Joe Clark a traitor? Not really, Methinks

What is the difference between a red Tory and a Liberal? The Liberals get elected. Why would anyone bother voting for a party led by a weak-kneed, small-L guy like Joe Clark, when you could get the full monty with the Liberals--plus the ever-grateful Quebecois vote? Considering most of Clark's Red Tory rump, and their appeasement of the bilingual and immigration/refugee lobby, I am only surprised he didn't suggest that Layton was less "dangerous" than Harper. It might be unkind, but wasn't Joe's timing of his radical shift in political allegiance a bit suspect? After all it did come on the heels of Mulroney's endorsement of Stephen Harper, and we know the hard feelings that exist between those two. Also worth considering was Clark's own attempt to merge the Canadian Alliance with his PCs. That turned out to be a short term success, with all but one CA member going back to the fold. I guess if Joe Who could have been the big chief of this merry fusion, it wouldn't have sailed into "dangerous" territory. But, of course, now he can accurately prophesy that under Harper a "hidden agenda" lurks. An agenda of racial intolerance, (a.k.a. intelligent immigration/refugee control), toadying to the Yanks, and undermining that sacred cow--bilingualism--will soon materialize. Already they are dyeing their KKK garments a governmental blue in anticipation of a sinister power grab. Oh, if Joe had only been around to have stopped Hitler in the 30's.

None of Clark's prognostications has any validity to them. With the exception of similar hide-bound Red Tories, who join him in a far crevice of the Commons, the real conservatives have realistically joined together to defeat this impossibly corrupt and ineffective Liberal government, I have always thought that Joe was a petty little man and his pronouncement this weekend has cemented that opinion.

© Bud