Federal Liberal Candidates

619 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering
Federal Liberal Candidates

Some posters dismissed Trudeau's significance in Adam Vaughan's byelection win, but Trudeau is attracting impressive candidates from both the soft right and soft left. People are still underestimating Trudeau. The level of talent he is attracting is going to increase his credibility in 2015. 

Trudeau is continuing to sign up new nominees and candidates. I thought Jodie Emery was confirmed but she is actually just running for the nomination. This thread is to discuss the new and old candidates Trudeau is picking up and what it means for 2015.

Pondering

Adam Vaughan was/is a good pick-up, and now...

WINNIPEG - A former Manitoba NDP cabinet minister will carry the Liberal banner in the next federal election.

MaryAnn Mihychuk won the Liberal nomination Tuesday night in the Winnipeg riding of Kildonan-St. Paul.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/07/09/maryann-mihychuk-manitoba-ndp-liberals_n_5570565.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-politics

MaryAnn Mihychuk (born February 27, 1955 in VitaManitoba) is a formerpolitician from Manitoba, Canada. She was a cabinet minister in the government of New Democratic Premier Gary Doer from 1999 to 2004. Mihychuk resigned to run for Mayor of Winnipeg in 2004, but was defeated by Sam Katz.

Mihychuk received the degrees Bachelor of Arts from the University of Winnipegin 1979, and Master of Science from Brock University in 1984. She is certified as a Practicing Professional Geoscientist. Mihychuk worked as a geologist inNewfoundland and Labrador from 1984 to 1986 and in Manitoba from 1986 to 1992.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MaryAnn_Mihychuk 

Adam Vaughan and MaryAnn Mihychuk both reassure me on the progressive side.  

 

Geoff

Pondering, it sounds as though the one thing Liberal candidates have in common is that they're 'soft'.  

PrairieDemocrat15

Looks like someone just lost their membership with Team Orange. I don't get it, she supported the federal NDP in the dark days of the 1990s, but jumps ship now? Trudeau must have offered her something good. Not that it matters, the Libs don't have much of a change in Kildonan-St. Paul even with them poaching a former New Democrat (who isn't from the area, btw).

It doesn't matter how progressive some of the Liberal candidates (assuming they get elected) are, because you can bet Trudeau will stike to his right-wing agenda and listen to his masters on Bay Street.

Pondering

My intent was to post other recruits that lean more right in a different post on the day I started this thread. Since then I have been blocked. Trying to post the same content in a different thread also resulted in blocking so I gather the problem is with the content of the post. I started out by quoting Geoff and saying this:

"Soft is good. It means open-minded and willing to compromise."

Followed by mentioning other recruits. I will post incrementally to see if I can discover what the mod bot doesn't like about my post.

Pondering

Lastly, this recruit:

Morneau's decision to stand for public office for the first time is a concrete example of the Trudeau Effect. The same is true for another, Sven Spengemann, who is a candidate for the Liberal Party nomination in Mississauga South.

..... He earned his first law degree at Osgoode Hall, and then pursued graduate law degrees at the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium and Harvard Law School. Apparently not satisfied with only four of them, he completed fifth degree, this time his doctorate in political and constitutional theory, at Harvard Law School.

Spengemann's awards are too many to list here, but he's also a Fulbright Scholar.

In 2003 served as a senior policy analyst within the Privy Council office. That is the nerve center for Canada's public service and is where the best and the brightest hang their hats. 

In 2005 and for the seven years that followed, Spengemann served in Baghdad with the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), first as Legal Advisor and then Senior Constitutional Officer. He negotiated operational protocols with the US Coalition Forces to ensure operational, security and medical support for the UN Mission. He then led a team of international and Iraqi experts to assist the Iraqi Parliament, executive and Kurdistan Regional Government with constitutional and legislative reforms. Spengemann returned to Canada in 2012. He is BMO's Visiting Fellow at York University's Glendon School of Public and International Affairs, where he teaches on Middle East politics. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/daniel-d-veniez/justin-trudeau-liberal-party_b_5568194.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-politics

Very impressive background but doesn't tell me much about his politics. The same article mentions  Scott Brison, John McCallum, and Chrystia Freeland.

Whether or not you like these people they seem very electable. 

 

 

Pondering

This following recruit is more concerning to me: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/daniel-d-veniez/justin-trudeau-liberal-part...

Trudeau's confidence is also infectious. In part because of that, he has become a magnet for talent. There's no better indication of a great leader than one who seeks to attract exceptional people to his cause. In growing numbers across Canada, great people are choosing to enter active public life as candidates for the Liberal Party. What draws them is Justin Trudeau and the hope and practical idealism he represents. They are people of quality, accomplishment and dedication to service to Canada.

