Friday, April 22, 2005

Why would we mark time?

Babble on.

Did anyone else feel physically uncomfortable watching Paul Martin grovel in front of a camera tonight?

I mean, finally admitting some personal and collective Liberal responsibility for Adscam in plain and unambiguous language was laudable, although way overdue. But it's hard to give him credit for the admission when it had to be coerced from him at poll-point.

Although, I have to say his plea that Canadians wait for Gomery's full report before going to the polls - with his personal guarantee that he'll call an election within thirty days of said report - struck a chord with me. All other things being equal, I'd prefer to know all the details of this mess before going to the polls.

But all other things aren't equal: waiting until November for the official verdict on Adscam means the nation's government pretty much marks time for half a year longer than it already has. Even if the Liberals suddenly discover an ambitious legislative agenda in the meantime, their minority government was won under wildly different circumstances. Those who voted Liberal in the last election might want an opportunity to change their decision.

Not to mention that two thirds of the electorate voted for something other than Liberal policies. As Stephen Harper mentioned, why would those folks want the opposition to cooperate with Liberal plans they didn't like in the first place. Just to play nice?

When I weigh these factors against the desire to know the whole Adscam story before voting, I can't justify the wait.

Besides, while Martin mouthed all the right words tonight, there was something in his demeanour that screamed desperation. This man is not a leader. Hence my discomfort watching him: he is embarrassing to himself and to the country in an internal crisis like this, but his indecisiveness and finger-to-the-wind management style could well be dangerous in a true crisis.

In the end, that justifies an election all by itself. Even if Adscam had never happened, Paul Martin is an abysmal leader, and one we should be rid of of as quickly as possible.

Babble off.

2 Comments:

At 9:20 AM, Blogger VW said...

I'd have to agree. Frankly, the man has not been able to take charge of the mess he's inherited from Chr├ętien. By continually referring to Justice Gomery he's giving the impression of passing the buck. That may be acceptable behaviour for a middle manager, but not for the man at the top.

I've pretty much summed up my impression of the PM in this graphic, but there's even a bigger problem coming up: who's going to replace Martin as leader of the Grits? If there's one good thing that's going to come out of this, it's that PM won't be able to anoint his successor; third-class people always tend to hand off to fourth-class people. But offhand I can't think of anyone who'd want the job under these circumstances.

 
At 11:33 AM, Blogger Sean McCormick said...

Seeing Martin, I was reminded of my three year old daughter explaining to me how she *couldn't* have broken mom's stained glass angel, that it was her teddy bear who did it, and that I shouldn't send her to bed early as punishment.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home