Tuesday, March 01, 2011

I think Warren Kinsella has defriended Michael Ignatieff, or at least updated his relationship status


Remember when Warren Kinsella would fawn over the Liberal leader, whom often he referred to only as "Michael" (mysteriously above photo and other related posts have been purged from Kinsella's blog -incidentally so have the many posts where he gushes over Rocco Rossi) ?

This was then...

So was this...

This is now:
“Why isn’t anyone asking for Michael Ignatieff’s resignation? 
I mean, it’s not like they wouldn’t have just cause. In federal Grit land, things continue to go from bad to worse.
The Liberal Party’s fundraising is a shadow of its former self, with the Conservatives routinely raking in $5 for every two received by the Grits. Many rank-and-file Libs despair of their party’s policies –this year, with Ignatieff outflanking the Harper government on the right on Afghanistan, or informing his followers the oilsands are an instrument of national unity.
And there are the polls. The most recent batch reminded despairing federal Libs that their hated adversary, Stephen Harper, is perilously close to a Parliamentary majority. While Liberal support dips below 25% -something even Stephane Dion managed to avoid.”


The Mound of Sound said...

Good post. It is a shameless turnaround isn't it? To think of the number of us Kinsella excoriated and denigrated for saying what he has only come to realize today. Oh, that's right. Kinsella was all for Iggy's advance absolution for Israeli excesses in Gaza wasn't he? As for being more hawkish on Afghanistan than Harper, Kinsella must not have read Iggy's wardrum rant in the New York Times a year or so before he returned to Canada.

The guy is more than a bit creepy.

WhigWag said...

What, have you been asleep for over a year? They had a falling out in Nov. 2009 when the OLO -- which Kinsella was working for at the time -- summarily dismissed two of his friends in a "shabby" way. But even now, although he has been critical of Ignatieff at times, he is NOT calling for his removal, and in the rest of the article, he explains why.

Derrida (sous rature) said...

WhigWag: I'm not suggesting this is their first "falling out", but this is the most public turning on Ignatieff.

You're right to point out that he doesn't call for Ignatieff's removal - but one would have to read the whole Toronto Sun article to know that- and since I can only stomach a couple of flea baths a week, I visit there as little as possible.

Anyway, simply having some fun, and pointing out Kinsella no longer gushing over "Michael" like a high school girl chasing the "hunky" quaterback.

Although, if you want a more serious note. What are the ethics around exorcising one's blog of posts that might display your wanton hypocrisy? It is clear that Kinsella has purged his blog of unflattering entries. Even if these are archived somewhere (although I couldn't find them), what are the ethics around erasing comments that were once part of public record?