Stand up for Libby Davies - part 4

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
Stand up for Libby Davies - part 4

Below...

Unionist
vaudree

KenS says: The NDP has at times, and may still be, reaching out to the Canadian Muslim Union. Though I would question if they are potential allies for anything except around Middle East issues.

The CMU tends to be anti-NAFTA/SPP, for gay rights and women's rights, to support the Coalition for Change and their founder ran against Bob Rae on behalf of the NDP.

Their Charter: http://www.muslimunion.ca/charter.html

Stockholm, agree that it is overestimated.

Since Libby D is House Leader, wouldn't that qualify her as a Member of the NDP - in accordance with Jack's statement?

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Hon. Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, our party has never denied and no one in our party has ever denied the right of Israel to exist. Let that stand on the record.

ME: From my reading of their Charter, I would presume that the CMU would be in support of everything in Tony Martin's Bill. Who is the NDP member for Vancouver East BTW? :evilgrin

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): moved for leave to introduce Bill C-545, An Act to Eliminate Poverty in Canada. He said: Mr. Speaker, I have been supported in this work by the members for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour and Chambly-Borduas as seconders, and also the members for Toronto-Danforth, Vancouver East, Winnipeg Centre and Halifax.

The purpose of this bill is to impose on the federal government the obligation to eliminate poverty and promote social inclusion by establishing and implementing a strategy for poverty elimination in consultation with the provincial, territorial, municipal and aboriginal governments and with civil society organizations.

This bill is an opportunity for real nation building where no one gets left behind, to build healthy communities and strong economies by taking advantage of the momentum created by the work being done at the human resources and social development standing committee and by the Dignity for All campaign.

 

 

KenS

Unionist wrote:

So, the NDP's support for Israel is not its fault - it's the fault of some individual MPs, and of Canadians who broadly support Israel. Leaves us with little choice, then, but to follow along. Not our fault. We'd like to do the right thing. Just can't. And if Mulcair publicly condemns and humiliates any MP who steps out of line, we can't demand that he be rebuked. Imagine how confusing that would be for the pro-Israeli Canadian public? They really wouldn't know what to think of us.

The irony is that none of this shameless pandering will ever stop our enemies from seizing on anything, or nothing at all, to call the NDP anti-semitic, pro-Hamas, pro-jihad, pro-Taliban, you name it. The shame is in adjusting one's policies in fear of those smears.

 

What purpose is served by twisting things U? Leaving aside the twisting, whats the point? Whats the goal?

I didnt say that the NDP's stand is "not its fault". What a crock to tag me with that. The whole point was about taking issue with your usual gross overstatement that the NDP looks for allies in the likes of CJC and Simon Wiesenthal Centre. That calling it pandering is fine, but what pandering there is would to Candaianss in general and them not liking something as out there as what Libby blundered into. How many times in how many threads have you yourself said that for public figures to diverge from the international consensus around the pre-1967 Green Line when talking about the occupation of Palestine? Its all pandering to a lot of folks. But assuming the NDP is subject to charges of pandering around Israel, thats not enough for you, you need to go adding smears by shaking the bogeymen of the CJC and their ilk.

And like I said, I've seen you many times distance yourself from calls for Israel to leave all occupied land. The reason you do that is because of what is done with it. Whats so categorically different about Libby blundering into that and it being a problem? Because of who she is its not just an individual expressing an opinion. Her words have the same effect as an organization that would demand that Israel leave all occupied lands of Palestine.

KenS

I got my organizational acronyms mixed up. I wasn't thinking of the Candian Muslim Union when I called them a bit dodgy to be calling allies.

Unionist

I wouldn't know where to start with all that, so I won't.

KenS

Try this.

I've heard you more than once establish distance from organizations that diverge from the international consensus that the occupation refers to lands taken from pre-1967 Green Line. Individuals discussing the injustice of the Nakbah, that the seizure of Palestinian lands, expelling and the whole nine yards, thats fine. But there is a line about what organizations demand.

