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.
NDP Leadership Race #134
March 20, 2012 - 9:25pm
....
Something actually happened with my leadership ballot so they emailed it.
Made my first vote in a party leadership contest. Today is a good day.
1: Cullen
2: Mulcair
3: Nash
I really think that Cullen is the one to watch right now. If fundraising is any indication (which it isn't always) he is the one with the momentum. He has been able to go toe to toe with the "front runners" and the majority of his money has been coming in denominations of less than $100. To me this seems that not only does he have a large number of people supporting him but they are enthusiastic about their choice.
I do like Cullen's ability to build an excited movement. Part of that is because of an idea I grossly disagree with. But there's value in that. We need to be a movement to beat Harper, considering the current media climate.
I don't think that Cullen's idea will really go anywhere, I can't see the Liberals agreeing to it. The biggest danger to the Liberals right now is for the NDP to solidify the progressive flank. The right is already solidly for Harper and if the NDP is then seen as the main threat they Liberals have no place to go. If Rae gives creedance to the NDP he loses.
I admire the fact that Cullen is willing to stand up for the idea though. He has come under fire from pretty much every other candidate and I've felt that he has defended his idea well and has done it with class. He's able to take a hit and make the other guy look pretty bad in the process. That's going to be big for the next election. This is part of what Ignatieff and Dion both lacked. They were constantly being smashed and framed without being able to defend themselves. They simply looked weak in the whole process. They were both made to look idiots (which is so far from the truth, whether I agree with their policies or not).
Mulcair has similar ability, for him however he is simply able to hit back harder which isn't a bad thing. The difference between the two is that when I listen to Cullen I think "This is the guy that I want to vote for" and when I see Mulcair I think "Well, this is the guy I should vote for".
The latest on what is shaping up to be a neck and neck race:
“To me it would make sense that a lot of Cullen supporters would be attracted to Mulcair,” said Mr. Davies. “One of the reasons a lot of people like Nathan is they consider him to be very well spoken and charismatic, and attractive to the majority of Canadians, and I think that Tom Mulcair has got similar appeal. I can tell you anecdotally I’ve been talking to people who vote Cullen/Mulcair, and that’s one of the reasons.”
http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2012/03/20/topps-ndp-leadership-campaign-not-nearly-as-well-organized-as-mulcairs-says-ndp/30141As to vetting.
You should see the vetting form that MP candidates have to fill out. We know that some stuff appears later, but it tends to be not top tier candidates and/or things it is hard to ask about.
And there is a vetting process for the leadership candidates. I dont know what the questions look like, but you can bet they are thorough, and are checked out... plus looking for things that candidates might 'forget'. At a bare mnimum things like debts, business connections, arrests, etc are all in there.
Here's an example, even a number of Dippers outside of Nova Scotia know of Robert Chisholm's 18 year old drunk driving convictuion that bit us hard at the end of a campaign. He disclosed that long before the campaign. It was known.
I wonder how honest people are on those forms. Think they have to be notarized or sworn or something? So that they can be fined or sued for anything completely fraudulent?
It strikes me as rare that someone would hide anything or lie anyway. At least in the NDP. Maybe I'm too idealistic.
That article quotes 'NDP insider' as if he/she is authoritative and/or expressing a group opinion. It wouldnt be either.
But I personally dont think I have any reason to guess that the description of Topp's campaign is accurate or not. I dont assume its an effective juggernaut, and still would not know even if someone in the campaign told me it was.
Filling out the vetting forms is taken very seriously.
It is made very clear that the party needs to know about potential bad news and why. I think at the level on MP candidates there may be a tendency for people to not want to bring things up. Denial that anyone will know or find it. But I think that is going to be less operative, and more covered verbally, the more serious the candidate.
There are no amateur leadership candidates, and WAY more attention would be put to their vetting.
that source is almost certainly an mp, we could probably narrow it down pretty well just by considering neutral mps who say "brian" and "mulcair" when referring to our two protagonists, who've a history of frank assessments to media of internal party issues, and who've a relationship with the author. so looking over naumetz' past sources, who comes up as the most likely source??? why, pat martin, of course. though nominally neutral, he has pretty much stated openly that he'll be voting mulcair, so there we go. i strongly support mulcair, but topp's campaign problems reflect poor strategy and a weak candidate, rather than poor organization of a campaign that comprises virtually 50% of our party's top organizers.
Remember when I mentioned that call I got from the Mulcair Campaign, in which they said they would get back to me when they had an answer to my question? Well, no one has called me back yet. True, they have two more days, so we'll see. But I'm not feeling very optimistic about it...
All the top organizers doent do you much good if you are doing poorly at attracting volunteers. Getting the volunteers in the first place is one of the central organizer functions. But organizational talent can only do so much.
I'm not saying that is the case, but it is a possibility.
Ripple supports Nash for NDP Leadership
Nash has proven record of respect for grassroots social movements
March 20, 2012
VANCOUVER – Ripple, regular reader of and occasional poster to Rabble’s Babble, today endorsed Peggy Nash’s campaign for leader of the Federal New Democratic Party, believing that Nash was best positioned to unite groups and individuals around important issues, build campaigns, fight those standing in the way, and win.
