stout refusal to believe what Michael Ignatieff says has become the central condition for supporting his candidacy for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. The opposition to Ignatieff now comes exclusively from people who fear his words have meaning.

As I have mentioned I welcome Ignatieff to the Party he, like Gerard, have brought new ideas to the party, however because they are not the best ideas I think Michael Ignatieff would not make the best leader.