I’m a little surprised as I read around the blogsphere to find that many Blogging Tories who are giving Liberal MP Keith Martin his due praise haven’t been making mention of his past history and drawing up some obvious questions that his new landmark human rights legislation are putting in my head. Namely, is it time for Keith Martin to come back to his natural party?
Martin, you see, is the lesser known defector to the Liberal Party in December, 2003 after the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties ratified a merger agreement, the other being former every-party leadership contender and cabinet minister Scott Brison. I think a lot of history’s forgetfulness of Martin stems from the fact that Brison hailed from the PC Party (and was therefore considered “moderate), which Martin came from the Alliance benches. In fact, I’m still puzzled as to why Martin joined the Liberals to this day since, unlike Brison, he was never offered a cabinet position in Paul Martin’s government and has largely faded into the woodwork of a caucus that supports initiatives that Keith Martin, the dark horse Canadian Alliance leadership candidate of 2000 would be cringing over.
News that Stephane Dion’s office will now ask Martin to withdraw his human rights motion for fear of upsetting the ever-restless Liberal base might trigger Martin to examine whether he should be sticking it out with the Liberal caucus or not. Again, I’m not sure what led an MP to leave a then-leaderless party but it appears that Martin’s attitudes haven’t chanced that much from when he was a CA MP and hence, he’d find more friends in the government caucus these days than he would among his current colleagues.
Paul wrote:
Like many I support Mr. Martin on this issue. Good ideas should be supported regardless of the source.
However, I think if Mr. Martin wants to leave the Liberal party over this issue his best choice would be to sit as an independent.
If his constituency is happy with his work they will re-elect him.
If not, that’s politics.
Personally, I think he is just another opportunist that happened to get one important issue right.
“Even a blind dog pisses on the odd fire hydrant.”
Posted on 02-Feb-08 at 11:58 am | Permalink
Cool Blue wrote:
I think there wasn’t much attention paid to his crossing the floor because initially he sat as an independent.
Posted on 02-Feb-08 at 12:16 pm | Permalink
Joe wrote:
I hope he stays liberal as it serves two purposes. It makes the Libs look bad to their more left leaning base and it keeps the stereotype from the Conservatives. Already the whisper campain is out with the “he’s really not a liberal you know he started out as a Reformer”.
Posted on 02-Feb-08 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
John W wrote:
I don’t see why this HRC issue is , or should be, linked to any party affiliation.
The fact that it had aroused opinion more on one side of the blog-o-sphere than the other is because the root issue deals with being offended.
You can choose the right to not be offended or the right to have free speech. You cannot have both.
Posted on 02-Feb-08 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
Steve wrote:
Good question. I’ve yet to email Martin to congratulate him for his bill, but asking him that question came to mind.
The most galling element for Martin about being a Liberal must be over health care policy. He had some good ideas about increasing the role of the private sector in the delivery of health care services. I bet he doesn’t talk about them now.
Even if, as a previous commentator suggested, there is no partisan link to the HRC issue, I would not be surprised to see Martin come back. Philosophically, he belongs in the CPC.
Posted on 02-Feb-08 at 6:45 pm | Permalink
civitatensis wrote:
I’m supportin’ Martin.
The Grits can keep the Hon. Garth Turner, P.C., M.P. for good.
Posted on 06-Feb-08 at 3:36 pm | Permalink