On fast reactions

My post yesterday afternoon as to what Michael Ignatieff's entreaty to Brian Mulroney might say about his future plans has evidently struck a raw nerve with at least one top Lib blogger (while finding support elsewhere). But Impolitical's response seems to raise more questions than it answers.

First, there's the focus on who it was that reported Michael Ignatieff's unprompted call to Brian Mulroney, rather than the substance of the call.

Of course, it's fair enough if Bob Fife isn't exactly the Libs' favourite figure in the media. But that doesn't mean there's any apparent reason to think he'd go so far as to outright manufacture a story along the lines of Ignatieff's call to Mulroney. And absent some serious reason to doubt the integrity of the underlying story, an attempt to focus on who's doing the reporting rather than what's being reported seems like a sure signal that the latter isn't helpful to one's cause.

Second, Impolitical points to the previous agreement of the opposition parties of the need for a broad inquiry into Mulroney/Schreiber as evidence that the call to Mulroney should be ignored. But it's hard to see how an agreement which dates back to April 2008 and a previous Lib leader offers any response to the concern that Ignatieff has moved his party to the right, particularly when Ignatieff has obviously been eager to tear up what was once the most obvious example of opposition cooperation. Indeed, if anything the contrast between the stronger position under Dion and total silence under Ignatieff only amplifies the concern that Ignatieff is comparatively willing to overlook the problems surrounding Mulroney.