Among them is Bill Morneau, who is the Liberal Party's candidate in Toronto Centre. After obtaining an undergraduate degree from the University of Western Ontario, he earned two masters degrees from the London School of Economics and from INSEAD in Fontainebleau, France. Morneau is a world-class overachiever in all he touches. Until recently, Moreau was Chairman of the C.D. Howe Institute. Morneau is a highly respected entrepreneur, business leader, community activist, and generous benefactor.  ...... Morneau's decision to stand for public office for the first time is a concrete example of the Trudeau Effect. The same is true for another, Sven Spengemann, who is a candidate for the Liberal Party nomination in Mississauga South.

nicky

Boy, Pondering, can we just nominate Justin for the Nobel Peace prize or at least have him canonized?

He is obviously the greatest leader any nation has ever known, a veritable Ghandi / Lincoln / Jesus Christ reincarnated in combination. All that and hair too !!!!

 

Pondering

nicky wrote:

Boy, Pondering, can we just nominate Justin for the Nobel Peace prize or at least have him canonized?

He is obviously the greatest leader any nation has ever known, a veritable Ghandi / Lincoln / Jesus Christ reincarnated in combination. All that and hair too !!!!

Did you not notice the list of people I think lean more towards the economic right? I'm pointing out the contradiction in people coming from both the left and what appears to be the right to the Liberals. 

We have seen quite a few examples of "floor crossing" amongst politicians. Mulcair has been Conservative, Liberal and now is the leader of the NDP. Politicians are moving among the parties in all directions. 

I have made no secret of why I support Trudeau Liberals and it isn't because I think he has such wonderful leadership potential. I am against his suggestion that Alberta get some exemptions on temporary workers. I support Linda McQuaig over Freeland any day. In my own riding I will vote NDP strategically if the Liberals have no chance of winning it. 

Some posters are fond of expressing the view that there is little difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. That may be true, but there is little difference between the Liberals and the NDP too. So much so that pundits are constantly suggesting the parties join which I agree is ridiculous. It does however point out just how "central" the NDP has become. There is never any suggestion that the Liberals and Conservatives join up. 

Both the NDP and the Liberals are playing their cards close to the chest, attacking the Conservatives but not saying much about what they would do differently in concrete terms. That doesn't leave a lot to talk about. I read recently that both parties still have a lot of seats to fill. Who fills them gives us some idea of how the parties are shaping up. 

Trudeau is not an economist. Strategically he could be shoring up his economic credencials so that he can support things like national daycare and basic income. It's probably more likely that he is going to take direction from a team of economic powerhouses with Freeland as the voice for the middle class. 

I think it would be interesting to have a thead on the NDP recruits too but I will leave that up to someone else to start. 

 

nicky

I see you are repeating the old slander that Mulcair was a Conservative.

The truth is that after Mulcair retired from the National Assembly he was looking for a civil service job. He negotiated with the Conservative government about two top environmental posts. The negotiations floundered over the government's refusal to back Kyoto.

It was never contemplated that Mulcair would become a Conservative party member, let alone that he would run for them as a candidate.

 

 

 

Pondering

double post

Pondering

nicky wrote:
I see you are repeating the old slander that Mulcair was a Conservative.

The truth is that after Mulcair retired from the National Assembly he was looking for a civil service job. He negotiated with the Conservative government about two top environmental posts. The negotiations floundered over the government's refusal to back Kyoto.

It was never contemplated that Mulcair would become a Conservative party member, let alone that he would run for them as a candidate.

Whatever, fine, Mulcair still switched from a Liberal to NDP. Maybe he just wants to be either a civil servant or a politician. The point is that politicians switch parties. 

I am finding the way politicians are party switching disconcerting.  NDP reps or types switching to Liberal should mean the Liberals are more left, but on the other side of the equation the economic types in the party seem to lean right. I wanted to hear other people's thoughts on the new candidates both left and right. Go ahead, be critical.

I think Trudeau is attracting strong candidates and that it will impact his electoral chances. That doesn't mean they are "good" from the perspective of progressive politics. Denying the strength of your opponents is just hiding your head in the sand. 

 

 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau is not an economist. Strategically he could be shoring up his economic credencials so that he can support things like national daycare and basic income.

You are naieve enough to believe that the Liberals under Trudeau are going to support national daycare and a basic income when the last time in office they broke their daycare promise and gutted unemployment insurance?

terrytowel

Glen Murray announced he will not run for the Libs in 2018 provincially

Is a Federal seat his next move?

Stockholm

If Justin Trudeau knows what's good for him, he will avoid touching an incompetent, loose cannon like Glen Murray with a ten foot pole. 

