The progressive way to stop Harper

While some commentators have gone out of their way to assume that legitimate concerns about Stephen Harper should be equated with endorsements of the Liberals. But the significant critics of Harper at worst never endorsed the Libs over the NDP, and at best have plainly shown their preference for the NDP. And the record is being set straight just in time for the election.

Maude Barlow took the time to correct the misconception herself:

Hebert, like several other media observers, has interpreted the message coming from these groups, which included my own, as a call to vote Liberal. This is entirely inaccurate...

I have spent much of the last twelve years as a vocal critic of Liberal policies. Most of us were cognizant of the important role played by the NDP in the last Parliament in holding the Liberal Party to a more progressive policy agenda and are clear that a return of an even greater number of NDP and other progressive forces to the House of Commons is vital.

For others, let's take a look at their other words surrounding the campaign.

David Miller, mentioned by name by PMPM as someone who supposedly advocated voting Liberal, has endorsed NDP candidate Peggy Nash:

"We don't need another Liberal with no voice. Peggy is our city-builder. We need Peggy Nash to be Toronto's champion in Ottawa."

So what about other members of the Think Twice coalition besides Barlow? The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada for one prefers the NDP's platform to the Liberals'. Housing advocate Cathy Crowe has endorsed NDP candidate Michael Shapcott. Needless to say, these aren't voices which could reasonably be interpreted to prefer the Libs to the NDP.

There's no doubt that a lot of Canadians want to limit Harper's power as best possible, and I'll gladly count myself among them. But that doesn't answer the question of how best to stop him - and it's being made clear now that virtually nobody besides PMPM himself would rather see the Libs hold than role than the NDP.