Why is rabble giving Liberal Alice Klein of NOW a media platform?

88 posts / 0 new
Last post
janfromthebruce
Why is rabble giving Liberal Alice Klein of NOW a media platform?

 

janfromthebruce

Rabble is suppose to be a "progressive space" and yet throughout this election, we got Alice Klein of NOW spinning her mindless strategic voting site - votefortheenvironment (and cooking the election to elect liberals), and her constant rants against Jack Layton (the only progressive party that is non-corporatist). Alice's rants would fit right in at Torstar.

quote:

an unprecedented destabilizing economic crisis - which favours the safe haven of the known), no real opponents in the race - Jack Layton’s spin notwithstanding

.
Later in her article she said this:

quote:

But outside of the Bloc, all the parties were losers. The Liberal blood-bath is obvious. It is great that the NDP picked up extra seats, but the party failed to increase its popular vote, making Layton's bluster about running for prime minister just embarrassing to anyone but those passionately inside the party fold already.

Sorry Alice to burst your closet liberal heart, but Layton New Democrats not only picked up 7 seats, but NDP would have picked up more, if your stupid votefortheenvironment website hadn't done such a shoddy job of pushing liberals instead of some of the front-runners who were actually New Democrats.
Considering that this site was just a "front" for the liberal voting scam, you sound quite pissy that it did not work out for your team and that well for you and David, a more obvious liberal with direct liberal ties in BC.
You can rant all you want and belittle Layton but obviously more than partisans in Canada saw Layton as a leader - Layton consistently placed 2nd in leadership numbers, well ahead of Dion, Duceppe, and May. Furthermore, you would well know that Layton was voted as "best Prime Minister" by Quebecers. Further, Layton scored as number #1 in an on-line poll at all places of the Globe and Mail.
Being an owner and editor of a "supposed" "progressive alternative" paper, you are trying to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent]Manufacture consent[/url]. Just to drive it home for you, in Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media perfectly [i]illustrates Chomsky's and Herman's propaganda model, the thesis that corporate media, as profit-driven institutions, tend to serve and further the agendas of the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society.[/i]

In [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent]Manufacturing consent[/url]

quote:

again, highlights that since mass media news outlets are now run by large corporations, they are under the same competitive pressures as other corporations. According to the book, the pressure to create a stable, profitable business invariably distorts the kinds of news items reported, as well as the manner and emphasis in which they are reported. This occurs not as a result of conscious design but simply as a consequence of market selection: those businesses who happen to favor profits over news quality survive, while those that present a more accurate picture of the world tend to become marginalized.

You continue to distort Layton's success during this election as well as distorting Layton and the New Democrats during this past election. Your corporate "success" is sure a long way from you more humble beginnings in the [url=http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Socialist-League-Canada]Socialist League[/url].
I understand that perhaps old feelings die hard, but continuing your "vendetta" from your old "waffle days" shows a lack of reflective insight and pettiness.

quote:

Prominent members of the Socialist League included Dowson, Harry Kopyto, Lois Bedard, Gord Doctorow, Alice Klein, Wayne Roberts, Michael Hollett and Ellie Kirzner. Klein, Roberts, Hollett and Kirzner left Forward in the late 1970s and went on to found the alternative newspaper NOW Magazine in Toronto.

I'm not sure what is going on with Alice Klein. No, I don't want her to be a cheerleader for the NDP, but the New Democrats are trying really hard to become the official opposition rather than just the de facto opposition. And continually dissing Layton through your editorials this past year in NOW, using liberal talking points, becomes too much.

Sending mixed signals through your editorials - putting down Layton - ended up sinking your favourite female "feminist" Toronto picks in this election. It sends mixed signals, and as a result, gets mixed-up results - ones that Klein ended up undercutting through her own play at "strategic voting".

As Michael Hollett stated in NOW [url=http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=165432]NOW[/url]in [i]Strategic voting burns T.O.[/i],

quote:

Great local candidates like incumbent Peggy Nash and veteran candidate Marilyn Churley were defeated in a strategic voting panic that saw undeserving Liberal sneak back into Parliament representing Toronto.

Klein in her editorial the week before the election in [url=http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=165334]Coalition stock rising Stephen Harper’s market cred takes a plunge, leaving options for Lib-NDP government [/url] had this to say:

quote:

I live in Toronto-Danforth and proudly sport a Layton sign on my front lawn. I will be heartsick if his wonderful Toronto team doesn’t include my favourite women in politics, Olivia Chow, Peggy Nash and my own former MPP, Marilyn Churley. I urge you to please vote for these incredible contributors to our federal dialogue, who have earned our support with their talent, energy, commitment and integrity.

And yet, the majority of the article of bashing Layton New Democrats, over cap and trade, and ended up promoting Liberals. No surprise in your mixed messaging that Peggy Nash lost to the Liberal and Marilyn Churley too, in that "strategic voting backlash".

