Unlike you, James, I am aware of the history of the Liberal Party and of their policies past and present. While you choose to cherry-pick issues that erroneously think demonstrate your point of view.
Let's have a look at those issues though.
By forming an alliance with the NDP during the Gomergy Scand..er I mean inquiry on eliminating tax cuts from corporations?
That's the way minority governments work. The Liberals first tried to appease the Conservatives by introducing a budget that Stephen Harper said, "could be a Conservative budget." Harper was, in fact, so happy with the original Liberal budget that he rushed out into the hall to gush about it before the House had risen for the day.
By allowing gay marriage?
The Liberals really had no choice in this. The Supreme Court had found that denying same sex marriage was against the constitution of Canada. Martin was not leader when the court recognised the rights of individuals to marry partners of the same sex.
By openly supporting abortion?
Abortion is another right that was won in court. A woman's right to choose is also supported by the majority of Canadians. It's important to note that Martin was not leader when this issue was settled.
By having a useless gun registry that has wasted billions of tax dollars?
As opposed to effective gun control that would outlaw handguns completely and spend those billions keeping American guns out of our country. Again, not a Martin initiative though.
By not supporting capital punishment?
Once again not a Martin initiative. You are suggesting that Martin is left-wing because he adheres to a law passed before he was in politics. Not only that, but the United States is the only developed nation that carries out state-sanctioned murder. It isn't a left-right issue, it's one of civilised behaviour.
Rev, maybe I'm missing something here, but it appears to me the Liberal party of Canada is as far left as you can get.
That's because your understanding of politics is limited to parrotting the crap that spews from Bill O'Reilly's mouth.
You have no understanding of politics, James. You don't have a grasp of the issues or the stances that the parties have taken. You don't have a clue as to the history behind those policies or the reality of what those policies mean to people. You have no clue as to the tenets of democracy, the importance of rights, the court's role in upholding rights, the role science should (and sometimes does) play in establishing policy, or the near-oligarchy that the right (including the Liberal Party) have formed to support corporatism.
I suggest that you look into taking some political science courses that do not centre on the futherance of severely flawed Straussian theory and actually learn what the hell you are talking about before try to have discussions with intelligent people.
