Kinsella brings up the hoary old "given the choice between a real Republican and a fake Republican, they'll choose the real one every time" bit, which is a pretty fair cop in a country where the right-wing party isn't as seemingly (and scarily) wedded to murderous eliminationism as its American counterpart.
But more importantly, this Lennard character misses the point that nobody gives a shit about the deficit and SHOULDN'T give a shit about public debt. No, really, John, they don't. That's not why the Republicans won, and you're deeply misinformed if you think otherwise.
The Republicans won because people are pissed that the Dems didn't seem to give a shit that they don't have jobs, because Obama turned out to be about as interested in serious change as the executive board of Goldman-Sachs, because the health care bill was a prime example of the Dems giving away the store before negotiations even began, and because the wealth of corporate America was poured into making damned well ensuring that the Republicans won.
(Which is the thing that always seems to get ignored by people like Lennard. Probably don't like the implications much.)
The Liberals can't really capitalize on this. The Libs don't have a fraction of the money that the Conservatives do. They won't have the job thing, because most of the places where things ARE bad in Canada are already held by the Liberals. The Liberals simply aren't going to be able to successfully run to the Conservatives' right, and especially not on economic matters. And as for "change", where the hell is the "change" in focusing on issues like public debt that only register to the powerful and plutocratic when you're a party being CONSTANTLY derided as only caring about the issues of said plutocrats?
The saddest part is that Lennard doesn't seem to know what "progressive" means. Look at this:
Liberals must call for an immediate, across-the-board 3% cut to the operating budgets of every federal department, agency and Crown Corporation.Excuse some salty language, but can this Lennard character explain to me WHAT IN THE BLOODY BLUE BLAZES IS SUPPOSED TO BE "PROGRESSIVE" ABOUT ACROSS-THE-FUCKING-BOARD CUTS TO GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS? Buddy, that's not a "progressive" agenda. That's not "strong core institutions" either, since you don't something stronger by starving it. That's Republicanism. Republicanism at its worst.
Families have had to tighten their belts in recent years. Now it's the government's turn. If we use recent budget figures as a guide, a modest 3% cut in administrative costs could save upwards of $1.5-billion a year...
...By getting back to the basics, Mr. Ignatieff has the opportunity to boldly usher in a new progressive agenda, one based on building strong core institutions and respecting taxpayers' hard-earned money.
Edit: Ah. The boy's working at an elite law firm now. Well, that makes a bit more sense then. I can see why the issues of plutocrats would hit center stage, and other issues like collapsing productivity, growing poverty, the collapse of the middle class and record-high income inequality would seem quaintly unimportant.
After all, it looks like our boy Lennard isn't going to have to worry about being a "have-not" any time soon.