In a very manufactured consent way, you highlighted in this article the following:

quote:

Denial is disaster.

And from a climate standpoint, we have been stuck in denial politics during most of this campaign – mostly from Harper, but sadly also from Jack Layton.

He has run a sterling media campaign and galvanized an effective and eloquent response to Harper’s many erosive policies and actions. But Layton’s approach of counterposing cap and trade to Dion’s carbon tax was driven by partisan political necessity rather than good environmental and economic policy.


Forgetting to mention that Dion Liberals were also trying to differentiate themselves for "partisan gain." Where prior to this election [url=http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=f8566790-7279-4... backtracks[/url] on a carbon tax. That's important information.

quote:

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion retreated from his previous opposition to a carbon tax Thursday, blaming Conservative government cuts to climate change programs for forcing him to revisit his own party's environmental policies.

Dion said the proposed tax for businesses, responsible for greenhouse gas pollution linked to global warming, is among the new measures he's considering in an effort to improve his platform.


Or the fact that [url=http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2008/06/19/dions-carbon-tax-plan/]Dion’s carbon tax plan[/url]

quote:

Like BC’s tax, the Dion carbon tax will be more symbolic of change than anything else. After all, gas prices are up an equivalent of a $270 carbon tax relative to three years ago (actually, closer to $300, since it was a month ago that I wrote that). While the current gas tax works out to $42 per tonne (which is why it will not be affected in the early years), even if that were to double, we are talking less than ten cents a litre at the pump. In other words, expect the greed of Big Oil to do most of the heavy lifting without the offsetting benefits of using the revenues to do good things.

Nor the fact that Liberals in power did absolutely nothing, except sign Kyoto, and than let Greenhouse gases grow under their watch. Or the fact it was Layton New Democrats who had to push the Liberals kicking and screaming to work together and clean up the Harper Conservative's "unclean pollution act." Only the New Democrats have had success at actually getting federal legislation through to protect the environment.

And yet, in your NOW article the week before the election you did not counter balance your editorial with these [b]KNOWN FACTS[/b].

It is one thing to provide opinion in the debate of carbon tax and cap-and-trade, but when you did not provide balance in your article to show why the liberals (who you knew well had already given the Green shift the red shaft)a "balanced perspective" and revealing that our government needs more New Democrats to ensure "liberals" actually keep their promises." This would have provided balance. "Liberals" in office and in minority have not shown through their INACTIONS - beyond lip service - that they really, really mean it, this time. Highlighting that liberals had already flip-flopped, and had a "poor" environmental record would at least been "honest."

You might stick a Jack Layton sign on your lawn but New Democrats already have to fight for positive media in the MSM without supposed alternative media basically doing "liberal" talking points. Don't blame Jack.

That said, since your last editorial was a "self-fulfilling prophecy" you might round out your article with how the NDP did gain 8 seats and is the 2nd highest seat total. That the NDP was the big winning in building it's base of support over all the other parties. In the [url=http://punditsguide.ca/]Pundit's guide[/url] you would have noted that in 2nd place finishes we increased our total by 14 plus way higher than any other party, where liberals, Conservatives and Bloc had negative growth in this area. Due to this growth in 2nd place finishes we also increased by 30 plus our eligibility for rebate so 244 ridings get one.

You are a Odd New Democrat. But beyond that, I expect that you have become what you fought so long against - the elite political establishment and the "manufacturing of consent" politics.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I too was dismayed to see Klein getting regular access to rabble.ca to ply her political nonsense. But then I don't expect to agree with all the rabble columnists, and in fact there are others I'd like to see disappear along with Klein.

However, rabble is not an NDP site, and I suppose we have to live with the fact that anyone who is vaguely progressive is welcome here.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Great post, janfromthebruce.

I too am disappointed to see more of Klein's absurdity here. I was about to respond in the "NDP in Toronto" thread when I noticed this one; I was going to mention Klein as an example of the problems the NDP faces with aging media hipsters who have grown too timid and cynical.

Unionist

I don't agree with Alice Klein's political views either. But lengthy apologias like janfromthebruce's - where apparently the NDP can do no wrong and Jack Layton is the most popular political leader since Jesus Christ - are frankly unconvincing.

I also find it unconvincing when Liberal partisans defend carbon taxes and NDP partisans defend "cap and trade". Is it possible to list the good and bad points of such policies without betraying your favourite political party?

What if the Libs and Dips switched positions on the best approach to GHG emissions? Would the world come to an end? Musical chairs?

As for rants against Jack Layton, I have done so on this board as well as praised him for taking the right stands on various issues. If rabble ever chooses to exclude a columnist based on whether or not they get stars in their eyes and a song in their heart when Jack opens his mouth and smiles at the camera, I won't waste much more time here.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

quote:


I also find it unconvincing when Liberal partisans defend carbon taxes and NDP partisans defend "cap and trade". Is it possible to list the good and bad points of such policies without betraying your favourite political party?

