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 #136
March 22, 2012 - 11:12pm
I liked the "light at the end of the tunnel" pic you closed the last thread with, Catchfire.
Is it getting closer or further away? I can't tell...
Depends on whether we're climbing or descending the stairs, I suppose. I always feel like the internecine warfare of these races is like a collective descent into madness.
I'm feeling pretty excited about the convention, even though I'm not going to be there. I'm still more or less undecided about who to vote for, though I have a top four.I'm looking forward to seeing what the candidates do for each of their showcases. it should be pretty telling, at least for me. if you're already a dedicated supporter of one of the candidates though, maybe not so much.
I wish I could go to the Convention, but alas, cannot get the time off work. My partner is going (lucky bastard!).
It will be interesting to see what the candidates have lined up. I have a bad feeling that, given how focused the race has been on endorsements, it's going to be a whole lot of testimonials from prominent endorsers.
My expectation is that I will probably end up liking Nathan's the best, even though I am not supporting him.
One thing that I hope none of the candidates do is focus excessively on what great elements of a nuclear family they are. Perhaps it's just that I'm a jaded gay man, but those types of presentations really nauseate me.
question: How come Saganash's supporters here, who really appear to like him, are not supporting Mulcair like Saganash himself is doing? They like him and voted for him or woulda, but don't trust his judgement about who he thinks would be a good leader, or just what is going on with that?
I'm looking forward to seeing all the showcases too.
Some of the candidates are planning a LOT for their showcases. Paul Dewar's is going to feature a live performance of a new song, remarks by two endorsers, a biographical video of Dewar, remarks by two more endorsers, a video introduction by a "surprise guest," and finally, a speech by Dewar himself. All in twenty minutes!
http://pauldewar.ca/content/paul-dewar-leadership-showcase-feature-live-...
I hope someone has pyrotechnics - I love pyrotechnics!
I really hope somebody from one of the campaigns reads your post and makes a last-minute pyrotechnic addition to a candidate's showcase just to try to sway your vote, Winston!
Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing Martin Singh juggle while riding a unicycle.
Now, that could sway my vote!!
ha ha ha - I would love both of those additions. And balloons for the kiddies!
I liked Saganash until he quit. At that particular point, he became a quitter as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not an NDP member, and I find the dogfights playing out here to be exceedingly sad. As if Mulcair, Topp, Dewar, etc., are significantly different from each other... Future archeologists and anthropologists will be scratching their heads.
But to support someone because someone you like says to support them? That's the height of folly. I loved my parents, but if I still believed in the same ludicrous God they believed in, I'd have no self-respect.
Do you like my analogy? No?
Not just balloons, but ballon art! Think on it - Nathan Cullen twisting long orange balloons into Tommy Douglases!
You're kidding, right?
Is twenty minutes the time limit for all the candidates?
Well, here's the important information: the hospitality suites! http://leadership2012.ndp.ca/events
It seems Nash is the best, since she has suites planned for both Friday AND Saturday nights.
I believe so. I do wish that more time were allocated for the showcases.
No. Are you?
Lemme get this straight. Thousands of people have been recruited into the NDP so that they can vote for the person who brought them to the dance. Right? They pay a few bucks and they get to choose the leader of the Official Opposition?
And I should belong to a party that behaves in that fashion? Are you kidding?
I'm not God, Gaian, though you are forgiven for the understandable error.
hmm...on the webtie it says the showcases are meant to last from 1:30 to 5:00 PM. If each of the seven gets twenty minutes, that would be only 140 minutes, right? or is my math wrong?
I'm afraid that last comment seems to do little to dispel Gaian's assertions about your heavenly perch, Unionist!
Maybe someday you will stoop to our level!
You have to get shitfaced before you can vote for these people? I thought it was just about paying $10 (hereabouts anyway) to prove your loyalty!
What if someone doesn't drink? Are they allowed in anyway?
No, Winston. I've been a member. And I've continued to support and work for the party long after I quit. But I will never join a party whose ONLY criteria are the payment of cash and a written statement that I will not support any other party.
