Quote:
Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo
That's certainly a valid observation (as supported by the rest of your post).
My point goes a little more towards credibility though. In all these years, I've never doubted Duceppe's goal to tear Canada in half, or Layton's commitment to a hippy, utopian paradise). I've never questioned whether there's alternative motives in play, or if they're lining their pockets with my cash, etc, etc. They don't bounce around on issues (even when unpopular) and seem to be very consistent in their approach to representation.
They both know (without a doubt) that they have ZERO chance of ever forming government, yet they continue to press on. Oddly enough, I think that this willingness to lose (because of a commitment to their ideals) shows them to be better leaders.....I sincerely believe that they're in it for what they believe in, not for the necessarily for the glory of being PM.
My knock on them is WHAT they're representing, but I'm continually impressed by the way they go about representing it. Crap, if one of them magically turned into a Federalist that is (truly) socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they'd be virtually unbeatable.
|
What makes you think their willingness to lose is because of their ideals, and not because of their desire to continue getting a relatively fat paycheck (and very sweet pension) while doing relatively little actual work? Nobody expects anything of them - in fact everyone expects they'll continue to lose election after election and that in between every election they'll oppose everything while providing zero in the way of alternatives with actual implementation plans.