We said now, but we meant later

Is the Globe off its meds? Seriously, the mood swings are getting positively dizzying. Wednesday's Globe:

Paul Martin's Liberal government has lost the confidence of the House of Commons. The Liberals may dance on the head of a pin to deny that fact. They may, as constitutional experts say they can, argue that yesterday's procedural motion was not a vote of no-confidence. But the inescapable reality is that a majority of voting MPs in the Commons have served notice that they have no confidence in the sitting government and wish an election... The Liberals may try to construct an artificial universe in which it's business as usual... But with each moment they linger, they will expose themselves as so desperate to hang onto power that they spit in the face of the Commons and call it respect... The political reality is that this Commons is dead. The only honest course is for the Liberals to recognize that fact, and to take the high road. The high road is for the government to adopt one of three courses: to call an election now, after last night's defeat; to bring forward its own no-confidence motion; or to put its budget-implementation bill to a quick vote... Give the House an immediate chance to vote confidence or no-confidence in the government.

Friday's Globe:

Consider yesterday's outlandish decision by the Conservatives and the Bloc to shut down the Commons and boycott most of its committees. Yes, the Liberals had said they would not treat Tuesday night's defeat of an opposition motion as a no-confidence vote, but constitutional experts had made it clear that the Liberals were on solid ground. And yes, in setting a confidence vote for next Thursday, Mr. Martin is angling for political advantage by making it a vote on the budget, calculating that voters might resent the Conservatives and the Bloc for deliberately killing a money bill that promised so much to so many. But for Mr. Harper and Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe to say the government has lost all legitimacy, and to refuse to let Parliament function, is so wildly disproportionate a response as to make Mr. Martin seem the soul of reason in contrast.

This Commons is dead, but that doesn't mean it can't function. Every moment they linger, they spit in the face of the Commons. But to say they have lost all legitimacy is a wildly disproportionate response. Do they even read their own editorials?