IF Mulcair's envelope situation makes him unmarketable, what has to be done..................

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I think there is also a feeling that in politics bribes get offered and politicians are rightfully worried that in a situation with no proof attacking those who are offering a criminal bribe is neither wise nor safe. He was a minister in a government that has been exposed as one that had sleaze floating around; likely every minister has been offered a bribe and the ones with integrity walked away.

He was a candidate at the time according to most stories and not an MNA or Minister. He went from turning down the envelope to serving in a government that apparently had sleaze floating around it but was mostly known for its austerity programs. The story tells me that he is an honest man with a very pragmatic view of politics.

.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am surprised that this envelope story is being made out as the major problem for the NDP. Very surprised.

No, there is no story here and anyone who tries to make it one will only remind others that he was offered a bribe and refused. The degree to which he had any proof to go to police with is debatable. Further, it does not pass the most important test-- when people ask what they would do in the same situation, most would likely agree that there is no big scandal in refusing and not thinking more of it. I think there is also a feeling that in politics bribes get offered and politicians are rightfully worried that in a situation with no proof attacking those who are offering a criminal bribe is neither wise nor safe. He was a minister in a government that has been exposed as one that had sleaze floating around; likely every minister has been offered a bribe and the ones with integrity walked away. Those who do not live in Québec don't get comfortable-- that level of sleaze is right across the country although the reporting of it seems to be minimized. For what it is worth, I have a few theories about why it is under-reported in other provinces none have anything to do with incidence. I suspect that under-reporting may not continue much longer.

 

I have come to the conclusion that the envelope is not a problem. I do understand why the NDP was afraid of the Tory attack machine. Since Dion and Ignatieff it has attained a mythological status and everything the Con attack machine does is going to cause a shudder of fear in the NDP.

.

I think Mulcair would be happy to fight the next election on ethics and sleaze. The Liberals and Conservatives may bluster but I don't think either will be stupid enough to make that an election issue.

It will be the economy and who can be trusted to deliver what is needed for Canadians. The NDP needs to be very publicly working on this.

I do not agree that the NDP needed to win the competition with Justin-- nobody would expect Justin not to get any but the NDP could have maintained a presence throughout that time on the things that mattered and went silent ceding the field. This was a mistake. I think the NDP had little to lose by doing something then and a lot of opportunity to show differences. We see the Liberals trying to engage Canadians on everythign from peititons to consultations etc. The NDP should be doing more on this and better than the Liberals but they are still quiet. There will not be enough time to do this in a campaign only if that is what they are thinking.

Brachina wrote:

knownothing wrote:

Trudeau brought it up in his scrum yesterday.

http://cpac.ca/eng/programs/scrums/episodes/may-22-2013

He may try to use it in a debate. If he was smart he wouldn't go there. Mulcair has got to have more dirt on the Liberals than anyone else.

Good point.

Trudeau was elected in 2008 and that is one of the reasons the Liberal party chose him.  There is no way to pin the baggage from the Liberal governments on him personally. I have never heard of any major ties between Trudeau and the Charest Liberals so I don't get how anything Mulcair would have learnt as a Liberal Cabinet Minister could be used against Trudeau.

Attacking him for the sins of his father, from thirty years ago, is not a great campaign strategy.  Throwing mud that does not stick always plays out worse for the mud thrower, it would only make the NDP look petty and nasty to start going after Trudeau for things he was not personally involved in. It will only make him a more sympathetic personality in the eyes of non partisans.  It will also get people wondering whether the NDP would be nasty and vindictive with perceived enemies if it was in government.

The MSM never gives the NDP fair coverage and they never will but that doesn't mean that jumping into the gutter to find mud is a good way to overcome that real problem.  Telling Liberal voters from the past that they were just wrong and the people they elected were worthless is not likely going to win many of them over. 

Jan-- he is not like his Dad at all. Those who like the father have a whole lot of hurt coming to them if they support the son for that reason. I believe he would be much worse than his father. Still the things people liked about his father are not here. Many of the things people hated about his father may be absent also but will be replaced with other things many will come to learn are worse.

Even his personal style which has everything to do with how you think and receive advice is different: Pierre was personally shy and publicly engaging-- charismatic. Justin is personally outgoing and a very poor speaker.

And if you think the father was out of touch-- you are wrong. Just-in-time is going to show you what out-of-touch really looks like. When out-of-touch is mixed with little experience, naivete, no qualifications and people around that won't question the son of an emperor you have a nightmare coming. Pierre had to earn his way. Justin does not have to and myths are being created about him that would make a North Korean leader cringe. This is hugely significant. I watch horrible speeches of Just-in-Time and then hear Liberals say how fantastic he was.  This is a man who is going to be sheltered, people will not be allowed to criticize, and he will have immense power that will be all the more greater as eventually he will push away rather than attract bright minds.