KenS

The Dream that Never Dies-

that lefties joining the Liberal Party will somehow shift its centre of gavity.

The truth is that no matter what passengers it has aboard, the Liberal ship tacks to the most expedient direction of the moment.

One of the greatest utlilities of those stick with it lefty passengers is to craft the particular promises geared to that side of the voting public. The dream is so powerful that the dreamers overlook that their 'craft' is the re-upholstering of tatty old baggage that never gets delivered.

Sean in Ottawa

Trudeau in the short term could do well by bringing in both left and right. But if he tries to govern with an incoherent direction that support could evaporate. It is not the worst strategy for election 2015 but it could give him a whole world of hurt if he has a cabinet beyond agreement.

As for the NDP, buckle up, the more competitive NDP nominations are the more likely there will be people who will consider changing parties in order to get a nomination. Conservatives and Liberals have done this with each other for decades.

Brachina

You know what lefties are called in the Liberal Party right?

 

WINDOW DRESSING!

sherpa-finn

And you know what no-name candidates are called in the NDP, right?

ROAD KILL!  (Except in Quebec, where they are known as l'Hon. MP.)

C'mon folks, - there is a legitimate political discussion here about candidate recruitment and leveraging.... as apparently evidenced in the recent Trinity-Spadina by-election.  And as obviously contradicted by the Orange Wave in Quebec in 2011.

Given the electoral timeline, can we try and raise this conversation a little beyond name calling?

Pondering

Thanks to those participating. 

I believe that the Liberals will team campaign in order to offset Trudeau's relatively light resume.  I believe Canadians give him the highest marks for "shared values" in polls. I think the unspoken argument is that we elect a team of people to run the country and values are the most important factor for the leader. A leader attracts and accesses the expertise around him.

Yet another person has declared his intention to throw his hat in the ring:

Carleton University journalism professor Allan Thompson will announce Monday that he wants to run as a Liberal candidate in the next federal election.

Thompson, who covered federal politics during his 17-year career with the Toronto Star, will seek the Liberal nomination in the rural Ontario riding of Huron-Bruce, where he grew up. The riding is currently held by second-term Conservative MP Ben Lobb.

The limits on the media’s access to federal politicians under Stephen Harper’s government is part of the reason he decided to enter politics, he says.

“It’s a big step to cross the line and seek out a career in politics,” said Thompson, who still considers himself a journalist. “Part of the motivation is the Harper regime has to come to an end. It’s doing damage and really eroding some of the pillars of our democracy.”

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/carleton-journalism-professor-see...

 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

All these "progressive politicians" are going to talk, talk, talk.

 

Let's see if they do one iota which is of any benefit to the people of this country and its nations.

Jacob Two-Two

sherpa-finn wrote:

Given the electoral timeline, can we try and raise this conversation a little beyond name calling?

You mean like calling Mulcair a Conservative, something that everyone here knows to be untrue and has been refuted many, many times? Is that the kind of name-calling you think we should get beyond? Because given who started the thread I don't imagine that's a possibility. There will be much more of Pondering's dishonest passive-aggressive name calling for sure.

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau is not an economist.

JT isn't anything. He's never stuck with a career long enough to excel at it. All that icky work and real effort. And never enough fawning to suit his ego. Now he gets to give speeches to adoring crowds and hopefully keep dodging those pesky questions of performance, results, and qualifications. With any luck, such frivolous irrelevencies will never enter the picture of who runs the country. Won't that be a golden age?

Quote:

A leader attracts and accesses the expertise around him.

Thank you for expressing the emptiness at the heart of modern culture. Real leaders only do this as a peripheral effect of their skills and accomplishments. People are attracted to them because of their obvious leadership skills, proven through experience. You, and other drinkers of the Justin kool-aid, are putting the cart before the horse, trying to sell the notion that just attracting people is a sign of a leader by itself. really, this is a sign of cultism; the fabrication of a persona to create the impression of leadership through popularity and cover up the lack of actual leadership (like doing things to help people, which Justin has never done in his long and privileged life). The fact that people take such notions seriously is a sad comment on the society of spectacle in which we live. It's the same level of thinking as the people who think Oprah should run for president.

It's like everyone has forgotten that Prime Minister is an actual job with a highly specialised skill set that few people have acquired in their lives. Justin certainly never did, while he was flitting about from one profession to another, or while he was warming the back benches doing absolutely nothing with his time as an MP.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering, Kristine Barlow, a well known "housng activing" was a member of the LPC government. She did NOTHING when Martin and Chretien axed the National Housing Program, leaving Canada as the ONLY member of the G20 without a National Housing Strategy. What are you going to say when all these "exceptional Liberals", are elected and do nothing when Trudeau pulls the same kind of nonsense? And I am telling you right now, based on his support for FIPA and S7, and his vote AGAINST protection for Volunteer Fire Fighters, each time, WITH Harper, he'll do it again. What is the point of this thread?

