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
In the previous thread, (post 92), SDM expressed sympathy with Topp's tax plan. I don't disagree. But someone would need to convince Canadians of its worth; and, by not even knowing how many people would be affected, Topp is no position to do so.(watch his interview w/ Tom Clark on "The West Block".)
***
I also disagree w/ Duncan Cameron's "creative translation" of Lisee's blog post. Here are key passages, quoted verbatim:
“Thomas travaille pour Thomas, résume Liza Frulla, qui a siégé avec lui. Mais de dire que c’est un gars de droite, je ne suis pas prête à dire ça. Peut-être plus à droite que le NPD en général, mais je le mets dans la même ligne que Jack Layton.”
Un autre ex-ministre le dit “pragmatique avant tout”. Un troisième: “j’étais loin de penser qu’il était de centre droit. Il avait des préoccupations sociales, sur les garderies et la politique familiale, par exemple.”
“Ce n’est pas un militant de gauche, résume Louis-Gilles Francoeur, du Devoir. Mais il pouvait aller loin sur le plan de l’éthique et de l’égalité devant la loi.” Mulcair au pouvoir avait, ajoute-t-il, “une grande rectitude à cause de ses valeurs sur l’équité”.
Aux militant du NPD de décider si ça leur suffit…"
Compared w/ Topp, who doesn't appear to even know the details of his central campagin plan, or Nash, who is competely untested in QC, I say "ça me suffit".
***
BTW, it's worth remembering that Lisee is a PQiste spinner. He would have loved to be able to write that Mulcair was a Conservative egomaniac in NDP clothing (although it would probably have had more effect on the membership had he written it in English...) The fact that EVEN HE had to acknowledge Mulcair's qualities, speaks volumes.
Niki Ashton was in St. John's today, meeting with New Democrats and answering questions. She won a few votes, thanks to her enthusiasm and her ideas. This leaves only Martin Singh and Brian Topp to have not touched down in Newfoundland and and Labrador. Singh, I might understand since his campaign is quite small. But Topp, who was first to announce for the leadership way back in September, apparently believes Canada's east coast ends at Halifax. One supposes that geography was not one of his strenghts in grade school. Or perhaps he doesn't give a damn.
Singh is from Nova Scotia - Newfoundland and Labrador ain't that far from him.
I am supporting Mulcair because I like his integrity. I found Left coast Pocket's comments offensive. Actually, I found the comments very un-NDP like.
http://www.themuse.ca/articles/51256
Not called for.
good BB because it was so offensive on so many different levels. And it surprised me that some Babblers actually complimented it as a good post that needed to be read a few times. Really digging and stooping low IMV.
My jaw dropped when I saw the reference to Margaret Thatcher.
Peggy Nash needs to propose a war against Argentina if she wants to win the leadership race.
Niki certainly doesn't deserve to be called a robotic young communist. She's a talented and caring politician I expect great things of in future. Being a pawn of unions is something any NDP leader is going to be accused of. While I agree it's easier to make that argument with Peggy Nash, it's something anyone who wins will have to deal with.
...And THAT is most definitely QUOTE OF THE WEEK!
I am a uber-hyper-partisan for Mulcair, and even I found LCP's post offensive. That said, if I were Niki, I would wear the "robotic young communist" slam as a badge of pride. C'mon how many of us were not called something like that in our 20s? Really?
I think I called my Dad something like that last week - okay, not the young bit!
Oh yeah, big time - in 2005:
Wow, that's desperate. You've got to wonder who is pushing for that. You also have to wonder what the consequences would be of honouring such a request. If all the media has to do is publicly whine to get Mulcair on the air, I hope they all learn the lesson and start doing it. What's more if the reason I think the CBC is pushing so hard for this is what I think it is, then Mulcair is better off not going.
The CBC is under threat of deeper and deeper cuts from the Conservatives. It's pretty clear these cuts are politically motivated, based on comments from cabinet ministers and the Conservative fundraising letters. What's more, Power and Politics has tried to ambush Mulcair many times on air, occassionally with moderate success (Osama bin Laden, calling Andrew Coyne a "crap journalist" for an abysmal yellow journalist piece on Québec, etc) and they ask him about these issues repeatedly when he goes back. Furthermore, Mulcair has already been on the show during this race. My guess is they want to slag and hardball him as much as possible in a session before the convention in order to win points with the Conservatives (and help the Liberals that so many CBC staffers support) before the budget comes down. It is a bit of a hail mary to either stop Mulcair or try to win a partial reprieve from the Tories budgetary axe.
It's sad to hear Rosie Barton making this appeal, as she usually comes across as a pretty progressive persona.
