Is Bay Street backing Thomas Mulcair?
Comments
Yes. Start here.
So some asshole used to work there?
Campaign fiance is a serious and important issue but nothing in your article suggests you've given it any serious thought. What standard exactly are we supposed to apply here? No one who works for a corporation, no one who sits on a board? No one who's ever said anything nice about Israel?
I would love if the NDP had a set of ethical guidelines for candidate donations but the rules have to be a little more clear than six degrees of seperation from anyone we don't like.
DSloth, to repeat: I am not actually suggesting that Mulcair somehow should not be allowed to take these donations...
Unionist, Occam's razor: Schwartz and his colleagues think Mulcair is the best candidate to protect their interest or at least to not
at all threaten their interests in the event Harper loses power. At the very least, NDP members and other media should follow this up and ask the basic
questions about Mr. Schwartz and others and their support for Mulcair.
The issue here isn't so much that Mulcair accepted the donations as that the donors thought that it was in their interests to support Mulcair. And these donors are not people with the NDP's best interests at heart.
It seems to me that there are two plausible reasons that they could be donating to Mulcair:
1) They want to prevent an NDP government, and think Mulcair would be less likely to beat Harper than some other candidates, or
2) They think an NDP government is a serious possibility, and want that government, if it does come to power, to be led by the person who is least likely to actually implement the NDP's policies in government.
Either possibility should raise serious concerns about the prospect of making Mulcair leader.
Are you kidding? The NDP is not the socialist party you seem to think it is. It has been modernizing over the past decade in order to appeal to more than 15% of the population; you know, so they actually have a chance at getting elected. This is what Jack was doing, bringing us closer to the centre. It's a smart move, if you are interested in actually making change in this country. Now, if all you are interested in is "leftwing cred", then fine. Have fun sitting on the sidelines forever. I'll work on trying to actually get something done.
Democracy is about compromise. Our party needs to understand that many Canadians find some of our more leftwing economic policies unpalatable (which is fair given the party's historical lack of understanding the economy), but still favour our social policies. If we are going to bring them on-side, we need to show them that we can effectively manage Canada's economy in the world of globalization. Business and businesspeople should not be demonized or prevented from having a voice in our party. We need to stop being so insular and suspicious of anyone who hasn't been "NDPer" their entire lives.
Business likes to support frontrunners in case that should help them get access later. That seems all there is to this.
Since we seem to be entertaining this issue (or entertaining ourselves with this issue) could it not also be that the involvement of George Soros via Avaaz and Cullen is also at item?
derrick wrote:it speaks volumes about how his candidacy is perceived by some of the most influential players in corporate Canada.
Alright, out with it! What does it say?
derrick wrote:NDP members should consider the full implications here.Again. Enough innuendo. Out with it. What are the full implications?
The specious part is where you claim it's "highly likely" he gave more without any evidence. No one knows what any of the candidates have raised from whom since January.
Go ahead and laugh it off HM.
Mulcair has done a lot of things I dont like. But this is the first one for which I think it is likely he is going to pay where it matters: with swing votes in the balance.
If he is smart he'll say the money has been returned because the person who took the contributions was not aware it was not appropriate about. He, Tom Mulcair. didn't know about it. Etc.
But then someone in the habit of leaving gems for Harper to pick up maybe isnt going to care about this indiscretion.
But then, attacked by Harper is later. Leaving be things that can bite you now, that might be different.
When I think of Bay Street I tend to picture banks, bond salesmen, and corporations. IOWs, the usual big money grifters and influence peddlers.
Derrick, for me the grouped Onex donations on the same day is the most troubling part of the story. As I said above, I expect all capitalists who value money to spread their bets over many different horses--so the donations themselves aren't (that) alarming. But the possibility that Mulcair or a fundraiser held a meeting with Onex execs is.
I think its leaping to even suspect that there was a meeting.
We only know there is a connection. Interpret what we know.
All it would take is Gerry telling his pals- I'm going to give $500 to Tom Mulcair who you all know of, for his NDP leadership bid.
The date reporting is pretty loose by the way. And it is done by the campaigns, or by the party when it receives the donations from the campaigns.
Rebecca West wrote:If you guys are quite finished congratulating each other on how witty you are ...
Josh wrote:
Just a part of the "renewal" process.
North Star wrote:Spin this Mulcair supporters:
KenS wrote:
But Schwartz and company are in very tight with Harper Crew. So it's really basic- what the fuck does Tom Mulcair think he is doing?
Catchfire wrote:ETA: @DSloth. It's the title of the blog post. Why don't you answer the allegations instead of ... (c) belittle or minimize?
Rebecca West wrote:
This isn't an attack thread. Its purpose is to provoke discussion.
