ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO AN EDITORIAL IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Response to another reader’s comment:
While I agree with your view of traditional Conservatives, genuinely decent men like Joe Clark or Peter Lougheed or Robert Stanfield, what does the once-great Liberal Party now bring us?
An arrogant putz - there is no other word for this dull and uninspiring man who doesn't even have the faith in democratic values to gain his leadership through democratic means, just as he was parachuted into his riding at the beginning of his Don Quixote quest for political success.
And in the end, his values are nothing of which to be proud. He supported the slaughter of a million Iraqis. He speaks out on none - absolutely none - of the world's great human-rights problems today despite the flaks’ puff stuff about him as human-rights defender.
He doesn’t object to the sad waste of our lives and treasure wasted in Afghanistan. He doesn’t question the idiocy of Canadian planes joining the Americans in their Libyan crusade, taking sides in a civil war he doesn’t even understand. Israel is just fine continuing its apartheid policies involving assassination, torture, kidnapping, and the regular theft of other peoples’ homes.
And he doesn't say he won't serve Pentagon interests by, for example, buying (helping to subsidize) the world's costliest clunker of a plane, the F-35. No, he dances around saying the procedures were wrong, and he would correct them. Talk about a mamby-pamby nothing.
He goes on the radio with a pathetic ad about his mother and healthcare. Yuck, even a clever high-schooler would know better.
He is a totally inept politician, and his terrible dam-ing legacy will likely be the next five years of Harper's ripping the guts out of our beloved country and its international reputation as a fair and decent place, turning Canada into a thin-gruel version of Republican Texas.
Thanks, Michael Ignatieff, for not having the courage to admit you do not have what it takes while yet having the diseased ego to proceed anyway.
_____________________
A newspaper has no business offering "shoulds" and "it were bests" to its readers, especially in political or religious matters.
It is paternalistic at best, just plain arrogant at worst.
Your job is to report events as scrupulously as you can - in effect, supplying the crucial information for an informed democracy.