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
You mean like calling Mulcair a Conservative, something that everyone here knows to be untrue and has been refuted many, many times? Is that the kind of name-calling you think we should get beyond? 

That isn't name-calling and it's something I read here.  Someone already objected and I already said fine and that it's beside the point which was only that politicians change parties and he was only one example of several.  Seeing as you brought it up again I don't recall any revelations from Mulcair declaring a change of political heart when he joined the NDP. I don't recall him renouncing his Liberal past, nor do I recall Bob Rae renouncing his NDP past, or Belinda Stronach renouncing her Conservative past.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Because given who started the thread I don't imagine that's a possibility. There will be much more of Pondering's dishonest passive-aggressive name calling for sure.

You just want to pick a fight; ironic that you would choose to criticize other people's characters.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
It's like everyone has forgotten that Prime Minister is an actual job with a highly specialised skill set that few people have acquired in their lives 

Or maybe you are naïve about the actual skill set required.  The people stepping up to be candidates don't seem the cult member types to me.  Putting yourself on a lofty pedestal above all the "kool-aid" drinkers is ironic given the idealistic and worshipful attitude you have towards the NDP.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
What are you going to say when all these "exceptional Liberals", are elected and do nothing when Trudeau pulls the same kind of nonsense?

Me: "Yay! Marijuana is legal! " What are you going to say when the NDP is defeated yet again?  "Boo hoo, the world is evil."

Arthur Cramer wrote:
What is the point of this thread?

To discuss the candidates joining the Liberals and how they will affect the upcoming campaign. This forum is called "Canadian Politics" so it would seem to be the appropriate place.  Even if the Liberals are evil incarnate we can still discuss the impact candidates will have on their electoral chances.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

"Arthur Cramer wrote: What are you going to say when all these "exceptional Liberals", are elected and do nothing when Trudeau pulls the same kind of nonsense? Me: "Yay! Marijuana is legal! " What are you going to say when the NDP is defeated yet again?  "Boo hoo, the world is evil."

That is a truly pathetic reply Pondering.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

"Arthur Cramer wrote: What are you going to say when all these "exceptional Liberals", are elected and do nothing when Trudeau pulls the same kind of nonsense? Me: "Yay! Marijuana is legal! " What are you going to say when the NDP is defeated yet again?  "Boo hoo, the world is evil."

That is a truly pathetic reply Pondering.

I try not to do a lot of "me tooing", but Arthur, you are absolutely right on this one. Pondering has just declared that she cares more about the legalization of marijuana than income inequality, austerity, environmental degradation, etc, and all the harms that they cause to millions of Canadians. It truly is a pathetic position to take.

And Justin will renege on his promise to legalize weed anyway.

terrytowel

I would not be surprised if Trudeau parachutes Toronto city councillor Karen Stintz to go up against Joe Oliver in Eglinton-Lawrence. She is running for mayor, and at this point she is an also-ran. But she is high profile and represents the area as a city councillor.

In terms of Oshawa-Whitby, Galen Flaherty (son of the late Jim Flaherty) is rumored to seek the nomination.

 

 

Pondering

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

"Arthur Cramer wrote: What are you going to say when all these "exceptional Liberals", are elected and do nothing when Trudeau pulls the same kind of nonsense? Me: "Yay! Marijuana is legal! " What are you going to say when the NDP is defeated yet again?  "Boo hoo, the world is evil."

That is a truly pathetic reply Pondering.

I try not to do a lot of "me tooing", but Arthur, you are absolutely right on this one. Pondering has just declared that she cares more about the legalization of marijuana than income inequality, austerity, environmental degradation, etc, and all the harms that they cause to millions of Canadians. It truly is a pathetic position to take.

Bullshit and projecting views on other people is a pathetic troll tactic. You expect me to believe the NDP is going to cure "income inequality, austerity, environmental degradation, etc,".  Marijuana legalization is a social justice and economic issue but to you it is nothing but a political football. You completely ignore that it is race and class based repression. It is a 6 billion dollar industry in BC. That represents a lot of workers you don't give a shit about. You don't give a shit about the millions of people suffering needlessly, even children in perpetual seizures, because of the suppression of marijuana.

The NDP is either morally bankrupt, cowardly or stupid for not 100% supporting marijuana legalization. It is the right thing to do and it is easily achievable which is rare for a social justic issue. The NDP won't even do that little but I am supposed to believe that they are the social justice party.

You guys think you are so morally superiour when you are nothing but cheerleaders for the status quo. If the NDP ever does win power your naive faith will be shattered.

