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
I wouldn't want it said that way all together, mainly because I can't recall being involved in a conversation about Rabble and what it does with imperialism. And I really don't mind political preferences being worn on the sleeve by moderators, because I see them more as babblers as well as people entrusted with moderating duties - the for better or worse part of that being a matter of interpretation I'm sure - compensated as I understand it to the tune of 4 hours or so each per week. Any opinions would be just that...opinion pieces in the context of social media, which we all engage in. If the overall editorial slant of the website were to come down in favour of a particular candidate that would be another matter, but it still wouldn't be anything different than most other media outlets who come out in support of various political persuasions.
Going out under your own steam for a change eh? I like it. Not the going out bit of course...but the bull by the horns.
I really wish I had your ego- "Presumably, most of all me?"
You really need to get over yourself. Hey maybe that would even help the tone of the threads, certainly would reduce the verbage. You weren't even in my thoughts, let alone what I wrote.
For the umpteenth time I am not a Mulcair supporter. If anyone bothered to look you would see I have spoken up when I felt candidates were being tarred unduly. And as I mentioned I was essentially called a racist for my trouble for doing so in relation to Paul Dewar. I don't like the tone, in most of its entirety, although there are notable exceptions of the leadership threads. If you want to take some credit for that- it might be warranted. But I especially don't like the way rabble is acting during the campaign. Maybe its totally unconcious, probably is in fact, but the suspension of normally sound reasoning in what is determined as worthy for publication seems to have gone a bit out the window. As a long time supporter of rabble (and Ken if you are capable of seeing around your ego you might notice I have consitently used the word rabble- not babble) I think it is appropriate to bring this up for consideration. I take Catchfire at his word that this is being done by the way.
ETA And Michelle to be fair a significant number of the "other" posts are from people who seem to spend an enormous amount of effort and words attacking Mulcair. Personally I would say one group is about as bad as the other.
There is no monolithic support for any one candidate on rabble's staff, that I do know. We've invited all the candidates to join us for a Q&A, and only one has declined. The editorial people who cull the Q&A questions for the candidates support different people and make a genuine effort to avoid "soft" questions for all the candidates who join us.
While I have repect for Mulcair and Topp as very capable politicians, I haven't heard anything from either of them that encourages me to put them in my top three. Neither is far enough to the left for me. With Saganash gone, I'm rethinking my choices.
I have to say I really enjoyed working with Paul Dewar and his assistant on last night's Q&A. They're smart, witty and engaging people. I'm very much looking forward to Peggy Nash's Q&A this Friday.
I'd say something but I'm sure I'm one of those hysterical inneundo peddlers that is "smearing" Mulcair.
Stuff the crap about my 'ego' BA.
Sorry if perhaps I took your accusations more seriously than you did.
You did not merely 'intimate' that the anti-Mulcair stuff was a surrogate for the Topp campaign, you flat out said it.
Its puzzling what is the source of this fantasy. I cant think of anybody who has been more trenchant and persistent in the criticism of Mulcair than me. So if there is this surrogate campaign, I'd have to be part of it, eh?
So do you really think there is a surrogate campaign here driven by 'one of the leadership campaigns', or were just saying that for the pleaseure of it?
I know you aren't a Mulcair supporter. You've been as ill disposed to Topp since early on as I was to Mulcair. That gives you a stake the same as me, regardlees that I did not start out supporting a campaign. [And your defense of candidates is selective, does not include Topp. Quite the opposite.] Nothing wrong with that de facto positioning. But you are hardly outside some kind of stake.
And if you dont like the tone, what are you doing talking about a 'surrogate campaign' against Mulcair?
LP, I'm sorry we didn't get to your question in the Q&A last night (the one about Nash and the Health Act). We wanted to bring it in at the end, but lost our conference call with Paul and his assistant. It was a good question that deserved an answer.
You are right that I did not notice you said rabble rather than babble. Since you are expecting me to see things, i can expect you to see that its easy to miss the difference. That difference would take away some of the edge, but I'd still say you are one to be talking about tone while banding about accusations of smearing and of surrogate campaigns. And its not just Rabble you are accusing.
By the way, I made the point in the leadership thread that maybe someone could write a rabble blog or article in favour of Mulcair. Did the simple thing occur to you that the imbalance has a lot to do that probably no one has offered or submitted? Rabble is not the kind of place to have many writers liking Mulcair, and a lot who definitely do not. Much more true than Babble, where you just log on and talk. So you should expect that "imbalance" to the degree that what appears on Rabble is what is volunteered.
So what? People have always been free on babble to discuss their opinions of public political figures. My point is that the people complaining the loudest about the anti-Mulcair bias of the moderators get more than enough air time in the leadership threads to campaign for him (almost half the time, it would seem), so it's not like the Mulcair campaign is being silenced on babble. I know they would probably like it better if we all kissed Mulcair's ass throughout all the leadership threads, but those of us who aren't inclined to do so are allowed to have our say, as long as we don't personally attack other babblers.
And just so you know, I wasn't counting you among the Mulcair supporters. But I do think your accusation that rabble or babble is somehow the house organ of the Topp campaign is completely laughable. I haven't noticed very many people on babble at all who have put Topp at the top of their ballot, including the moderators, unless I've missed something.
