"Reckless" Red Tory

So here I am, surfing through the blogosphere on a hot, humid Saturday afternoon (I know I should be at the beach, but I don't do beaches...at least not in Toronto). It seems the opinions are almost unanimous: Bob Rae is right on target on the softwood lumber issue (a BCer in Toronto has a good analysis here, although I disagree with him on one point. I think the softwood vote should be a matter of confidence.)

I say "almost unanimous," because this guy takes a different view. Diversity of perspective being a highlight of our great party, I'd be hard pressed to criticize him. But his argument is so ridiculous I need to respond.

He starts off by saying the deal is "terrible and it most certainly sets a horrible precedent in terms of free trade and our economic relationship with the U.S." OK, no disagreement there. In fact, based on that statement alone, I'd say the issue is clear: Agreement unacceptable. But Red Tory doesn't think so. He thinks we have to accept the agreement because we're "the party of pragmatism and compromise."

He then argues for an "intelligent discussion" on how NAFTA failed in this case, and suggests that some "toothless, beribboned panel or commission" be established to address the issue. After all, Red Tory feels "completely screwed over and betrayed" by the deal, and wants to put his mind at ease.

Let me get this straight. The agreement is terrible. It sets a horrible precedent. Red Tory feels screwed over and betrayed (as do most Canadians, I would imagine). But we've got to accept being screwed terribly and horribly because we're a pragmatic and compromising party. Fear not, though, because we'll be calling for a toothless panel to discuss the issue. That'll get the job done.

So there you have it. Terrible. Horrible. Screwing over and betraying Canadians. Toothless. That's Red Tory's vision for a pragmatic Liberal Party.

And Bob Rae is reckless for saying no to this vision. Right.