Gary Doer defends Alberta oilsands

For anyone with TV not watching parliamentary affairs last night, a friend informs me that Jack Layton was speaking about the need to move his environmental bill out of committee to move it to third reading.

Any guesses as to its chance of leaving committee in the term of this Parliament?  Any comments from the "New Democrat watchers" about the morality of THAT party or its camp followers? (I'm sure that the NDP leadership has somehow played it wrong - or at least to the dissatisfaction of the watchers and its not the neocons at fault - by some act of convoluted logic).

There is a pile of over the top comments here-- some seem to want to be exaggerating what is being said in order to make some unrelated point.

There remain a few issues:

1) it does not matter if Doer speaks for the NDP the association is there. I raised the concern that the comment he made can damage an impression of the party especially on the issue of the environment. I did not even bother to get into whether I think that damage is fair or not-- it does not matter since I was speaking of political effects not cosmic justice. I did not think it was required for me to once again say how I support the NDP's position on the environment to observe that this is a political problem.

2) An ambassodor (or even a GG for that matter) is in fact a communicaitons position not a policy one. By taking that job from Harper, he needed to accept he will be speaking for Harper. It is too late to have concerns about individual messages after you take the position. We should not expect or want our ambassador to another country to perform some kind of opposition to the government.

3) After thinking about this over the last few days, when I think about his support for the tar sands as ambassador I actually do not have trouble with it-- that's his job. He is reflecting the position of the government of Canada. I do, however, then, have a huge problem with him agreeing to be the communicator for an outfit (the federal Conservative government) that is at war with just about everything I believe in. An ambassador is not just ceremonial. Like it or not this is a floor crossing and NDP members ought to consider that when mulling over offers for employment from political opponents. Doer is not an ambassedor for his own opinions-- his is the spokesperson for the most right wing federal government that we have ever had, one that does not believe in democracy nevermind any social values.

4) In light of the above-- I think it is fair to say on the one hand Doer's current pronouncements ought to be considered reflective only of the federal Conservatives not of the NDP and the issue is not with his individual comments on anything right now but his apparent floor crossing to such a right wing outfit.

5) The crossing from the NDP to the Conservatives is a huge betrayal of the NDP not because the party is the same as the others but precisely because it is different. Those screaming the loudest about this betrayal are more likely to be loyal New Democrats as those of other parties.

6) As for my own loyalty to the NDP-- I feel that I am more loyal by criticizing and trying to expose and resolve issues than by pretending they do not exist-- at election time I support the party but the party is weaker where people feel that dissent is unwelcome. This is a place where people ought to be respected for sharing honestly held opinions without being accused of being disloyal for doing so-- and there is no requirement to be loyal to the NDP-- we welcome people of other political parties-- or of no political party. I, for one, believe that the left intellectually is well strong enough to survive and thrive in the light of criticism, dissent and differences of opinion and will do better than narrowing the field such that everyone must agree on everything or be singled out for abuse for being disloyal. In this case I think what Doer did looks bad and said so-- since I truly believed what I said I do not apologize for it.

As for those running around saying what they do not tolerate and equating dissent as being like or akin to being mysogynistic. that's a scary tactic of intimidation. I think it smacks of attacking everyone you disagree with using whatever insult or word you believe is the nastiest.

As for what Layton might be feeling-- well he has personally put so much effort into a clear set of policies on the environment that separate the NDP from the others that I would imagine he is feeling quite unhappy about it. It is clear that he does not support this opinion so no doubt he is upset. It is fair and relevant to point that out. Why anyone could think that's an insult to Layton, I don't know- if you think about it, it's a compliment to a person who has worked hard enough on the environment to feel that as betrayal coming from a fellow New Democrat with whom he has shared many stages.

George-- I don't get your point-- it is the fact that this is a former premier whose seat is still warm going off and doing this. New Democrats have a right to be pissed without being called disloyal. I don't see many here saying that the NDP is bad because he did this-- although there is justified concern about the optics in a political world where appearances matter more than reality.

I don't really get that concerned about some individual-- but when I get betrayed by someone I may have banged in signs or made phone calls for that distinction, as you call it, makes it worse. I do not live in Manitoba but if I had ever worked on one of his campaigns I'd want to give him a call-- not because he is just anyone but because he got to that position because of the effort of many people who cannot relate to what he is doing now.

NDPers understand collective and public goods. The name Doer is a collective good-- it was built by thousands of workers who believe in things other than the tar sands. His name would not rate the back page of a paper never mind consideration for a prestige job without the efforts of all those people. It is outrageous to suggest that their complaints now could be disloyal. I'll go further-- since he decided to wear the NDP banner to victory-- in a good job-- anyone who has worked for the NDP brand and philosophy has a right to be upset at him and to vocalize it without being told they are disloyal.

If Harper had appointed a Reformatory hack to the post, we'd all be complaining about what a Tory hack the new ambassador to the U.S. was.

But every now and then, a PM has to throw a bone to partisans of other parties just to show "how non-partisan" they are...and then we all denounce the "leftie" they appointed for "selling out".

selling out the peoples' political positions  by 'representatives' is a critical problem. It should be recognized and denounced not denied and protected. Furthermore if, as it appears with the NDP, there is a culture within that continues to produce these sellouts - it must be rooted out and corrected. If that is not possible and the rot is too entrenched, then it should be abandoned or better yet euthanized. Time is running out  and too precious to waste on vehicles that don't begin to take us in the direction we need to go, because the hustlers and parasites take it over for personal and political gain.

God, one has to love those oblique silencing attacks.....

Nobody's "silenced" anyone.  Well, except me.  I'm closing the thread, so I guess I'm the silencer. :)