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.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Well, Azana, you're moderating your approach here, but I'm still calling BS after seeing this tweet on the #ndpldr feed:
You sign up as a new babbler, to drop some old clippings about Mulcair, and then rather than do further research, you try and encourage people who follow that twitter feed (oh, say, the national media) to pop by the babble thread enticed by slurs against Mulcair.
Don't you see why people think you have ulterior motives?
Burn
From that previously linked article/interview with Mulcair:
This is off base, and I think there are a couple reasons Mulcair could be repeating it.
One possibility is that he is doing it for purely or mostly strategic reasons- to play himself as the embattled underdog. Doing it for purely strategic reasons: I seriously doubt that. But doing it because it appeals to him [and his campaign team apparently], AND because they perceive it to be helpful to them: yes, I think so.
I think Mulcair is letting himself go with the sense of being attacked. Of course there is a reasonable base in it, there always is. But in this forum, Brian Topp has been much more attacked, and that is a reflection of what takes place around the NDP. Reacting to attacks is not a necessity.
This particular item Mulcair is responding to in the quote is way off base. Anybody who has listened to even a small number of discussions within the NDP will have heard repeatedly that refrain about not being like Liberals to win. It has not and nevr has been directed at people who were Liberlals, it has always been a tag applied to people who supposedly want to act like Liberlas do so we will win an election. Tom Mulcair himself can be excused for not knowing that. But not so the long time Dipper activists in his campaign. They need to get with it.
Cloaks of martyrdom are unseemly.
I personally think all the people attacking candidates on twitter is a bit... absurd if you will. But then again, this is the interwebz and people say whats lurking in their unconscience. Anyways...
Opinion on Topp's taxation
I'm sure you've seen this Nash Article and Dewar's Urban Strategy
Support for Saganash
And a Topp article in French that I didn't read yet.
Photos from Dewar's Toronto Town Hall (he was introduced by Rosario Marchese).
Got to hand it to the Dewar staff, they're doing a good job presenting their candidate.
I appreciate it, too. Unfortunately, the article addressed much more extreme versions of the legitimate concerns about him, though, and ended up being much less helpful than it could have been as a result, at least to me. Here's where I'm coming from, as an undecided member who is open to voting for Mulcair:
I'm not worried that he's an interloper; I think he's more than proven his loyalty to the NDP by joining it at a time when they were having little success, and working so hard to build the party in Quebec. So I can put that aside.
I certainly don't think he's a Quebec nationalist (you can reconcile many things with being a Quebec nationalist, but not spending years in the Quebec Liberal Party). I do worry that he doesn't understand the country very well beyond central Canada, though (understandable, but somewhat worrisome), and that he is going to be too busy convincing us that he really does understand the whole country to be willing to do the listening necessary to correct those knowledge gaps (much more worrisome). This article did nothing to assuage those concerns.
I also don't think he's a fiscal conservative. But I do worry that he might be a fiscal centrist (I'm looking for a fiscal leftist with a pragmatic approach), and at least in that respect, closer to the Liberal Party's fiscal ideology than I would like to see (his citing of Doer as an example doesn't help). In the article, he's quoted as calling himself a fiscal 'moderate'. I wish I had a better handle on what he means by that. And I appreciate (and mostly agree with) his views on the environment, but he would go a lot further toward convincing me if he, say, denounced Harper's union-busting techniques. Or announced a plan for a pharmacare programme, or a stop to corporate tax cuts. Something other than what I already know about him, something forward-looking.
I am also concerned about what he views as counter-attacks on Topp, but which to me seem to be coming out of the blue. For example: I'm as "NDP base" as it gets, but I certainly don't read Topp's comments about "not needing to become Liberals to win" as having anything to do with Mulcair's past. I see it as Topp saying that we don't have to move closer to the centre to win. So to me, when Mulcair starts claiming outright that these were coded attacks on him, it makes him look paranoid and defensive. I'm sure I'm not the only one who reacts this way, and it isn't doing him any favours. The best way for him to shed the "not a team player" image he's been saddled with is to start showing that he views the existing NDP--including the other leadership candidates--as part of his team. I want to know that if he wins, he will work with the other people who have contributed to bringing the NDP to where it is now. Even if he doesn't like some of them.
Since IP's post is thoughtful and long, I am figuring it is cross-posted with my post above where I say pretty much the same thing about Mulcair reacting to what he thinks the Topp campaign is saying about him with coded messages.
I think the comments on all the other issues that Mulcair raises are also spot on by IP. The overall effect is not re-assuring, even where some of the concerns are apparently being addressed [and charitably just ignoring the uncalled for attack on Topp].
To the Mulcair campaign if you are listening: before this article/interview was circulating here I made the point that defensive narratives are a mugs game you always lose at; and therefore to not expect one from Mulcair.
Well, I was wrong about getting one from Mulcair- but he has proven my argument correct.
Question: can someone tell me if Peggy Nash voted with the NDP caucus on the Libya bombardment/invasion, or against? Were there any dissenters?
