"Yo, Spector...meet me in the parking lot at 12:05...

So last Friday, my Citizen column suggests that Paul Martin’s blind loyalty may get him in trouble – that his inner circle has proven less than well-suited to running a government, and that he needs to make some changes to it if he hopes to get the Liberals back on track. I also argue – and admittedly, I may not be the first to do so - that Jean Lapierre is a disaster and needs to be replaced as Quebec lieutenant ASAP.

Norman Spector disagrees. On his much-appreciated scan through the daily papers, which I really do enjoy, he writes: “Adam Radwanski, a young man with no PMO experience, thinks Paul Martin’s people are too inexperienced to advise a prime minister; in my experience, that's not the problem. He seems not to be tuned into Québec either--not being able to find a single person who thinks it’s a good idea to have Jean Lapierre as political lieutenant for that province.”(Actually, he writes something a bit harsher initially. But he graciously softens it after I point out a couple of inaccuracies.)

Then yesterday, Norman appears on the Globe and Mail’s op-ed page – opposite an editorial that makes exactly the same points I did. And what does he have to say on his site? Only that “(the Globe’s) editorial board has some tough advice for Paul Martin, its choice for Prime Minister.”

Now, I’m not suggesting for a second that Mr. Spector won’t criticize anyone he writes for. My impression, from regularly visiting his site, is that he will. But perhaps a friendly reminder to focus on the quality of the argument, rather than who makes it, is nevertheless in order.