The matter was a simple one: if Dion was a real leader, he'd oppose the budget, and if he wasn't willing to oppose the budget, then, well, that must mean he wasn't a real leader.
Then, the budget was announced, and shortly thereafter, Dion announced his party's support for it. The frustration was palpable among those very same grassroots Liberals: after all, their leader had just proven that he wasn't a real leader. Because the only reason why he could possibly have been willing to vote for the budget was because he didn't have the balls for the election. Right?
But what if there's another explanation? What if Dion is supporting the budget not because he's Not A Leader, but because he and his caucus actually...*gasp*...like the budget?
Don't believe me? Have a look at the official party line. This Conservative budget is a "watered-down Liberal budget" that "adopts many measures the Liberals have championed." I don't know about you, but to me that sounds less like Not A Leader and more like a leader with ideas that--at least when it comes to how to run the country's finances (not to mention Afghanistan)--are so similar to the Conservatives' own ideas that the two parties are virtually indistinguishable these days. I mean, über-Liberal Jason Cherniak's biggest criticism is that the Conservatives' last two budgets weren't conservative enough. This isn't just the strategic ranting of a partisan New Democrat, this is how things are.
Don't get me wrong, I get why the Liberals would be upset by the actions of their party these days. Believe me, I do. What I'm not getting, though, is why they're angry at their leader for supposedly being cowardly when the real issue is that he and his caucus are simply out of step with what they stand for.
Thought number two, from Lone Primate, on the possible Chuck Cadman bribery scandal.
But if this is true, it's one of the slimiest things I've heard come out of Ottawa in... well, ever. Bribing a dying man by appealing to his worries over his family's future, in order to get him to aid in toppling a duly-elected government against his own better judgement? If it doesn't quite qualify as treason or blackmail, it certain would qualify as attempted bribery of a Member of Parliament under the Criminal Code. If it turns out to be true, and Stephen Harper is implicated, then he must resign, immediately — as must the two shadowy, as-yet-unnamed figures who supposedly made Cadman the offer. If not, Governor-General Michaëlle Jean, acting on behalf of the Queen, must exercise one of the few remain royal prerogatives and dissolve the Harper government, call an election, and let the people decide.
And thought number three, my own, on the film tax credit bill, which unmasked the religious influence on the Conservatives.
If we make enough of a fuss over this, could it become a watershed moment in their downfall?
No comments:
Post a Comment