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
This is the consumate case of bad press best left uncommented on.
Instead, Mulcair and his campaign steps in and gives it real legs.
Brian Topp, his main rival to replace the late leader Jack Layton, hasn't been much more generous. He gave the party only $2,114, which is less than five other leadership candidates. He didn't contribute in 2009 or 2010, but made three donations in May 2011 totalling $499. Topp also gave $500 to Nash's riding association in 2010.
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Mulcair+Saganash+fail+donate+federal/6065609/story.html#ixzz1knLZcw1f
It's amazing how petty the "issues" in this race have been. And remarkably, people want to act as though these are going to crush a campaign, or catapult them to frontrunner status. Meanwhile, back in reality, most people still don't even know who the candidates are.
It's not terribly suprising that Mulcair who was largely responsible for the Quebec campaign chose to direct his funding that way in the years before the breakout. It was a pretty good investment.
Sigh, its times like this that I wish that the NDP leadership race was covered by The Onion...
I think you can give $1100 to each the riding and federal party. A small issue nontheless. Wish the mainstream media would actually cover the race.
The donation issue is not a big issue, I passed right over it when I read it, headline about Mulcair and all. But apparently enough of an issue for people to spin so that it becomes nothing.
Use any metric you want in apples to apples comparisons:
Mulcair gave next to nothing to the federal party.
He's trying to say he was concentrating on his under-nourished campaigns- but he gave much less to them also. If his campaign had compared his donations to his own campaigns to the other candidates, they would have kept quiet.
That's it.
Nice drive by attempted smear.
NDP debate in Halifax expected to focus on personality
I would hate to see another debate focused on feel-good statements...
I'm going, but I'll be surprised if we get anything else.
Look.
A bunch of people from the beginning have said its not a big deal.
But for some reason Mulcair and his supporters feel a need to say the story is untrue. And issue 'clarifications'. There is nothing in the story the less bit misreprentative. And I will continue to take exception with statements the story is untrue, they're just out to get Mulcair and so on.
Take people saying that its not a big deal, and leave it at that.
How many posts are u going to devote to this latest smear attempt KenS? Just curious.
I think the story probably wont have legs, because its barely of concern to Dippers, let alone the broad public. There is nothing sexy enough in it for reporters.
Good thing, because the campaign's reaction is exactly the kind of thing that gives a story legs. Mulcair is a sitting duck for MacGregor or one of several other reporters to do a follow-up on Mulcair's clarification. It wouldn't take any of them long at all to stack his claims he was concentrating on his riding campaign against what the other candidates put into theirs'.
Ken, your main job seems to be to smear Mulcair at all costs by insinuating he is not a true NDPer. You keep insinuating this is the problem with Mulcair, ... that is the problem with Mulcair, ..., and then proclaiming that you did not actually use the words "...". After more than 40 years voting NDP, I am tired of the same old story of someone not being pure enough or a member of the party since God knows when. I have seen too many people quit over this kind of approach. I can remember too many constituency meetings where even at 50 I was the youngest member at the meeting. Bring on the new blood (Mulcair played a major role in recruiting the new Quebec MPs)! I have donated to the NDP for than 30 years, and in the vast majority of cases the local constituency office has tried to direct the money towards the provincial (BC) campaign rather than the federal campaign. I am pretty sure other MPs have focused on their own ridings and regions as well. Considering the dearth of memberships, the lack of Quebec MPs (none before Mulcair) before the last election, I do not blame him for trying to focus on Quebec. He played a major role along with Jack in establishing a beachhead and rapidly expanding it in the formerly forlorn NDP desert of Quebec.
Did something say something about smears?
You've compiled together everything nasty anyone says about Mulcair and attributed them to me. Too bad I've never said or even implied any of them. I've even argued strenuously against some of the slurs against Mulcair.
Isn't this post also an example of a smear?:
If someone's going to get up in arms about "smearing", they probably shouldn't post a similar post to the one they are objecting to.
If it's not ok to "smear" Mulcair, it's not ok to "smear" Topp, or anyone else. [Although an exception might be made for Harper, the greatest purveyor of the smear campaign]
KenS: I'm going to say this as diplomatically as I possibly can.
I actually wish you WOULD come out and just say what you mean and stop beating around the bush with vague language. You always post information that supports a negative conclusion you're trying to make about Mulcair (usually), without implicitly stating what that conclusion is.
All your posts read as "Now I'm not saying thing X, but here is some information i've construed, compiled, or otherwise implied that would quite possibly support this undefined thing X".
Followed by:
"Hey hey now Mulcair supporters, I NEVER said thing X"
If you don't like him, fine. Say it, back it up however you want to, and let those who think you're wrong tell you why we think you're wrong. But hiding behind vague language to insulate you from having to stand behind what you write, followed by scores of self-righteous, in my opinion, obvious baiting/trolling in denying saying what you've strongly implied gets very tedious.
Secondary to this, your argument in this thread regarding the donations story is so mind-twisting I can't even begin to comprehend it. On the one hand, you realize it is a relatively ineffective smear that doesn't mean a whole lot and should be ignored - but because a handful of Mulcair supporters feel like nothing he says or does, even short of walking on water will ever get a positive response from you and a few others on the board - that they have come to represent the entire campaign and thus Tom himself, somehow making an issue out of what you yourself call a non-issue.
