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
Two donors? This is thin gruel even for a blog post.
Just a part of the "renewal" process.
Actually, four major Bay Street players are mentioned by name and a number of Onex Corp. executives are mentioned as having donated as well.
So what?
22+ of Topps biggest donors came from Bay Street and were clearly giving as part of a coordinated campaign.
I didn't realize that warranted it's own attack thread.
There's a difference between Bay Street Lawyers and very wealthy corporate executives. Not to excuse Topp, and I think it's a reasonable line of attack on him too, but this is a legitimate concern about Mulcair.
This isn't an attack thread. Its purpose is to provoke discussion. Not every bit of information critical of Mulcair - or any other leadership candidate for that matter - is an attack. Framing criticism as such is an often-used attempt to shut down debate.
It would be if there was a candidate in the race who would have refused any of those cheques, but that's silly. Campaign finance law is awful but it's the system we are going to have to run under. If you start turning away people because they don't pass a purity test we won't even be able to afford yard signs.
What's the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn from these donations to Mulcair (or Topp, or others, for that matter)? I'm curious as to what babblers think it means.
Well, the title of the blog is a little misleading. It looks to me like the blogger is making connections between Mulcair and powerful members of the pro-Israel lobby - who usually support the Libs and Tories - giving credence to the claim by some that Mulcair will take the party to the right.
Riggght, you guys even broke out the Cavuto for this one.
I don't know, Unionist. Capitalists will back any horse they think has a chance at winning. Actually, they will back all horses they think have a chance at winning, so if you happen to have a horse in this race, putting too much into this revelation could come back to bite you.
However, given Mulcair's views on Israel, Heather Reisman's involvment might raise a few eyebrows (ETA. This should only indicate, if anything, that some pro-Zionists may perceive him as an ally). We might also ask how so many executives at Onex came to donate to the campaign on the same day. I don't know enough about campaign donation politics to know if this is irregular or not, but to an innocent such as myself, it looks sketchy.
ETA: @DSloth. It's the title of the blog post. Why don't you answer the allegations instead of looking for a) conspiracy theories and b) misdirecting babblers to another campaign?
It means not being enemies with the country's Official Opposition, esp. as it edges toward being a possible Govt.;
plus the fact that there are many individuals whose vote/political opinions do not correspond to their income level (eg big-city liberals generally, Soros type non-conformists, )
What allegation? That if you search through the 600+ Mulcair donations you could find a handful of people who you can twist into something sinister. No campaign with hundreds of donors could pass that test.
I don't know what it means. No rich folk have ever given me anything. Maybe I should be a politician and roll in the dough.
About 13% of Topp's campaign donations come from lawyers. While there are a few downtown Toronto firms well-represented (none of which represent the kind of power of a Munk or a Schwartz/Reisman), I don't think an Osgoode Hall prof. counts as Bay Street big bucks. And anyway, what is an environmentalist doing taking money from the director of one of the world's biggest and most oppressive polluters - Barrick Gold Corp/?
Ha! Haven't heard that one. But it's so true. Of course, it could just be called, "The Fox," since all their "hosts" do that.
Or c) belittle and minimize.
If you guys are quite finished congratulating each other on how witty you are, perhaps you'd like to actually discuss the blog and its implications.
Okay, you have finally convinced me of what Ernst Zundel couldn't - that there is an international Zionist- banker- Free Mason -Bolshevik conspiracy to control the world and that Thomas Mulcair was one of the rabbis in the Prague Cemetary.
If we were discussing donations in a US race, pointing out who donated to who is hardly controversial. We'd also all assume such donations would indicate a lot about the agenda of the candidate. Apparently somehow in all of politics, Mulcair is immune to this issue of where his money comes from.
The "purity test" question is always a red herring, especially in many of these debates. I'd say going after Mulcair because he was a Liberal is pointless and alienating to other progressives. Here's a scenario for you: Should the NDP downplay of reduced it's vocal support for homosexual rights because it may be able to better attract socially conservative religious voters who support wealth redistribution like many conservative Catholics? You can never truly avoid a purity test though, it's just where you cross the line.
You ain't kidding
but Cavuto really deserves his own neologism like Santorum and I don't think "All Out Civil War in Iraq: Could it be a Good Thing?" will ever be topped.If there was any substance to the blog it wouldn't have needed to resort to the Cavuto. It would have been "Thomas Mulcair Backed by Bay Street" followed by evidence distinguishing his campaign from the others. This just reads like someone spent hours trawling through one candidates donors looking for anything to write about.
True, but let's put things in perspective. In the US you have billionaires like the the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson and George Soros giving MILLIONS of dollars to their preferred candidates. In Canada you are a high roller if you write a cheque for $500!
Didn't Mother Teresa take money from just about anyone for good causes? Feel free to use it in response to any questions regarding the corporate backing of NDP candidates.
I thought at first people were jumping on something pretty thin. And I think that the title is actually misleading. It makes a general reference to 'Bay Street' even though the author himself siad he did nt make a comprehensive analysis of donors.
And he probably does not know the same thing was tossed out about Topp, as has been noted. In Topp's case it predominately lawyers from a few firms. If you looked into it, my guess is that the personal connection to Brain Topp is from his role on the board(s) on labour venture funds, from being a credit union exec, and maybe entertainment industry lawyers.
Those are all traditional sources of fund raising for the NDP. There are not a lot of places where the NDP can find a density of maximum level donors. That's some of them. And it comes as no surprise that Topp has those connections, even though he may never have done much dedicated fundraising for the NDP, even for short stints.
Those donors of Mulcair's are horses of another colour. I dont think the author of the blog himself realizes how tapped into the HarperCons Shwartz, Reisman and their crowd now are. They even contributed their whiz kid Onex genius as Harper's current Chief of Staff.
It is utterly impossible that Mulcair is not intimately aware of those connections. And it does not take any conspiracy theory notions to asses why they are contributing to Mulcairs campaign. They are long time Liberal players who ditched the Libs for the Conservatives because Harper Crew is more fulsomely supportive of everything Israel wants.
And throw in a dash of anti-union pointyness- that's Gerry Schwarz.
Implying that other babblers are anti-semitic purveyors of Jewish or Zionist conspiracy theories, along with the other stereotypes you've lumped in there, is against babble policy. If you continue to attempt to shut down arguments this way, you'll be taking a break from babble. You and DSloth have given a clinic in this thread so far.
Cross posted with some others.
I hope its clear that these are not just any very top corporate execs.
Catchfire, I would have thought that you, as a neutral moderator, might have been concerned about the stereotypes on the other side of the question. You know, the ones suggesting that Mulcair is controlled by Jewish financiers.
You seem so zealous in unearthing stereotypes it seems odd that you have missed this one.
There is absolutlely no comparison on scale of money in politics to south of the border- where even a modest mid level Congressional race soaks up multiple millions every 2 years, per candidate- all 800 some odd of them. Compared to a ceiling here of under $100,000, of which 2/3 of races do not reach.
In Canada its not really much about buying influence. Its more what is said about the company being kept.
And at a minimum, how much sense does it take to know that A few thosand dollars from Shwatrtz and coming is very likely to cost you in the NDP? I've been saying for a long time that Mulcair is the opposite of careful. People are ready on a regular basis to excuse his generalities on commitments because he is being cautious.
Cautious about making any kind of commitment what he'll do, yes.