Same old same old

It seems so long ago that the Lib leadership race was supposed to put the sponsorship scandal, the income-trust investigation, and the rest of the party's "anything goes as long as you don't get caught" philosophy in the rear-view mirror. Now that there's power at stake in the midst of the race, however, that desire for change seems long forgotten, as epitomized by a prominent Ignatieff blog supporter's reaction to allegations of wrongdoing by Iggy's campaign.

First, take a look at the Libs' actual press release:

The Liberal Party of Canada, in conjunction with its Ontario wing, has reviewed a complaint received by a Mr. George Kunz regarding memberships and the leadership campaign of Mr. Michael Ignatieff.

The Party notes that the complainant made allegations immediately after the prescribed membership challenge period under section 9.3 of the Rules of Procedure had ended. Repeated efforts to contact the complainant were unsuccessful.

The Party has determined that there is no basis for a formal complaint and this matter is now closed.

It's hard to see how the release could be more clear in establishing that the party saw itself as lacking jurisdiction to deal with the complaint based on when it was filed. There's room for debate whether or not that's a fair justification for not investigating wrongdoing (and indeed the need for some finality may well make deadlines understandable). But there's certainly no doubt that the decision was based on a "formal complaint" process, and avoided the merits of the case entirely.

But for Ted, that distinction is completely lost:

Dirty old style politics failed to win another one yesterday, as the Liberal Party saw right through the fraudulent smear tactics and gave Ignatieff a 100% clearing.

In other words, Ted takes the fact that the rules don't allow Ignatieff's actions to be investigated as the equivalent of saying that the matter has been thoroughly investigated such as to prove Ignatieff's innocence. And just for good measure, he also seems to honestly believe that the accuser must have been engaged in "fraudulent smear tactics" in suggesting any problem could have existed - rather than, say, having honestly not known that Ignatieff's conduct would be immune from review past the prescribed challenge period.

Needless to say, that type of attitude only seems likely to discourage any efforts at whistle-blowing or legitimate investigation - whether within the party itself, or within the government were the Libs to return to power. And if any substantial portion of the Libs really believes that a possible problem hidden past the time when it can be investigated is the same as no problem at all, then there's all the more reason not to give them another chance to make those kinds of judgments where Canada's government is concerned.