Here I completely concur. I am far less concerned with which one than I am with [b]doing something immediately.[/b]

Cueball Cueball's picture

The Orange Guard is on the loose.

Fidel

An environmental Guantanamo with carbon taxes?

Brian White

I do not like gordon campbell one bit.
However he introduced a carbon tax while he is waiting for the details of a north american carbon trading scheme to be worked out.
You can have both at the same time.
Carbon taxes are just quicker to put in place.

quote:

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]Here I completely concur. I am far less concerned with which one than I am with [b]doing something immediately.[/b][/b]

Fidel

Campbell is punishing British Columbians on home heating fuel and gasoline in order that more natural gas and oil can be exported to the U.S., the most wasteful and energy-hungry economy in the world.

And Campbell's B.C. has the highest rate of child poverty in Canada.

Liberals handed national energy policy to the Yanquis many years ago, and now they don't want it back. Liberals are very laissez-faire beneath all the bluster and rhetoric and backpedalling now that laissez-faire policies they supported for decades are now falling down around our ears. "We'll implement a carbon tax", they say, "[i]Just like Sweden"[/i] My gawd they're desperate if they think I'm going to liken that party with Swedish social democrats, or believe for a minute that our energy situation has anything to do with Sweden.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]I do not like gordon campbell one bit.
However he introduced a carbon tax while he is waiting for the details of a north american carbon trading scheme to be worked out.
You can have both at the same time.
Carbon taxes are just quicker to put in place.
[/b]

And how is that carbon tax working? Are there less vehicles on the road? Are transit and car sharing/pooling numbers way up? Are fewer people heating their homes?

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I don't agree with Alice Klein's political views either. But lengthy apologias like janfromthebruce's - where apparently the NDP can do no wrong and Jack Layton is the most popular political leader since Jesus Christ - are frankly unconvincing.

I also find it unconvincing when Liberal partisans defend carbon taxes and NDP partisans defend "cap and trade". Is it possible to list the good and bad points of such policies without betraying your favourite political party?

What if the Libs and Dips switched positions on the best approach to GHG emissions? Would the world come to an end? Musical chairs?

As for rants against Jack Layton, I have done so on this board as well as praised him for taking the right stands on various issues. If rabble ever chooses to exclude a columnist based on whether or not they get stars in their eyes and a song in their heart when Jack opens his mouth and smiles at the camera, I won't waste much more time here.[/b]


Actually unionist, I used this particular example Klein's writing as my point of critique and focus. However, as I just slightly mentioned, and can expand on, this past year Klein has been using her editorial position to basically bash Jack and using liberal talking points. So for example, see this article and read some of comments from 2007: [url=http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=161031]Let’s pull it together A centre-left-green pact is the only way we can rid the world of Harper [/url].

quote:

Without a paradigm shift in the way the Liberals, Greens and particularly the NDP conduct politics among themselves, we won’t.

There are just too many ridings in which hopeless Green and NDP campaigns will take enough votes to do each other or the Liberals in – and vice versa. That’s how we got Harper.


Adjectives used to describe NDP and Layton - deepest trouble, tired and excluding, self-defeating, Tinkerbell, can't deliver, Desperate, old-school, highly partisan approach, serious loss of credibility, bizarre, ultra-left, huff and pull, shame, attitude, spew, insult to intelligence, low self-esteem, alienating,

quote:

First, we have to be completely honest with ourselves no matter where we sit on the centre-left-green spectrum. There are only two possible choices for prime minister. Stephane Dion it must be.

[b]Liberal talking point 1.[/b]

quote:

And no matter how Layton slings the mud, Dion’s left-leaning campaign promises focusing on poverty aren’t completely hollow in the context of the Kelowna Accord and national daycare policy we almost got before the NDP pulled the rug out from under the previous Liberal minority government.

[b]Liberal talking point 2.[/b]

quote:

Dion is doing what’s expected right now – talking to the left about not wasting their votes on the NDP.

[b]Liberal talking point 3.[/b]

quote:

When the deal was announced. Layton did what he thought he had to do. He huffed and he puffed: shame shame, shame. But none of that is going to change the fact that if the NDP were to join the gang-up in Central Nova, May would almost certainly defeat Peter Mackay.

quote:

So, too, must the NDP grassroots and individual campaigns in particular take responsibility for the whole of their behaviours, not just their good intentions. The change we need can’t just come from the party leader’s dictates any more.

And that is true for the Liberals and Greens as well.


[i]after thought but the focus is on the NDP[/i]

[b]Liberal talking point 4. - NDP are partisan (and of course, liberals are not?[/b]

quote:

But first, as leader, Layton needs to develop a new, less partisan style of communication than we have seen from him so far. He basically needs to rise above the “I’m the only one who’s right and everyone else is wrong and bad and should be ashamed of themselves” posturing of the past.

