NDP leadership 56

OnTheLeft wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

OnTheLeft... do you think Peggy Nash is going to abrogate NAFTA?

I don't think we can, I think we're stuck with it. But we certainly can renegotiate it.

Thanks. Essentially what Mulcair has said regarding NAFTA.

OnTheLeft wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

OnTheLeft... do you think Peggy Nash is going to abrogate NAFTA?

I don't think we can, I think we're stuck with it. But we certainly can renegotiate it.

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

I've also decided that I find Peggy Nash too boring. As well while I don't really want to bring up the age thing again I do feel that she doesn't have a youthful vibe in a way some her age do, like Jack did. Jack was able to connect with youth, more so then other leader, but I can't imagine many youth will be drawn to her.

Boring? Youthful vibe? You imagine? These aren't serious or substantive criticisms.

Is it not important to be able to connect with voters?

Of course it's important to connect with voters, but you can't replace Jack Layton.

And although Peggy may not have Jack's gifts (no one does), she certainly connects with people because she is authentic and grounded. She doesn't come across like a "slick" politician, but rather as a genuine and gracious person and leader.

I like Peggy. Only worry I have is that she comes across as the "old", pre-Jack NDP. How well that will sell in 2015... I don't know.

OnTheLeft wrote:

Of course it's important to connect with voters, but you can't replace Jack Layton.

And although Peggy may not have Jack's gifts (no one does), she certainly connects with people because she is authentic and grounded. She doesn't come across like a "slick" politician, but rather as a genuine and gracious person and leader.

No offense to Jack Layton, and I'll get nagged on for this, but it's not like he was overly charasmatic himself, just better then his oppenents. Nash doesn't connect with me, and while I've voted for the NDP, in the two elections I've been able to vote in, I doubt I'd vote for a Nash led NDP.

OnTheLeft wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

OnTheLeft... do you think Peggy Nash is going to abrogate NAFTA?

I don't think we can, I think we're stuck with it. But we certainly can renegotiate it.

A basic principle of Canada's parliamentary system is that no parliament can bind a future parliament.  The only way we're stuck with NAFTA is if we don't have the political will to get out of it.

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

Nash doesn't connect with me, and while I've voted for the NDP, in the two elections I've been able to vote in, I doubt I'd vote for a Nash led NDP.

That doesn't surprise me, seeing as you appear to defend Liberals.

TheArchitect wrote:

The only way we're stuck with NAFTA is if we don't have the political will to get out of it.

Like I said I don't know, but if legally we can get out of it, then I'm all for it.

Right. I made an observation and you reply with melodramatics.

Boom Boom wrote:

  (incorrect quote removed by moderator)

I'm 24, consider myself youthful, and I'm supporting Nash. Ancedotal I know. But I've also gotten to know some of her core campaign volunteers, and youth are well represented. There were lots of youth that came out to her event in Calgary. And lots of youth supporting her in Vancouver during the Convention, from what I've heard. There's also an eager 17 year old organizing for her in Winnipeg.

One of the reasons that I am supporting her is because she comes off as genuine and caring. These are essential qualities because they are needed in order to gain trust. One of the reasons for not voting I hear a lot, from my friends and others of my age, is that they just don't trust politicians. I think Nash's qualities gain this trust and attract youth.

Peter3 wrote:

What I said was "I don't know her really well". In other words, I know her from NDP stuff, where I have had the opportunity to talk to her, occasionally at some length, and where I've had opportunity to watch her in action over the years. Just out of curiosity, how well do you know her? Also out of curiosity, do you also discount my prediction about her level of first ballot support?

I've met her, along with many of the other NDP leadership candidates. And these encounters don't lead me to speculate about them, but have rather solidified positive views of them, even of candidates I'm not supporting. As for predictions and speculation, I think it's still too early in the race.

