The one virtue that has never concerned Liberals is consistency. In recent months alone, the Dion Liberals have flip-flopped on the war in Afghanistan, on "the breakthrough bill" to fight climate change and on gutting the fiscal capacity of the country to respond to the coming economic downturn. They are even helping Harper put an end to the impartiality of our immigration system.
As the old joke goes, on any issue, Liberals have a strong position, and if you don't like that one, stick around - 'cause they've got a whole bunch more.
But now that the Conservatives are in an ethical morass with the RCMP raid looking into their 2006 election spending, Liberals are hoping people will consider them an ethical party once more.
Problem is, Canadians haven't forgotten about the Sponsorship scandal, and aren't about to either.
Because while it's one thing to change what you stand for like the winds, it's quite another to change what you have already done.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Strange that.
As of 9:58 am, the Globe has closed comments on the Liberal corruption story you linked to.
Blogging Horse - you are clearly wrong. Over the past few months the Liberals have been completely consistent. They have been supporting the Conservatives every step of the way.
That is what happens when you are in a coalition - it does not matter what you say but how you vote. If you vote against your coalition partner, the government would fall.
What also is consistent is that when given the opportunity to go after the Conservatives on this, the NDP, or at least its most partisan bloggers, have chosen to attack the Liberals instead.
What is rock-solid consistent, Scott, is you throwing that same balled-up, discredited line at the wall every chance you get. I salute your discipline, if not your loyalty to that crusted-over party.
Ironically, Nik Nanos is out this week saying: "The challenge for the NDP right now is that they've been focusing so much on attacking the Conservatives that they're laying the groundwork for their own voters to strategically vote for the Liberals to block Stephen Harper."
Me, I'd rather Layton call them as he sees them -- not apportion criticism on some formula that meets pundits' approval.
Also entirely consistant (or perhaps just constant) is Tribe's arguement that people on the centre-left should give the Liberals a break for their ethical failings and for doing Harper's heavy lifting on Afghanistan, our worsening environment and wipeing out Ottawa's fiscal capacity.
Why?
'Cause gosh darn it, Liberals share the values of the centre-left -- they just don't happen to share them enough to act or vote consistant with them.
But hey, thinking progressive thoughts should count for something shouldn't it?
Scott's argument, essentially, is that the Liberals should be given a pass regardless of the amount of theft or the depth of corruption. And they should be given this pass because the Conservatives are so much worse than the Liberals.
This would be a stupid position - even if the second part were true.
The Liberals should be held to the same standard as everyone else. They need to have their overweaning sense of entitlement driven off the political stage.
In any event, the Liberals really aren't significantly different from the Conservatives. Their actual record (as opposed to their empty rhetoric) is pretty much the same: nothing on childcare, slashed funding to health care, massive corporate tax cuts with no corresponding relief to ordinary folk. And let us not forget the environment, where Stephane Dion's record of inaction is so apalling he makes Rona Ambrose look like David Suzuki.
Post a Comment