Angry in the Great White North

From The Rutherford Show, via Twitter:

Bob Rae is a historical revisionist, he says Iggy never signed a coalition deal with the NDP and Bloc, he did not say coalition if necessary.

I'll try to get the transcript of what was actually said, but given that this tweet is from The Rutherford Show itself, I'll take it at face value.

Update:  Here is the clip:

Did Michael Ignatieff sign the coalition deal?

It is well documented that Michael Ignatieff both supported the coalition and signed the letter to the Governor-General urging her to hand power to Stephane Dion and the Liberals:

Ignatieff, who is the front-runner to succeed Dion in an upcoming leadership convention, said the three candidates were "at one" in their belief that "the only leader who can lead us in this context is the duly elected leader of the Liberal party."

"I support the accord because it's fiscally responsible, it provides responsible economic leadership in tough times and it also conserves the basic principles of national unity, equality that our party has always believed in," he said.

Rae described the caucus meeting as "historic" and "moving," while also saying the deal was "perfectly constitutional" and would present for Canadians "the very best possible government."

As for the letter?  Well, unless Bob Rae is calling Jack Layton a liar, Michael Ignatieff signed off on the coalition:

Michael Ignatieff must respect his party's commitment to the opposition coalition if he becomes Liberal leader, his wary coalition partners said Monday.

The Liberals "have made a commitment to the coalition to get the economy on the right track for Canadian families," NDP Leader Jack Layton said in a prepared statement.

That commitment included Ignatieff's signature on a piece of paper, Layton said.

"Every Liberal and New Democrat member of Parliament has signed a letter to Her Excellency the Governor General stating that they collectively and individually lost confidence in the government and were committed to governing together."

In the same article, we have Michael Ignatieff quoted as describing the necessity of a coalition by plagiarizing Mackenzie King:

But the Toronto MP seemed to be channelling Mackenzie King over the weekend when he signalled an evolution in his position, describing his view as a "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition."

So what is going on here?  Why would Bob Rae be playing these ridiculous games?

There are a two possibilities that come immediately to mind.  One is that he thinks Canadians are stupid and absent-minded.  I don't think he thinks that.  Or to be more accurate, his opinion of Canadians is no lower than that of any socialist who believes that people cannot be trusted to spend their own money or to raise their own children.  Even so, I can't believe that he thinks he can get away with denying historical facts like that.

So why make absurd, and easily refuted, statements like these?

That brings me to the second possibility.  Perhaps Bob Rae is trying to undercut Michael Ignatieff.  By bringing up the memory of the coalition, Bob Rae achieves his aim of weakening Michael Ignatieff, and at the same time, improving his own position.

Bob Rae brings back memories of when the Liberals nearly snatched power despite suffering their worse electoral defeat in history.  And how that plan came to nothing, first because of Stephane Dion's incompetence, and then because Michael Ignatieff refused to follow through.

And Bob Rae focuses like a laser on Michael Ignatieff's role in keeping the Liberals in opposition by glibly stating that Michael Ignatieff was never in support of the coalition.

Not so fast, says everyone.  Michael Ignatieff was in support, until it became his responsibility, and then he ran away.  You, Bob Rae, were always in support of the coalition, as we recall.  If we had listened to you, we wouldn't be facing a gamble of an election right now...hey!

Yeah, that sneaky Bob Rae.  He doesn't make mistakes.  He lays traps.

So what's on?  Bob Rae splits hairs.  The coalition was with the NDP, and not with the Bloc Quebecois.  The BQ supported the coalition, and did so by signing another document making it formal.  But no Canadian observer of politics cares about the difference.  And the bit about Michael Ignatieff not saying "a coalition if necessary" is just dumb.  Bob Rae might not be trying to screw over Michael Ignatieff, but he's not helping either.  And he's got to know that there are a lot of people out there who are still angry with Michael Ignatieff over the death of the coalition.

And one more thing...does all this evasiveness suggest that the Liberals are worried about a lingering backlash from the attempt to create a coalition?  They can deny all they want, but it hardly matters.  They've lied before.

I think it's a fair bet to think a lot of Canadians will think they're lying again.