Peter3 wrote:

This is just more partisan blather that distorts the truth to the breaking point. I posted what I know of her and why I feel the way I do. Get over it. However much I would prefer to have somebody else lead the party, I would gladly volunteer for and contribute to the next election effort under her leadership. It wouldn't be the first time I worked with her on a campaign. EDITED for spelling

Excuse me? "Partisan blather"? I don't even know how responding to your unsubstantiated digs at Peggy on the stump, that she's "lacklustre" with people she doesn't know, or that she's difficult when stressed etc would qualify as "partisan blather." If there's anyone engaging in "blather" to the "breaking point", it's yourself. I wouldn't even say these kinds of things about leadership candidates I oppose. I'm not into smearing or attacking the other leadership candidates. I've criticized Mulcair and pointed out why I'm not supporting the guy, but I'm not going to engage in personal attacks on him. That's what Liberals and Liberal leadership candidates do: attack and smear one another.

And I think you contradicted yourself. You said in your previous post that "she's not my idea of what we need in a leader", but then you just stated that "I would gladly volunteer for and contribute to the next election effort under her leadership."

OnTheLeft wrote:

And I think you contradicted yourself. You said in your previous post that "she's not my idea of what we need in a leader", but then you just stated that "I would gladly volunteer for and contribute to the next election effort under her leadership."

She's not my first choice and I doubt her appeal to voters. That said, I'd support her as leader.

You didn't launch a personal attack on Mulcair... just a distorted one.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

What values did Jack abandon? What candidates are talking about "moving to the centre"? None that I know of. I think Jack moved the party into the 21st century.

The party has moved to the centre in recent years. We should still stand for nationalizing at least some banks, pulling out of NATO, and creating more crown corporations. It also wouldn't hurt to include serious cannabis reform (legalization, regulation and taxation) in our platform, considering that a clear majority of Canadians support it. Mulcair said he supports NAFTA, and cites Gary Doer and Lorne Calvert as leaders or governments as a model for governing. The Manitoba NDP not only has dropped the ball completely on electoral reform and proportional representation, but the Manitoba NDP supports Harper's crime bill! And Gary Doer is now currently shilling for the tar sands. We do not need to look to Gary Doer or the Manitoba NDP as a model for governing, and instead should be talking about Tommy Douglas.  

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Only thing he may have abandoned is a 1960's view of and solutions for today. From a pure strategic viewpoint... do you think Peggy will appeal to people who voted Liberal and Tory in the last election? I have doubts about that.

I don't. As a negotiator for CAW, she learned to build bridges and bring two polar opposite sides - labour and managment - together. She successfully negotiated the 2005 Ford Canada pact, and has won over Conservative-leaning pundits like Craig Oliver and Andrew Coyne.

"I think most of the campaigns have young people involved and engaged. I don't think any particular campaign has a monopoly on the "youth vote" in this race."

Nor do I, or I would have said so.

What I *did* indicate was that her volunteer base in my hometown is very strong and very youthful. Markedly so. Not a complete surprise, when many come from her own riding, for example. She *is* the city's leadership candidate. It stands to reason that she'd have a dynamic base here.

OnTheLeft wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

She's not my first choice and I doubt her appeal to voters. That said, I'd support her as leader. You didn't launch a personal attack on Mulcair... just a distorted one.

How is citing Mulcair's stance, views and quotes on NAFTA presenting a "distorted" one?

 

You didn't provide any quotes for one thing. He has said NAFTA has issues but no government is going to abrogate the deal and we need to be much tougher in dealing with trade issues. I'd venture to guess that will be the standard answer from all the leadership candidates including Nash. Muclair is just more direct about it.

TheArchitect wrote:

OnTheLeft wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

OnTheLeft... do you think Peggy Nash is going to abrogate NAFTA?

I don't think we can, I think we're stuck with it. But we certainly can renegotiate it.

A basic principle of Canada's parliamentary system is that no parliament can bind a future parliament.  The only way we're stuck with NAFTA is if we don't have the political will to get out of it.

Regardless, there was no mention in the last election platform of the NDP of NAFTA.  In the 2008 platform, there was this:

NDP 2008 Platform wrote:

With changes in NAFTA almost certain to be proposed by the next president of the United States, and with
reform initiatives also growing in Mexico, it is critical for Canada to be pro-active in working with these
powerful new currents and with concerned Canadians. We must ensure that NAFTA is reformed in ways that
meet our priorities:
     •     Renegotiate NAFTA’s Chapter 11, which unreasonably limits Canada’s sovereignty in regulating foreign
        investment in the public interest.
     •     Renegotiate NAFTA’s Chapter 6, which unreasonably limits Canadian sovereignty over its energy
        resources and may prevent Canadian energy security.
     •     Negotiate changes to NAFTA’s dispute resolution mechanisms so Canadian interests are respected—
        including through the application of international law rather than US law in anti-dumping and subsidy
        disputes.
     •     Stop the hollowing out of Canadian industries by strengthening the Investment Canada Act. Foreign
        takeovers of Canadian companies will be subject to stringent tests respecting job protection and
        creation, head office location, and the promotion of research and development in Canada.

Conventions have resolutions for policy, but I'm not sure where to find out what was approved at the last NDP convention.  Anyone know?

OnTheLeft wrote:

I've met her, along with many of the other NDP leadership candidates. And these encounters don't lead me to speculate about them, but have rather solidified positive views of them, even of candidates I'm not supporting. As for predictions and speculation, I think it's still too early in the race.

My opinion/prediciton about who is currently leading in first ballot support is my read based on conversations with my fellow members around the country. I doubt that she will carry that through to the final ballot, but she might. Every campaign out there is doing the same exercise in estimating the strength of the field, or should be.

OnTheLeft]</p> <p>  [quote=OnTheLeft wrote:

Excuse me? "Partisan blather"?

Yes, partisan blather.

OnTheLeft wrote:

I don't even know how responding to your unsubstantiated digs at Peggy on the stump, that she's "lacklustre" with people she doesn't know, or that she's difficult when stressed etc would qualify as "partisan blather." If there's anyone engaging in "blather" to the "breaking point", it's yourself.

Spare me the affectation of indignation. When you dismiss other people's opinions, in particular opinions clearly presnted as based on their experience of the candidate, as "speculation", you get what you get. Suck it up.

OnTheLeft wrote:

I wouldn't even say these kinds of things about leadership candidates I oppose. I'm not into smearing or attacking the other leadership candidates. I've criticized Mulcair and pointed out why I'm not supporting the guy, but I'm not going to engage in personal attacks on him.

These sorts of concerns are not just valid in a leadership contest, they are an essential part of evaluating the relative merits of the candidates. If you think that everybody in this field is just totally awesome and peachy keen and we're just engaged in an exercise of tallying up their gold stars, you don't understand the seriousness of the exercise. Every candidate has strengths and weaknesses, some more stellar/glaring than others. A process that doesn't examine the whole deal is not worth the time, expense or effort.

OnTheLeft wrote:

That's what Liberals and Liberal leadership candidates do: attack and smear one another.

Oh, please. Get over yourself.

OnTheLeft wrote:

And I think you contradicted yourself. You said in your previous post that "she's not my idea of what we need in a leader", but then you just stated that "I would gladly volunteer for and contribute to the next election effort under her leadership."

I have got behind every leader after the contest for decades, whether I supported their bids for leadership or not. I even went door to door in Ontario in 1995, and had a beer bottle thrown at me at one door for my trouble, supporting a leader I didn't support in the leadership contest. I will continue to do so. If you can't understand something as simple as this, you don't understand much.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Again... distortion... he cites the Doer and Calvert governments as examples of NDP governments managing the public finances.

Quote:

He cited former Manitoba premier Gary Doer and former Saskatchewan MP Lorne Nystrom as role models who've shown they can balance the books without compromising their social democratic values. He lauded the fact that Doer's government reduced the small business tax rate in Manitoba to zero and said he'd reduce taxes for small business as well, although he declined to get into specifics of tax policy for now.

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111025/mulcair-lays-out-agenda-for-ndp-leadership-race-111025?hub=EdmontonHome

Calvert and Doer did indeed compromise social democratic values (ie no electoral reform/proportional representation, cutting small business taxes to zero, supporting the Harper crime bill, shilling for the tar sands). 

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

 

Ah... Tommy Douglas... who was last in office 50 years ago... and did the same things Calvert and Doer did with balance budgets and paying as you go. BTW, how many years did it take for Douglas to introduce medicare in Saskatchewan? Won over pundits like Oliver and Coyne? That must mean Nash will win a large majority government in 2015...

Oh, so you're trashing Tommy Douglas now? And no he did not do the same things as Calvert and Doer. Douglas was elected Premier in 1944 and introduced Medicare in 1946, so therefore he's unworthy to emulate?  

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

You didn't provide any quotes for one thing. He has said NAFTA has issues but no government is going to abrogate the deal and we need to be much tougher in dealing with trade issues. I'd venture to guess that will be the standard answer from all the leadership candidates including Nash. Muclair is just more direct about it.

Try reading my reply again, #104 in this thread: 

Quote:

Although the party he seeks to lead has vigorously opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement in the past and former NDP Leader Jack Layton called for it to be re-opened, Mulcair says he supports NAFTA and helped draft some of its provisions on professional services.

"To some people, the NAFTA is an anathema," he said. "The NAFTA is the first international agreement that had provisions dealing with the environment. You can't throw out the baby with the bath water."

What he would like to change, however, is the way the Conservatives are allowing the U.S. to try to use the trade agreement.

"When you look at how Chapter 11 has been enforced, when you are told that a company has a right under the NAFTA to continue to export a substance that our government has considered deleterious, a substance that was an additive in gasoline. When you look at the fact that the Americans are now fighting back on a ban that I helped enforce in Quebec on 2-4-D, which is a pesticide, telling us that we have no right to ban 2-4-D, then I say we have to stand up and fight back and just tell the Americans that they are not going to determine for us that we have to add certain poisons to our environment and that's not what the NAFTA is all about."

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/10/14/weve-got-to-stop-being-such-chumps-mulcair-says-of-foreign-policy/

Peter3 wrote:

Spare me the affectation of indignation. When you dismiss other people's opinions, in particular opinions clearly presnted as based on their experience of the candidate, as "speculation", you get what you get. Suck it up.

And suck this up: spare me your hostile attitude. I didn't hurl insults at you, but rather, as you said, dismissed your opinion as speculation, because I didn't believe any of it.  

Peter3 wrote:

Oh, please. Get over yourself.

Wrong. You need to get over yourself and all of your "experience." 

Peter3 wrote:

I have got behind every leader after the contest for decades, whether I supported their bids for leadership or not. I even went door to door in Ontario in 1995, and had a beer bottle thrown at me at one door for my trouble, supporting a leader I didn't support in the leadership contest. I will continue to do so. If you can't understand something as simple as this, you don't understand much.

No I understand quite clearly. You said that "she's not my idea of what we need in a leader", but then proclaimed that you would "gladly volunteer for and contribute to the next election effort under her leadership." Either you weren't clear in your first reply and needed to clarify, or you're backtracking. I tend to lean towards the former, that you are able to get over your candidate in said leadership contests losing and volunteering for the winner, but what is very clear is that you can't handle differing opinions, hence the hostility.

Debater wrote:

On top of that, his recent abandonment of the English minority in Quebec (as pointed out by The Montreal Gazette) and his pro-BQ positions, could be lethal to his chances nationally.

I'm not sure that the BQ itself sees Mulcair as being "pro-BQ" seeing as he played a major role in destroying them as a political force and getting most of their voters to vote for a federalist party - something no Liberal leader ever managed to do. Every position that the NDP and Mulcair have taken on language rights - has been copied by the provincial and federal Liberals. People went gaga over the NDP demanding that Supreme Court justices be bilingual - then the Liberals decided to support that as well. Every time the NDP has put forth a PMB on enhacing the right of francophones to work in their own langaueg - the Liberals have sheepishly gone along with the NDP. In any case, the old WASP "angryphone" types who supported the Equality Party in 1989 are all dying off and the nowadays anglophones and allophone Quebecers are virtually all perfectly bilingual and more often than not work in a French environment. If you think they have any interest in resurrected old language battles from the 1970s - think again.

Once again, the Liberals and the BQ/PQ NEED each other as a foil. The last thing the Liberal Partry of Canada wants is for the national unity issue in Quebec to ever be resolved. Once of the only trump cards the Liberals ever had (dating back to the Trudeau era) was a dated image as being the party that would keep Canada united (even though every time the Liberals take power they have a knack for driving the country to the edge of a precipice). If there is no national unity crisis in Quebec - the Liberals have no raison d'etre. Sad but true.

OnTheLeft] <p>[quote=Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Again... distortion... he cites the Doer and Calvert governments as examples of NDP governments managing the public finances.

Quote:

He cited former Manitoba premier Gary Doer and former Saskatchewan MP Lorne Nystrom as role models who've shown they can balance the books without compromising their social democratic values. He lauded the fact that Doer's government reduced the small business tax rate in Manitoba to zero and said he'd reduce taxes for small business as well, although he declined to get into specifics of tax policy for now.

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111025/mulcair-lays-out-agenda-for-ndp-leadership-race-111025?hub=EdmontonHome

Calvert and Doer did indeed compromise social democratic values (ie no electoral reform/proportional representation, cutting small business taxes to zero, supporting the Harper crime bill, shilling for the tar sands). 

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

 

Ah... Tommy Douglas... who was last in office 50 years ago... and did the same things Calvert and Doer did with balance budgets and paying as you go. BTW, how many years did it take for Douglas to introduce medicare in Saskatchewan? Won over pundits like Oliver and Coyne? That must mean Nash will win a large majority government in 2015...

Oh, so you're trashing Tommy Douglas now? And no he did not do the same things as Calvert and Doer. Douglas was elected Premier in 1944 and introduced Medicare in 1946, so therefore he's unworthy to emulate?  

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

You didn't provide any quotes for one thing. He has said NAFTA has issues but no government is going to abrogate the deal and we need to be much tougher in dealing with trade issues. I'd venture to guess that will be the standard answer from all the leadership candidates including Nash. Muclair is just more direct about it.

Try reading my reply again, #104 in this thread: 

Quote:

Although the party he seeks to lead has vigorously opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement in the past and former NDP Leader Jack Layton called for it to be re-opened, Mulcair says he supports NAFTA and helped draft some of its provisions on professional services.

"To some people, the NAFTA is an anathema," he said. "The NAFTA is the first international agreement that had provisions dealing with the environment. You can't throw out the baby with the bath water."

What he would like to change, however, is the way the Conservatives are allowing the U.S. to try to use the trade agreement.

"When you look at how Chapter 11 has been enforced, when you are told that a company has a right under the NAFTA to continue to export a substance that our government has considered deleterious, a substance that was an additive in gasoline. When you look at the fact that the Americans are now fighting back on a ban that I helped enforce in Quebec on 2-4-D, which is a pesticide, telling us that we have no right to ban 2-4-D, then I say we have to stand up and fight back and just tell the Americans that they are not going to determine for us that we have to add certain poisons to our environment and that's not what the NAFTA is all about."

Not trashing Douglas in the least. I'd review what Douglas did in Saskathewan if I were you though. Seems you're viewing it through tinted goggles.

And your bolded text regarding NAFTA is not a quote but a line written by the reporter. Look at his actual quote... essentially what I've been saying.

BTW... Mulcair has taken issue with governments like Calverts regarding issues such as climate change. When he references those governments, it's about managing the public finances. As for social democratic principles, a lot was done in both provinces. I apologize they didn't make Manitoba and Saskatchewan socialist utopias... but Doer reducing child poverty by 44% between 2000 - 2008 is nothing to sneeze at.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Not trashing Douglas in the least. I'd review what Douglas did in Saskathewan if I were you though. Seems you're viewing it through tinted goggles.

Right, tinted goggles:

Quote:

Provided full medical, dental and drug coverage to those needing state assistance.

Established equality of education for all.

Introduced free air ambulance service which was essential to the north.

First to provide universal coverage for hospitalization.

First to introduce a budget bureau to provide long-term planning.

First to introduce government insurance.

First government to allow collective bargaining for all workers including civil servants.

First Arts Board in Canada.

First to introduce a Farm Security Act in North America.

First to grant the right to vote at age 18.

First to introduce the 8-hour work day, the 5-day work week, and paid holidays for workers.

First Small Claims Court in North America.

First Bill of Rights in Canada.

First universal Medicare plan in North America.

http://www.sasktourism.com/about-saskatchewan/personalities-in-our-past/tommy-douglas

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

And your bolded text regarding NAFTA is not a quote but a line written by the reporter. Look at his actual quote... essentially what I've been saying. BTW... Mulcair has taken issue with governments like Calverts regarding issues such as climate change. When he references those governments, it's about managing the public finances. As for social democratic principles, a lot was done in both provinces. I apologize they didn't make Manitoba and Saskatchewan socialist utopias... but Doer reducing child poverty by 44% between 2000 - 2008 is nothing to sneeze at.

Yes, the reporter paraphrased what Mulcair said. Regardless Mulcair said it and he supports NAFTA, otherwise the reporter wouldn't have written it. And if he didn't say it and the reporter made it up, the reporter would be out of a job. The bottom line is that Mulcair supports it and defended it. He shouldn't have to cite those governments in terms of their public finances. He can easily cite Tommy Douglas, whose fiscal record is far superior. And no need for the snide apology, seeing as Doer made a mockery of the federal NDP by not implementing electoral reform and proportional representation, and seems content shilling for the tar sands now.

AnonymousMouse wrote:

It's unfair to claim that Mulcair said he supports NAFTA when what he actually said was that there are areas such as environmental protections. that he personally worked on as a provincial public servant, that we don't want to risk losing, but that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have allowed elements like Chapter 11 to be abused to the point that we're being treated like chumps and we need to put an end to it. Saying that qualifies as supporting NAFTA is like claiming that Jack Layton's line--that we can't pull out of NAFTA now that we're in but there parts we can renegotiate--qualifies as "supporting NAFTA".

Quote:

Although the party he seeks to lead has vigorously opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement in the past and former NDP Leader Jack Layton called for it to be re-opened, Mulcair says he supports NAFTA and helped draft some of its provisions on professional services.

"To some people, the NAFTA is an anathema," he said. "The NAFTA is the first international agreement that had provisions dealing with the environment. You can't throw out the baby with the bath water."

What he would like to change, however, is the way the Conservatives are allowing the U.S. to try to use the trade agreement.

"When you look at how Chapter 11 has been enforced, when you are told that a company has a right under the NAFTA to continue to export a substance that our government has considered deleterious, a substance that was an additive in gasoline. When you look at the fact that the Americans are now fighting back on a ban that I helped enforce in Quebec on 2-4-D, which is a pesticide, telling us that we have no right to ban 2-4-D, then I say we have to stand up and fight back and just tell the Americans that they are not going to determine for us that we have to add certain poisons to our environment and that's not what the NAFTA is all about."

Yes, I understand he would like to make some revisions, but he also said that he supports it. If your first instinct is to defend NAFTA, as opposed to citing the damage it brought to our manufacturing base, the workers, their livelihoods and their families, then that doesn't cut it for me.

AnonymousMouse wrote:

I like Peggy Nash. She's pretty high on my ballot. But you keep referring to articles, statements and experience of her's that's not just typical, but stereotypical safe, friendly territory for the NDP as if that's the ultimate qualification be become leader.

So it's okay to cite articles and stances of Mulcair and other candidates, but not those regarding Nash? I am not posting these as if they are the "ulimate qualification." Your spin is bizarre. I've been posting those articles because quite a few here seem to be competely in the dark regarding Nash, her background, her campaign, her policies and what she is advocating, such as the NDP picking up the pace and presenting a strong flank on the economy.   

