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
Three candidates while mouthing the correct platitudes do not seem to have the proper stage presence required for Leadership - Nash & Topp and Dewar.
Well I watched the debate and the three candidates you mentioned above did quite well. Dewar had the best intro, Topp had plenty of humourous comments as well. Perhaps I should write a longer review of things...
And don't think for a second that a lot of the negative attacks on the NDP Leadership canadidates are not put out there by the Rae Liberals spoon-feeding the lazy mainstream press.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1123300--ndp-leaders...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-leadership-hopefuls-tar...
I recall two Cullen zingers:
- Looking for evidence that Stephen Harper supports public health care is like me saying I'm having a bad hair day. It could well be true, but we have no actual evidence.
- The next time Harper wants to take on seniors while in a foreign country, he should have to stay there.
Three candidates - Thomas Mulcair, Nathan Cullen and Paul Dewar - raised their game Sunday, although this is clearly not a ranking of their overall strength.
The sense that Mulcair was leading the pack was fortified by attacks sent his way.
Cullen deftly reminded the audience of Mulcair's past by saying that when he first met the former Quebec minister, he didn't meet "a Liberal,'' but a progressive Canadian.
Dewar went after Mulcair on his one-time openness to bulk water exports.
Mulcair parried both with something this race has been lacking - a little passion.
He explained again he was a provincial Liberal because it was the only federalist party in the province, but started with a "Give it up, Nathan.''
On the water question, he accused Dewar of using rehashed Liberal arguments that failed in the 2007 and 2008 campaigns he won in Outremont.
But he started it with an angry, "C'mon Paul.''
He accused Cullen of striving for the "bronze medal" in his plan to have Liberals and New Democrats join forces in select ridings.
It will be another eight weeks before this race sorts itself out, eight more weeks for Rae to build his party, eight more weeks for Harper to forge ahead on his "transformative" agenda.
That's a long time for a number of twists and turns in the NDP leadership race.
There is a strong anybody-but-Mulcair faction in this party.
But for all his warts and enemies inside and outside the party, he is the only one of the eight, right now, who looks like he could crank up the requisite fire from the seat of the leader of the official opposition.
Tks for that article nicky.
I don't entirely agree with the following but nevertheless here is one person's point of view:.
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2012/01/leadership-2012-cand...
Having watched the debate on CPAC here are some of my thoughts:
Cullen and Nash did better than in Toronto. Cullen avoided obviously copying Obama (there was nothing about "building a more perfect union") and held his own debating w/ Mulcair. Still his lack of French puts him way down on my list. Nash had more substance than in Toronto, but still was more platitudinous than either Topp or Mulcair.
Sganash is still a very poor public speaker and Ashton had the most empty rhetoric pf any of the candidates.
Dewar had more passion than in the Ottawa debate, but Mulcair swallowed him whole in the exchange over water. Wouldn't a more effective strategy, from Dewar's point of view, have been to catch Mulcair by surpise rather than telegraphing that he was going to raise the issue several days earlier? In any case, Dewar only succeeded in letting Mulcair demonstrate how effective he would be against Harper.
Topp was strongest when he was discussing his tax plan, but the more I watch him, the more "phony" he seems. Maybe it's because of the videos that he put up on his site, where he talks about his family and how his son didn't want him to run. With Mulcair ,(and many of the other candidates) "what you see is what you get". With Topp, it seems he is always trying to be someone he is not. It's very off-putting.
Mulcair was very effective throughout. At least on TV, he never came across as "angry" or "annoyed". (I don't know what Daniel Leblanc is talking about, but he seems to be on a mission to undermine Mulcair from the get go) The only negative aspect of Mulcair's performance was that I didn't get the reference to Newt. It must have been some kind of joke....
All in all, I agree w/ Tim Harper; this debate confirmed for me that Mulcair is the only one who I can see taking on Harper & Rae--and actually beating them.
Cullen was effective here:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Mulcair+Cullen+Dewar+main+targets+at...
For his part, Cullen took Dewar to task for unveiling a plan to bring more women into politics only to then name Angus his deputy leader.
“Is it not a bit contradictory to say on one hand this is important and then on other not act upon it,” Cullen said, adding Dewar’s choice seemed like a “strange message to Canadians, to Quebecers, to the West and to women.”
