NDP Leadership 74

I think there are only two things you can do:

* Have strategic messaging smarts. [Which is not specific to this.]

* Stay away from leadership candidates that have obvious issues that anyone could poke at.

We can all point at likely handles the Cons could use on each of the candidates. I'm not talkking about those. I mean really egregious stuff that literally any opponent could have a field day with. And I dont see any of that.

"Dealing with" nasty attacks frames the need in a way that is not going to get us pointed in the right direction. You don't just let negative attacks go by [Kerry, Dion, Ignatieff], but 'dealing with it' via direct counter-attacks and simplistic invarnished 'telling the truth' is also a loser.

Those 3 losers werent immobilised because they had nothing to say in response. They and their campaigns at least knew enough not to just answer. They were immobilised because they were not sufficiently competent to mount effective counter-strategies.

[And the best counter-strategy of all is to anticipate where you are going to be attcked, and put neutralizing messages out there before the attacks. Messages that tend to also build towards where you want to be anyway-the vision thing. Win-win.]

I think that pretty much sums up my perspective. And I think most people have concluded that Dewar blundered in selecting Angus as his "Deputy" - a move that is 1) Presumptive (like Dewar almost assumes he has the leadership in the bag) and 2) seems to place Dewar in a universe where Canada consists of one region, Ontario.

Doofy,

How does one take seriously the Liberals talking in their echo chamber?

Saying that Mulcair cannot win the NDP leadership has value to the Liberals for the ripples they can hope it creates.

Ditto for the garbled logic about what the LSD defection says about the NDP [if people can figure out what is being said].

 

Rules of Thumb to Keep in Mind

In politics, people who are not your friends will only offer you their strategic opinion if it serves their ends. Their assessment might be what they honestly think to be true, they may be making it up entirely, or the truth may be irrelevant. Who knows which it is? The one thing you do know is that the only reason you are hearing the opinion is because it is in THEIR interest that you think it to be true and/or credible.

If the strategic assesment that they rely on for guidance is NOT going to serve their interests by you hearing it too- you will not hear it.

 

Apply that to what Sheila Copps said.

BTW, if you really want to have fun...listen to Lise St. Denis get totally eviscerated in this radio interview!

http://www.985fm.ca/in/paul-arcand-968.html

Safe to say that there is a reason that in countless discussions you've never seen such strategy. There isnt even one for the Leader, let alone leadership candidates who have more to lose on that one.

Like a zillion other things, ultimately PR and democratic reform will win and can only win because of compelling qualities built to appeal to people that are not political junkies. Endorsements are great. And endorsements from where they were not expected are even more helpful. But thats all they are, a help. And not getting them is just help you have to do without.

You raise some fair points Ken S; that's why I would never support a candidate just because some Conservative or Liberal insiders "let slip" that "X"is the one they most fear.

The "La Presse" story is quite different, though. These are delegates at a convention, not senior party operatives. I doubt this was part of a calculated strategy.

Moreover, these comments don't come in a vaccum. It's worth considering what Rae & co. are saying about the various candidates. They've already branded Topp as an ideologue with simpistic tax the rich solutions. Mulcair hasn't given them that avenue. So what's the worst they are saying about him? That he can't win the NDP leadership. It would put the Liberals in a might pickle if he did actually prevail. I don't think you can deny that, can you?

I'm sorry to go over this again, but I believe anti-Layton branding was effective. That's why the NDP gorwth in English Canada was marginal (roughly in line with the incremental growh Layton had experienced since 2004). The NDP surge happened in QC, where Layton's image was not at all in line with the one he had in the ROC.

We have to accept that the media and the NDP's political adversaries can be very effective at destroying the next leader. It"s very foolish to gamble that nothing will stick.

The attack on a person's French nationality does not work as well when they have so painfully Irish a name as Mulcair. It is harder to get people whipped up into francophobia over a person that is so clearly an anglo.

The cautionary principle says that you should consider all fears raised.

But even if you acknowedge that a fear has a basis, that does not in itself even rate doing the opposite as the most cautious/prudent thing to do... let alone whether you want to.

Which is just a longer way of saying, don't get suckered into trying to interpret what is best for yourself from second guessing your opponents intentions.

"Mulcair" always struck me as a potentially French-language name - phonologically it's compatible with the language. Never occurred to me that it was Irish!

I'm pretty sure Mulcair can spin himself out of this one better than could Dion or Ignatieff. He married a foreign national. He is able to work/live with people of different political viewpoints. And if he availed himself of his marital entitlement to French citizenship it was because that's who his family is. Not particularly damaging. I would think in this day and age, an ability to connect with different cultures can be spun in one's favour very easily. Look at Adrian Dix and his lovely author/poet/activist wife Renée Saklikar who was born in India - okay so AFAIK he didn't try and get Indian citizenship, but still, nobody's using his marriage to a dual citizen against him (and they would be seen as racist fools if they did).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-and-...

Rae is such an asshole. Layton can't answer for his comments because he is dead, and yet Rae looks to use them as an axe for his political advantage.

Also from the Globe:

 

Stephen Harper has only one passport. It's Canadian. And that's the way he likes it.

Thomas Mulcair, the Quebec MP and NDP leadership contender, carries two passports. One is Canadian, the other is French.

"Obviously, it's for Mr. Mulcair to use his political judgment in the case," the Prime Minister observed in Saguenay, Que. "In my case, as I say, I am very clear. I am a Canadian and only a Canadian."

 

2 questions:

 

Has Harper singled out any other NDP candidate for special criticism? How many Conservative ministers or MPs are dual citizens?

The Cons went after Topp's tax plan when it was new. Was it as obvious then they are most threatened by him? Its not the persons- its any opportunity to fling up dirt around the NDP. I would be surprised if the PMO did not check for duals in their ranks before Harper went out on this. Probably just as well get this aired and move on now. Should be harmless now.

I second that. Everytime Rae opens his mouth, I hate him even more. I find it funny that a lot of Liberals, especially from the Chretien gang, think he's their saviour. Besides one fluke win 21 years ago, his record leading a political party is rather weak. Looking at 1985 and 1987 and then in 1995 in Ontario, his results weren't anything to write home about.