babble-intro-img
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.

Tom Mulcair will be Prime minister - Thread #4

111 replies [Last post]

Comments

JeffWells
Offline
Joined: Dec 15 2003

I wasn't sure what to make of the rolling up of the sleeves, until I got the connection to Jack. Then I liked it. 

And I find myself agreeing with both the pro and con assessments of recent tactics. I think it would be a mistake to continue needling the Liberals by paying them further attention. Better, and just as likely to get under Rae's skin, to ignore them. (Except for appropriate reminders of Chretien/Martin/Harper continuity.)

Rae has never looked less prime ministerial than he has this week, and that's Mulcair's doing. And now it's time to ignore him.


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

Yup, I agree 100% with the NDP tactic of using as much time as possible to denounce the budget and if that shuts out the Liberals - so be it.

That being said, I think that Mulcair as leader should avoid making caustic remarks about Rae (as tempting as it is). let other surrrogates do that. Mulcair should spend 100% of his time attacking the Tories and when asked to comment on what Rae is saying or doing he should say that he has no comment to make on the third party or its leader - end of story. Sometimes its best to say NOTHING.


Gaian
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2011
Stockholm wrote:

Yup, I agree 100% with the NDP tactic of using as much time as possible to denounce the budget and if that shuts out the Liberals - so be it.

That being said, I think that Mulcair as leader should avoid making caustic remarks about Rae (as tempting as it is). let other surrrogates do that. Mulcair should spend 100% of his time attacking the Tories and when asked to comment on what Rae is saying or doing he should say that he has no comment to make on the third party or its leader - end of story. Sometimes its best to say NOTHING.

I believe, as Brachina observed upthread, "This is psychological warfare Quebec Politics style." After that marvelously reassuring ad aimed at Quebeckers, I look forward to the English version with great anticipation of a similar ,NON-ATTACK piece. The contrast with Steve's handiwork is going to be huge. Heck, the contrast with general expectations hereabouts is huge.

Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

By the way I finally saw the CBC news story on Mulcair's first day as Opposition Leader and the Press Scrum after Question Period. Watching everyone bail out on Rae when Mulcair showed up was hilarious! Do you think Mulcair may have done that on purpose expecting the Press reaction to be what it was?

I have never seen anything like that in my life. Wow!


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

Arthur is that on a video somewhere?


JeffWells
Offline
Joined: Dec 15 2003

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Arthur is that on a video somewhere?

Maybe this? There's a shot near the end showing Rae's and Mulcair's scrums.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/1221258968/ID=2215571887


Doug
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2001

Interesting that the first Mulcair ad out is for Quebec. Ooooh! Hairy arms!


Life, the unive...
Offline
Joined: Mar 23 2007

No Arthur it was the other way around.  According to media reports I read that day the NDP announced Mulcair would be coming out in 1 minute.  Rae then came strolling out to try to upstage him.  Since Mulcair was already on his way out to the hall he just moved to a different area.  Anyway then all the reporters bailed on Rae and went over to Mulcair, leaving Rae looking foolish and wondering what to do with his petard with his pettiness and super-sized ego on public display.

 

Rae has never looked so out of touch as this week.  Usually in situations like the one everyone is talking about the non-official opposition parties would support whatever the OO was doing to bring attention to the bad things in a budget.  Live as long as I have and you will have seen it many times.  The NDP has done it many, many times in the past and never made a fuss about it.  But Rae can't stand being out of the limelight.  There was nothing petty or bullying about the NDP actions.  The only pettiness was his high horseness throwing a temper tantrum because someone else was getting attention.  Rae has been ever thus.


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

Is it just Rae or does it also reflect "the upset" the Libs may be feeling as the third party? I know in my riding, my MP Kevin Lamoureux is very ambtious, and I am guessing he probably thought he would be at least a Parlimentary Secretary in a Lib governemtn, though given his documented ego, he probably figured he was going to be a cabinet minister. The guy is insufferable. I heard that when Ralph Goodale was asked to move after the election, his attitude was basically, I can't believe you are making me move, I am Ralph Goodale.


Doug
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2001

Bob Rae and Ujjal Dosanjh have to be feeling at least a little silly now. They thought they were headed to at least cabinet minister's offices and yet they'd be far closer now if they'd stayed where they were. Tongue out


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

Rae's biggest claim to fame in politics seems to be that he buys over-priced real estate and is then stuck with it when the bubble bursts and it crashes in value. 


Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012
I remember reading that Bob Ray Premiership almost drove drove Jack out of party, he didn't care for it. In later years I think Jack was more then civil to Ray, but I doubt Jack ever liked him. And I have no doubt that there is some degree of mutual loathing between Mulcair and Ray, although I have a feeling after this week Ray hates Mulcair for more then the other way around.

writer
Offline
Joined: Apr 11 2002

Howard
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2011

The less I hear about the Liberals, the happier I am.