When Libby Davies speaks, it doesn't matter that she says she is not speaking for the NDP, on a matter as major as saying the occupation begins in 1948, she IS in practice speaking for the NDP, unless she is decisively repudiated for doing so. Saying simply 'that isn't party policy' will not cut it. And at a minimum she has to apologize and just back off. Because if she doesn't, having stepped on that hot button, it WILL be treated as a position the NDP subscribes to.

Leaving aside the question of whether the way of doing that was too harsh, accepting that it was too harsh and can even be called another attack on her.... Libby and the NDP had to do some substantial distancing from what she blundered into saying, more than just pro forma 'not our policy'.

The fact of that need for distancing, explain to me the difference in the distancing you do with organizations that deliberately take the hot button position Libby blundered into.

Unionist

Ken, two things:

1. Have you ever heard of the right of return of displaced Palestinians? More particularly, have you ever heard me oppose it? Do you grasp that the key date there is 1948? Do you comprehend that the Oslo Accord foundered on that issue, plus the issue of Jerusalem?

2. Libby apologized. That's over. Is it not time for Layton to discipline, or fire, Mulcair for his filthy and disloyal public attack on Libby?

Awaiting your reply.

 

JKR

Unionist wrote:

Is it not time for Layton to discipline, or fire, Mulcair for his filthy and disloyal public attack on Libby?

If that were to happen, Mulcair could have a do-it-yourself merger with the Liberals and the NDP's gains in Quebec could be in jeopardy.

I think it's unfair to criticize Layton. Layton has the unenviable task of keeping his caucus together and maintaining the party's popularity.

Lets say Layton had come out and said that Libby answered the question correctly, that the Israelis have been occupiers since 1948.

What would have been the fallout from that?

Michelle

Quote:

Is it not time for Layton to discipline, or fire, Mulcair for his filthy and disloyal public attack on Libby?

An attack, by the way, that Libby is still suffering the consequences of with continued and sustained attacks from the media, from the opposition politicians, and from hordes of apartheid-supporting freaks sending abusive and hateful messages to her.

Unionist

JKR wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Is it not time for Layton to discipline, or fire, Mulcair for his filthy and disloyal public attack on Libby?

If that were to happen, Mulcair could have a do-it-yourself merger with the Liberals and the NDP's gains in Quebec could be in jeopardy.

Mulcair will likely lose next time. The NDP has never sustained any headway in Québec because of its confusion on the national question. The next election doesn't bode well.

Quote:
I think it's unfair to criticize Layton. Layton has the unenviable task of keeping his caucus together and maintaining the party's popularity.

Am I allowed to suggest what his proper choice should be in a difficult situation? Or is that "unfair"?

Quote:
Lets say Layton had come out and said that Libby answered the question correctly, that the Israelis have been occupiers since 1948.

What would have been the fallout from that?

I don't know. Who said he should do that? I say he should not get on his knees to the Israel lobby and the Israeli ambassador. I say he should tell Mulcair that he has no right to publicly attack his co-Deputy Leader. Had he done those two things, I would be content.

If you think Jack has to pander to Mulcair for fear of a Liberal "merger" and losing Québec, then why don't you consider joining the Liberal party? You know the expression - if you can't beat them...

JKR

Unionist wrote:

Have you ever heard of the right of return of displaced Palestinians? More particularly, have you ever heard me oppose it? Do you grasp that the key date there is 1948? Do you comprehend that the Oslo Accord foundered on that issue, plus the issue of Jerusalem?

When has the NDP opposed (or supported) the right of return? Why is it even the NDP's responsibility to take on this issue? The NDP is the 4th domestic party in Canada's Parliament. They're not in a position to arbitrate on the right of return. That's for Palestinians, Israelis and the UN to deal with.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Doesn't it look a little bit like Muclair is cozying up to Liberal interests in an attempt to ease the way for his shift from the NDP to the Liberals? In that light this move makes a lot of sense, since he might very well be able to keep his seat this way.

As opposed to coalition, perhaps the Liberals are angling for mass defection of the right wing of the NDP?

