Thomas Mulcair, the right-wing Liberal, pro-Israel, political bully

I agree fundamentally with the criticism of Mulcair. I was in the "anybody-but-Mulcair" camp as soon as I heard his name floated as a possible leadership candidate. I became especially sour on Mulcair after he gave a disappointing answer on a question that is very important to me. I had him ranked last on my ballot, and I filled out my ballot specifically to stop him from winning. Having said that....

The membership made a decision, it was different than what I wanted, and it is what it is. At the end of the day, there are far worse things that can happen than someone other than my favourite candidate winning an election. As for the tone of the articles:

You can chase popularity to the point where you lose your principles and it makes no difference when you win. On the other hand, when you keep coming in last place, maybe it is time to take a look in the mirror and see if you can do a better job connecting with people. When I look at people like Murray Dobbin and Jim Stanford, to use a couple of examples, while they are no doubt brilliant, sometimes I get the impression that they expect us to take them seriously because they are so smart, and they don't make an effort to understand us "little people." Speaking of which, the left flank lost this round. Why? What are the lessons? What did the left flank do wrong, what can be corrected for next time, and what do we do now?

As for the new leader? Since when does the Party begin and end at the Leader? As the old expression goes, "don't mourn, organize." Now that Mulcair is the leader, the left flank has a challenge to keep our core values front and left (I was going to say "front and centre" ;) ). I find this talk about "The Leader" condescending and incapacitating anyways.

Besides, as a Mantioban with an NDP Justice Minister who is trying to out do the federal Conservatives in being tough on crime, I'd say Mulcair's position on crime is quite refreshing. It's even far superior to the tough-on-crime position the federal NDP took in the 2005/6 election.

Rebick's diatribe isn't fair to the many women who worked very hard on Mulcair's campaign.

From campaign co-chair Heather Harrison, who I finally got to meet at convention, who could be described as a tireless and fierce campaigner to Lydia Treadwell, the all-star fundraiser who almost singlehandedly raised more money than any other candidate in this race by working many 18 hour days, while also running a phone bank, her assertion that the campaign was "devoid" of women is quite frankly insulting.

The campaign could not have functioned, and would not have won without their hard work and dedication.

Also consider Quebec youth chair Renee Taylor and Quebec youth chair Catherine Hame, (forgiveness for my keyboard's lack of french accents for both), as well as the countless female Quebec MP's backing him on Day 1, and her criticism belies a certain lack of research, or an unwillingness to actually count.

Especially telling is the fact that of the apple-of-her-eye Nathan Cullen's endorsements, the proportion of women was certainly no more than Mulcair's.

This kind of disingenuous criticism of those who consider themselves "to the left" of Mulcair is the main reason they fail:  Rather than highlight real policy differences (which are limited in scope), or actual hard facts, they use conjecture, or things they truly believe to the the case, which on further inspection turn out to be false on the surface.  This is, in my opinion why Ed's attack on Tom failed.  For every criticism he had that could be verified, he used two that relied on information he thought to be true, but the facts showed otherwise.

An example: His comment that 90% of the MP's from before 2008 were against Mulcair.  Well, the people in Hamilton, that was easily refutable because 2 of their 3 MP's were very publicly backing him.  We of course know he had 6 endorsers from the previous caucus, better than Dewar's five, and Topp's mere 4.  It was also rich of Broadbent to suggest that Tom had little to do with the Quebec breakthrough, when he was the only MP in Quebec pre May 2, had the backing of 30+ Quebec MP's and was pretty much on TV constantly as the Quebec Lieutenant.

Rebick and company would do better to stick to factual arguments, hence their chicken little protestations will fall on deaf ears.  This is why Thomas Mulcair will be an awesome leader.  He has cautioned against this kind of reactionary discourse, which is a nasty habit of NDP'ers in past iterations.  He says we've done this as a Party, and we need to be careful not to hyperbolize or get caught in a mistake in fact, as the Conservatives will use that to refute our entire argument and undermine our credibility.

Rebick would be wise to acknowledge that.

Oh, and she should take out a membership and have a say if she wants to criticize my Party as if she's an insider.  It's only ten bucks.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

 

agree with everything said here as I also was on the floor - just wished he'd given a 2 minute victory speech, off the cuff and from the heart - liked how he handled The House interview - said all the right things so feeling better. That said, we need to remain completely engaged to ensure our party stays social democratic.

I'm referring to her interview on The Current this past week, where she basically went on a diatribe about Mulcair, while proudly proclaiming she wasn't actually a member.

Now, she doesnt say when she tore up her membership card, but I'm assuming it was still under the tenure of Jack Layton, so, really, if Jack wasn't even good enough for her, I don't know who would be.  

I know I'm being dismissive, but to make such a point of not being a member, while continuing to criticise belies an arrogance and attitude that I find disingenuous.  Clearly if she feels compelled enough to comment on what the NDP and its members should or shouldn't do, should she not at least participate in the process herself?  I really think it gives off the wrong message, like its above her or something.  I find it is demeaning to those of us who ARE members.

