The faces of Paul Martin 
From Andrew Coyne's column today:
But viewers could be forgiven for asking themselves: which Paul Martin is this? Is it the Paul Martin who was “mad as hell” about the corruption unearthed by the auditor general, or the one who dismissed it as the work of a few rogue bureaucrats? Is it the Paul Martin who vowed to “get to the bottom” of the scandal, or the one who shut down the Public Accounts committee? Is it the Paul Martin who was “personally offended” at how senior members of his party had carried on, or the one who led a standing ovation for Jean Chretien in caucus after his contemptuous appearance at the Gomery inquiry?

Damian Penny has a roundup of reaction from around the Canadian political blogosphere.

I think Layton made a big mistake in trying to cut a deal with the Liberals. I can just hear the Conservative campaigners in ridings where there is a three way race - don't vote for the Liberal-NDP coalition - a vote for the NDP is a vote for to support the Liberals.

UPDATE: Matt Fletcher says what I was thinking:
As prime minister, I will never hesitate to describe what happened on the sponsorship file for what is was — an unjustifiable mess.

This is were he completely lost me. An unjustifiable mess ?! That's how the prime minister characterizes the worst kind, the often illegal, misuse of public money for partisan and personal gain? This wasn't an accounting error. This wasn't a few details missed. This was rampant, organized, partisan violation of the machinery of government and the public trust. Those two words finished it. If unjustifiable mess, is the terms under which the prime minister refers to the sponorship problem, he has to resign right now.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?