Pondering

Stockholm wrote:

If Justin Trudeau knows what's good for him, he will avoid touching an incompetent, loose cannon like Glen Murray with a ten foot pole. 

Why do you say he is a loose cannon?  I googled and didn't see anything obvious.

nicky

Karen Stintz would be a good fit for Justin - vacuous and right-wing.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

Bullshit and projecting views on other people is a pathetic troll tactic. You expect me to believe the NDP is going to cure "income inequality, austerity, environmental degradation, etc,".

No projection here. I am commenting on your own words. I do not believe that "the NDP is going to cure income inequality, austerity, environmental degradation, etc,". I do believe that there is a much higher chance they will make some progress on these issues than the Liberals will. Or if not progress, at least they will make things worse more slowly. Trudeau and his Liberals are really not significantly different than Harper and his Conservatives on these core issues. That is why he and his supporters, like you, concentrate on boutique issues such as marijuana.

Pondering wrote:

Marijuana legalization is a social justice and economic issue but to you it is nothing but a political football. You completely ignore that it is race and class based repression. It is a 6 billion dollar industry in BC. That represents a lot of workers you don't give a shit about. You don't give a shit about the millions of people suffering needlessly, even children in perpetual seizures, because of the suppression of marijuana.

The NDP is either morally bankrupt, cowardly or stupid for not 100% supporting marijuana legalization. It is the right thing to do and it is easily achievable which is rare for a social justic issue. The NDP won't even do that little but I am supposed to believe that they are the social justice party.

As a philosophical anarchist, I have long held that drug prohibition in general is counter-productive. I think all laws forbidding drugs should be abolished, and the issue dealt with as a matter of public health policy. But I don't expect any political leader who hopes to get votes to take such a principled position. You see, in our system, you have to lie (or be a fool who believes obvious rubbish) to get elected. Sad, but true. Justin's promise to legalize marijuana, which I am confident he will break if elected PM, would have little effect on the people suffering the most from the drug war. Mulcair's position is only mildly worse on this issue, but much better on the most important issues.

Pondering wrote:

You guys think you are so morally superiour when you are nothing but cheerleaders for the status quo. If the NDP ever does win power your naive faith will be shattered.

I have no faith to shatter. I have posted long ago on this forum that my biggest worry about Mulcair is that he will end up too much like Bill Clinton, which seems to me a better analogy than Tony Blair. I am hoping for the best, and my fondest hope is that a Mulcair government will change the game forever by enacting Proportional Representation.

terrytowel

nicky wrote:

Karen Stintz would be a good fit for Justin - vacuous and right-wing.

She could win Eglinton-Lawrence in a walk, and against Joe Oliver

Pondering

Michael Moriarity wrote:
I do not believe that "the NDP is going to cure income inequality, austerity, environmental degradation, etc,". I do believe that there is a much higher chance they will make some progress on these issues than the Liberals will.

Well I believe that the Liberals are much more likely to make progress on those issues than the NDP which would be too busy proving how responsibly centrist and pro-trade they are to hang onto power.

Michael Moriarity wrote:
As a philosophical anarchist, I have long held that drug prohibition in general is counter-productive. I think all laws forbidding drugs should be abolished, and the issue dealt with as a matter of public health policy. But I don't expect any political leader who hopes to get votes to take such a principled position.

Marijuana is not the same as the hard drugs that you are associating it with. I would not agree with selling heroin at the local liquor commission although I agree users should not be criminalized.  There is a politician speaking-up for legalization and his name is Justin Trudeau and he does intend to get votes.

Michael Moriarity wrote:
Justin's promise to legalize marijuana, which I am confident he will break if elected PM, would have little effect on the people suffering the most from the drug war.

He can only keep it if he is elected with a majority seeing as the NDP is against it.  It would have a lot of effect on those suffering from the marijuana portion of the drug war not to mention the economic boost which would be very significant.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

You see, in our system, you have to lie (or be a fool who believes obvious rubbish) to get elected. Sad, but true.…….I have no faith to shatter. I have posted long ago on this forum that my biggest worry about Mulcair is that he will end up too much like Bill Clinton, which seems to me a better analogy than Tony Blair. I am hoping for the best, and my fondest hope is that a Mulcair government will change the game forever by enacting Proportional Representation.

I think your fondest hope is a pipe dream and the NDP wouldn't dare push something so drastic even if they had a majority while they are in the midst of proving how moderate they are. At least marijuana legalization is somewhere in the realm of the possible because it would generate revenue.

Pondering

Yet another candidate has declared this time for Jim Flaherty's seat:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/07/16/jim-flaherty-whitby-oshawa-byele...

On Thursday night, local Liberals will acclaim businesswoman Celina Caesar-Chavannes as candidate-in-waiting for the still undeclared byelection in Whitby-Oshawa.