I am very proud to be a member, and would have remained so no matter who won the leadership, and feel that theres something wrong with someone proclaiming that an organization is not worthy of their participation while simultaneously advising it and its actual members to follow her agenda.

I have no trouble with challenging her or anyone-- it was just the comment suggesting she had to pay $10 and join in order to be listened to that got me going. Not meaning to be too sharp. For many years I had hoped Rebick would run for leadership of the party.

Oh well...

 

The left of the Party? Sure.

 

But what about someone who is careful to make sure to qualify that they are NOT part of the Party at all?

 

Also, reaching out is one thing.  But read Rebick's bilous column and tell me that is someone that is reaching out? 

I think Topp has been very magnanamous and respectful of the result and as a result I hope he runs for a seat and continues with the Party.  It IS a two-way street.  We should not have to reach out to folks who have a knife in their hand after the leadership has been settled and the membership has made their choice.  

She needs to respect that this is a direction that the Party membership has chosen.

Finally I just can't get her pumping up of Cullen.  Ideologically, he falls in the Mulcair camp in just about every way except for the outright cooperation.  It's perplexing she attributes to him this separate image that doesn't match with the practical reality.

The NDP must reach out to the people who are not currently voting for it but could-- that is a longer reach than just those who are not holding memberships.

 

I'm not sure what is involved in "reaching out" to anyone. I think the party has to perform well, be consistent with its principles however those are defined, and, above all, keep Harper's feet to the fire and show Canadians that the NDP has the capability and integrity to govern the country in an upcoming election. That should be incentive enough to attract folks both on the left, and the big tent centre who might be more inclined to vote Liberal or Green. The NDP is going to need a hell of a lot more seats to form government so it really needs to attract voters from a wide spectrum. Between now and the next election, I expect the party will work to establish itself as a credible alternative to all the decades of Liberal and Conservatve mis-management, because, frankly, the NDP needs to get into power to be able to overturn all the damage that Harper and previous administrations have done to this country.

Where do I send my ten bucks so that I have the right to criticize Stephen Harper?

Good thing she didn't say that, huh?  Here's what she did say:

Which makes your comment here rather ironic:

Maybe you should stick to reading a little more carefully before you paraphrase someone.

Your party?  I'm glad you've asserted ownership over it.  But guess what?  People can criticize anything they want to, whether they're a member or not.  Don't want to hear it?  Then plug your ears and go "La la la la la la".  Also, this line that Mulcair supporters have been pushing about Judy not knowing anyone or anything about the NDP because she hasn't paid her ten bucks lately is hilarious.  Judy has spent decades in NDP politics and social justice movements - a hell of a lot longer than Mulcair has.  If you think she doesn't have a huge number of contacts inside the party, you're dreaming in technicolour.

Also, what radiorahim said.  I guess the only non-members Mulcair supporters like you are interested in reaching out to are people to the right of the party, not people to the left of it.  That's some good outreach there.  "I know you vote NDP even though you don't have a membership, but until you pay us your ten bucks, shut the fuck up - we're not interested in what you have to say, despite your years of activism and past party membership.  We're too busy courting Liberals to bother with you."

Ironically, Mulcair himself has done a better job over the past two days of starting to reach out to people to the left of him and of the party than some of his supporters on babble have (with some notable exceptions like NorthReport).

Criticizing Harper is free as in free beer

 

Judy has a right to speak as she chooses whether or not she's a member, but the fact is she was very not fair to Mulcair and her comments offended many New Democracts, including myself, and such is not conductive to building support for her concerns. Mtm was just reacting to the hostile attack and implied insults she just dished out. The Patrarchial attack was especially out of line, Mulcair fought hard against sexual harrassment, he wants 50% of appointments to be women, he just chose a female deputy leader. We even have testimony on rabble from someone who knows women who worked for Mulcair who had no problem working with him. I do agree we need to reach out to Judy and other activist types, but Judy's open hostility makes it hard to build that. So how about we cool the rage and figure out how we can encourage the Mulcairs and Rebricks to work together for the benifit of all.

I agree too. Though I'd add one thing. We should be mature enough to accept that sometimes you have to choose which battles are most important and that you can't always do the "left" thing.

there has always been a healthy tension at Babble between social democrats and the farther Left;

I predict more fireworks in coming years as the larger NDP becomes (by definition) a more mainstream contender for political power;

there are no more votes to find on the political Left and plenty of votes to attract in the, uh, centre;

Mulcair will try to attract them

 

Good point. Dave's that is.

And I would add this.

It pissed me off during the race, and still does, that Mulcair supporters would lump together everyone with persistent and vocal reservations about Mulcair as 'people who dont care about winning'. Even on this board, those people are a decided minority of those of us who expressed strong reservations about Mulcair. I take deep offense with the straw man dichotomy that Mulcair and the path he appears to chart is the only pragmatic one.

That said, I think it is correct that tension on the left will heighten as the NDP gets closer to power. And I bet that it does/will somewhat independently of what the NDP actually espouses.

In other words, the amount of flack rises from babble simply because the NDP gets closer to power. Period. Because, while people do not overtly think much less talk this way, getting closer to power in itself is grounds for suspicion that things must be going wrong. [And there is always plenty of evidence available.]