I submit this article for your review for no other reason than the weirdness of its' premise. The tagline is Stephen Harper vs. Canada and begins with "Harper and the National Citizens Coalition were outraged by a law that limits what outside groups can spend to try to influence the outcome of election campaigns".
The "Stephen Harper vs. Canada" has to with the fact that Mr. Harper was representing the National Citizens Coalition against the governments policy of banning non-government spending during election campaigns. Scott Piatkowski never explains why this is such a good decision to ban such funding. I guess maybe it is an article of faith on the left. Kind of like saying obviously smaller government is a desired state by someone on the left.
From there the article goes into a rant against the National Citizens Coalition itself for not picking a replacement for Stephen Harper and for the fact that the NCC set out policies adopted by the Reform Party. Why this was (and is) a bad thing is again left to the reader. Considering the NCC is a policy think-tank I would say this shows they have been a successful organization but I guess since outside funding is a bad idea then outside thinking is a bad idea as well. Unless it is from the CBC, Toronto Star or Globe and Mail. Oh, but that just a blog-by smearing. See how easy it is Mr. Piatkowksi. For some reason I don't get paid to do it though.
Update: Corrected the spelling mistake in Mr. Piatkowski's name (at least I got it right the first time). There is nothing better than ego-surfing.
