I have no regrets having supported martin. He was a good finance minister who, with the help of a willing prime minister, had transformed the finances of the country from banana republic-like to the first world. He paid his dues to the party, having done countless fundraisers. For a man of immeasurable wealth (for you and I, certainly), his commitment was total. His people were a little zealous, as it turns out - maybe more than a little zealous. Which is unfortunate.

Was he a bad PM? Arguably, yes. Is the federal party about to face a wrenching period of either growth or eventual demise? Absolutely.

However, as unfocused as the campaign and government may have been, look at some of what we stood for: government sponsored child care, same sex marriage, Kyoto, supporting an urban agenda.

Sure, much of what we governed on and campaigned on was as a consequence of being pushed to the wall. But it is heartening to know that as a liberal and as a Liberal, the party's default position aligns with my view of the world. Even martin's position on notwithstanding was incredible. Considering where he started, to feel compelled to embrace the Trudeau orthodoxy when the party was facing the possibility of coming in third is instructive, I think, on some of our core beliefs.

Reading your article is entertaining, having first hand knowledge of some your trials and tribulations. Looking back, it has been a sad period in party politics, but not so bad where public policy is concerned.

Maybe the notion that a party is the vessel of ideas upon which future government action springs is antiquated. It's unfortunate. I remember attending the party's national biennial convention in Winnipeg in 1980 after our victory. If you can imagine, we actually produced a full book of policy developed at the riding level. Just imagine.