The word according to Chantal

I remember Harper's run at the Alliance leadership. He ran as a social moderate in contrast to his rival, Stockwell Day. Everybody seems to have forgotten this. The man is not stupid. If he gets a minority, he'll hold his same-sex vote knowing full well that he will lose it. It's just to appease his base. And he's not going to do much more than that with social issues. Why? Because he needs to translate his minority into a majority, and that requires Quebec, and more Ontario seats.

I'm not afraid of Harper's so-called social agenda, and that's why I see Martin's increasingly hysterical rants as just that, hysterical. Unfortunately, many left-leaning voters have bought this argument, and will likely flock to the Liberals out of fear of the Conservatives, leaving the poor NDP to dangle in the wind. I have little patience for people who vote out of fear, for people who vote against a candidate. Especially when they don't critically think about what their candidate or party really stands for.

Few in the media have bothered to point out the glaring inconsistencies between what the Liberals profess to stand for, and actually believe in, when it comes to social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. In particular, I refer to the 'gang' of Scarborough social conservatives that run as Liberals.

Chantal Hebert's article in today's Star brings this point out in force, and it's about time. And while I feel she went easy on Martin in the 2004 election, she has pulled no punches since. She concludes her article with this final dismissal of the Martin Liberals:

"This is the week when columnists have to decide where they want to be on election night to be on hand for the post-victory news conference of the winner. Until further notice, I am headed for Calgary."

Chantal, take me with you.