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

mtm wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

CanadaApple wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

How did Mulcair do? Who did better?

see for yourself.

If speaking in a dull robotic monotone is prime ministerial, then Mulcair certainly was prime ministerial.  I found Rae more engaging in this clip.

Screaming like a lunatic about something you don't have answers for is what the NDP used to do, and be ridiculed for.  

Being Prime Ministerial shows that you are able to keep your cool (ironic given Mulcair's reputation), something that Rae doesn't seem to be able to get.  His artificial rage will get old and tired.

Meanwhile, Mulcair's calm, reasoned but sincere and relentless attack on the Conservatives will resonate with Canadians and project confidence, competence and, most importantly demonstrate restraint on the part of the NDP - a party that in the eyes of a ever-decreasing number of Canadians is reactionary, hysterical, well-meaning but idealistic.

Watching QP these past few days, it has struck me.  Mulcair, by projecting a quiet confidence in the face of Conservative scandal after scandal is doing much to dispel the myths about the NDP that have kept us out of power for so long.  And Rae, looking for media to pay attention to him in a desperate plea for airtime, goes into traditional NDP-style hysterics and hyperbole, blowing the image the Liberals had built up over their centuries in politics as pragmatic, middle of the road, boring administrators.

I have been incredibly impressed with how tough Mulcair has been on the Conservatives, and how relentless he's been over the F35 fiasco.  But I've been even more impressed how he won't be drawn in.  For example, Evan Solomon tried to get Mulcair to commit to rejecting the budget before even seeing it - something the NDP would have had no trouble doing in times past.  Also, he wouldn't commit to asking for a resignation from anyone over the F35s until they'd been questioned in QP, and the Minister had a fair chance to explain himself (knowing full well he wouldn't avail himself of that opportunity).  Meanwhile Rae was off spinning in all directions asking for the Prime Minister to fire himself, apparently, 

One thing about asking a PM to resign: No matter how warranted such a call is, you need to use it sparingly...and, it makes you look crazy.  Even if it is Harper and there is 1000 reasons why he's unfit to govern, those 999 other reasons are the reasons you sound stupid.  Because if he's still in there after those 999, whats #1000?

Overall, its been an amazing week in the HOC for Tom Mulcair, and a dismal one for the flailing, reactionary, unrealistic, attention-seeking Liberals.

One week does not change much in the eyes of the public, however.  It is going to take a sustained attack of fair, reasoned, measured, but pointed criticism of Harper and his agenda to help put Mulcair and the NDP over the top.  But the main thing here we need to remember - it does the NDP no good to go out as the official opposition and government in waiting, and scream and rant like Bob Rae, and call for the resignation of everyone under the sun...as good as that may make us feel for a few minutes or so.  Call it boring, but we have more to lose than Rae by appearing mentally unhinged - as angry as we may be at all the crap the government is pulling these days.

Competence is displayed over the next 5 years, as Canadians get more comfortable with the idea of the NDP being the next government.  And hell, we're starting from a pretty good position in the polls already!  The conservative record will speak for itself.  Rigging elections, mismanaging the economy, fixing procurement bids.  Canadians know the score already - they just need to be reminded...and when they go to the polls, we need to be that credible alternative choice that is staring them in the face.

MTM, Great Post! You should try to get on Huff Post; it'd be nice to start seeing some NDP partisan posts instead of all the Lieberals posting as they have. Speaking of which, does Martha Hall Findlay have a job or is she sitting at home, eating bon-bons and posting to the Huff Po now?


writer
Offline
Joined: Apr 11 2002

Quote:
Speaking of which, does Martha Hall Findlay have a job or is she sitting at home, eating bon-bons and posting to the Huff Po now?

Speaking of which, this is a nice little example of casual sexism. Unless someone can give me a compelling reason why it tends to be female former politicians who are portrayed as "sitting at home, eating bon-bons" if they dare to publish / comment after being in office?

 

 


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

Okay, I didn't mean it that way and I apologize. She posts on Huff Post and gets under my skin. I have never liked her and didn't think much of her ever. I also get mad because I don't honestly understand how women who call themselves "progressive" could ever vote Lib given how much of what the Libs have done with the economy has hurt women and their children.

Apology offered freely and sincerely, no offense meant. I am sorry.


writer
Offline
Joined: Apr 11 2002

Thanks, Arthur. BTW, those children – are they sometimes men's too?


NorthReport
Online
Joined: Jul 6 2008

The reality is the Liberals have been budget pushovers and that truth hurts I suppose.


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

Writer, of course, but that wasn't the context in which I was speaking. I would think that would be understood so I didn't speak about that in the context in which this part of this discussion was occuring.


Catchfire
Offline
Joined: Apr 16 2003

Thanks for that admission and apology, Arthur. That's exactly the kind of discussion I love to see about unintentional exclusionary or Othering language.

But this is a long thread, which I must oppress immediately.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments