Apparently, the corrupt Canadian Liberal Party has been reduced to arguing that "we may be corrupt, but so were the Conservatives when they were in." (Never mind that the current Conservative Party has never "been in", having much the same relationship to the old Progressive Conservatives as the Republicans had with the Whigs.) As the Toronto Sun points out, this is a poor argument indeed:
Talk about being as dumb as a bag of hammers!A reader's letter is also quoted to damning effect:
When Liberals argue that the Conservative government of 1993 was as bad as the Liberal government of today, they are also admitting that the Liberals of today are no better than the Conservatives of 1993. And if that's the case then, according to the Liberals' own logic, they deserve the same fate.
Have crazed Liberal supporters forgotten that voters reduced the Mulroney/Kim Campell Conservatives to two seats in the 1993 federal election? By their own logic, then, this is exactly what should now happen to the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin Liberals, whenever they finally have to face the electorate.
"The sponsorship scandal has defined the major differences between liberal voters and conservative voters. When Brian Mulroney's government became arrogant, conservative voters decimated (it), leaving (it) with only two seats. Conservative voters know the only way to make governments accountable is to show them the door. They put honesty, integrity and the belief in good governance above political philosophy.Lastly comes a quote I never thought I'd see in a major Canadian newspaper editorial, from P.J. O'Rourke: "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
"It's very unfortunate liberal voters are not so astute. They rationalize, stating things like, 'Paul is not Jean', 'politicians are all the same' and 'the PCs are just as bad.'"