Be afraid.

On the other hand-- I predict he will leave the Liberal party in worse shape than his father did once people figure him out and grow tired of the fantasy. He might be PM for a few years before that happens if we are all unlucky.

Yep, and the polls and boot licking media will make it worse.

Kind of reminds me of Micheal Jackson, with Micheal talent of course.

Super popular at first and wealthy, surrounded by yes men until he was totally isolated from reality, and then he went from the most popular in the world, to the butt of a million jokes. This is Justin's fate more or less.

Thank you Kropt

Jan- I don't think there is a point in going after the senior Trudeau when the son is different-- there is no benefit because there are many who think the father was good. I think better to remind them of those differences. Secondly, sure we can go after Liberals but better to go after their recent record than to lean back 30 years as they have been in power since. I think saying that the Liberals have a culture of patronage is better than going back claiming the son is like the father.

I have not seen people thinking Trudeau is the wonderboy but I would not suggest he has the skills his father had. Elder Trudeau was a mix of some very great skills and some horrible defects, The son has different defects it seems and overall weakness without those great skills. I think there is a stronger argument to say he is not the father so why don't we look at just what he is?

As for the Senate I don't think there is a TINA mentality. The thing may have a purpose and I would start by looking at what that could be. There is a chance it could be abolished but it would not be easy-- and would it really be a good idea? I have trouble with hacking at an institution without replacing what it does in terms of power because that power will go somewhere and I think it is clear that is straight to the PMO. I am not saying there is no alternative. By using the institution to create something new we avoid the difficulty of abolishing it. At the same time we can do some good with it-- have a chamber that does not have official partisan politics where appointments have to be approved by all parties-- take the appointment power away from the PMO and give it review powers where it cannot stop law being unelected but it can make a case shared with the public. In short the Senate could be reformed into a public service tool working to protect the public interest reviewing and sharing information. The function of protecting both regions and equity seeking groups works well with this. The salaries don't have to be huge and there does not need to be pomp. It would become a modern citizen's assembly and something between us and dictatorship by PMO which is almost where we are at. Once the PMO snuffs out further information gathering by the House of Commons, there will no longer be any democratic process between elections. We have a chance to use the Senate debate to open that up and we should take it. There is serious risk of having no institutions left to reform or work with that are functional in the public interest.

Well, AW, if you think that people are discussng things not related to the Mulcair, envelope scandal, why don't YOU add another comment? No one is FORCING YOU to read this. You know that, right?

.

autoworker wrote:

It's funny how the prospect of a Liberal landslide drives Dippers to distraction.

It is even funnier how Liberals have to resort to snarky personal attacks.

jjuares wrote:

autoworker wrote:

It's funny how the prospect of a Liberal landslide drives Dippers to distraction.

It is even funnier how Liberals have to resort to snarky personal attacks.

I see that you're not above them, yourself.

jjuares wrote:

I didn't attack any other poster. I simply called you on it.

I haven't attacked other posters. But I did call you out on it. Who appointed you arbiter, here? We can continue playing mind games (which much of this discussions boils down to), but I doubt that's possible in these threads.

autoworker wrote:

jjuares wrote:

autoworker wrote:

It's funny how the prospect of a Liberal landslide drives Dippers to distraction.

It is even funnier how Liberals have to resort to snarky personal attacks.

I see that you're not above them, yourself.

Flagged.

autoworker, as you know, you're baiting. Stop it. Thanks.

Pogo-- it's Justin-- not Justine. Justine sounds like a feminization of his name. I trust that was just a typo right?

Hey Pogo, you fixed one "Justine" but not the second one! Juste sayin'...

I do know I did call my aunt who farmed 100 miles northeast of Saskatoon and when the subject of Justin came up she said that she didn't know much about him, but his father wasn't worth the powder needed to blow him up (her words not mine).  I think the legacy of Trudeau will play different in different parts of the country and in places like Saskatchewan Justin will have to take steps to disassociate himself from his fathers legacy.

Whatever is deleted I did not see -- no matter. Yes it could be one of those days. Just be sure that the reason I asked before saying more is I did not think you really would do that. Okay?

The Tories have sucked out all the meat, what little there was, and have a pathetic characture, same on the Senator with the tax haven, same with Tyrone, and the way he tries to use it to try and failing to deflect the questions from his major scandal, has taken any teeth from these mirco scandals and made them a joke.