Ashton is an old lady - there are quite a few MPs younger than her. Maybe it would be a good idea to both name them and give an honest appraisal as to how they are doing in their new job.
JUDES would not mind Mulcair's inflexibility if he was not perceived as being pro-Israel enough to earn the wrath of Independent Jewish voices. Ashton's position on the Middle East was enough to put her one spot ahead of Mulcair, but it was a close decision between the two spots. JUDES seems to figure that new MPs are not the best judge because, to them, he would be a bit of a rock star. They are learning their ropes and haven't had much chance to feel a need to stand up to him.
Jack did not need someone to be able to "work well with others" and negotiate a compromise any time there was a disagreement in caucus because he was good at that. He chose Libby Davies and Mulcair as his two deputy leaders more to keep the two factions happy both by showing each proper respect but also to not be seen as choosing one over the other.
IF Mulcair gets in, he both needs to give a nod to Libby Davies and have one deputy leader that has a proven history of working with strong personalities and finding agreement among them - which would probably be a nod to Turmel. Nash and Saganash may not be as fiery as Mulcair but they are both tough and flexible - able to find common ground with strong personalities. Nash will either be leader or she will likely get her Finance critic portfolio back.
There are a lot of talented MPs from Quebec who would have been real contenders if the race was 5 years from now instead of now. All they need is another couple of years of Federal experience under their belt.
Charlie Angus and Kill the Autocrat's Michael Fraser O'Brien co-wrote a song about Jack Layton entitled "Longer than a Lifetime." Did not know that they were playing it for Dewar - unless there are two songs.
I can't speak for the other Saganash supporters on here, but here are my (admittedly uninformed) thoughts..
- They're not the same at all! In fact, they're almost as different as two politicians from the same province could be, occupying the same general area of the political spectrum, of course..
- Since Mulcair mentored most of the new Quebec NDP MPs, it didn't surprise me that Saganash would eventually go to support him rather than the other leadership candidates from farther afield. Although maybe he did a thorough examination of all the candidates and still decided on Mulcair for rational reasons, who knows..
- I still decided to support Mulcair with my vote, but I'm hardly in the Mulcair "camp" that supposedly exists, nor do I expect to love him too much once he starts making decisions.. Still, he was the best option out of the bunch, imo.
Your math is definitely right. I believe that the showcases are separated by ten minute intervals, which is why the amount of time allocated is from 1:30 to 5:00.
Romeo Saganash would have dealt with Thomas Mulcair when the two were involved in their prior political lives. Saganash representing the Cree of northern Quebec. Mulcair as a minister in Quebec City.
From where I sit, Saganash has put not one iota of pressure on his supporters to vote any which way. And, as self-directing adults, many of us didn't feel a desperate need for such assistance.
I'll also note that some Saganash supporters have in fact come out for Mulcair here on babble. Others have come out for other candidates. Some (like me) remain undeclared.
Otherwise, once again, what Unionist said in terms of the spirit of his statement. Though I remain a member, with hope that this status might evolve into something more meaningful than its current state.
I'm actually totally excited, too! Nervous and worried about what happens after, but as far as this weekend goes, I'm just excited. I can't go, obviously, but I'm going to be cheering from my living room. I have my orange-and-green outfit all picked out.
Yeah, I haven't been one for endorsements either. With a few exceptions. In aggregate, they do mean something. And if someone with a high profile makes an endorsement, I at least hear them out. But seeing as most endorsements have been fluff pieces ("I think X is an excellent person with excellent personal qualities to lead the party into the next century and offer an excellent alternative to Steven Harper"), I can't say it's mattered all that much.
Really? This from the man who said we shouldn't have this long-running beauty contest, nor expect the leader to set the policy, but just let those who know (the caucus?) pick the best spokesperson. And indeed many democrats argue that one root of our democratic deficits is that we copied the American system of primaries and conventions, which produces a leader who has a mandate that trumps the mandate of any MP, and therefore entitles him to be emperor.
So if some of us pay attention to what the MPs want, and give more weight to the opinions of the MPs with more seniority, isn't that entirely consistent?
Me too. (But why orange and green? not even a red stripe?)