Stockholm

If there is a mass defection it will be of Liberals to the NDP. Mulcair is actually turned out to be a very partisan New Democrat and tends to be the lead attack dog on the Liberals and the Liberals all hate him.

Unionist

JKR wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Have you ever heard of the right of return of displaced Palestinians? More particularly, have you ever heard me oppose it? Do you grasp that the key date there is 1948? Do you comprehend that the Oslo Accord foundered on that issue, plus the issue of Jerusalem?

When has the NDP opposed (or supported) the right of return? Why is it even the NDP's responsibility to take on this issue? The NDP is the 4th domestic party in Canada's Parliament. They're not in a position to arbitrate on the right of return. That's for Palestinians, Israelis and the UN to deal with.

I was actually putting that point to Ken, who seemed to think that nothing bad happened before 1967, and he seemed to be saying that I agreed with that. What does this have to do with the NDP?

By the way, if Libby Davies says publicly, "I'm shocked that 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes and they and their descendants still can't return or be compensated" - do you think she deserves to have truckloads of shit dumped on her by Harper, Rae, and Mulcair - just because the NDP (according to you) has no position on that issue?

JKR

Unionist wrote:

Am I allowed to suggest what his proper choice should be in a difficult situation? Or is that "unfair"?

OK. What should his proper choice have been?

Unionist wrote:

If you think Jack has to pander to Mulcair for fear of a Liberal "merger" and losing Québec, then why don't you consider joining the Liberal party? You know the expression - if you can't beat them...

Why should I join the Liberals when I agree with almost all of the NDP's polices including their policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

 

Michelle

Independent Jewish Voices is still coming out swinging for Libby.  Too bad her own party isn't following their lead.

Quote:

“What’s next?”asked IJV-C spokesperson Larry Haiven. “Will Canadian politicians have to take a loyalty oath to the State of Israel in order to hold office?  The feeding frenzy is outrageous. Libby Davies is one the bravest and most honest politicians in Canada. She has done more for a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians than any other Canadian politician. ”

“We condemn all those who would pillory Ms. Davies,” said Haiven, “But we are particularly disappointed with NDP leader Jack Layton and NDP MP Thomas Mulcair. The NDP should stop this nonsense and address the underlying issues that are at the root of the continuing crisis in Israel and Palestine.”

Amen!

 

JKR

Unionist wrote:

By the way, if Libby Davies says publicly, "I'm shocked that 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes and they and their descendants still can't return or be compensated" - do you think she deserves to have truckloads of shit dumped on her by Harper, Rae, and Mulcair - just because the NDP (according to you) has no position on that issue?

That statement wouldn't have elicited controversy. 

JKR

Michelle wrote:

Independent Jewish Voices is still coming out swinging for Libby.  Too bad her own party isn't following their lead.

Maybe Libby should come out and deal with this controversy instead of Layton?

Maybe she should try to clear the air?

Unionist

JKR wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Am I allowed to suggest what his proper choice should be in a difficult situation? Or is that "unfair"?

OK. What should his proper choice have been?

Would you mind scrolling up to my post #10 and reading it? Thanks.

Quote:
Unionist wrote:

If you think Jack has to pander to Mulcair for fear of a Liberal "merger" and losing Québec, then why don't you consider joining the Liberal party? You know the expression - if you can't beat them...

Why should I join the Liberals when I agree with almost all of the NDP's polices including their policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

 

I didn't say you should join the Liberals. I indicated that you and Jack Layton should not cringe in fear at the prospect of Tom Mulcair getting upset and decided to destroy the NDP. He's a liberal, on probation. If he can't resist shitting on his co-Deputy Leader in public, and demanding she "apologize" further for talking about BDS, then he should be politely told to go fuck himself and return whence he came. If you can't tolerate your feared political fallout from such an action, then why not give up the fight and join the "winning" side? Capisce?

 

Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/15/libby-davies-israel.html#soc... on CBC.ca website[/url]

Nice to see the comments (over 1,000 as of this moment!!!) running overwhelmingly in support of Libby.