You can't have it both ways, its either an issue to you or its not. Another example of how you make contradicting arguments to always cast Mulcair and his supporters in a negative light. The issue of whether Mulcair, his campaign, or his team and supporters should have commented on it is completely irrelevant to whether the issue itself is, for lack of a synonym, an issue of import.
All from me
Edit: As a PS - I would not have commented on it at all had you not fanned these flames. For me this is not about the donations issue. I like a good debate. The bending, but not breaking. Or even breaking if I'm proven wrong. But its hard to debate with a bendy overcooked spaghetti noodle, lol.
Regarding donations, let's also step back and take the longer view. Less than one year ago, Ashton, Dewar, Mulcair and Cullen were sitting MPs anticipating that an election might be called any day. Nash was a candidate ready to take back her seat from Kennedy, Saganash was a hopeful and promising (but, all things considered, long-shot) candidate, Topp was an advisor, and who knows what Singh was doing. The MPs and candidates were doing their jobs and had made varying levels of financial contributions, but mainly they were focused on Parliament and the upcoming election, and they certainly made substantial contributions in terms of getting the vote out and bringing a campaign to fruition. None of them could have imagined that they'd be getting scrutinized so deeply as contestants in a leadership race so soon.
Recall, too, that the per-vote subsidy still existed too (and the 2011 election votes will at least partially deliver some amount of subsidy), so getting people to the polls represented a major contribution in itself. And if you consider Mulcair to have been one of the necessary elements to deliver "la vague orange" in May, then his efforts in Quebec brought far more money to the NDP (not just per-vote subsidies, but also subsequent donations from new Quebec members) than the personal annual limit the media is going on about.
I think the media is just trying to throw dirt at every possible viable candidate as a preventative measure. Let's not get drawn in.
Dont blame the media.
It was one article by Glen MacGregor who I can assure you does not have an interest in tarring the NDP. And I rather doubt he has a horse in this race. Like I said, he is the reporter most knowledgabale of Elections Financing Act, and like me knows how to go to the database and quickly pull out what you want. He doggedly pursued the Conservatives over Adscam... to the point of live Tweeting the proceeds of days of the first trial.
Numbers geek sees story idea. Very simple. [And no, Glen would not have written or suggested that headline.]
To my knowledge- and we would probably have seen here if otherwise- the only other story is the clarification obviously at the initiative of the Mulcair campaign.
The tempest in the teapot is within the NDP.
If you care, there is a three line version in post 37 that covers the material in the original story and Mulcair's clarification story. And there are only has 8 lines total in the post.
I understand that the majority here stick to positive things about candidates or say nothing, and want to see that from others.
Admittedly, I just plain dont buy into that. I take the pragmatists approach- there seems to be about zero chance of serious mudslinging [a la BC NDP 2000... but thats BC]. On the other hand, intellectual debate in the NDP is historically shallow, and the [must] be nice I believe fosters that.
But on top of that general proclivity- I am among a LOT of us here who do not have anything remotely like a clear favourite. And the ranking we have is loose and shifting.
I'm not the only one around here who does a lot of our in progress 'sorting' by comparisons of the substantial negatives we see in every candidate.
Mulcair is by no means the one for me that has the most negatives. But the ones that have more do not have a cheerleader section here hyping every positive and trenchantly arguing every single negative. There is not a single other candidate who has anything remotely like that here.
And FWIW, the longer I watch Peggy's campaign, the more I think I may end up ranking her lower than Mulcair... which is the answer to the persecution narrative that it's all about Tom Mulcair 'not being one of us'.
Ok folks, these threads are really exciting. But I think they can be even more so. Has anyone thought of a way to link up native fluency with donations? I think it's there, but I can't quite put my finger on it...
All candidates seek nomination in 2008, had to sign a document called: F. DECLARATION OF CANDIDATE RESPONSIBILITIES
It states:
"9. I understand that all New Democrat Members of Parliament are required to contribute $1,000.00 annually to the Federal Office of the New Democratic Party." (emphasis mine)
For the 2011 election, the document was updated to reflect the new dontation limits:
"9. I understand that all New Democrat Members of Parliament are required to contribute $1,100.00 annually to the Federal Office of the New Democratic Party."
The 2008 document that I have is dated as "last modified" on November-01-06. 7:25:45 AM. So Mulcair should have signed this document when he seeked the nomination for the byelection at the very least. He may have even signed subsequent documents for subsequent elections
This is why I was surprised when I heard this story. I thought all MPs maxed out their donations. I know my old MP did, and many others who do as well.
(Remember you can donate $1100 to a riding association and $1100 to the federal party for a total of $2200. You can only get tax credits for the first $1100 though)
Given that political donations have to be voluntary (under federal law), I doubt this line has much legal force. I have also never heard of an NDP MP being dumped from caucus over these things. Anyways, I just find it all a little curious, not saying who is right or wrong.
A dollar a year doesn't seem too much to ask. What's the big deal?
ETA: Whoops, I see that's been raised to $1.10. Now we're talking money. I'm not running.
And if Tom Mulcair had asked someone (such as Jack) "in view of our situation in Quebec, is that satisfied by giving within Quebec?" they would have said "of course," wouldn't they?
What if a candidate weren't wearing their glasses when they signed the "Declaration of Candidate Responsibilities" form - could that legally excuse them from their contribution obligations?
This is a complex subject. For more background information, please consult this thread.