Debating skills are important but not necessarily everything.
http://www.canada.com/business/Yaffe+rally+voters+fight+against+pension+...
The party votes for its new leader March 24 in Toronto. So far the two most impressive debaters have been B.C.’s Nathan Cullen, with a relaxed manner and affable, articulate speaking style, and Quebec’s Thomas Mulcair, increasingly perceived as the contest front-runner.
that's a really good line on cullen's part. really, it's a shame that this leadership race is being so scandalously under-reported. during the liberal and cpc leadership races, we always end up with regionally and nationally significant personalities - belinda, potatohead, gerard kennedy, findlay, hedy (who probably saved her seat with her absurd bid). but the near-canadian media blackout of the ndp leadership race is ludicious. even in quebec, the pq troubles have massively outweighed the ndp leadership race, with the exception of lsd's nutso jump to the rae liberals. cullen and topp are running neck-to-neck for third place on my ballot, but i have to say that these one line remarks are great fodder for newsreels, and even if mulcair and the fading nash get the serious attention, i love that we have these guys out there delivering this sort of message.
I didn't actually take that as an attack. I took it as supporting his whole theme of being open to all progressive Canadians.
A family member listening from the next room said Cullen was the only one that got her attention. He stood out as way fresher than the others.
One of the top lines of the night. In fact, the more I think about it, Cullen won today's debate.
I watched the debate with several other Mulcair supporters. We all thought our man won big but we are of course biased.
The one point of concern was that Tom may have hit Paul too hard on the bulk water question. He certainly flattened him in that exchange.
One school of thought was that the dreaded "angry Tom" may have been revealed.
The dominant view, however, was that Paul was unfairly imputing to Tom a position he did not take and that he deserved the bloody nose he received. Also that Tom demonstrated the fire necessary to take on Hrper.
We also all thought highly of Nathan's performance. Although one of us thought there was friction between Tom and Nathan on the joint-nomination manner, most of us thought that Nathan was quite complimentary towards Tom in referring to him as the type of "progressive Canadian" with whom the party can identify.
Wilf. I agree with you about what Nathan was saying about Tom. The words to the contrary in my post were those of Tim Harpur, whom I was quoting.
I am staring to sense a bit of an alliance between Tom and Nathan,
Cullen delenda est.
Cullen and Mulcair seem to understand well that although it is a Leadership campaign, other Canadians who did not vote NDP last election are watching our performance with interest, and preaching to the converted is not going to put us into government, and that the NDP somehow has to grow its base of support.
But positive constructive energy is crucial as well and both Saganash and Ashton have it in spades.
Dewar's naming of Angus as his deputy leader has been the biggest blunder/folly of the Leadership campaign so far.
I was there in the audience this afternoon, and I was so impressed by the way all of the candidates handled themselves.
Mulcair did nothing to change my position of him being #1 on my ballot.
He was cool under fire, which a leader must be when facing the likes of Harper & Co. in the House. He had a relaxed, and self-confident manner, which will be necessary should he become leader.
At the bottom of my list at #8 is Nathan Cullen. There is no way that I can accept that long-time NDP voters would be willing to vote for another party's candidate. I have far more faith in our leaders and candidates that they can bring many more voters into the NDP family than I can believe in Nathan's plan.
With the others sandwiched in between from #2 to #7, I was most pleasantly surprised at the performance of Martin Singh. He gave some very focussed answers to the questions put to him (perhaps a little TOO focussed!), but I was impressed at the way he carried himself in the debate section.
Stay tuned!
I had a similar experience too as a family member who's an NDP member, aged 22, does not pay much attention to politics, and didn't know of any of the candidates prior to watching today, thought Cullen was clearly the best candidate. Like many other people her first reaction was that Cullen reminded her of Layton.
Cullen's idea about joint nominating meetings seems to be going over like a lead baloon but he might be the candidate best positioned to attract people who lean toward the Liberals and Greens to the NDP.
Are u saying Cullen must be destroyed or Cullen will destroy the opposition LOL
I am watching the CPAC repeat. The NDP is lucky to have such great candidates.
Also, Nova Scotia audiences are so polite. Where is all the rowdiness and applause?