 

No Yards No Yards's picture

JKR wrote:

When has the NDP opposed (or supported) the right of return? Why is it even the NDP's responsibility to take on this issue? The NDP is the 4th domestic party in Canada's Parliament. They're not in a position to arbitrate on the right of return. That's for Palestinians, Israelis and the UN to deal with.

Yeah, but they sure as hell seem to think it's their responsibility to take a stance on Israel's right to exist, and they're in no position to arbitrate on that right either.

So it's fine as long as they stand up for Aparthied Israel, but they need to shut their mouths when it comes to taking any kind of Palistinian friendly stance?

Another fine example of NDP "principles" ... or am I to believe that you're going to get right on the letter writing campaign to get the NDP to drop their support of Israel's right to exist, to make it all fair and all, and to stay out of these nasty International issues they have no responsibility to address?

 

vaudree

I've heard a lot of opinions concerning what Mulcair said, but I haven't actually heard what he said.  Anyone have a copy of the comment.  I want to figure out whether he should be dinged for his attack on what Libby said or his attack on what he thought Libby said. 

If he attacked Libby on what he was told that she said, then he should have checked his facts first and, at least have seen the video before commenting.  If he had seen the video and still thought Libby's words deserving attack, then I recomend him being coated in syrup and rolled in icing sugar (ie not bad enough to actually tar and feather unless his comments were much worse than I imagined).

JKR

Unionist wrote:

I indicated that you and Jack Layton should not cringe in fear at the prospect of Tom Mulcair getting upset and decided to destroy the NDP. He's a liberal, on probation. If he can't resist shitting on his co-Deputy Leader in public, and demanding she "apologize" further for talking about BDS, then he should be politely told to go fuck himself and return whence he came. If you can't tolerate your feared political fallout from such an action, then why not give up the fight and join the "winning" side? Capisce?

 

Layton probably had a few words for Mulcair about his incendiary comments.

If Libby wants to publicly support BDS she should help make BDS a policy of the NDP.  As long as BDS is not a policy of the NDP, Libby, as deputy-leader is not in a position to support it. As deputy-leader, she represents the party and her fellow MP's.  The NDP's other MP's have every right to criticize her if they feel she misrepresents them.

For arguments sake, lets say Mulcair made a statement saying that the right of return no longer applies.

Should Layton just turn the other cheek or demand a retraction?

Unionist

vaudree wrote:

I've heard a lot of opinions concerning what Mulcair said, but I haven't actually heard what he said.  Anyone have a copy of the comment.  I want to figure out whether he should be dinged for his attack on what Libby said or his attack on what he thought Libby said. 

If he attacked Libby on what he was told that she said, then he should have checked his facts first and, at least have seen the video before commenting.

HE FOUND THE VIDEO, which was days old - squealed on Libby - and created the entire scandal singlehandedly:

Quote:

Thomas Mulcair, the NDP's other deputy leader, said he found the video online last week and "was very quick to point it out" to some of his colleagues to clarify the party's support of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

"No member of our caucus, whatever other title they have, is allowed to invent their own policy," said Mulcair. "We take decisions together, parties formulate policies together, and to say that you're personally in favour of boycott, divestment and sanctions for the only democracy in the Middle East is, as far as I'm concerned, grossly unacceptable." [...]

But Mulcair said Davies, who could not immediately be reached for comment, should also apologize and retract her comments supporting a boycott. He said it is particularly "egregious" since she is a deputy leader of the party.

"As much as it's difficult, if any individual member of Parliament goes off-script on any issue of policy that is well-defined by the party, it would be a problem," said Mulcair. "But that problem is of course compounded in the case of someone who putatively, with the title that she holds, would give more weight to these views that are not the views of the party."

[url=http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=26f2e617-3bf0-...

Mind you, vaudree, you may consider reading all the threads on Libby since this broke. The article and Mulcair's comments were [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/libby-davis-forced-apologize-a... the very first post on this subject[/url].

