Globe explains endorsement

The editorial page editor of the Globe and Mail explains why the paper endorsed the Conservatives in an online question and answer session. [bolding mine]

Democracy doesn't mean much unless you have a change of government from time to time. If Canada were to keep re-electing the Liberals -- for a fifth time? a sixth? -- it would risk becoming a sort of one-party democracy like Mexico once was and Japan still is to an extent. The result is usually stagnation and corruption; witness the sponsorship scandal, which sprang directly from the sense of entitlement that develops when a party considers itself the only one truly fit to rule: a natural governing party.

He might have mentioned the other one-party democracy -- in the U.S. -- where Democrats consider themselves the only ones fit to rule and corruption has become the de facto standard, not the exception. The fact that he didn't shows willful disregard for the truth and very selective memory.

To some extent we all have selective memory, but the glaring omission was noteworthy.

UPDATE: On Tues, Jan 17th, the Globe and Mail released results of a poll conducted for them on Jan. 14th and 15th, that found that 55% would welcome a Conservative majority. On the face of it, it looks as if they conducted the poll at about the time of their endorsement but not before the endorsement could have affected the results. But in fact, another article in today's edition says that Strategic Counsel conducts daily polls for them so they knew how badly Martin was doing. Today's article merely marks a release of information that may not have been revealed had they not endorsed Harper. And it confirms that they endorsed Harper because they knew Martin is likely to lose.