[b]Liberal talking point 5.[/b]

quote:

Here’s a politically painless example of how Layton could start laying down some new inter-party architecture and go beyond the alienating partisanship we’ve seen too often. He could make it known right away that he supports May’s right to participate in the leaders’ debate. She’s earned it personally and at the polls. Democracy demands it.

The only excuse for the NDP to shut her out is narrow self-interest. Layton would gain new-school political points, and the delicate process that needs to unfold could begin. Come on, let’s get started.


[i]And we know how that turned out - May was Dion Liberal's cat paw[/i].

One commenter put response to Klein's attitude the NDP in perspective, something this NDP hatchet job did not.

quote:

What is up with Alice Klein? My god is ever tiresome to hear yet another fellow lefty blame the NDP for the failings of our electoral system--and that is what we're talking about here. The reason no left umbrella left coalition emerged in recent years has nothing to do with Jack Layton and everything to do with the structural antagonisms built into our first-passed-the-post electoral system. In the absence of proportional representation, parties have little choice but to compete with one another. And as this structural logic plays itself over to course of time, politics invariably becomes increasingly partisan, increasingly shrill.

And even if this weren't the case, Klein's analysis is still way off the mark. I've worked enough campaigns for the NDP to know that the Liberals go after us with every bit of the partisan vehemence that Klein accuses us of. Yet we're supposed to put all of this aside whenever there is the threat of a right wing majority in the offing. The double standard is deplorable. The Liberal Party is to be forgiven of every transgression, every right wing policy, every triangulation, while the NDP is be held responsible for not just for its own actions, but also for those of the Conservative Party. And on top of that, hroughout it all the NDP is portrayed by people like Klein as some kind of almighty kingmaker. Would that the party were so powerful.

I might take Klein's lamentations more seriously when I hear her state publicly that the Liberal Party should not run candidates in ridings where there are sitting NDP MPs. When she proclaims, for instance, that Gerard Kennedy should back away from his plans (to attempt) to unseat the impressive and progressive NDP MP Peggy Nash. Or when Liberal heavyweights take their sights off of the riding of Ottawa Centre, where again, there is already able, progressive representation in the form of Paul Dewar. But you must forgive me for not holding my breath while waiting for her to do this.


Incidently, I picked this article up this time from a [url=http://whiletheearthburns.blogspot.com/2007/12/jack-laytons-poor-working... leaning blogger[/url] where one commenter stated this:

quote:

Wow, no Liberal spin there.

And another said this:

quote:

I have a deal for Alice. If the Liberals didn't run candidates west of the Toronto city limits, and instead promised to run a proper coalition government with the NDP, the NDP might just go for it. That is not what Alice is saying. What she is saying, like all good Liberals is the NDP is in their way and would they kindly screw off. Yes, the Liberal Party has a terrible reputation for corruption and on the environment, but they have changed now. They have really, really, really changed. Trust us. Pardon me while I puke.

This is just the opening round in the undead Liberal stalking horse know as the "Think Twice Coalition". The next voices you will hear from are Buzz Hargrove, Maude Barlow and James Laxer.


[i]one blogger found it very Ontario/Toronto centric where he knows and this election re-enforced, the liberals are a spent force beyond North Bay[/i]

I will provide more. It wasn't about cap and trade or taxing carbon, it was about a supposed NDPer using her position to shill for the liberals.

janfromthebruce

The post is not about cap and trade vs taxing carbon. It is about papers who do manufactured consent. There is an expectation that MSM does that, and thus when alternative media do it, we don't see it for what it is. Remember this was 2007, and Klein would have been working on putting her "strategic voting machine" into place, so she was just warming up her audience.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I always get the sense that you would be just fine if the papers were manufacturing NDP consent.

janfromthebruce

Another commentator at a different site also makes the same kind of critique I am making towards Klein more recently, and in relationship with votefortheenvironment:

quote:

Of course, VoteForEnvironment is a Liberal site
The problem of course is that VoteForEnvironment -- the site you describe as "sophisticated" -- has close ties to the Liberals. Kevin Grandia was exposed on Jogilvie's weblog for his close ties to both provincial and federal Liberals. Cornered, he said he's always been upfront about his Liberal connections -- though it's nowhere on the site -- but claimed his partner, Alice Klein, was a big-time NDP supporter. That'd be easier to swallow if she didn't write an anti-NDP screed just today for the Rabble columns. While their website is not so crass as to recommend the Liberals in every riding, in tight three-way races it goes Liberal -- even when the NDP are better-placed. You'll have to do better than this to appear non-partisan.

And another commenter posted in a blog this post:

quote:

For instance, if I have to read one more article by a left wing writer about how Jack Layton needs to support or prop up the Liberal Party I think I might have to scream.

Just today I read in the Toronto Now an article by Alice Klein calling for this very thing (http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=161031). It seems that in Canada, nothing the Liberal Party does or fails to do is ever held against it. All it need do is reposition itself (on a dime) and suddenly history itself is effaced. "Look," it says, "we have a new leader. Our record means nothing now. Our scandals, our lies, our failures to act, our institutional links to corporate Canada and to big money in general, mean absolutely nothing!"
And the most confounding part of all of it is that the public goes for it. Not just the average apoltical schmo, mind you, but New Democrats! Meanwhile, the NDP is held responsible for every mistake, real or imagined, it has ever made.