 

JKR

Unionist wrote:

HE FOUND THE VIDEO, which was days old - squealed on Libby - and created the entire scandal singlehandedly:

 

A right wing blog, called Small Dead Animals, got their hands on the video and the National Post was happy to jump on it.

The Conservative blogosphere was happy to use it for all its worth.

I think Mulcair's reaction was to preempt an attack on the NDP and to limit the damage done to the NDP. 

Whether that worked is debatable.

remind remind's picture

Kate from SDA is a Zionist and a Freedominionite and has been a part of some nasty tricks stings of people before.

 

...the whole thing with Katz claiming he did not sand bag her I do not buy because of the SDA affiliation.

 

 

 

Unionist

JKR wrote:

A right wing blog, called Small Dead Animals, got their hands on the video and the National Post was happy to jump on it.

The Conservative blogosphere was happy to use it for all its worth.

I think Mulcair's reaction was to preempt an attack on the NDP and to limit the damage done to the NDP. 

Whether that worked is debatable.

I'm not sure what you mean:

Quote:
Thomas Mulcair, the NDP's other deputy leader, said he found the video online last week and "was very quick to point it out" to some of his colleagues to clarify the party's support of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

Obviously, some Zionist lobby contact of Mulcair's pointed him to it (unless Mulcair spends lots of time surfing the web for dirt on his colleagues - could be, I guess), and he ran with it to "some of his colleagues". How exactly did he "pre-empt" an attack on the NDP? He attacked Libby Davies - plain and simple - and has never been held accountable for that.

vaudree

I think I started in the second thread.  If he started this, then he deserves to sit out in the evening in Manitoba at a house in a neibhourhood where everyone has birdbaths after the syrop treatment wearing only shorts and accompanied by a friendly dog who treats him like a giant lolly pop.  Bird baths are like maternity wards for mosquittos.

I think that Mulcair thought that Layton deserved the Dion treatment and thought that more in the party would side with him over this issue.  That we haven't heard much from Mulcair since is probably an indication that more of the MPs are on Libby's side than his - maybe not publically so much as behind the scenes.

From what I can gather of Layton, he only dinged Libby for mixing up her dates and Mulcair has been very quiet since - indicated that he was repromanded but not publicly so.  Would have liked to be a fly on the wall when Libby spoke to the Israeli ambassador - I doubt that she only mentioned the mixup in dates (ie what she was dinged for). 

The focus is on Libby - what she said or didn't say.  What about the guy who, as you say, set the whole thing in motion?  What has he been up to lately?  Does he look smug or humbled?  I just check Question Period for the week. Libby Davies got to ask many more questions than did Mulcair, which would be strange if she was the only one of the two who faced repromand. Getting to ask questions when one is limited as to their number is considered a privilege.

The apology and talk with the ambassador is usually what a person does when they are trying to rehabilitate their image - whether or not we think it needs to be rehabilitated.  Similarly, when the reporters were trying to ask Libby questions, I doubt that she really wanted to get into a discussion with them.  If Layton was throwing her to the wolves, he would have left her on her own with the reporters.

If what I think is going on is true, then Layton is saying one thing in public and quite another when his caucus is behind closed doors.

 

JKR

Unionist wrote:

How exactly did he "pre-empt" an attack on the NDP? He attacked Libby Davies - plain and simple - and has never been held accountable for that.

I think Mulcair genuinely disagrees with BDS and thus he attacked the idea that the NDP supports it.

He also probably believes that associating itself with BDS hurts the NDP's popularity.

I think Mulcair acted in good faith. His goal was to disassociate himself and the NDP from BDS, not to throw Libby under the bus. Unfortunately, in attacking the message, he probably went too far in attacking the messenger.

Unionist

JKR wrote:

Unionist wrote:

How exactly did he "pre-empt" an attack on the NDP? He attacked Libby Davies - plain and simple - and has never been held accountable for that.

I think Mulcair genuinely disagrees with BDS and thus he attacked the idea that the NDP supports it.

I don't think. I'm sure. Mulcair opposes BDS. But nowhere, never, did Libby say or hint that the NDP supports BDS. Therefore, his attack on Libby and his demand that she apologize was a deliberate lie with ulterior motives.