According to her official biography, Caesar-Chavannes, a mother of three, is the president of ReSolve Research Solutions Inc., a clinical trials management service she co-founded with her husband in 2004.

She also sits on the advisory board of the Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction.

 

sherpa-finn

A simple suggestion for the NDP boosters here: maybe you could consider opening a thread dedicated to presenting new NDP candidates for the 2015 election. It might serve to motivate supporters and inform others.

At the moment, the only related threads I can find is one on 'dream' or fantasy candidates (people who Babblers would like to see run for the NDP) and one dedicated to someone no longer running for the NDP nomination.

Just saying it might be a better investment than simply criticizing the names that the Liberals are putting forward.  

(Which is also my way of wondering whether the NDP is running slow and late on the nominating process.)

nicky

Yes Terryt...l, Stintz might very well beat Joe Oliver.

But my point is what does it say about your beloved Justin that he wants to recruit a right-winger like Stintz? Doesn't it wreck your pretense that he is a true progressive ? He might as well recruit Julian Fantino . I'm sure you would applaud that as well,

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
You guys think you are so morally superiour when you are nothing but cheerleaders for the status quo. If the NDP ever does win power your naive faith will be shattered.

You really don't pay much attention to what is posted on these boards, do you? Many people whom you call "cheerleaders for the status quo" have a long history of criticizing the NDP for not going far enough on certain issues, and most of said criticism was present on these boards even when Jack was leading the party.

terrytowel

nicky wrote:
Yes Terryt...l, Stintz might very well beat Joe Oliver. But my point is what does it say about your beloved Justin that he wants to recruit a right-winger like Stintz? Doesn't it wreck your pretense that he is a true progressive ? He might as well recruit Julian Fantino . I'm sure you would applaud that as well,

Again I'm an Independent that voted Green in the last election.

But it is posts like these that show people with a different point of view are much more respectful to other posters on rabble.ca than the partisan NDPers here.

But then again Nicky just got off a week's suspension, for his attacks against me, so maybe he is making up for lost time.

But I guess he didn't learn anything from his suspension.

Pondering

nicky wrote:
Yes Terryt...l, Stintz might very well beat Joe Oliver. But my point is what does it say about your beloved Justin that he wants to recruit a right-winger like Stintz? Doesn't it wreck your pretense that he is a true progressive ? He might as well recruit Julian Fantino . I'm sure you would applaud that as well,

Who says Justin Trudeau is a progressive?

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
You guys think you are so morally superiour when you are nothing but cheerleaders for the status quo. If the NDP ever does win power your naive faith will be shattered.

You really don't pay much attention to what is posted on these boards, do you? Many people whom you call "cheerleaders for the status quo" have a long history of criticizing the NDP for not going far enough on certain issues, and most of said criticism was present on these boards even when Jack was leading the party.

I have only been posting for about a year on and off and I am not referring to everyone on the board. I was referring particularly to yourself and Cramer.

You are holding McGrath personally responsible for the manner in which a candidate is being rejected instead of holding the party and the leader, Mulcair, responsible. Skirting the rules on satellite offices and free mailing is defended on the basis of "everyone else does it" and the others are worse because they are holding the NDP accountable without holding themselves accountable. Bottomline, the NDP works the system just like the others do. On marijuana the excuses range from the NDP has always voted for decrim and Trudeau voted to raise mins in the past as though that somehow negates the present stances of the two parties. Mulcair and his team are responsible for all these decisions.

I know I won't hear anything good about Liberal candidates but I thought it would be interesting to hear some feedback on them anyway particularly on their electoral strengths and weaknesses.

When I paid attention to Linda McQuaig versus Christia Freeland as individuals I supported Linda McQuaig. When I read of the NDP candidate in my daughter's riding versus the Liberal candidate I strongly supported what I knew my daughter would decide to go with, the NDP candidate. Jesus himself could run as a Liberal and you would vote against him.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
You really don't pay much attention to what is posted on these boards, do you? Many people whom you call "cheerleaders for the status quo" have a long history of criticizing the NDP for not going far enough on certain issues, and most of said criticism was present on these boards even when Jack was leading the party.

I have only been posting for about a year on and off and I am not referring to everyone on the board. I was referring particularly to yourself and Cramer.

Right, because a guy who [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/no-more-tom-foolery-1]openly called to remove Mulcair as NDP leader[/url] is a mindless cheerleader?

Like I said, you are either ignorant of the history of these boards and/or you have serious reading comprehension issues.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Stockholm wrote:

If Justin Trudeau knows what's good for him, he will avoid touching an incompetent, loose cannon like Glen Murray with a ten foot pole. 

Why do you say he is a loose cannon?  I googled and didn't see anything obvious.

Glen Murray was once the Mayor of Winnipeg, and was quite progressive by Winnipeg standards. Unfortunately, his ambition got the better of him, and rather than stick around and see his ideas and accomplishments through, he resigned as Mayor mid-term for an ill-fated run for a federal seat. Sam Katz, who was elected to replace him, immediately tore up every good thing Murray ever did, and there is a lingering sense of betrayal among some Winnipeggers for that reason.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
You really don't pay much attention to what is posted on these boards, do you? Many people whom you call "cheerleaders for the status quo" have a long history of criticizing the NDP for not going far enough on certain issues, and most of said criticism was present on these boards even when Jack was leading the party.

I have only been posting for about a year on and off and I am not referring to everyone on the board. I was referring particularly to yourself and Cramer.

Right, because a guy who [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/no-more-tom-foolery-1]openly called to remove Mulcair as NDP leader[/url] is a mindless cheerleader?

Like I said, you are either ignorant of the history of these boards and/or you have serious reading comprehension issues.

That was before my time. I joined last summer and didn't see that thread. Having skimmed it I am all the more surprised that you find my voting Liberal so inexplicable. I am voting for a political party to run things for four years not forever. I'm against the direction the NDP is taking under current leadership and the Liberals are offering something I do want. You are willing to vote for a party who's leader you don't support. I don't agree that Trudeau is vacuous or a man of poor character. I believe he genuinely cares about Canada and has a much better shot at defeating Harper.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

"You guys think you are so morally superiour when you are nothing but cheerleaders for the status quo. If the NDP ever does win power your naive faith will be shattered."

Uh, have you ever heard of TC Douglas, JS Woodsworth, Ed Broadbent, David Lewis, Colwell, Audrey McLaughlin, Jack Layton? If not, you should read a little; seriously, the last thing the NDP represents is the status quo. How many Nexen Lobbyists and Martinites has Justin surrounded himslef with again, Pondering?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

That was before my time. I joined last summer and didn't see that thread. Having skimmed it I am all the more surprised that you find my voting Liberal so inexplicable. I am voting for a political party to run things for four years not forever. I'm against the direction the NDP is taking under current leadership and the Liberals are offering something I do want. You are willing to vote for a party who's leader you don't support. I don't agree that Trudeau is vacuous or a man of poor character. I believe he genuinely cares about Canada and has a much better shot at defeating Harper.

Either you really don't understand what many of us here are trying to say, or else you just can't believe we're serious about it. Nonetheless, many of us are of the opinion that "defeating Harper" isn't the most important thing, because a Trudeau Liberal government will, in all the most important ways, be the same as a Harper Conservative government. I personally don't give a shit how much Justin "cares about Canada", I know that he will follow neoliberal economic orthodoxy. A Mulcair NDP government might not be much better, but at least we can hope that it would do a few important things differently. We already know that a Trudeau Liberal government will not.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
I am all the more surprised that you find my voting Liberal so inexplicable.

Your reasoning does not hold up. You correctly cite several issues where the NDP has watered down its platform and policy programme to appeal to more people, and yet you support a party that is not only demonstrably worse than the NDP on nearly every single one, but has a well-documented history of making promises during election campaigns and breaking them in office (wage and price controls, scrapping the GST, national childcare among the most notorious). It seems that instead of doing that, the logical course of action consists of any combination of 1) pushing from within the NDP to make the NDP better, 2) advocating on behalf of your preferred issues to move public consciousness in your direction 3) voting for a smaller party more in line with your values, or 4) outright abstaining from voting.

It has nothing to do with you being a Liberal supporter. You're a Liberal partisan, fine, we've even had Conservative partisans on babble in the past who were well-respected members of our community. It has everything to do with claiming to be a "swing voter," and yet repeating self-serving partisan talking points (i.e. Jack Layton killed national child care, it's only die-hard Liberal partisans repeating that line, the rest of the country has long since moved on) or outright lies and smears (i.e. Mulcair is a closet separatist) as if they are self-evident truths. Utterly misrepresenting my criticisms in the Paul Manley thread as a means to trash Mulcair and elevate Trudeau isn't really helping your case.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
"You guys think you are so morally superiour when you are nothing but cheerleaders for the status quo. If the NDP ever does win power your naive faith will be shattered."

Uh, have you ever heard of TC Douglas, JS Woodsworth, Ed Broadbent, David Lewis, Colwell, Audrey McLaughlin, Jack Layton? If not, you should read a little; seriously, the last thing the NDP represents is the status quo. How many Nexen Lobbyists and Martinites has Justin surrounded himslef with again, Pondering?