Ripple stated her agreement with the Globe and Mail’s John Doyle, that with Nash, “there’s the air of a woman who has seen and heard plenty of male bluster but knows that bluster doesn’t get the job done.” Ripple added, "Oh, and her name isn’t “Peggs.”
“She has made a firm commitment to proportional representation, action on climate change, affordable childcare, and my boutique issue, midwifery,” said Ripple. “Her parliamentary experience, union experience, life experience – it’s not just words,” Ripple added.
A meaningless endorsement, Ripple explained: “I am not a member of the NDP, so I can’t actually vote. And, in fact, I posted some weeks ago that I would be joining the 40% who do not or no longer vote come 2015. That still may be the case, but Peggy makes me think twice.”
Originally a supporter of Romeo Saganash, some may wonder why Ripple didn’t follow Saganash’s lead and endorse Mulcair. “You know, I did stop and really think about it – why Saganash supported Mulcair. He’s certainly better positioned, more experienced, knows what it takes to achieve something grand,” Ripple answered, referring to Saganash's role in The UN Declaration on the Rights of indigenous Peoples. “But Romeo never asked that we support Tom. We all have different roles and perspectives."
“No one ever says they’re going to move the party to the right,” Ripple continued. “It’s a number of actions and comments: it’s his conduct toward Libby Davies; it’s holding an event about affordable housing in a building that is a symbol of the opposite; it’s his comments on the tar sands that have alarmed activists on the ground; it’s his position on decriminalization; it’s his non-committal to PR. (And don’t tell me he answered “Yes” on a questionnaire. Read the question again – there is plenty of wiggle room.) When activists who do much of the work on these issues every day tell you there’s a problem with how you’re framing it, and you don’t listen, well, that says trouble to me.”
When asked about this latest endorsement, Nash replied: “Who’s Ripple?”
In endorsing Nash, Ripple stands in opposition to Nicky’s dog, Angus, whose endorsement of Mulcair has been announced twice, without any comment from Angus himself.
Love it.
ripple - hah.
ken, they don't have volunteer problems, but they've (apparently) had serious morale issues. i think though that morale has rebounded a lot over the past week, however, and that topp's team has really come together, and they're getting a lot of very good response on their 2s and 3s. again, topp is definitely not my first choice, but it has to be said that i'm becoming more and more convinced that he could overtake nash, in which case, i think we've a real race on our hands. it just feels like the race has shifted over the past 3 weeks - mulcair is fighting hard again, topp is unloading on the quebecois, nash and dewar have all but disappeared from the conversation, cullen is a media darling. the ndp's huge problems with delivering balloting packages has been an assist to those coming on late - cullen and topp - and the race just feels very very fluid.
then again, i'm getting so much info on all this stuff that i'm losing sight of the forest for the trees, which is to say that tiny moves seem large to me these days...
Yes, too funny Ripple!
*claps for ripple*
You put a smile on my face. That doesn't happen very often around here. = P
Ripple-- I am supporting Mulcair.
That said -- that is one rockin' well written post and it would be wrong not to say how impressive it is.
And you make a good case-- even if it did not convince me to change my position.
Brilliant!
Now, could we all please leave the room in orderly fashion and head over to the real NDP leadership race #134 thread?
Thanks for your cooperation.
This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes.
Superb ripple - a giant thank you for that.
But Unionist is correct there is another #134 thread which we could first complete and then come back here to connect with our pleasure points.
Ripple, we've had 134 of these leadership threads, each with more than 100 posts, and some with far more than that. I haven't counted, but I wouldn't be surprised if more than 20,000 comments have been posted in this series of threads.
And yours might well be the best of them all.
Well done Ripple!
Also, Cullen is a good guy. He hasn't received a lot of national media scrutiny but he has received a fair bit in BC. His name was bandied about, for instance, when Carole James stepped down as leader of the BC NDP. He has also made gaffes and been held to account for them. Perhaps his most famous gaffe was a comment about being afraid to criticise the RCMP because they might show up at your door with TV cameras if you did (a reference to the raid on Glen Clark's house). Since that statement, Cullen is better known as an advocate for civilian oversight and reform of the RCMP than the previous gaffe. 37k party members in BC probably know him better than most and they given him the overwhelming bulk of his fundraising/financial muscle in this race.
Since then have not the RCMP in BC been required to be investigated by civilians when there are concerns about one of their own doing misdeeds. I know some kind of a civilian watchdog has been hired.
this is the bigger splinter
Independent Jewish Voices calls for vote against Mulcair.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/ijv/2012/03/ijv-canada-urges-ndp-members...Which is fine, if thats THE most important issue to you in the leadership race, or is sufficiently defining of your choice.
this is the bigger splinter
Most would see it as one piece in a larger puzzle. Do you think interest groups should refrain from endorsing a candidate?
They can and should do whatever they want. And I happen to agree with the concerns brought by this one.
But as legitimate as the concerns are, and as important as they are first of all in their own right to the people who bring them here, it is probably also true that the concerns are brought here only by people who wouldnt vote for Mulcair if he did a 180 on that particular issue.