There's normal stupid, and there's Sandy Crux-level stupid.

The Blogging Tories official stenographer and Stephen Harper cheerleader is outraged:

Taxpayers paying Tory tab — what poppycock!

The anti-conservative bias in the Canadian media over the last few days seems to be just plain petty, if not downright misleading. For example, Kevin Donovan suggests in today’s Toronto Star that Canadian taxpayers are picking up Tory ministerial expenses so that the party can raise money. If that were true I would be all over the government’s case as well because I too expect accountability. But, to suggest that it is always wrong when federal members of parliament — no matter which political party they represent — combine public duties with party duties, is clearly over the top.

But Sandy, dearie, sweetie, you ignorant twatwaffle -- that's not the accusation here. Let's read what is actually being suggested, so no one is hornswoggled by Sandy's depressing combination of stupidity and dishonesty (emphasis added):

Democracy Watch co-ordinator Duff Conacher wants the government to clean up its act.

"It's a privilege to travel the on taxpayers' dime, not a right. The (political) party should be paying for part of these trips," said Conacher, whose group seeks greater honesty and accountability from government. "They also should be required to prove that proper government business was the reason for the trip and the auditor general should audit this every year."

See that "part of" phrase up there, Sandy? No, really, take a good look so you know what I'm talking about here. No one is suggesting that the Cons (and how that abbreviation is becoming more appropriate by the day) never, ever, ever combine the peoples' and party business. That would be an immensely idiotic thing to propose, and no one is proposing it.

What is being proposed is that if there is such a combination, the Party simply pick up the tab for whatever portion is related to Party business, nothing more. How hard is that to understand, Sandy? No, seriously ... how exactly did you not grok the significance of that "part of" qualifier? But does Sandy understand the idea of partial reimbursement based on what percentage of the trip relates to Party matters? Fuck, no:

What exactly is the Star suggesting? That when any federal parliamentarian travels anywhere in Canada on business he or she can’t do anything else why he or she is there?

No, Sandy, that is quite clearly not what the Star is suggesting, so please stop being such a shrieking, hysterical dipshit. Just for a change. Who knows ... not being a perpetual imbecile might actually grow on you.

Oh, crap ... who am I kidding? This is Sandy we're talking about.