So here is what I know. I've worked in several campaigns for the NDP and I know firsthand that the Liberals are nastier and more partisan than Jack Layton will ever be. The moment writers like Alice Klein begin to call for the Liberals to not run candidates in ridings where there are sitting NDP MPs is the moment I begin to take her seriously. When she proclaims, for instance, that Gerard Kennedy should back away from his plans (to attempt) to unseat the impressive and progressive NDP MP Peggy Nash. Or when Liberal heavyweights take their sights off of the riding of Ottawa Centre, where again, there is already able, progressive representation in the form of Paul Dewar. But who among us really expects Klein, or any of the other double-standard bearers for the Canadian left, to do such a thing?


[url=http://idealisticpragmatist.blogspot.com/2006/12/response-to-terry-glavi...

During this election, you are right I was a cheerleader for the NDP. Why shouldn't I be? I am a cardcarrying NDPer and during the election I support the NDP. To call me a complete cheerleader loses sight that I am not always, as this will attest. [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]

[url=http://www.onessn.org/]One School system network[/url] posts a utube clip with one of the key [i]Jan Johnstone, English Trustees for One School System, and Bluewater District School Board Trustee [/i] Rosario M of ONT NDP wanted to kill me (nicely mind you.) [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Well, I have been aquainted with Klein for sometime, and I really don't expect a lot from her. Happily, however, she is one of the few Canadian publishers who will print material that is openly supportive of Palestinians, and their cause, though I can't always say that I am 100 percent a fan of the line that they take in its entirety.

In fact Klein is substantially to the left of the NDP on the issue of Palestinian rights. Just because the NDP is to the right of Klein on this issue, do you think the NDP should also be prevented from promoting its views on this web site?

Also, your position is based on the apriori assumption the the NDP is actually a progressive left-wing organization, much different from the Liberals. This assertion is very much in doubt. Your point basically moot.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Erik Redburn

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]I always get the sense that you would be just fine if the papers were manufacturing NDP consent.[/b]

Gratutitous insult.

Erik Redburn

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Well, I have been aquainted with Klein for sometime, and I really don't expect a lot from her. Happily, however, she is one of the few Canadian publishers who will print material that is openly supportive of Palestinians, and their cause, though I can't always say that I am 100 percent a fan of the line that they take in its entirety.

[/b]


Typical rhetorical shift. State that the NDP is to the right of a particular lefty author on ohh-let-say Palestine, to sidestep the fact the NDPs position is to the left of the actual writer's favourite party and very probably the particular writer in question. Anyhone have her usual positions on the middleEast? Unless Cueball answers where hes coming from himself, its probably best to ignore. Thats his standard OT.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Do you find it insulting? Perhaps so. There is nothing gratuitous about it at all. That is entirely the impression I get. These days when I read discussions about "politics" on this site, I am often struck about how little discussion of actual policy coming from the many of the NDP posters. For example, the deconsruction of Klein's article above, does not focus on the merits of her arguements, but on wether or not they are "liberal" arguements.

JFTB admits as much when they make a point of eschewing content of any kind:

quote:

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]The post is not about cap and trade vs taxing carbon. It is about papers who do manufactured consent.[/b]

We are encouraged to believe that because Liberal arguements are not NDP arguements, they are therefore not "progressive" arguements, and so therefore should be barred from this web site because the site is a "progressive" site. At no point, is there any discussion about what makes Klein's arguement "not progressive" other than the fact that they are "Liberal" views.

This is arguement by "definition", not logic.

Kleins arguement is also partisan, but in precisely the same vein as NDP arguements that oppose the Green Party for splitting the vote. Klein, without a doubt a Liberal now makes the self-same fatuous arguement about vote splitting except targetting the NDP.

If one does not maintain the consistency of the logic of an arguement, one always runs the risk of coming off as a partisan hypocrite. In fact making a "gratuitous" arguements, based solely on the party affiliation, and based on who the arguement serves.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

janfromthebruce

In Klein's manufacturing of consent for the liberals, and using votefortheenvironment as one such tactic, requires certain manufacturing:

The idea of strategic voting is based on the reasonable fear of a Conservative majority, but in order to accentuate this fear an absurd Orwellian logic needs to be employed in which the Liberals are far to the left of where they really are, and the Tories are almost a mythic threat to the very nature of what it means to be a Canadian. Sometimes, to this end, the past must be almost entirely rewritten.

If you read the propaganda of the strategic voting crew you would be hard-pressed to discover that the Omar Khadr case and our complicity with Guantanamo Bay and its abuses began with the Liberals, not the Tories. You would be searching in vane for the fact that the environmental record of the newly green Dion as environment minister was worse than that of the last two years and that while he defended Kyoto in word, he violated it in deed. Nowhere would you find reference to the reality that the proposal to stop funding for movies and art that some find "pornographic" was a Liberal proposal. You would look forever to find reference to the Liberal's terrible track record on post-9/11 human rights, North American economic integration, the need to tie ending the abuses of workers to trade pacts, the undermining of the social solidarity net by Paul Martin, and on, and on, and on.... Reference [url=http://ndpleft.blogspot.com/]source[/url].

Cueball Cueball's picture

Who cares? Argue the merit of the policy, not the presumed affiliation of the person.

All of this talk is really verging on Stalanist rhetoric, which asserts that because one "believes" something that does not support the "party line" they are therefore "objectively" with the enemy.

janfromthebruce

Actually, Alice Klein openly supported the pact between Dion and May, and not once has attached negative expletives to her. So in fact, when the Liberals decided to get cozy with the Greens, Klein also gave May the kidglove treatment. All her negativity became focused on Layton and the NDP but wrapped up in "I have a Layton lawn sign on my yard" so therefore it washes me in my underhanded attempts at "manufacturing of consent."

Cueball Cueball's picture

Ok. Klein doesn't like the NDP. She is a Liberal. At best a left-liberal. Its not as if NDP'rs never target May simply because she is splitting the vote. This is what Kelin is doing to the NDP.

So what? She hurt you feelings? As far as the mainstream press is concerned, NOW is probably the only paper in Toronto which would actually bother to address the idea of voting for the NDP as if it were serious consideration.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Polunatic2

So if I understand the OP correctly, every indicator showed Layton well on his way to becoming PM, or at least leader of the opposition. But Alice Klein & NOW magazine ruined it for him and the party.

Wow. I should have voted twice or something.

I never, ever believed that Peggy Nash stood a chance against Kennedy. He's been around too long and has a loyal base. He is sometimes underestimated and written off because some people don't like his personality. And Churley was up against an incumbent. The fate of that riding had little or nothing to do with so-called strategic voting.

So, whether rabble included Klein as a blogger or not, it would not have changed the outcome in my opinion. Who do you think has more readers? Rabble or NOW magazine?

All in all, the NDP ran one of their better campaigns in a long time but it is true that the NDP brain trust might want to examine why their popular vote didn't improve very much considering that the liberal vote nose dived. It's easy to blame Klein or anyone else. But then you might not learn the right lessons for the next time.

Finally, if the Green Party was just shilling for Dion, why did they get 750,000 votes?

Erik Redburn

quote:


M. Spector:
[b]I too was dismayed to see Klein getting regular access to rabble.ca to ply her political nonsense. But then I don't expect to agree with all the rabble columnists, and in fact there are others I'd like to see disappear along with Klein.

However, rabble is not an NDP site, and I suppose we have to live with the fact that anyone who is vaguely progressive is welcome here.[/b]


Nice drive by too Spector, bout you taking up Unionists helpful suggestion instead and offer others a point-by-point argument on how this particular partisan writer is even comparable to some of the others here you don't approve of? Choice is yours, if you really want to be taken seriously by the 2-3 million other Canadians who still believe the NDP represents a valid position between tax cutting, downsizing neo-liberalism and hardline revolutionary Marxism.

Erik Redburn

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Who cares? Argue the merit of the policy, not the presumed affiliation of the person.

All of this talk is really verging on Stalanist rhetoric, which asserts that because one "believes" something that does not support the "party line" they are therefore "objectively" with the enemy.[/b]


That would actually apply more closely to your own position. Yer either a "revolutionary" or a Liberal/Green.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
[b]

That would actually apply more closely to your own position. Yer either a "revolutionary" or a Liberal/Green.[/b]


A Erik the red-baiter is at it again. Fax me your loyalty oath Herr inquisitor, I am tired of torture by nonsense.

Today I am being called Green! Finally, someone dared say it. LOL. And what a summary:

What are you trying to say? That Green positions are indistinguishable from "communist" ones, so you can't decide wether or not I am a Green party supporter or a Marxist-Leninist.

What a joke.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Erik Redburn

quote:


Originally posted by Polunatic2:

Finally, if the Green Party was just shilling for Dion, why did they get 750,000 votes?[/QB]


They may have voted for her party believing that the word "Green" actually meant something to her too.

This thread was supposed to be about a certain partisan writer being run here, and the possibility of it reflecting a shift in rabble policy. If you want to bash the NDP for daring to try and surpass the nearest competitor for centre-left votes, you can look to any number of other threads here.

Cueball Cueball's picture

No! Please Erik, do me the favour, and outline for me the similarities between Marxist-Leninist positions and those of Elixabeth May or Stephan Dion. I am dying to hear the answer. Because there is no way I can see how you could possibly ever make the statement that someone was either: "a "revolutionary" or a Liberal/Green"

For me observations like this coming from the NDP rank and file go a long way to explaining why people don't vote for it.

