John Reynolds, National Co-Chair of the Conservative re-election campaign, made several curious comments as it relates to the mission in Afghanistan, which reveals a great deal about Conservative strategy. Reynolds echoed the Conservative tactic of blasting the Liberal plan to end the Afghanistan deployment. Irresponsible, embolden the enemy, support the troops, international obligation, blah, blah, blah. However, Reynolds then found the need to defend the NDP position of immediate pullout as "principled". Reynolds disagrees, but he respects the purity of the NDP position.
The fact that this deliberate attempt to differentiate comes from the re-election Co-Chair is telling. What Reynolds said is patently absurd, and I'm surprised the Tories continually get away with the overt distinctions. From the Conservative perspective, how can you characterize abandoning NATO, the Afghan people, the fight against terror and our moral responsibility as "principled"? If the Liberals are "reckless", then Reynolds must view the NDP as "dangerous".
The only way to reconcile the logical contradictions is to accept the premise that the Tories have made it a priority to prop up the NDP. Keep the supposed left divided, make the Liberals the villians and hope soft support might leak the NDP's way, which lends itself to the grand scheme of capitalizing on fractured ridings. People like Reynolds don't respect the NDP, or their positions, they simply see the NDP as a convenient pawn that furthers the end game.