Fascinating debate today, and I think some of the candidates did absolutely awfully, and have declined in my view. I've got negative things to say about 6 of the candidates, (not to say I only have negative feelings about them, because in most cases I don't, but I picked up negative things about them in this debate). So the bad first:
- Peggy Nash seemed off her game, and her attempts to apparently strike home-runs with her faux-enthusiastic proclemations came off flat and uninspiring. (eg: the repeated references to fighting Harper.) She definitely went down in my estimation.
- Topp held his own, in that I feel neutral and ambivalent about him. He's kind of middle-of-the-pack for me after today. I think he comes across artificial and fake quite a bit of the time, and doesn't have the retail skills to personally sell anything to the Canadian public.
- Ashton was terrible - so strident, stiff, pumping out discussion points, and that bloody "New Politics" slogan. She stumbled repeatedly, and has become utterly boring to me. I know what her record is going to play, everytime it comes on.
- Singh was a bit better on a personable level, but is still just a one-note candidate, all about business and pharmacare. He also seems to have developed a bit of a smirk that I rather dislike.
- Saganash... oh, I'm so disappointed... I was hoping for a lot more and I really wanted him to be one of my top candidates... But I'm seriously troubled by his halting, stammering speech, clearing his throat mid-sentence (over and over), poor sentence structure/ability to get points across, and constantly reading from his notes instead of engaging with eye contact to the audience. Possibly the worst presentation skills of all the candidates, despite his strengths in other areas. (But he did have a good question for Topp.)
- Dewar was poor, and I'm sorry to say he still looks stiff (like a "stuffed shirt"). His answers to Cullen were weak and evasive, and his attack on Mulcair was tasteless, but Mulcair responded well. And who says "By gosh" and hopes to be relevant to a contemporary audience???? Next it will be "Golly gee..."
And that leaves two:
Cullen and Mulcair were both excellent today, but I think Cullen was the strongest (which has been my feeling all along) - he is sharp, clever, funny, strong under attack, and able to cut right to the heart of a subject clearly, and communicate effectively in short bursts to the audience. He comes off as genuine and honest and likeable. He is a winner, who will have the ability to take on Harper and anyone else at the leadership level.
Mulcair was dignified and on-point when under questioning from Topp, and defended himself very well against Dewar. In fact, I'm glad Mulcair showed a bit of fire in his response to Dewar, because he needed to - I think he's been in danger (and was earlier today) of being too mellow. I also noticed he said "inadmissable" twice, when I think he intended the meaning to be "unacceptable" - the lawyer in him is showing. But a good showing today, and he has solidified his position.
I earlier mentioned that the debate got some coverage on CBC Radio that exceeded its former coverage of earlier debates, but now they've simply reduced that to "NDP leadership debate today in Halifax where all the candidates attacked the Conservatives."
[later edit] At 10 PM, they did have the more thorough coverage that they had earlier. So, ignore the above statement.
I have to agree. At this point, I figure that Cullen is my first choice and Mulcair is my alternate. Mulcair is obviously a very seasoned politician who expresses himself well. But I think that Nathan is much more in tune with the time and is a more natural and empathetic leader, even if his French has a ways to go. Although I have some reservations about the idea of "joint nominations", I do like the idea that the NDP present itself as a "unifier", that is open to trans partisan co-operation. I like the idea that decisions of this nature would be devolved to the riding level, which would encourage more active participation of members in the nomination process. And lets face it, it wouldn't hurt the NDP to have a policy which stands in stark contrast to the "entitlement" which currently pervades the upper echelons on the Liberal Party (his royal highness Bob Rae included), along with the vast majority of the Liberal leaning talking heads and spinmasters in the media.
Sorry I missed this debate. Sounds like it was a little more interesting than the ones before it.
I have to admit, Nathan Cullen has the best speaking style. Mulcair is pretty good too. Nash and Topp have had good moments. The others usually leave me cold. That being said, I just can't help but think that Cullen's co-operation plan with the Liberals could backfire immensely.
Interesting debate. I don't have anything profound to say.
If some candidates other than Topp actually do release a revenue / tax plan before the nomination... it could have a pretty big impact on my choice. I'm interested to see the debate go in that direction a lot more.