Erik Redburn

Now Cueball, please stop trying to change the subject again and try answering some others questions for a change, like which current or past writers on babble are comparible to this new addition and how so exactly? If not, then others can only assume its just more of your usual Orange baiting.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Look man. You have just stated that you think I am either a "a "revolutionary" or a Liberal/Green", and aside from the fact that you are once again engaging in wild ad hominem smears, I am truly interested in what you mean by that statement.

Erik Redburn

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

A Erik the red-baiter is at it again. Fax me your loyalty oath Herr inquisitor, I am tired of torture by nonsense.

Today I am being called Green! Finally, someone dared say it. LOL. And what a summary:

What are you trying to say? That Green positions are indistinguishable from "communist" ones, so you can't decide wether or not I am a Green party supporter or a Marxist-Leninist.

What a joke.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]


A yes, Cueballs falls back on calling another a "red baiter", when he refuses to answer the question. How am I red baitor if your not even "red? But you did say you were going to vote Liberal or Green this time didn't you? Like just before the election, when you were like so mad at the NDP for not like being...revolutionary enough for you? And like, the arguments you and a few others constantly make places the only meaningful choices between "socialism" and "capitalism", no? I can read between the lines but I'm sure I can find examples of just that in the last week or two. Heck, Spector himself implied as much in his smear here about any "vague progressive" being allowed to publish here. (why is the NDP any different, correct?) So I'm trying to use this as an opportunuty to point out some of the real distinctions that may exist between her and others here. Care to back up what was being debated here (and too often elsewhere ) or do you want to fall back on name calling and innuendo again?

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Thanks JFTB for some excellent posting. Too bad the usual antics are in play.

The media needs to be continually exposed for the frauds that they are. I guess her editorials need the slamming adjectives to sell the spurious spin

Erik Redburn

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Look man. You have just stated that you think I am either a "a "revolutionary" or a Liberal/Green", and aside from the fact that you are once again engaging in wild ad hominem smears, I am truly interested in what you mean by that statement.[/b]

Try rereading what I wrote, within the context and target clearly made, you know the actual meaning of that word? Or is trying to make yourself the blameless victim again your only tactic left?

babblerwannabe

I guess even NOW magazine has to find a way to make a profit. I noticed they are presenting more views in line with the Liberal party lately, and they are doing it in a way that supposedly shows they are a balanced paper, what a shame.

Erik Redburn

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

quote:


Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
[b]I guess even NOW magazine has to find a way to make a profit. I noticed they are presenting more views in line with the Liberal party lately, and they are doing it in a way that supposedly shows they are a balanced paper, what a shame.[/b]

Must. Protect. Rabble.
[img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
[b]

Try rereading what I wrote, within the context and target clearly made, you know the actual meaning of that word? Or is trying to make yourself the blameless victim again your only tactic left?[/b]


All I can see is that you engaged in a completely off topic ad hominem smear, and then when challenged on this you then snuck back into your hidey-hole and demanded that I start talking about Alice Klein.

In what possible way to my (or M Spector's) specific party affiliations, or lack thereof have to do with this thread topic, and Alice Klein? You are trolling and trying to derail this thread, because it annoys you that not everyone is jumping on the burn Alice Klein bandwagon, [i]in favour of your political party.[/i]

So what if I am either a "revolutionary or a Green/Liberal" or whatever you think I am. Who cares. This thread is not about me.

Nor is it about M. Spector;

quote:

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:

Nice drive by too Spector, bout you taking up Unionists helpful suggestion instead and offer others a point-by-point argument on how this particular partisan writer is even comparable to some of the others here you don't approve of? Choice is yours, if you really want to be taken seriously by the 2-3 million other Canadians who still believe the NDP represents a valid position between tax cutting, downsizing neo-liberalism a[b]nd hardline revolutionary Marxism.[/b]


[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

Oh fcs, does every other thread have to be about the reverse Cueball witch hunt?

Cueball is apolitical but reserves the right to dwell on anti-NDP rhetoric, whether it's bullshit or half-truths or direct intent to misinform. Everyone should realize this by now

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Oh fcs, does every other thread have to be about the reverse Cueball witch hunt? [/b]

Not at all. Try arguing the point, instead of the person.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
JFTB admits as much when they make a point of eschewing content of any kind:

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]The post is not about cap and trade vs taxing carbon. It is about papers who do manufactured consent.[/b] There is an expectation that MSM does that, and thus when alternative media do it, we don't see it for what it is. Remember this was 2007, and Klein would have been working on putting her "strategic voting machine" into place, so she was just warming up her audience

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/QB]


Of which you only snipped the bold. JFTB was responding to posts above derailing the thread with respect to a carbon enviro-piss. You took it completely out of context. I'm not sure why you've chosen these bait and switch tactics but it's unbecoming of you.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

This thread is about "Manufactured Consent"

janfromthebruce

I am not saying that Klein made Nash and
Churley lose but her "strategic voting site" contributed to the underlying meme of strategic voting; the main message is vote liberal, the rest becomes cluttered noise.

