The general thrust is the impact of attacking people who choose to live or study abroad when they return home and offer to contribute. It's a conversation worth having in my view and he simply shared some of his thoughts.
That seems to have bothered the predictable suspects. Snide comments on Twitter appeared this morning, then I caught Tim Powers contribution. I have to say, I did not expect it from him. Now, we know that Powers is often called on to be the Conservative talking head on TV panels, but this isn't that.
This is nothing more than a cheap shot by someone I thought had more decency. He not only implies that Ignatieff believes that his being an expat was the reason for the election results, he distorts what the Conservatives actually did do to his reputation.
Tim suggests that Ignatieff played into/fit the Conservative narrative perfectly. No, he did not. The narrative was designed and all the material they used to support it was contrived. Quotes taken out of context, juvenile photos and all nuance expunged. Those lies fit the narrative and were torqued. Tim then goes on to say that this particular political calculation was sophisticated. Again, no. It's old school, good 'ol boy, nasty politics, but then again, perhaps that passes for sophistication in certain circles.
The fictional picture that the Conservatives drew of Ignatieff, did indeed have an impact on voters. If you knocked on doors or did any work during the election, you'd know that, but that isn't really Michael's point.
To continue to attack him as if he is still a political opponent is crass in my view. He's now a private citizen who has the right to express his opinion and actually contribute to an important discussion. That opinion, can of course be debated, but sitting on high horse tossing out sophistry does not qualify as debate.
In Tim's case, it's both surprising and unbecoming.