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 78
January 21, 2012 - 6:25pm
V
Howard, from the previous thread:
don't measure Mulcair against perfection; measure him against the alternatives.
Pierre deserves high praise, but you're going to make him blush and hide under a rock.
The NDP Caucus was not very split on the Clarity Act- I believe they mostly voted for it. And Jack affirmed that when he came in as Leader... I always thought because he was the new Leader. So Unionist is wrong that Jack contradicted party policy- there wasnt one. But there was a de facto positioning that the Caucus stood with the Clarity Act... albeit with professed reservations.
The nub is in those words, the SD did not expressly contradict the Clarity Act. But only in the sense it did not explicitly repudiate it.
I'm interested to see Unionist summarise the contradiction of the two, but there is a reason people in Quebec think that the SD contradicts and spercedes the Carity Act; and why political junkies in the ROC- not just our opponents- see it the same way.
Only Niki Ashton offers less in the way of policy.
What conflict of interest?
Is he a shareholder in a French corporation? Does he own French bonds? If the Euro is devalued, does he lose money? If so, are the millions of Canadians who have a stake in Eurobonds (directly or through their pension plan) disqualified for running for Parliament? Nonsense.
Has anyone argued that an employee of a foreign (American) corporation has a conflict of interest as an MP? (Maybe we should??)
But if those people are eligible to run for Parliament, how is mere citizenship even relevant?
Did anyone say John Turner should not be elected Liberal Leader and Prime Minister at the Liberal Leadership convention in 1984, or at the one back in 1968, because he would have a conflict of interest as a dual citizen?
This argument is absolute nonsense. If a supporter of another candidate raises the issue, he discredits that candidate's campaign.
This does not really matter now, but I think the SD sailed through Convention because the bulk of NDP activists that make up the delegates never liked the Clarity Act, Caucus support of it notwithstanding.
For myself, even besides the substantive issues, I wa royally pissed that Caucus did a 180 degree on the only recently completed Social Democratic Forum [right name?] process.... into which their input was solicited.
Suggesting Mulcair has "extra baggage" because the Conservatives will try to make bigoted attacks on his french background is exactly what I was complaining about. Firstly I give Canadians more credit than that (at least the Canadians who aren't already locked into the Conservative base). Second it seems pretty clear to me that Mulcair will be the hardest to label as a Sovereigntist for patently obvious reasons. Whatever the outcome I'm sure as shooting not going to let a SUN News attack influence my ballot.
As I stated, it isn't a good argument... but when have the other two parties ever had any good arguments? Never, but they do have alot of money to waste on pointless attack ads.
I don't know why people are looking for someone who is somehow "attack proof". Every single candidate has vulnerabilities. Every single candidate will be targeted by conservative attack ads.
I'm actually pretty impressed with Mulcair. He responded quickly and succinctly, and then put Harper back in the hot seat.
So no, I'm not looking for a candidate who's attack proof. I'm looking for a candidate who knows how to disarm an attack, and give some back.
For that reason, I hope Harper attacks all the candidates now.
He isnt going to be called a sovereignist by the Cons or the MSM.
And you have to stop thinking that this is an argument as in a court of law or a seminar room.
It's simple:
We WILL be vulnearble on the Clarity Act and the SD. And thats with our supporter universe... not the Cons base who are not part of the discussion.
Winning that is not going to be easy. And if Mulcair is Leader there will be no need to label or even imply him a sovereignist. Or appear to be opposed to Quebec [in the ROC]. The popular predisposition is towards the Clarity Act. It just makes sense to most people. The Liberals crafted it well as a wedge.
They will definitely try to imply we are in bed with sovereigntists that's the whole point of bringing up the Clarity Act, and yes that will happen with ANY leader. You may not agree that Mulcair is better innoculated than most because of his Federalist bona fides but surely you can see why saying he has more baggage because his family is French is going to be seen as offensive to Quebec
Biting down on Stephen Harper's race baiting will offend our universe of supporters being French won't.
So good of a wedge they lost century strong ridings to us by the bushel, and you want to follow their playbook on Quebec politics.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/20/chris-selley-two-passport...
And that's the point. It's not about who has the least political liabilities. (Aside from bonafide problems with crime, corruption, or hypocrisy.)
It's about who has the right combination of skills to handle their political liabilities. God knows, running as the leader of a party that has never formed a majority, you're gonna inherit a lot of liabilities.
I think Saganash and most of the candidates would do great against Harper. Thats how much talent we have in the NDP team.
I also don't think its about race in the attack ads I picture in my head, its more about their past experience. Saganash has quite the impressive resume that he is one of the most attack ad proof candidates. The only thing that may be used as an attack against him is a misquoted/misinterpreted political statement(about federalism), which its typical conservative behaviour.
Bingo.
Saganash had enough political skills to fight back on the Great Whale Hydro project that threatened the future of his people.
Against huge odds, his side. I believe he hadn't quite finished his university studies at the time. He tells this great story about going to Barcelona as part of the strategy, and of flying over the huge statue of Christopher Columbus facing west on the shoreline of Spain.
Remind me, did Dion do anything comparable to that?
That's because everything reinforces what you've been saying, even when it contradicts what you're saying. Because you change what you're saying. Then change back.
Bully vs. Bully might excite some, but it leaves me cold. As it does about 40% of the electorate, it seems.
I have no clue how Great Whale supports what you say. Perhaps if you expand. Do you think everyone was nice to the nice people at that time?
Just like Dion? Or was that Ignatieff? Which Liberal is Saganash supposed to be like now?
Could you define "political activism" as opposed to "political street smarts" for me? Could you let me know which secret book told you that the latter is what is required to "deal with Harper"? Thanks!
Could you explain to me how someone who has hunted his whole life, who grew up playing hockey and went on to college basketball, who significantly changed a hydro project, transformed the relationship between north and south Quebec and guided a new international law into realization wouldn't have anything to draw from to deal with a boy from Etobicoke who thinks politics is a "bloodsport"?
Again, it just seems ridiculous to think that someone who has survived the blunt end of colonialism and in fact thrived despite it wouldn't have the capacity to deal with Harper.
"Flip out"? Okay, then.
Hunky Monkey, you seem to be confusing political negotiation with political activism. Far from the same thing.
When has a government gone into direct negotiations with an NGO or other activist group? Government may consult with or ask for interventions/submissions but it is not a peer to peer relationship.
The Paix des Braves and Boumhounan agreements were negotiated between governments, Quebec and the Grand Council of the Crees.
laine lowe, it seems that some have difficulty understanding that the term "First Nations" actually has a concrete meaning in this country. Funny, that.
Negotiation is a very valuable skill for a Prime Minister. But negotiation isn't enough to win a political campaign. If it was, Romeo would already be the front runner.
But everyone needs to take a step back and relax. The campaign is still young. Most of the candidates haven't been battle tested.
I want to find out what they're made of. That's not asking for "bully vs. bully". It's seeing who can do battle in this political arena, which unfortunately has no equivalent in real-life experience.