Quote:
He also probably believes that associating itself with BDS hurts the NDP's popularity.

Ah, well, maybe the NDP should call for Karla Homolka's head in order to win some "popularity", eh? Sorry, I just picked an exaggerated example of something that could never really happen.

Quote:
I think Mulcair acted in good faith. His goal was to disassociate himself and the NDP from BDS, not to throw Libby under the bus. Unfortunately, in attacking the message, he probably went too far in attacking the messenger.

Of course you've seen the video, so you know full well that that's not so. But the real question is: What business was it of Mulcair's to act like the little cop on this issue? Why not Layton? Why not talk to Libby herself and ask if she would clarify that BDS was not the NDP's issue? You really have to look at the facts and deal with them. Why did Mulcair say one single solitary thing about this issue?

JKR

Unionist wrote:

Of course you've seen the video, so you know full well that that's not so. But the real question is: What business was it of Mulcair's to act like the little cop on this issue? Why not Layton? Why not talk to Libby herself and ask if she would clarify that BDS was not the NDP's issue? You really have to look at the facts and deal with them. Why did Mulcair say one single solitary thing about this issue?

You're right. The strictly moral thing to do would have been to go to Libby and Layton and come to some kind of mutual understanding. He should have accepted Layton's verdict and he should have let Libby and Layton deal with it. He should have minded his own business even to the detriment of his own political career.

But he was not about to let this video hurt his political career. Especially since he personally disagrees with BDS. To protect his political career in a riding that would not take kindly to BDS he probably felt he had to take an openly aggressive stand. So he came out very strongly to protect his political career. That was not the moral thing to do but it's very human. I'm not sure how many MP's in his position would have done otherwise.

This video had the potential to hurt the reelection chances of for some NDP MP's. Not every NDP MP is fortunate enough to have a safe riding like Libby. I'm sure Libby is totally aware of this and regrets what she said on the video. That's probably one of the reasons she apologized.

Layton seems to have gone along with this. He understands both Libby's and Mulcair's position. And as leader he has to play the difficult role of Solomon.

Unionist

JKR wrote:
To protect his political career in a riding that would not take kindly to BDS he probably felt he had to take an openly aggressive stand.

Ok. I live in this riding, and your comment is entirely baseless. You obviously know nothing about this riding. Come take a walk around with me sometime and you'll understand. This isn't Hampstead or Westmount or Côte-St-Luc.

If Mulcair had highlighted, or even talked about, his pro-Isreal leanings during the general and byelection, he might never have won. Instead, he wisely said nothing about it, emphasizing instead: immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan; the environment and Kyoto (yeah, you won't find many in the party that recall that word...); the need for respect and harmony among the many cultural groups in the riding (which, besides being heavily immigrant, also contains the poorest streets in Montreal, besides some of the wealthiest); and very hard-hitting anti-Harper stuff. His campaign was a masterpiece, and I was frankly proud to participate actively in it.

No, this isn't about votes. This is about Mulcair, his inner-party ambitions, his extra-mural connections, and other stuff I'm sure I don't fully understand.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

I've been thinking lately about truth. Truth and politics.

The problem with politics is that it is allergic to truth. Why can't we speak openly and honestly about Israel? Because we will lose votes. Why can't we speak openly and honestly about the threat posed by climate change and the urgent need for human behavioural and lifestyle changes? That's political suicide. Why can't we speak openly and honestly about fossil fuels, the limits to growth, and developing a human centred, as opposed to a consumption centred, economy? That's nuts! We'll be run out of the country. Why can't we speak openly and honestly about how the things upon which we truly depend, education, health, and security, are supported by taxes, just taxes, and only taxes? Truly fucking nuts now. And why can't we speak openly and honestly about how relationships founded on the excercise of physical power, by a partner, the police, or the military, is inherently a relationship founded on violence and fear? Because we will be decimitaed at the polls.

If politics can never be about truth because the truth is always harmful to politics, then politics must always be about power at the expense of truth.