Interesting to know. Flanagan has nothing to lose from doing this. He is no longer a darling of the CPC. The WRA also corresponds more to his liberatarian-conservative ideological alignment.
I thought Flanagan "endorsed" Mulcair at the beginning of the campaign. Calling it his kiss of death. If he repeated the "endorsement," maybe he's still waiting for the laugh line.
Actually, you're thinking of Pat Martin, whom Flanagan did indeed "endorse", calling it the "kiss of death". Flanagan called Martin "my kind of dipper".
Didn't Pat Martin at one point threaten to enter the leadership race? I guess when Cullen entered with his co-operation plan, Martin may have felt it wasn't necessary for him to compete. (Martin wanted a coalition, before or after the next election I can't recall)
+1
LCP, please heed the moderators comments.
Martin was advocating full-on merger with the Liberals saying, "if no one else brings it up then I will run myself as the merger candidate."
That's at least what he thought that week.
I believe he has since distanced himself from those remarks.
Ah - thanks! Your memory is better than mine - I have the disadvantage of being older than dirt.
Offensive. Too much. Criticise Brian Topp for not visiting the maritimes if you like but drop the ad hominems, they weaken your argument and offend others.
It's about time we beat Argentina at hockey! This is an outrage! Who do the Argentines think they are living so close to the South pole and flouting the superiority of our game! To the locker rooms!
You know, Tom could always come to babble, we would love a Q&A with him.
You're right! Maybe Flanagan is Pat Martin's attack dog!
Anyone else read or listen to Kady's live chat today?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/14/pol-wednesdays-with-kad...
LCP isn't a "modern" progressive. There isn't anything "progressive" about capitulating to neoliberal Third Way talking points about big labour and how it's irrelevant to non-unionized workers. The economic mess we find ourselves in today is not because unions were too powerful and corrupt but that they have been attacked, lost influence and membership. He acts as if organized labour is some albatross around the neck of the left as if it was Stalinism or something. It's unions that need to modernize, not the NDP's relationship to them. I don't see the Libs and Cons backing away from their relationship with "big capital" in order to moderate their images. Why should a party that represent working people back away from unions then? Unions do need to become more democratic and reach out to non-unionized workers to show they they are representing not just the workplaces that are unionized but the working class as a whole. Thankfully we're now getting things like the CAW-CEP "New Union" discussions. Trying to distance the NDP away from unions isn't going to get you very many more votes, what it's going to get is less critical editorials about the party in the Globe & Mail and National Post. If the NDP wins in 2015 and Harper has screwed the nation's finances, the one thing that the NDP can do to actually help workers and the economy in a very affordable way is to encourage unionization as a way of raising living standards and redistributing wealth.
Also, if we piss all over the unions after March 24th, the NDP loses a significant amount of its election infrastructure. Unions get workers released to work on campaigns and bus in plenty of volunteers come election time. Try rebuilding that deep and experienced volunteer pool by 2015.
All these Mulcair and to a lesser extent Cullen supporters who swear up and down that their guys aren't "Third Way" haven't accounted for the fact of all these Third Way types popping up and saying these guys have the momentum, these are the only guys that can win. There's no smoking gun on Mulcair's Third Way tendencies but the circumstantial evidence is piling up everyday. Now we've got rather nasty people popping up and engaging in it too! This reminds me of how the Democratic establishment comes and goes after Progressives in the Democratic Party for criticizing Obama's record. It's also not giving me confidence that a Mulcair NDP is capable of delivering anything beyond what a Liberal government that replaces Harper could. In fact, I'm beginning to get the feeling that Bob Rae may be to the left of Mulcair on some stuff...
Thanks Prairie Left for making me and perhaps other laugh with your rejoining on Peggy starting a war in Argentina. This thread conversation, starting from the beginning has been so very negative and demeaning to fellow NDP leadership candidates that it really has made me question some people's ethical judgments and some candidates team judgments.
For sure, a candidate is not responsible for what some of their team says and does but perhaps a blind eye is given when someone else is doing the dirty work. I have no idea if that is some kind of backward strategy but I would sure hope it does not work.
I don't want our party for instance to fake centre but go left as a strategy to power. I did not like similar dishonesty in the Liberals so why would we emulate that behaviour.
Going negative may work but really is that what you and us are "winning" with taking the worst of political behaviour and using it. You know, the NDP came a strong second in the last election and it was because Jack was amazingly a happy warrier who talked straight and people felt he cared about them. With all the stuff about the robofraud, one may very well come to the conclusion that the NDP could have well won it if "dirty tricks" and election fraud hadn't occured. Thus we all may think twice about what we really need to do next time to win. How about more of the same because it got us to where we are at right now.
Fo