Comes via Hacks and Wonks.
...if you can't tell the difference between Ken Dryden and Ujjal Dosanjh or Monte Solberg and Gremant Gruwal, then that suggests more about your ethics than it does theirs.
Indeed. As I said earlier, in a democracy it is our job to hold politicians to account.
Here is another example of "can you tell the difference" courtesy of John Ivison (sorry, behind subscriber wall).
He sets up in his piece explaining why the Conservatives are keen to have a fall election. The first is that they feel that the polls are not accurately reflecting the proper mix of likely voters, as evidenced by the Newfoundland by-election. The other:
...Harper is personally offended by the behaviour of this government and doesn't believe the Liberals deserve to remain in office.
Readers could be forgiven for being cynical about any statements on the personal convictions of politicians -- beyond the instinctive calculation of what any given event can do for them. But Harper has shown a level of integrity that makes his own claims credible. Even in the instance of politicians crossing the floor, the Conservative leader has refused to make even the most elementary of deals.
Take the case of John Bryden, the Liberal MP for Ancaster who split with the party last year. He moved into the Conservative caucus, but Harper refused to guarantee him the party's nomination in the riding, and he was eventually forced out of politics.
Sources say a couple of Liberals have approached the Conservatives more recently and both have been given a similar answer.
If this is true then Opposition Leader Harper puts ethics ahead of power. John Ivison speculates at least 3 Liberals could have been enticed to cross the floor. 3 would have been enough to bring down the government by now. This is in stark contrast to the power-clinging actions of our Prime Minister. So I paraphrase the Hack, if you can't tell the difference between Stephen Harper and Paul Martin then that suggests more about your ethics than it does theirs.