Bear in mind that voting against Caucus is generally not done, even when it is not expressly forbidden.
So an MP not doing it tells you very little, and absolutely nothing about what they would do as leader.
Ottawa Observer - I was as clear as I can be about my Mulcair concerns. I'm having trouble seeing what can be interpreted as my hidden agenda. I signed up for twitter this week as I noticed other people tweeting (is that the word?) their thoughts on the leadership race. I did the same. I tweeted the invite to participate in this babble discussion because I'd like to see other opinions. That tweet went out before I saw the CTV news story. I think its very relevant to my concerns and posted here. It doesn't answer them all, but I appreciate the effort Mulcair is making to address these questions (I'm quite confident he isn't addressing them because of my posts and tweets).
I agree with Idealistic Pragmatist's response in post #67.
People post and tweet positives and negatives on all candidates, depending on their views. Cullen got a lot of grief on his proposal last week. I don't see why my posts are more suspicious than others. I've tried not to be disrespectful - only straightforward on my concerns.
Well, that's just scary.
The NDP caucus voted unanimously in favour of Canada's involvement in Libya in March and again in June - but in September voted against. Of course now that pig Gaddafi is dead most people regard the Libya involvement as having been a big success - so to make much of an issue for whether a person supported or opposed Canada's involvement is a waste of time.
It's how things are done in Canada, though. We have the most whipped caucuses of any country whose federal politics I follow (and there are many). You can think that's a problem, but it doesn't really make sense to take that out on the candidates.
Makes a difference to me Azana that you tweeted that before you read the Mulcair interview.
The words OO used were 'ulterior motive'.... which doesnt have to be working for a rival campaign. It could just be a dogged need to 'save us' all from Mulcair. And had you posted that tweet after saying that Mulcair had provided you with substantial re-assurance about his intentions- that would qualify to me as evidence of some ulterior motive.
Right. Qaddafi's death retroactively justifies all NDP support for the murderous air attacks. Just as Osama bin Laden's death justifies the war in Afghanistan, and the death of Saddam Hussein justifies the war in Iraq.
It is a problem. But it also underscores how extraordinarily important it is that we choose well the next leader.
yawn.
Conservatives unload with both barrels on NDP tax-hike plan
I shall try to remember to be frightened.
Promises to be some free copy for Topp in the race.
Anyone else want to get in on a piece of it?
Everybody wins.
Conservatives get to go to their base again, the NDP to their's....
There is much that is "generally not done" in the federal NDP caucus, but that doesn't make it right.
I note also that 20% of the NDP caucus did not vote with Tommy Douglas in the House when he famously opposed the imposition of the War Measures Act in 1970.
Could people please stop imputing nefarious "ulterior" motives to (and attacking) posters who are doing nothing else than discussing the political stances of the candidates in a thread on (shock!) a political forum about (shock!) leadership candidates...?
Azana has been making substantive contributions based on his/her experience of Quebec politics (we do know a thing or two about that subject, having breathed and fought against Liberal governments for years), and has done so in a perfectly respectful tone. You are obviously free to disagree with his/her points; engage in respectful debate or don't, but stop it already with the accusations.
FWIW, I've made some points similar to Azana's, have been a member of Rabble for some time, and have at the moment absolutely no skin in the game, as it were, as I'm not even an NDP member.
Maybe the Cons win but WE won't win in 2015 if we only appeal to our base, we know what the base is and it's not enough to get rid of this terrible government. We need to be smart in picking our leader and choose someone that appeals to those outside our base as well as inside the party. This is why I have decided to support Paul Dewar for leader, he has a broad appeal, is not too tied to unions (not that that's a problem for ME but it is for many and gives the Cons easy ammunition too) Dewar is principled, knowledgeable, experienced and comes the closest, for me, to Jack's optimistic and collaborative way of doing politics.
I tweeted the invite to participate here in a discussion on Mulcair's choice of Claude Ryan as mentor at around 5 pm yesterday. The article came out at 7:42 p.m. I read it around 10 pm and posted it here at 10:05 pm.
I'd characterise my opinion now as 'partially' reassured, not really 'substantially' reassured as Ken S states above. I'm only partially reassured because I agree with Ken's and IP's posts above. The part of the article I appreciated most was:
"Mulcair pointed out he had no choice but to be Liberal because that's the only federalist party in Quebec provincial politics, a big tent which encompasses people who vote Conservative, Liberal, NDP and Green federally."
Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20111025/mulcair-lays-out-agenda-for-ndp-leadership-race-111025/#ixzz1btvXPj4iI can certainly respect that someone would make that decision if they wanted to run for office in Quebec. However, I think Mulcair exagerates the size of the Quebec Liberal tent. Federal Conservatives and Liberals might fit well in the tent, but there is a Green Party in Quebec and Greens would likely vote Green. In my circle (admittedly very, very small - as proof I point to the fact that I have 9 - count 'em - 9 twitter followers) Federal New Democrats either spoil their Quebec ballot (I've done that occasionally), vote Quebec Solidaire (I have once), vote Green (I did that once as well) or, in some cases even for federalists, vote PQ (I never, ever did that.) I can imagine some might hold their nose and vote Liberal.
