Friday, June 05, 2009

Liberals are funny creatures.

On the one hand, there's a growing kerfuffle about Ignatieff's decision to back the Cons on mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. (I swear, I had to retype that about three times before I got it right. It's like the words are so ridiculous that my very hands rebelled.) There really should be threats to turn in membership cards and go work for some other party (*koff*NDP*koff*), but at least there's some vague idea that maybe, just maybe, Igantieff Liberals aren't what actual Liberals want to be. A more opportune might have been before Rae dropped out of the leadership race, but whatever.

On the other hand, we have Liberals gloating (like here) about King Steve's economic failures. With no acknowledgement that King Steve would have been out of his current job if Ignatieff hadn't blinked on the coalition. I do suspect that part of the issue is that Ignatieff probably wouldn't be doing much better -- not that I'm giving the Cons a break, but the jobless numbers as such don't seem to be a problem government can fix.

While I'm all for picking your battles, either Liberals are willing to criticize their guy when he makes a bone-headed decision, or they're not. This flipping back and forth between willing and unwilling doesn't say "principled" or even "pragmatic" -- it says "weak". Time to choose, methinks. Either "my ideals, whoever the leader" or "my leader, whatever the ideals". (And, if the latter, how are you not just Conservatives with better vocabularies?)