Those people aren't running the NDP, Mulcair is calling the shots. I agree that Trudeau is farther right economically than I would like or am comfortable with I just don't trust the NDP to be willing or able to do things any differently or even to get themselves elected in the first place. I do think Trudeau will be able to get himself elected and that he will be able to deliver more than the NDP would on environmental protection, marijuana legalization and social justice in general. You obviously disagree with that assessment but that doesn't make me wrong.

Michael Moriarity wrote:
Either you really don't understand what many of us here are trying to say, or else you just can't believe we're serious about it. Nonetheless, many of us are of the opinion that "defeating Harper" isn't the most important thing, because a Trudeau Liberal government will, in all the most important ways, be the same as a Harper Conservative government. I personally don't give a shit how much Justin "cares about Canada", I know that he will follow neoliberal economic orthodoxy. A Mulcair NDP government might not be much better, but at least we can hope that it would do a few important things differently. We already know that a Trudeau Liberal government will not.

I think I do understand, I just don't agree with you. I don't believe the NDP would be at all better. If I did I would be supporting them. I have zero hope that the NDP would be able to do a single important thing differently. If they won't support something as easy and no-brainer as marijuana legalization then I certainly don't trust them to go against the grain on anything that would require higher spending. They would be way too busy proving to everyone that they will be as fiscally responsible as the Conservatives.

I get that you and Cramer think that there is no difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives but a lot of people disagree with you to the extent that pundits never suggest a union between the Conservatives and the Liberals but do suggest one between the NDP and the Liberals. It seems to me that pundits agree the NDP is not that far left of the Liberals on economic policy. Obviously they could be wrong but it's not like my opinion on the Liberals and NDP is that far-fetched. I agree with the pundits if basing my opinion on the leadership of the two parties. The reason it wouldn't work is that the NDP memership is much farther left than the Liberal membership.

If Linda McQuaig were leading the NDP I wouldn't just vote for them I would be out volunteering for the party regardless of stance on marijuana legalization, but she isn't leading the party, Mulcair is.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
I agree that Trudeau is farther right economically than I would like or am comfortable with I just don't trust the NDP to be willing or able to do things any differently or even to get themselves elected in the first place. I do think Trudeau will be able to get himself elected and that he will be able to deliver more than the NDP would on environmental protection, marijuana legalization and social justice in general.

[url=http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/23/trudeau-a-hypocrite-for-smoking-... confidence in Trudeau on this point is misplaced:[/url]

Quote:
Trudeau, who was elected to Parliament in 2008, voted a year later for mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana production.

Not that Boivin's response is any better, but Trudeau's actions speak more loudly than his rhetoric.

PrairieDemocrat15

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"You guys think you are so morally superiour when you are nothing but cheerleaders for the status quo. If the NDP ever does win power your naive faith will be shattered."

Uh, have you ever heard of TC Douglas, JS Woodsworth, Ed Broadbent, David Lewis, Colwell, Audrey McLaughlin, Jack Layton? If not, you should read a little; seriously, the last thing the NDP represents is the status quo. How many Nexen Lobbyists and Martinites has Justin surrounded himslef with again, Pondering?

What about Harold Winch, Stanley Knowles, Bill Blaikie, Angus MacInnis, and Svend Robinson! Surprised Plus many more (not to mention numerous municipal and provinical CCFers and New Democrats).

PrairieDemocrat15

Pondering wrote:

nicky wrote:
Yes Terryt...l, Stintz might very well beat Joe Oliver. But my point is what does it say about your beloved Justin that he wants to recruit a right-winger like Stintz? Doesn't it wreck your pretense that he is a true progressive ? He might as well recruit Julian Fantino . I'm sure you would applaud that as well,

Who says Justin Trudeau is a progressive?

You said Trudeau would do more to fight poverty, and income inequality. Any politicians and/or political party that put a concerted effort into fixing these huge problems and got results would be a progressive in my books.

You have never explained (well) why Trudeau would do better on these issues than the NDP. Will a legalized multi-million dollar marijuana industry fix poverty and inequality?

Also, anyone who wasn't under a rock in the 1990s knows all too well the Liberal record on austerity and privatization.

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Uh, have you ever heard of TC Douglas, JS Woodsworth, Ed Broadbent, David Lewis, Colwell, Audrey McLaughlin, Jack Layton?

I am beside myself that you forgot Alexa McDonough! She is the reason I voted NDP in the first place!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Uh, have you ever heard of TC Douglas, JS Woodsworth, Ed Broadbent, David Lewis, Colwell, Audrey McLaughlin, Jack Layton?

I am beside myself that you forgot Alexa McDonough! She is the reason I voted NDP in the first place!

Nobody's perfect; LOL!

Pages

Topic locked