I have an idea. Why don't we launch an NPD Quebec??? It's been done before, but circumstances are different now.
People have said my comments and tweets were wrong. Some have argued thoughtfully, some rudely. I can understand all that. But, can someone explain why I'm so suspicious? Do you actually think I'm a spy/provocateur? OK, I'll admit it. I received a call a few weeks ago from my buddy Harper. "Az," he said. "Please destroy the Mulcair campaign by posting occasionally on rabble. And don't forget to tweet viciously to your 9 followers. We'll bring that upstart to his knees."
There. Now you know the truth. Join me in the conspiracy - follow @ m_azana on twitter. I don't tweet often. I tweet to destroy!
And thanks for your comments, Barlauer.
Agreed as IP said, that Mulcair has established he is not some kind of fiscal right winger; but that he has also given no indication which a lot of us would like to hear, whether or not he is some kind of fiscal centrist.
We can just leave alone as pointless the question of whether fears and reservations about Mulcair beyond that even exist here- and are reasonable or not.
I can take a stab at it. Some of us (myself included) are sensitive to attacks on any of the leadership candidates. In some cases it's because we're used to being a more or less fully unified party under Layton and still feel sad and angry that that's apparently no longer the case, and in others it's because we know that the Conservatives will be trying to figure out which attacks are bound to stick to each candidate in the case of that candidate's win. So if you come here as a new babbler and all you post are things about one particular candidate, and most of the things you say are negative, you open yourself up to suspicion that you're not actually here to hang out with us and shoot the breeze about the leadership race, you're here to be a shit-stirrer sowing negative sentiment about that particular candidate. Does that make sense?
Yes it does. Thanks for this thoughtful feedback. I guess I'm kind of stuck. Overall, I think the leadership candidates are incredible. I can comfortably support almost all of them, with one notable exception. Some of my concerns have been answered, but not all. I find it difficult to raise these types of questions without being somewhat negative.
I would suggest that until there is evidence of a single, solitary Liberal or Conservative troll coming on babble and pretending to support a candidate while attacking others, we accept all new babblers at face value and welcome them with grace and aplomb. When we do get that first confederate, however, it's open season (as soon as we slap each others' backs for mattering a whit to LibCon politicos).
There is one candiate I said is on the bottom of my list because he decided he wanted to run this race featuring a deliberate shot to the foot. Pity, I liked Nathan Cullen, and he was up there on those I want to see prove himself.
Beyond that, there is another candiate I know I will not support. And then one or two who are unlikely because of some particular concern. I do not feel a need to share those. I do not expect other people to hue to that- hard questions, and even statements with no questions, are legit.
But I think the majority of people here share that prediliction to stay away from dissing candidates or very persistent and repeated hard questions about them. It makes us antsy. "You know, I did hear that already."
Which is another take on what IP was saying.
I dont know where the line is between a question, and a line being pursued that does not deserved to be called 'questioning'.... but I do know it gets crossed around here. Which does not mean that at any particular instance I have correctly called it this time.
I find that questions about Mulcair are perceived differently than ones about Topp. For some reason, "the candidate of the back room dealers" is less of an insult than "I wonder if I can trust a former Liberal." They both seem to me to be relevant questions that many members are asking.
Personally I think Mulcair's being a Liberal less important than the fact he ran when the NDP's historic breakthrough would have been considered a pipe dream by everyone in the country.
As for Topp I don't really understand the back room establishment meme. He has run campaigns across the country for over a decade. If he didn't have people from those campaigns supporting him he would have no base to start with. The fact that some of those campaigns were successful and thus those politicians became part of the "establishment" and then support him seems to be an odd knock on his candidacy.
I am far more interested in their policy priorities and their vision for making Canada a progressive country. So far Romeo is articulating a vision I like. I will be awaiting other candidates entry into the race and the debates before deciding who my first choice will be. Other than Jack my track record of supporting the eventual winner is not very good although Audrey was my second choice. I still wish we had elected Corky and not Glen.
I think that all the candidates need to be given tough questions by their own NDP supporters because it will show us how they can respond to the attacks that the Cons and their MSM allies are going to launch the day after the new leader is proclaimed.
Oh, they're totally legit. But you're right; for the most part I'm choosing not to share the concerns I have about particular candidates, either, especially if the concerns are about things they can't do anything about.
I did share my concerns in the case of Topp's current lack of ability in working a room, and my concerns about Mulcair's approach to talking about people's issues with his policy and his temperament, because I think those things can still be corrected. It was intended as constructive criticism, and both times I deliberately couched it in a statement that I am still open to voting for either of them (which is true) in the hope that in both cases there is someone from their campaign reading who will take it to heart. And yet it still made me uncomfortable to write it down and know it would likely be widely read. I don't want to undermine any of them--even the ones I'm dead set against at this point.