Both sides are attacking the other. Furthermore, the title of this and the Israeli-Mulcair post, the above comments including the insinuation of a Harper-Mulcair link, and the bannings, do not seem to me to be meant to provoke discussion on whether or not to support Mulcair. Instead, they seemed designed to put anyone who questions the premise of these titles on the defensive, especially when accompanied by the one-sided bannings. The evidence provided seems to me so thin and extended to the nth degree of innuendo. Am I banned now?
Alright, out with it! What does it say?
Again. Enough innuendo. Out with it. What are the full implications?
That's interesting, KenS, thanks for that bit of info. Still, would it be fair to say that it's likely the donations came in around the same time? What prompted that? And of course, I'm speculating, but Derrick is right: it's worth a question, don't you agree?
Of course you are! You dare to question the clearly evident Bay Street/Arch-Zionist/Conservative plot to infiltrate the NDP in order to simultaneously keep Canadians and Palestinians down.
And to so flagrantly doubt the impartiality of our venerably impartial "Moderators" is a serious breach of Babble doublethink.
Your 24 hours starts now!
You're coming off about as legitmately curious about these "questions" as Lou Dobbs does talking about Obama's birth certificate.
Its possible but keep in mind that the TOTAL amount anyone is allowed to donate to an entire leadership contest is about $1,100 - and that can stardle severla years. So it is conceivable that they each gave Mulcair another $600 and exhausted their $1,100 and would then not be allowed to donate another penny to Mulcair or to any other candidate running for the NDP leadership 2012.
Ok, Winston, that's enough. You win. You get the 24-hour suspension you've been angling for. It's more of a time out, however. I'm sorry if you disagree with me, but you don't get to endlessly needle mods because of it. And I'm not overlooking the allusion to Nicky's anti-Semitic conspiracy accusation either.
ETA. And DSloth, final warning. This kind of debate tactic ends now. We disagree over Mulcair's viability for leader. You don't insult anyone over that, or you earn a suspension. I hope that's clear.
Agreed.
I'd add two things to the probable list.
1) The Mulcair campaign didn't notice who made the donations to them.
2) (In a harsh tone to the critics and the campaign I could say...) The Mulcair campaign is not particularly attuned to the sensitivities and obscurantism of his internal party critics.
Or:
3) (In a non-harsh tone I could say...) The Mulcair campaign is not particularly adept at internal party politics.
Of course I'll get accused of trying to "shut down debate", but this thread and the silly little question mark at the end of the title, has a certain, "when did you stop beating your wife?" rhetorical quality to it. "But, but, but... I didn't accuse you of anything! I added a question mark!1!"
Okay, then it seems like your musing could've been condensed into a tweet or something.
Admittedly, I like Mulcair and plan on supporting him. But I'm not pro-Mulcair above all others, so I could be convinced to support someone else. Provide a substantive criticism and I'll consider it. Don't provide a substantive criticism and I'll mock it. By adding that lame paragraph and repeating it in this thread you basically said I shouldn't take your criticism seriously.
So basically if someone where to do a subtantive analysis of the donations, then I'd consider it. Although selling out for a few hundred to a few thousand dollars would make Mulcair a pretty cheap date.
To be clear, the Onex corporation only connects two of the names. There are three names connected through the Heseg Foundation for Lone Soldiers, possibly more (I haven't checked the whole database, only the names in the article). So it's not conclusive that this is about the activities of Onex more than the mission of the charity.
Can someone send me a quick link to where I can search the list of names on the donor list?
There are at least five names connecting with Onex - the CEO plus 4 of 8 managing directors.
Has Onex done something particularly evil that I'm not aware of?
Yes. Start here.
That sounds pretty plausible to me - especially when Mulcair looks like the most likely to win.
A darker (and much less likely) interpretation - which no one seems to have mentioned - is that certain wealthy folks have planted a poison pill - in full public view, and cheap like borscht - to discredit Mulcair and give some of his opponents a talking point.
I hate to say it, but Derrick's investigative journalism piece - and the storm it has created in this thread - look overblown to me.
If this is a conspiracy by some powerful forces to support Mulcair, would it really take place in full view of the public - and so cheap? Really?
My concerns about Mulcair (among others) relate to his rather uncontrollably emotional and fanatical support for Israel in the face of some mild criticisms. Those are all on the public record (notwithstanding SDM's repetition, in at least a million posts to date and counting, that we don't know for sure where he stands on the U.N. statehood bid...). Do we really need evidence worth a few hundred bucks that notorious pro-Israeli champions like Gerry and Heather and the rest would be ideologically aligned with Mulcair on this point?
Put differently: If Mulcair is the most right-wing mole since Tony Blair, do we really think Gerry and Heather and Peter are better at sussing out his true colours than we are?
In short, I fear that this is much ado about nothing. In fact, taken at its worst, it's the kind of innuendo which, if we allow it to influence our political culture, could be used to destroy someone much purer and nobler than Tom Mulcair.