Politics from North of the 49th Parallel
Published on June 23, 2004 By IanGillespie In Politics

Tuesday, June 15th, Leaders' Debate:

Jack Layton: "I've got to take issue with a claim you're making, that there's only two parties in this country that are going to have the possibility of governing. What kind of arrogance gives you that kind of proposition?..."

Paul Martin: "Well, I think I'll accept that criticism, Mr. Layton."

Tuesda, June 22nd, British Columbia:

Paul Martin: "There are two parties that could form the next government. If you are thinking of voting NDP, I ask you to think about the implications of your vote. In a race as close as this, you may well help Stephen Harper become prime minister."

The man can't even stick to his own word for seven whole days. Good grief.


Comments
on Jun 23, 2004
He accepts the criticism, ie that he's arrogant, not that he's wrong. Those are two completely different things. There's no lie in what he says.
on Jun 23, 2004
I wonder what the closest 3-way races are right now...
on Jun 23, 2004
Martin "[accepting] the criticism" in question implies that he agrees that it is inappropriate to make such a comment.

But then Martin turned around, repeating the exact same comment.

Clearly he didn't "accept the criticism", he just claimed that he had.
on Jun 23, 2004
Arrogant does not mean inappropriate.

on Jun 24, 2004
They are not synonyms, but one clearly implies the other.

You can't "accept" criticism for making a comment, and then repeat the comment. I so, you have not accept the criticism.
on Jul 02, 2004
You are ignoring the fact that his comment was true. How is it arrogance to state the obvious??
Meta
Views
» 829
Comments
» 6
Category
Sponsored Links