babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
NDP Leadership 27
October 24, 2011 - 9:05pm
We're rolling...
At the start of the last thread, I updated the list of MP endorsements. That list hasn't changed much (perhaps it will when Nash enters the race), but until it does, here is a list of the MPs who have not yet endorsed anyone:
Undeclared MPs (51):
Allen
Angus
Atamenko
Ayala
Benskin
Bevington
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Borg
Boutin-Sweet
Brosseau
Caron
Chquette
Christopherson
Chow
Cleary
Comartin
Cote
Davies, Don
Donnelly
Dore Lefebvre
Duncan
Freeman
Garrison
Gravelle
Harris, Jack
Hughes
Hyer
Julian
Larose
Laverdiere
Leslie
Liu
Mai
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
Michaud
Minh-Thu Quach
Morin (Dany)
Morin (Isabelle)
Papillon
Peclet
Raynault
Savoie
Sitsabaiesan
Stoffer
Sullivan
Thibeault
Tremblay
Turmel
I expect at least two of them (Chow, Turmel) will never endorse anyone - leaving as many as 49 up for grabs.
Thanks for the list, Lou, very helpful!
I don't see Andrew Cash's name. Did I miss his endorsement? Who's he supporting?
KenS said:
"My hunch is the 'Mulcair is really a Liberal' tripe is best ignored at this point.
I may be wrong, but I dont think it has been paraded here for some time.
The last thing I remember is someone arguing that the time Mulcair spent as a Minister in an unredeemable conservative government renders him too suspect. I argued that point, but it is in my view it is a fair point because it is about the substance of Mulcairs politics- not what party he was in, who and where to his 'real allegiances' are, etc."
I was one of the people questioning Mulcair on those lines. To be clear though, I don't think he's really a secret Liberal trying to destroy the NDP. He was a Liberal MNA from 1994 until 2006. That's a long time. I'm curious (ok, suspicious) of his political thinking and would love to hear him explain how he could have felt comfortable supporting what he supported prior to his resignation from the Quebec Liberals in 2006. On his web site, Mulcair now lists Claude Ryan as his political mentor. I don't remember Ryan as being particularly progressive. He wasn't as bad as many, but as Liberal Minister of Education, he raised tuition fees significantly.
I want to feel comfortable that our new leader will respect the policies and history of the NDP. Of course, some things might get moderated a bit, now that we're the official opposition. But I don't want us moderated into Liberals. Of all the candidates, I fear that the most from Mulcair.
It's not about the fact that he was a Liberal. People change. It's about what his politics are now. Did they change? How? Or, since he still cites Ryan as his mentor, does Mulcair believe his politics (except for environmental issues) are consistent with both the Charest Liberals and the NDP.
Azana, you are trotting out the same few Mulcair quotes here and on Twitter, but I don't see you spending any time reviewing what Mulcair has said in debate in the House of Commons or on TV since he was elected an NDP MP.
Instead of this incessant hand-wringing, why don't you go and do that research and come back and tell us what you think. If you find the House of Commons Hansard site too difficult to operate, you can always try openparliament.ca.
Any time I've seen Mulcair speak in the House, I have found him well within the realm of usual NDP discourse.
The case for Peggy Nash
http://thenewdemocrat.ca/2011/10/peggy-nash-for-leader-of-the-ndp/
I've been somewhat reassured by some of the things Mulcair has said in parliament. I don't think he's in the wrong party. I just worry about where, if elected leader, he will lead us. If Lloyd Axworthy decided he wanted to run for the NDP, we'd say, "hmmm. Interesting. He was known as a progressive Liberal. Why not?" If he then wanted to run for leader, I'd have serious questions for him about Employment Insurance reform and his earlier support of the budget cutbacks stemming from the 1995 budget.
Even though Mulcair has supported some good policies since becoming a New Democrat, I believe he needs to clarify his earlier positions. I don't see people, yet, asking these hard questions. I'm hoping they get asked and answered well.
Claude Ryan? Mentor??
To date, I know that Niki Ashton and Romeo Saganash have actually been on doorsteps in the Saskatchewan election. I understand Tom Mulcair is coming sometime this week. I haven't heard of any others so far. (Not to suggest there haven't been or won't be - just that I haven't heard.)
give me a break, azana. putting aside the absurd overstatement on ryan and his position in the factional division of the plq that you're pretending not to know about/understand (a good axworthy/martin comparison would do there), would you rather his "mentor" had been a longtime homophobe and eugenist... like tommy douglas? so yeah, nstead of trotting out another line that you all think might hurt mulcair and start a meme (which you're doing well, btw, but probably not for long), why don't you spend your time dealing with the deficiencies of your own camp - a completely charisma-less candidate whose establishment stamp does nothing to obscure the likelihood of his directing the party and movement to electoral catastrophe across the country?
I don't personally care about any Claude Ryan nonsense, but it baffles me how people could think Mulcair's background in Charest's government isn't a problem. I'd especially like to hear from someone who fought Charest's government as they were attacking unions, student funding and pay equity, but can still support one of his ministers for leader of the NDP. I mean I don't think Mulcair's a terrible guy, but he seems to me to be a capital P Politician. He knows what to say depending on the room he's in.
It baffles me how people could think that Mulcair's "political mentor" being Claude Ryan isn't a problem.
That's offensive. And dishonest.