In manufacturing consent, Klein setup the Dion liberals as the fallen hereos as our only choice in defeating Harper.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

Not at all. Try arguing the point, instead of the person.[/b]


Lead the way, oh so innocent one.

What was your point again?

I know JFTB had a good one in this thread.

What was yours?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Because there is nothing to the OP at all. It is all about the posturing of political parties. There is no discussion of any issues that can be used to define what is progressive or not.

I made the point that Klein's arguement is nothing but a rehashing of the NDP position on the Greens, but from the Liberal standpoint. It has no content, nor does the critique offered in the OP.

It is being said that Klein is a Liberal, who opposed the NDP. The NDP is by definition a "progressive". Therefore Klein is anti-progressive. If Klein is "anti-progressive" then she should not be promoted by this web site.

The root assumption, since there is no discussion regarding Klein's positions on the issue, is that the NDP is the definition of progressive, and therefore the content of this site. Opposition to it, is therefore anti-progressive.

The OP is nothing but a cheap attempt to make the NDP the benchmark standard of what should and should not be defined as "progressive" and therefore allowed on the board.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

Not at all. Try arguing the point, instead of the person.[/b]


The point is that strategic voting is miscarriage of democracy - and the Liberals piss poor record on the environtment while in power for twelve years. Promoting those bunch of crooked liars and their big business and banking agenda has no place in a progressive forum. The green shift was part of that party's overall shit show which some of us here refused to and continue to refuse to buy into.

Erik Redburn

[b]Q: "All I can see is that you engaged in a completely off topic ad hominem smear, and then when challenged on this you then snuck back into your hidey-hole and demanded that I start talking about Alice Klein.

In what possible way to my (or M Spector's) specific party affiliations, or lack thereof have to do with this thread topic, and Alice Klein? You are trolling and trying to derail this thread, because it annoys you that not everyone is jumping on the burn Alice Klein bandwagon, in favour of your political party.

So what if I am either a "revolutionary or a Green/Liberal" or whatever you think I am. Who cares. This thread is not about me." [/b]

Not too swift today are we? MY POINT was that YOU were the ONEs who keep framing the argument into that "yer either a 'revolutionary' or a Green-Liberal" type. Perhaps I might have made it clearer by adding NDP to Your usual Green-Liberal...tepid 'progressive' smears. Now, are You or anyone else here suggesting that the presumed NDP hacks here are no worse than a known Liberal party, care to back that up by showing how well her writing or beliefs compares to others published here? I assume rabble.ca still has limits on who they consider progressive, so lets go into a bit more, in manner that other readers can see the logic of. If not, then stop trying to put my own arguments down to baseless smears, or give it up, ok?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

For me Cueball, the OP demonstrated what is wrong with "progressive" politics. If Rabble is a "progressive" alternative, shouldn't they exercise more judgement in their choice of mouthpieces? Maybe I'm wrong. Are there examples of NDP columnists expressing the same disdain for other "progressive" politicians?

Cueball Cueball's picture

It asserts the right of NDP'rs to decide what is and is not progressive. I don't happen to think that Jack Layton is a progressive politician. I often express my distain for him. But JFTB, wants to make expressing distain for Jack Layton banned at this site, because of course (according to JFTB) Jack is a progressive politician, because he is in the NDP.

Asserting this idea puts any opposition to the NDP or its leader, at this site, out of bounds, regardless of who it comes from, Alice Klein, or myself.

quote:

Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]

The point is that strategic voting is miscarriage of democracy - and the Liberals piss poor record on the environtment while in power for twelve years. Promoting those bunch of crooked liars and their big business and banking agenda has no place in a progressive forum. The green shift was part of that party's overall shit show which some of us here refused to and continue to refuse to buy into.[/b]


There is nothing "left" or "right" wing about strategic voting per se. It is an arguement about the mechanics of politics. It is not something that defines one as progressive or not. Klein is arguing for strategic voting. This does not by definition make her a Liberal, it is merely the fact that she is a Liberal that she is advocating it at this time.

There is hardly any difference between an arguement that opposes stratgic voting, and one that argue that a party is invalid because it is splitting the vote. NDP'rs often challenge the validity of the Green party, on the grounds of voting "mechanics", based on the idea that the Green split the "left" vote.

The bulk of Klein's piece is about voting mechanics, not about policy. And the same is true of the OP. This is not about what are and are not progressive ideas, and what should and should not be allowed on this site because it conforms to a certain standard of left analysis, it is about asserting a partisan preference, based on the assertion that the NDP, and no one else, is progressive.

I pointed out for example, that Kleins position on Israel, is substantially better than much of the NDP and lightyears ahead of Pat Martin.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Only if you believe voting Liberal can be either "progressive" or "strategic". That urban legend's been debunked.

Pages

Topic locked