In Which Paul Martin Continues to be Revealed as WRONG

In this post, I made reference to an article in The Walrus by former Paul Martin employee Tim Murphy, entitled; "Noble Ambition," ... the cover story was "Paul Martin Was Right." Since I consider Paul Martin Jr. to have been one of the most noteworthy failures among Canadian prime ministers, I took issue with that title's claim and hence you see the series of quickly-typed screeds we have here.

I've just time (and inclination) to point out this portion of Murphy's tribute to his former boss:

Paul Martin is a socially progressive fiscal conservative. His sensibilities and political instincts are those of a new Liberal who, much like a Red Tory, believes in targeted public-sector investments based on understanding where world economies are moving. The point is to look outward, not inward. Over and above the headline-grabbing appetites of those in the race to lead, for the Liberal Party of Canada to win the next election it had better look closely at the Martin economic record. Martin’s policies fitted Canada’s needs for twelve-plus years, and, as the veil is lifted on Prime Minister Harper’s economic plan, it is clear that the Conservatives see wisdom in many of Martin’s core economic ideas.

Which, if you'll notice, is another way of saying that Paul Martin, the guy with all the nauseatingly earnest "progressive" rhetoric, actually was so right-wing that a bushlover ideologue from the National Citizens Coalition (that'd be Stephen Harper), would actually be impressed enough with his policies as to steal 'em, and that this adaptation of a so-called progressive's policies by a right-wing Tory hack, would go virtually unnoticed by most Canadians.

That's almost enough for today. I just wanted to get a little dig in on this howler ...

Too shrewd to admit to theft, the Harper government’s economic agenda — — has been lifted almost verbatim from the 2005 Liberal “Plan for Growth and Prosperity.”

Wow. So the Conservative Party of Canada was stealing ideas from one of Paul Martin's book of campaign promises?? Maybe that means that this time those ideas will actually get implemented. Or maybe it's that windy rhetoric is common to all political parties.