NDP candidate quits: Endorses Liberal candidate in bid to unseat the Tories 2

janfromthebruce wrote:

Be interested in where this guys page is and leave a lovely message for him too!

It's not that complicated.

[url=http://www.cawlocal2168.com/upc.htm]Here[/url] is Local 2168's website.

His email address is trustee (at) cawlocal2168.com.

And he's the brother on the left.

Please let us know how he responds.

You cropped out his white flag.

I'm surprised it has taken this long for this to happen.

While all parties have their extreme partisans, lots of NDPers and NDP-inclined  supporters bend-over-backward to maintain the perception that principle is key and take as non-partisan an approach to elections.  (See: Babble.)  I remember getting door-knocked by well-known, visible NDP members in my community, canvassing for Liberals during the last provincial election because the Liberal candidate 'was a real nice lady'.  Okay...?...

So for an NDPer in particular to pull something like this is not surprising.  I don't think he'll be the last this election.

Plus, it takes both ego and principle to run to be a politician.  A move like this, even if well-intentioned, takes a certain amount of arrogance to complete...but the type of arrogance that is too clouded by thoughts of principle.

I don't mean that to sound harsh to the guy - I'm sure he's a good guy and thinks he's doing the right thing - but it's a pretty disrespectful thing to do to your supporters and the electorate.  It's not as if your presence or a party's presence in the election is forcing peopel to vote for them ... if people want to vote Liberal (or whatever party), they can just choose to not vote for you.

Unionist wrote in previous thread

"Sean, I'm going to be unkind:

You obviously spend no time among industrial workers, and you spend no time in a union.

...

So use that word all you like. You've never experienced it in real life. I know you haven't. Because if you had, you wouldn't in your most feverish dreams compare it to changing football teams or political parties.

Sorry to be so harsh."

Unionist-- harsh? How about flat wrong. Since I have already on this site stated I work in a union in conversations with you-- you are calling me a liar.

This is a personal attack and you are wrong.

Yes, I am in a union. Currently.

Yes my employer is a union. Currently.

I work with people in different parties.

That is fine but when they are in one and then use that one's resources to campaign for another that would not be respected.

You miss that point. Clearly you are fully of rhetoric but don't understand loyalty or responsibility. They are quite distinct from differences of opinion. Clearly you can't see the distinction between the two.

Now, more news is out today that this was not a personal decision but a coordinated attack on the NDP by someone pretending to be NDP but was already working with the Liberals planning the bombshell.

Unionist you defend this at the cost of your credibility.

I am losing all respect for you over this. Your equation of personal committment and responsibility with mere differences of opinion in working together make a mockery of everything you say you stand for. Your getting personal here with me -- late at night near the end of a thread no less stinks.

Apparently a whole bunch of Liberals in on the planning of Dolby's show knew-- but nothing for his colleagues.

All right. I totally lost it in that other thread last night. I just couldn't believe anyone could call a union activist a "scab" just because they bolt between two parties that I often have trouble distinguishing from each other. I won't change my mind about that.

But my attack on Sean was personal, stupid, deliberately provocative, and (as he correctly points out above) false. I have utmost respect for Sean and his opinions, most of which I share. But that's not even the point. I screwed up badly, and want to retract and apologize to Sean, without reservation, for that.

ETA: Just so everyone knows the stupidity which I committed - and can't delete or edit now that the thread is closed - it was [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-candidate-quits-endorses-l.... I'm sorry.

“I was really worried looking at the polls seeing that (Stephen) Harper could form a majority, so I thought I had to do everything in my power to stop that,” said Dolby, who said he has been wrestling with the decision for about a month.

Dolby said he and his advisers have been meeting with Liberals who convinced him their policies lined up with his values and after one sleepless night he issued a statement to the party, his campaign team and the media all at the same time.

Liberal candidate Graham Warwick said he was surprised Dolby had actually gone and done it, but he had a big hint something was in the works.

According to Warwick, Dolby called him about two weeks ago and asked him to join him at a news conference where he would announce his resignation and throw his support to the Liberals.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/965969--day-of-defec...

Of course the sudden conversion was timed for when Layton was speaking in the 905 -- in Oshawa standing beside CAW... So the NDP message on job creation and corporate taxes was buried. No matter what you think of the parties-- burying a message like that for political games stinks.

The Peggy Nash's rally was also upstaged.

The Liberal comments and talking points that came out immediately were very clean, well-prepared. Looked well prepared in advance.

Now it sure looks like a set-up.

This is very negative not just to principles of decency but also bodes ill at a time when people are walking away from politics.

Engineered, planned, "sincere," surprises are not what social political engagement is about. This whole show was made for TV and timed. I wonder how long ago. We know the Liberal candidate knew 2 weeks ago -- how long did others know? When did the Liberal headquarters know? When did the candidate know? He is lying about the one sleepless night decision  this much we know.

If he chooses to lie about the timing then what are we to believe.

I am back to my earlier comment -- sue him once the campaign ends. Don't let this happen again.

If it's retracted, I'll repost it.

Nobody would give a rat's ass about a similar suggestion pointed at any of the Cons.  Are we just supposed to believe that traitors to the NDP are somehow more honest and ethical than traitors to other parties?

I find it kind of telling that he'd have a series of meetings with the Liberals, and no meetings at all with his own party or his supporters.  How many meetings with the Liberals does a person need in order to drop out of the race and support them?  I'd suggest none at all.  It's not like he needed Liberal permission or something. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Dolby said he and his advisers have been meeting with Liberals ...

In FPTP electioneering terms, it's conspiring with the enemy. The LPC is still our enemy for the duration of the election. Dolby's a traitor and should be treated as one. He's tainted and should be ignored by the party and voters in his riding from now on for having zero integrity. 

And if he's a switch hitter in politics, what kind of union rep is he? Would he also consider siding with company management against fellow workers? Come on! Hit the road, Dolby.

Pardon my saying so but what a bunch of NDP hacks.

I have it easy.  My NDP candidate, Michael Crawford, is an excellent candidate and finished 2nd last time, so I have no real decision to make.  I can easily work for his campaign based on "Stop Stephen Harper."  But I look at the "platform" section of his website, and the NDP website, and I can only shake my head because there is nothing to get excited about.  Most of my friends do not vote - half the country will not vote on May 2nd! - and nothing the NDP is selling excites them in the least, except legalizing pot, which is a no-brainer. I don't envy those supporting or working for NDP candidates where the NDP are perrenial third place finishers in an election like this.  I don't agree with the way Dolby went about this - this should be a decision made by a riding assocation - but then again, the absurd party policy of running candidates in every riding and refusing to look at electoral alliances with the Bloc, Greens and Liberals didn't leave him much choice.  The idea that he is somehow disrespecting the voters by trying to deny them the choice to vote NDP is completely absurd.  More perrenial 3rd place finishers from ALL non-Conservative parties should be bowing out of races, especially if the remaining candidate(s) agree to endorse electoral reform!

Most disturbing of all is the idea that some New Democrats appear to have no problem accepting a Conservative majority in exchange for another 10 or 20 seats at the Liberals' expense.  We are one month away from the most radical right-wing government in Canadian history if we don't unseat some Conservative MPs.

As long as they don't have a majority the possibility exists to unseat them.  They were almost replaced by a coalition once before the governor general intervened, remember?  The most important thing is to defeat individual Conservative candidates.  This "hysteria" about a Harper majority is not misplaced at all as anybody who witnessed either the Harris or Campbell regimes should be well aware of.  It is not just about the ability to pass bills, it is about the ability to govern knowing that no matter what you do, the opposition cannot defeat you until the next election.

Regardless of Boze rooting for the other conservative party, I have problems with this guy. I was having this conversation yesterday right after I heard and said it smelled like a pile of BS. Unionist-holy cow. Jeff Watson was also a CAW member and ran(and got elected sadly) for the cons in essex, does that also make him on an impregnable rock from criticism? What you did was more partisan than anything you have accused of others here on babble of over the years. Just because someone is in a union it doesn't make them a better person. Sorry I'm not in one, does that make me the enemy by default? Ridiculous. I know you recanted after your usual baiting(which you admit you got intentionally personal on), but jeez maybe step away for a little perspective and stop hating Layton for 3 seconds and see this was an inside job. Regardless of what union he works for.

I would not be surprised to see a nomination for him at a liberal convention. Time will tell. To me the thing that rang hollow was he waited till a few days in and just happen to be on an important day for policy from the NDP. Can someone tell me where in the news cycle this happened. Before or after laytons policy. If it was after, then it is even more suspect. He might have been signalled to do it then. I will agree with stock though. Could have been worse if he waited a little while longer and left the NDP in a bigger lurch. Still 5 weeks left and it will probably be brought up in the debates, but the libs will now face the same questions, so be thankful for small miracles I guess.

Hi Boze. I remember you. Don't insult babblers, or you won't be sticking around. This is a final warning. Cheers.

thorin_bane wrote:

Just because someone is in a union it doesn't make them a better person. Sorry I'm not in one, does that make me the enemy by default?

Yes. Everyone not in a union is the enemy by default.

Quote:

I know you recanted after your usual baiting(which you admit you got intentionally personal on)

Thanks, thorin. I was starting to feel good about the level of discussion here. I did some soul-searching and apologized to Sean, which I think he accepted. Now I'd like to apologize to you for all the usual baiting I've done over the years. I'm not sure if you can see your way clear to forgiving me, but I'd like to cherish that hope.

Quote:

, but jeez maybe step away for a little perspective and stop hating Layton for 3 seconds and see this was an inside job. Regardless of what union he works for.

You know, you're absolutely right. My nonstop hatred for Layton (it keeps me up at night) and my unconditional trust for anyone who calls themselves a union member have totally warped my perspective. I now see it was an inside job - just as you say. Before, I thought that evidence was required. Now I realize it's just my perverse bias and obsession that makes me think that way. Thank you - sincerely.

Quote:

I would not be surprised to see a nomination for him at a liberal convention.

You're right. That slimy scab bastard has nowhere else to go. I see that now. Thanks for switching on my light.

Quote:

Time will tell.

Now I'm not following you. Time flows noiselessly through the ethereal silence of the cosmos. How can time tell? Time can't speak. Perhaps you mean, you can tell time? I can tell tme. Time and again. Now I'm feeling less comfortable with your post.

Quote:

To me the thing that rang hollow

Ok, now I think I'm back on track. Just as a vacuum, which is of course hollow, can somehow ring, so time can speak from the hollow emptiness and vastness of everything. Ok, I'll just have to take it slower... if time will let me, that is.

Quote:

be thankful for small miracles I guess.

I am. I am. Thank you.

Generalize much?

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

No, don't think so. I'm speaking from my experiences. If it exists in any union local it's not something to cherish and defend.

You were talking about just one union local here?

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

All that being said, the unions have some pretty huge blinders and rose coloured glasses, when it comes to even their own members and addressing their own political relevance. Essentially, for the sake of promoting and protecting the rights of what they see as their "core membership" (i.e. full time employees aged 35-65 who are assumed to be there for life) they make two of their most important constituencies marginalized members by not trying nearly as hard to earn them the same rights as the core members and thus the same level of commitment.

I guess I misread it as being a statement about "the unions". Sorry.

As I guess I established here -- I have contact with more than one union. One thing I can say is they are very different. Not saying one is better than the other, but very different.

I think it is better to try to avoid generalizations as much as possible.

I can also say that unions do some very important and relevant work. Like any organization they can fall in and out of touch and are subject to whatever leadership and management they have-- to rise up or to fall down.

There are a few things you can say though:

I believe their motivations are good; they are more trustworthy than most other organizations; they tend to be more democratic than most; they believe and fight for justice; and they represent working people better than any other organizations.

Yes they are at times out of touch, and yes they make awful mistakes but I'd rather stand with them than any other type of organization.

I think it is this sentiment that you see from time to time here.

Wow that verification every time is going to slow down and discourage posts. Can't it wave through the people who have been on this site for years and only spam filter those who just got here in the last couple weeks?

Why punish everyone?

Boze wrote:

IMO anybody concerned about social justice who doesn't see the danger posed by a Conservative majority, and the differences between Liberals and Conservatives, is either [i]deluding themselves,[/i] or is not a real progressive but just an NDP hack.  And no, there is nothing remotely worth getting excited about in the NDP's platform. 

Well, no.  The Liberals had 15 years to do something progressive and what did it result in?  Gay marriage.  Anything else?  Nope, just a litany of slashed programs, financial cuts, bleeding of the progressive tax system (social justice?  WTF) and the situation we're in now where every program is in some sort of crisis mode, losing confidence with the public by the day. 

Yeah, there are a lot of partisan shills on here for both the Libs and the New Dems.  I'll tell ya, I'm happy to vote Liberal, Green, NDP, hell I'd even vote Conservative if they were progressive. I don't give a fig about the colours or the labels.  But only one of those parties are right now.

And that's one of the reasons why the Libs are in a funk.  Part of it is the corruption scandal, but part of it is that they're finding out that it's hard to convince voters to vote for the people who put us in this spot in the first place if there isn't confidence that those poeple is really going to do something to fix it.

If the Libs want to win votes based on being progressive, they should just become more progressive and I think you'd see a pretty walloping defection of New Dems right across the board.  I'm game.  But they're not.

Do you really think that by denying people an option on their voting cards we're going to get a more progressive government?  When people have fewer choices, when the system even represents less of their views, the more people get turned off, and when people don't vote guess what we get - Conservative governments.

That is what Harper is counting on, not voters voting NDP in no-hope ridings - because anyone who cared enough to be strategic would be voting strategically already!!!

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Boze wrote:

IMO anybody concerned about social justice who doesn't see the danger posed by a Conservative majority, and the differences between Liberals and Conservatives, is either [i]deluding themselves,[/i] or is not a real progressive but just an NDP hack.  And no, there is nothing remotely worth getting excited about in the NDP's platform. 

Well, no.  The Liberals had 15 years to do something progressive and what did it result in?  Gay marriage.  Anything else?  Nope, just a litany of slashed programs, financial cuts, bleeding of the progressive tax system (social justice?  WTF) and the situation we're in now where every program is in some sort of crisis mode, losing confidence with the public by the day. 

Yeah, there are a lot of partisan shills on here for both the Libs and the New Dems.  I'll tell ya, I'm happy to vote Liberal, Green, NDP, hell I'd even vote Conservative if they were progressive. I don't give a fig about the colours or the labels.  But only one of those parties are right now.

And that's one of the reasons why the Libs are in a funk.  Part of it is the corruption scandal, but part of it is that they're finding out that it's hard to convince voters to vote for the people who put us in this spot in the first place if there isn't confidence that those poeple is really going to do something to fix it.

If the Libs want to win votes based on being progressive, they should just become more progressive and I think you'd see a pretty walloping defection of New Dems right across the board.  I'm game.  But they're not.

Do you really think that by denying people an option on their voting cards we're going to get a more progressive government?  When people have fewer choices, when the system even represents less of their views, the more people get turned off, and when people don't vote guess what we get - Conservative governments.

That is what Harper is counting on, not voters voting NDP in no-hope ridings - because anyone who cared enough to be strategic would be voting strategically already!!!

 

Iggy had over 2 years to prove that he was a progressive, but he did not. Look at his voting record at all the regressive steven harper policies he voted for and is on the record supporting, things for which he did not get a single progressive consession.

Looking at the Liberals' record and the Conservatives' just underscores the difference.  Yes, the Liberals were bad, and yes, the Conservatives are worse, and yes, it can still get much worse.  Well some of us have lived through NDP governments that had many years to be truly progressive and didn't live up to their promises.  There is actually a lot to be proud of about BC's NDP years - [i]relatively speaking[/i] - but before the NDP government [i]cut welfare payments[/i] and alienated their base the Green party, whatever you think of them, did not exist as a real political force in this province.  Voting is almost always a lesser of evils question anyway and even though the Liberals were not really that much better than the Conservatives, I'm not inclined to believe a federal NDP government would be that much better either, especially since they have seemingly all but abandonned their proud anti-war history.  It would be better, it would be a start, but there is nothing exciting or life-changing for most people in the platform.  So I am voting strategically for the NDP because their candidate has a realistic shot at getting elected and there is nobody who is promising real systemic change who does have a realistic shot.

I believe the correct term is "class traitor."

Just like Prominent Liberal Party Supporter Basil Hargrove (TM).

Terms I think apply

not trustworthy

diletante

cavalier

fool

Hargrove is an Jack Hole. Lewenza Is OK but basil has always been a goof. I was here when he should have been giving support to Jack Layton in Windsor. Instead he gave support to Martin in an NDP riding. What is strategic about asking NDP to vote liberal in a riding the ndp already had? Sell out.

Surprised that even Unionist would launch a personal attack against Tommy Douglas and Woodrow Lloyd - and all to defend the greatest quisling of thhem all, Prominent Liberal Party Hack Basil Hargrove (TM).

.