and, listen, i just want to be clear, if i haven't been: i didn't follow this guy in groupthink. i was critical, even as i endorsed him. but, i'm a small-l liberal. so, i'm not going to follow the garden path that the tory media has set out for me, or parrot the reactionaries at all.

i've already laid out my lines of criticism. i think i've been clear enough. i wish the ndp was a little closer to what i'm saying, but a lot of the issues that have come up are longstanding concerns that even partially underscore my apprehension about voting ndp (like pr...). if the narrative was about health care, i'd no doubt be following party lines a lot more closely. but, i've always leaned liberal on broad governance concerns. i don't want to abolish the senate or repeal the clarity act, either. the ndp has held to a number of these positions for a very long time that are not radical, but just foolish.

it would be easier if i had a party to identify with, but i have no problem blazing a path through the wilderness, either.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-trudeau-approval-history-1.3950007