Shill games

Larry Zolf is determined to try to put the NDP/Lib swing vote firmly in Martin's camp - and he won't let facts, logic or the plain meaning of words get in the way:

The right–wing Tories, with their inherent distrust of the state – and the welfare state in particular – are described by Layton as simply wrong. Layton does add that Harper will dismantle the federal government and give Bloc Québécois Leader Giles Duceppe everything he wants. Still, while Tory ideas are bad, the Conservatives, says Layton, are definitely not corrupt.

The NDP thus sees great value in distinguishing itself from the Liberals while failing to really lay a glove on the Tories.

On the facts, a quick search of the transcript reveals no instances of "definitely not corrupt". But you will find statements like this from Layton on Harper:

I notice Mr. Harper chose to mention lobbyists in his remark and we certainly know the Liberal Party has very close relationships with lobbyists, but I think Mr. Harper, what you're saying would be a lot more credible if your war room and your campaign weren't filled with corporate lobbyists as they are.

Sounds like a strong endorsement of Harper's ethics to me. How about one more for good measure?

When we hear Mr. Harper talk about the gas tax transfer, he voted against that very budget and also against his very own measure now that he talks about in terms of a tax credit. So he's just playing games.

Again, not one that Harper's likely to be cite as a character reference. And if there was any part of the debate where Layton said anything to the effect that Harper wasn't corrupt, I didn't notice it either within the debate or in reviewing the transcript.

But let's leave that aside, and note that even if Zolf were right about Layton not attacking Harper on corruption, he still seems to blissfully ignore all Layton attacks on Harper just a paragraph after listing them. Does Zolf consider "simply wrong" to be a compliment? Is it a positive message toward the Cons to say that Harper plans to "dismantle the federal government" and "give Bloc Québécois Leader Giles (sic) Duceppe everything he wants"?

And if not, then how can Zolf even pretend that Layton "(failed) to really lay a glove on the Tories"?

The only apparent conclusion is that Zolf thinks that the only legitimate attack on Harper is whatever line Martin sees fit to push at a given time. Presumably, nothing short of Layton imploring voters to support Martin in an effort to stop big bad Stevie would have satisfied Zolf's expectation for a proper attack on the Cons.

Fortunately, Layton proved in the debate that he'll take on all comers - challenging Harper on his ideology, Martin on his untrustworthiness, and Duceppe on his desire to break up Canada. And if that's not good enough for Larry Zolf, he can feel free to keep cheerleading for Martin long after PMPM has been deposed.