I read the news today, oh boy

I wake this morning to a sensation I've almost never felt: giving the National Post more credence than the Toronto Star. via, two rather interesting articles:

Ignatieff rubs some Liberals the wrong way

The shocking revelation is that Ignatieff is losing the popularity contest to Bob Rae. What to say here except, gee, who could have thought that a man with zero previous serious political experience would be pushed aside by a more experienced pro? It's almost as if broadcasting your contempt for the current leader, month after month, might make you some enemies in the party...

Meanwhile, James Travers gets the "overreaching hypothesis award" of the day: after discussing the regressive nature of a carbon tax, he writes

Dion occupies the flip side of the history and politics equation. Whatever his motives, he deserves full marks for identifying the threat and challenging the conventional wisdom that it's suicidal to engage voters in a serious campaign debate.

But he also gets failing grades for misunderstanding the Liberal situation.

Canadians will be skeptical about Liberal big-government solutions until he and his party exorcise their big-program ghosts.

Uh, really? The implication seems to be that the Liberals lost the last two campaigns because of big-spending government programs, when every possible shred of evidence indicates they in fact lost because of (mostly unfounded) suspicions about Liberal criminality. Given that the Conservatives in 2006 ran on reduced waiting times (in plain english, more health care spending) and a child care tax credit (yet more big spending) it's diffifult to argue, I think, that they won because of government restrain. What they won on, if anything other than Liberal malaise, was a more appealing form of big government, not less of it.

But then, you'd have to read something other than Jim Travers to know that.