AnonymousMouse wrote:

Any variation--even in communication or emphasis--seems to be a negative for you.

On the contrary, I tend to view that of the Mulcair supporters on here. Whenever Nash is mentioned or brought up, some on here seem to go for the throat: how dare anyone mention Peggy Nash, as we need to be scrutinizing who endorsed who, and which endorsement is the most meaningful and significant.

AnonymousMouse wrote:

Jack Layton obviously knew that if the NDP was going to form government, then we had to venture outside our comfort zone. That didn't mean changing what we believed in. It meant looking like a party that could run a government and speaking to people in terms they connect with rather than terms we connect with. Mulcair has been doing the same thing, but he also has an unquestionably clear record as a progressive and he ran for our party at a time when he had no incentive to do so unless he truly believed in the party's values. Trying to torque everything the guy says to paint him as something he's not is beneath the level of debate we should aim for in this leadership race. I'm pleased by the degree to which those kinds of distorted attacks against Mulcair have been rejected by both his supporters and non-supporters here on Rabble.

I was considering Mulcair until he made his statements on NAFTA, as well as his continual citing of Doer/Manitoba NDP. But I am not going to smear the man based on nonsense mainstream media gossip, ie volatile, temper, closet seperatist (give me a break) et al.

OnTheLeft wrote:

The party has moved to the centre in recent years. We should still stand for nationalizing at least some banks, pulling out of NATO, and creating more crown corporations.....

As a negotiator for CAW, she learned to build bridges and bring two polar opposite sides - labour and managment - together. She successfully negotiated the 2005 Ford Canada pact, and has won over Conservative-leaning pundits like Craig Oliver and Andrew Coyne.

Not with those policies. They are expressing an opinion they have very little invested in as to who might win, and will argue vigourously against those policies as soon as the person does win.

Boy, with all the wailing and nashing of teeth around here against right-wing journalists, people sure are quick to cite their so-called "support" for their candidate of choice. I'm finding this very humourous.

OnTheLeft wrote:

 

On the contrary, I tend to view that of the Mulcair supporters on here. Whenever Nash is mentioned or brought up, some on here seem to go for the throat: how dare anyone mention Peggy Nash, as we need to be scrutinizing who endorsed who, and which endorsement is the most meaningful and significant.

Interesting, I'm a supporter of Mulcair who had Nash as a pretty solid second choice until very recently. Peggy Nash is one of our most outstanding MPs, one of the people in the party I most admire and have done so for many years. However, the leadership race has made me rethink her as a viable leader, at least one who could continue the trajectory Jack Layton put us on. She's still high on my list but sinking on my ballot because I do worry about her "presence". She's smart and savvy, eloquent and politically astute, but I keep waiting and hoping for more fire, more passion, more presence. The debate really threw me in terms of her abilty to truly engage. When someone I like this much puts me to sleep, it's a bad sign. She is the perfect candidate for party faithful but I'm losing the ability to see how she truly engages with the new voters we need to win government. I like her every bit as much as I ever did but less so as a prospective leader. Ashton has become my number two and my struggle with Cullen is ever-greater as I like him more every time I see or hear from him, were it not for his assinine co-operation platform plank. More and more Mulcair is starting to lap the field for me in terms of truly viable leaders, and again, at the outset of the campaign that was anything but the case for me. 

(And he's never said anything about NAFTA that was anything but consistent with party policy and in line with what any single candidate in this race would say. Just sayin'...)

OnTheLeft wrote:

 

So Nash with years experience as an MP, Industry and Finance Critic, is not where the party's "brain" is at and parallels can be drawn to Audrey McLaughlin. But Brian Topp, who has no electoral experience, is clearly superior, and is nothing like McLaughlin, who was elected Leader of the NDP with only one year of experience as an MP under her belt.

Funny, I've actually considered Topp as the Audrey McLaughlin of this race. Nash, with the skills she brings as a candidate has *nothing* in common with McLaughlin.