So what's the point?

JKR

Unionist wrote:

Ok. I live in this riding, and your comment is entirely baseless. You obviously know nothing about this riding. Come take a walk around with me sometime and you'll understand. This isn't Hampstead or Westmount or Côte-St-Luc.

Sounds like it would be nice. I haven't been in Montreal for 3 decades.

I live in Libby's riding. I've voted for her 5 times. She's almost a saint here going back to her days with Bruce Eriksen. When she was on Vancouver City Council I voted for her something like 4 or 5 times. She's done so much for this riding. People here have also shown a lot of loyalty to her.

Unionist wrote:

No, this isn't about votes. This is about Mulcair, his inner-party ambitions, his extra-mural connections, and other stuff I'm sure I don't fully understand.

Whenever I've seen him speak, I've been impressed with him politically and as a person. He seems to have a lot of integrity.

Unionist

JKR wrote:

 

Unionist wrote:

No, this isn't about votes. This is about Mulcair, his inner-party ambitions, his extra-mural connections, and other stuff I'm sure I don't fully understand.

Whenever I've seen him speak, I've been impressed with him politically and as a person. He seems to have a lot of integrity.

Yes, JKR, me too. That's why I ignored his pro-Israel opinions and worked for him, voted for him, even in the face of my union's call to vote Bloc. And that's why I have supported him rather vocally on this board for 3 years. Until now. What he did, attacking Libby and ratting her out, was unforgiveable - unless he retracts, of course, but he will obviously never do that unless he's told to. I will not vote for him again. If the NDP puts forward another Mulcair without that sin, I may well continue to vote NDP. But I guarantee that this move will lose him far more votes than it gains.

 

Ripple

JKR wrote:

But he was not about to let this video hurt his political career. Especially since he personally disagrees with BDS. To protect his political career in a riding that would not take kindly to BDS he probably felt he had to take an openly aggressive stand. So he came out very strongly to protect his political career. That was not the moral thing to do but it's very human. I'm not sure how many MP's in his position would have done otherwise.

This video had the potential to hurt the reelection chances of for some NDP MP's. Not every NDP MP is fortunate enough to have a safe riding like Libby.

 

Actually, I think the person who stands with the marginalized and dispossessed is very human.  Do you think it is just luck, Libby's good fortune, that her riding is safe?

JKR

Frustrated Mess wrote:

I've been thinking lately about truth. Truth and politics.

The problem with politics is that it is allergic to truth.

...

If politics can never be about truth because the truth is always harmful to politics, then politics must always be about power at the expense of truth.

So what's the point?

 

The point is probably about implementing a few things that might help people. Somethings like cap and trade and early childhood education and social housing.

So much about politics is about getting a few extra votes. The most popular topic on Rabble is opinion polls. When the NDP's at 20% we're happy. When they're at 14% we're despondent. Politicians are afraid of telling the truth because it could cost a few votes that make a huge difference.

People remember when the NDP was stuck in the low teens and the party almost lost its party status. Those kinds of memories make the politicians wary of being totally honest with the public. The NDP is one scandal away from losing a lot of seats. If the NDP were to get 14% or less in an election it could lose more then half its seats.

If we had proportional representation this fear would be reduced. And under proportional representation, the NDP would probaly split into two parties. One social democratic, the other more socialist. This would allow for more honesty too.As it is, big tent parties reduce honest dialogue. Most honest dialogue takes place behind closed doors.

 

 

JKR

Ripple wrote:

Do you think it is just luck, Libby's good fortune, that her riding is safe?

Vancouver East has been in the NDP/CCF column for almost all of the last 75 years.

Libby's been very good for the riding and the riding has been good to her. It's been a mutual love affair.

That said, I don't think she could win in West Vancouver.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

JKR wrote:

Frustrated Mess wrote:

I've been thinking lately about truth. Truth and politics.

The problem with politics is that it is allergic to truth.

...

If politics can never be about truth because the truth is always harmful to politics, then politics must always be about power at the expense of truth.

So what's the point?

Most honest dialogue takes place behind closed doors.