The only problem I have with the NDP leadership threads is that folks need to get a life - that includes me - and stop posting so much claptrap. Really. Go out and stare at the sky, or go for a walk instead of staying glued to this stuff. I wish there was a way the Mods (or the software) could limit posting priviliges to each babbler - say ten to fifteen posts a day. And, listen - you don't have to quote entire lengthy posts just to make a one-sentence comment!!!! That pisses me off probably the most.
You're right about that. Bloggers for rabble post from their own perspective. The editorial team doesn't impose itself much beyond adjustments to format and spelling/grammar. I'm not privy to every editorial decision, and haven't been to a story meeting in a few weeks, but I haven't heard of any pitches for a pro-Mulcair article. I think that's mostly because our contributors are either further to the left than Mulcair and simply don't support him, or their interests lie elsewhere (not everyone cares about the NDP leadership race).
Either way, there is no clandestine cabal at rabble supporting any one candidate over another. Mulcair's politics just don't align themselves to rabble's stated values. You want pretend objectivity, look to the MSM.
It is time though for some folks to seriously give their head a shake.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Tandt+Mulcair+best+hope+battle+with+...
Fratricide is never pretty. But in the case of the high-minded New Democrats, some of whom appear to be committing it in the most cowardly of ways, it is particularly ugly. The irony is that, in doing so, they may be depriving themselves of the only leader among them with a hope of standing against Stephen Harper.
And of course, there’s the not-insignificant detail that the anonymous person or people behind the preciously polite attack site www.knowmulcair.ca are bound to eventually be identified, just as Adam Carroll, the former Liberal Internet mastermind who shepherded the Vikileaks Twitter campaign, was identified — with all the attendant blowback. What are these people thinking?
Here’s what we know: Mulcair, a popular, combative and effective minister in the government of Quebec Premier Jean Charest between 2003 and 2006 and since 2007 the New Democrat MP for Outremont, is now the front-runner in the contest to replace the late Jack Layton. This doesn’t mean Mulcair will win. Someone could easily pull a Stephane Dion and leap from behind to victory.
Nevertheless, Mulcair is drawing fire now from all sides — including, apparently, his own. The attack site was registered Feb. 27 with registrar Tucows.com Co, under a number, 156. It outlines various alleged sins of commission and omission perpetrated by Mulcair against unions, students, socialist rectitude and the NDP itself, dating back to his time in government in Quebec City. The authors say only that they are “progressive new democrats.”
Hmm. In what way, one wonders, is casting stones from beneath the skirts of mother Internet progressive? Surely not in the sense of being courteous or fair-minded in the way that, say, Layton was.
“Our aim is not to attack Mr. Mulcair,” the authors write, “but to ensure that NDP members know exactly who they’re voting for to lead our party.” This, next to links that home in with tacit outrage on every pragmatic move that Mulcair or the Quebec Liberals ever made. What rank hypocrisy.
Presumably New Democrats are expected to recoil in dismay as they read that Mulcair was part of a government that froze the wages of Quebec public servants, or reduced student aid. And the ideologically correct will be aghast, surely, when they discover that Mulcair has long supported Israel’s right to exist in peace and security. What further horrors await, should this usurper seize control of the party of Tommy Douglas and wrench it, kicking and screaming, to within reach of forming government?
Do we truly believe that "any one of the seven candidates would be an improvement over Harper"? If so, make an extra effort before clicking "post comment" to ensure that your comments are focused on policy. Any & all policies are fair game. So is style for that matter but one person's a-hole is another person's a-ngel.
If I can make a suggestion to the pro-Mulcair posters here, speaking as someone who has not been especially turned on by any of the candidates and so is still actively considering many of them, specifically including Mulcair. I have read a great many posts bewailing the posts by anti-Mulcair posters. What I have read remarkably little of is posts saying "why I support Mulcair", "what I like about Mulcair's proposals", "what I understand Mulcair to be proposing". It would be a great service -- and a much more conducive environment -- if more such posts found their way into the threads.
The single biggest question about Mulcair is what he means by "modernizing" and "renewing" the party. Many people in the party take that to mean he intends to Blairify the party - make it just another anti-democratic party. His well-publicized remarks about NAFTA and the tarsands seem to give credence to this concern. And it certainly seems to be the overwhelming perception of him amongst people outside the party, in everything one finds written about the race.
However, most pro-Mulcair posters here seem to go apoplectic when this suggestion is made. And, I have seen the occasional post that suggests that people who have looked into the issue far more thoroughly than I can afford to have come to a very different -- much more sympathetic -- understanding of what Mulcair means. I would suggest that actively seeking out and publicizing whatever statements you can find that clarifies this issue would be far more persuasive than apoplexy.
My own concern is that Mulcair has been rather vague about the actual content of this plank (especially in the debates), such that both readings are plausible -- yet only one of them can be true.
I should also note that simply being appalled that anyone would not support Mulcair, when "he will win", is hardly persuasive. Posting articles by life-long opponents of everything the NDP has ever stood for (e.g., Michael den Tandt) about how Mulcair is our best hope is not very effective. Mulcair may, in fact, be the most effective politician in the party -- there's good reason to accept that that may be so -- and that is a genuinely good reason to support him. But the den Tandts of the world dismiss the concerns about Mulcair not because they think those concerns are mistaken, but because they think that they shouldn't be concerns. For those who do support what the NDP has always claimed to stand for, those concerns shouldn't be dismissed -- they should be answered. Show that they are mistaken. Show the middle-run strategy. Show where Mulcair sees progress that can be made, what the trade-offs are, and why those are trade-offs worth making. Make a case that New Democrats will buy.