While Douglas (like many intellectuals of left and right) had thought eugenics might have practical application, he had long abandoned that idea prior to becoming Premier of Saskatchewan. And while his (apparent) attitude towards homosexuals would probably not pass muster today, in the context of his time, he was moderately progressive, supporting the decriminalization of homosexual acts.
Please peddle your gratuitous bullshit somwhere else.
wah wah wah, i was making a point.
Malcolm, all kamakura did was make the point that it isn't fair to hold Mulcair fully responsible for the viewpoints of a particular mentor, just as we can respect and admire Tommy Douglas without condoning the particular viewpoints he had on the subjects mentioned.
@ Azana:
We will never see Mulciair 'explain' how he squared himself with the governments he was in and what they did. Not becaue he cant; and do it in a way that is potentialy re-assuring even to yourself.
He will not do it because of Politics 101: do not get into a defensive narrative. Because you will pay for it.
I am petty sure that Mulcair will explain more the direction he will take the party if he is leader. The campaign dynamic will compell him to do that.
Great letter. And great column by Dobbin supporting Nash.
Part of Dobbin's article is stunningly arrogant, notably the part where he claims to speak for all of the OWS protesters and the up to 80% of the population that sympathises with them.
Thanks for that. Then he makes claims about how Topp and Mulcair would take the NDP to the right with almost no evidence whatsoever. What "evidence" he offers speaks louder in the breach (i.e. of countervailing evidence) than in the observance (i.e. of his scaremongering fantasies about Topp and Mulcair).
Then there is this money quote:
Yes Murray, right in that quote lies the answer to every problem the world can imagine. It is a choice between neo-feudalism or the seven horsemen of the apocalypse. Care to buy a vowel or do you have more strong cases to build on epithets alone?
Then time for Nash the saviour. Almost all the arguments in Nash's favour could be also said about Topp and Mulcair. Then there is this nugget:
Way to tokenise, Murray Dobbin. If anything, your boosting of Peggy Nash because she is a woman makes me less eager to vote for her, because your framing asks me to see everything about her in terms of her sex, and I hardly think that is the primary trait I am selecting for in a leader. What if she is not a good woman (whatever that means)? Should I not support her? Perhaps as a woman she is too cold, perhaps not warm enough? Is she sufficiently motherly? Make me barf...This is the kind of framing that has destroyed a generation of female politicians from Hillary Clinton (she's too cold, she's a b*tch) to Audrey McLaughlin or Alexa McDonough (they aren't "fashionable" enough) and on and on...
If you think the economy is a neo-feudalist hulk on the eve of destruction, how is this even remotely a good endorsement? Also, what about Judy W-L? Was she such a lousy finance critic as to deserve relegation to your historical dung heap of "white male" (finance critic) non-entities. If anything, I think Peggy Nash is only starting to grow in to the huge shoes that Judy W-L first left Mulcair and then Nash to fill.
ETA: I hope no one will let this lousy column colour their impressions of Nash. I am eager to see her enter the race and she has much more to offer than Dobbin's column suggests.
Isn't Dobbin the one who was advocating strategic voting in the federeal election? That was a disaster. If he would have been spending his time writing columns about how people in Liberal constituencies should have voted NDP we might have won in May 2011.
Run all of Murray's advice to the NDP together, and it would make a hilarious video.
But as has been said, don't hold his endorsement against Peggy.
After having written about how badly the Chretien-Martin Liberals cut social services in the 1990s deeper than Mulroney would even have dared. It's like Jamey Heath said, it's okay to criticize the Liberals when they have a majority, but not when they might actually lose.
That really gets me about people who on one hand claim that the NDP isn't left enough and on the other insist that the NDP and Liberals should work together to stop the Conservatives. If they're all right-wing parties, why does it matter which one gets in. People who throw up their arms and say, "they're all crooks, why bother?" at least are working from an internally coherent mind frame and are more honest.
Results of an online poll so far. Who is Desrochers?
154 Thomas Mulcair
104 Peggy Nash
102 Romeo Saganash
62 Nathan Cullen
56 Paul Dewar
54 Niki Ashton
44 Brian Topp
40 Eloise Lara Desrochers
11 Robert Chisholm
You didn't miss anything.
I however, did.
I heard that Paul Dewar was going to be heading to the Moose Jaw area, but not sure if that's up-to-date.
For those who are anticipating Peggy Nash joining the race, here is my take on what she could bring to the contest.
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2011/10/ndp-leadership-race-needs-peggy-nash
Many of us strategic voting advocates, including Dobbin, did just that.
I'm guessing that if I was a resident of some town in Sask and some carpet bagger from the east showed up at my doorstep to show me the way I might be a little turned off.
Chip on the shoulder driven politics sure isnt going to win for us.
Audra Williams has signed on to the Saganash campaign as online media manager.
When Peggy Nash is spinning, she doesn't seem legit. The other problem is the difficulty she has winning her riding.
But when she's speaking from the heart, she comes out victorious each time. She could very easily win this race and propel us into government by beating the conservatives with the facts. She's a definate progressive and a titan on economic ussues.
But there's a more interesting issue in play. Could she bring CAW support back to the NDP? If so, is it dangerous to associate with those who would abandon us at ease.
Nobody "can deliver the CAW".
"It" does not move anything rmotely like a homogenous entity.
Subpoint: neither the members nor the activists of the CAW have abandoned the NDP. The noise you here is not a reflection of reality on the ground.