According to those self-important people privy to it. Honest (political) dialogue only occurs in the open.

Ripple

JKR wrote:

Ripple wrote:

Do you think it is just luck, Libby's good fortune, that her riding is safe?

Vancouver East has been in the NDP/CCF column for almost all of the last 75 years.

Libby's been very good for the riding and the riding has been good to her. It's been a mutual love affair.

That said, I don't think she could win in West Vancouver.

That was snarkier then I intended.  Sorry. 

I think she could win East Vancouver as an independent.  I also don't think she would do it.

 

And, what FM said.

Michelle

Yeah, I don't buy JKR's spin either.  From what I've read, Mulcair started going after Libby about the video BEFORE it got on Small Dead Animals, when it still only had 28 views. He caused the media controversy, he didn't stop it.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Same thing a Muclair's party as far as I can tell.

Michelle

Um, this is more than a speck.  He went out of his way to take down one of his own party members.  That's a speck to you?

You have to be kidding.  Is there anything you won't defend or minimize if someone in the NDP does it, Fidel?

Fidel

So what do the other candidates in Mulcair's riding look like? Can we find a spec in one of their eyes? And in a larger context, what do their parties stand for overall? Maybe Mulcair and the NDP still have a better plus-minus rating than the others.

Fidel

Cueball wrote:

Same thing a Muclair's party as far as I can tell.

What?

Cueball Cueball's picture

He must be conflicted, since of course he has to defend Muclair and Davies at the same time.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Fidel wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Same thing a Muclair's party as far as I can tell.

What?

Well, for example, Layton agrees with Rae that Libby's comments were bad and needed to be sanctioned. They're in lock step. The only thing preventing Layton calling for Libby's dismissal is that doing so would be poltitically damaging, but as far as that goes, Rae and Layton have the same position on the statement Libby made, it deserves to be sanctioned. The mode of sanctioning is the only thing in doubt.

Muclair/Layton/Rae/Dewar: Same opinion. The Liberals and the NDP agree.

Fidel

Michelle wrote:

Um, this is more than a speck.  He went out of his way to take down one of his own party members.  That's a speck to you?

It is considering that the NDP is still far better choice than either of the two wings of the same Bay Street party.

Michelle wrote:
Is there anything you won't defend or minimize if someone in the NDP does it, Fidel?

Yes, I'm actually NOT defending Mulcair here. Did you notice?

I am a socialist first and foremost. That means I have to see the forest for the trees. No I'm not going to dump the baby with the bathwater. The other two parties stink too much for me not to cast a protest vote for the NDP. They watch NDP votes like hawks, and I'm going to make damn good and sure the two dirty-rotten old line parties see mine coming from a mile away, I think they stink that much.

 

Michelle

You called it "a speck".  This isn't "a speck".  This is a huge betrayal that happened, Fidel.  It was a complete break in solidarity, a complete stab in the back, and harmful to the party as a whole.  It could have destroyed a principled fellow NDP MP.

Minimizing it as "a speck" in order to urge people to forget about it and support him anyhow does sound like defending him to me.

Fidel

Cueball wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Same thing a Muclair's party as far as I can tell.

What?

Well, for example, Layton agrees with Rae that Libby's comments were bad and needed to be sanctioned. They're in lock step. The only thing preventing Layton calling for Libby's dismissal is that doing so would be poltitically damaging, but as far as that goes, Rae and Layton have the same position on the statement Libby made, it deserves to be sanctioned. The mode of sanctioning is the only thing in doubt.

Muclair/Layton/Rae/Dewar: Same opinion. The Liberals and the NDP agree.

I agree. Mulcair should be a reprimanded. If we had advanced democracy.

But we are stuck with an obsolete electoral system where dirty politicking is the way. Therefore I'm going to vote dirty.

Because I really don't like the two pro-Israeli apartheid, pro-Uncle Sam parties in coalition government in Ottawa, and ALL of the rest that they stand for if they continue winning some large minority of the eligible Canadian vote,  that much.

Pages

Topic locked