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.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Piatkowski (it's the day for misspellings I suppose). But, thanks... er, I think.
To respond to the three most recent lines of attack on Andrea:
1. She co-chaired the last campaign. Without minimizing what is a very important role, the primary direction of the campaign was the responsibility of paid staffers and consultants. And, without telling tales out of school, I can assure you that there was vigorous debate on the EPC both before and after E-Day and that Andrea was a part of that vigorous debate. She also made sure that those of us who like to ask tough questions were heard.
2. The Toronto Star supports her (ergo, she must be evil). Frankly, that was a pretty tepid endorsement at the end of a horribly argued diatribe against the NDP and Howard Hampton. So, if you want to hold that against her, go ahead. But maybe, just maybe, they have a point and she really is the best candidate. There are certainly more and better reasons to vote for Andrea than gender, age and geography; The Star just didn't bother to note them (or to look up the correct spelling of her name).
3. "Lifers" at Provincial Office allegedly support her because she allegedly won't shake things up. There's hardly anyone left working at Provincial Office due to budget constraints. The Acting Provincial Secretary is leaving soon (hence the word "Acting" in his title). He and everyone working for the party and Hampton's office are neutral. Furthermore, there's little evidence that Horwath is a status quo candidate. If she was, I wouldn't be supporting her.
.
I don't think Bisson's vote makes him an anti-environmentalist. I do think the fact that he alienated a boatload of environmentalists with his actions a little boneheaded - though maybe not as boneheaded as Tabuns call for higher hydro rates. If Tabuns wins the leadership expect Liberals to raise that over and over and over.
Gilles Bisson has talked about the economy a lot - but his argument that New Democrats should join the business community in calling for lower corporate taxes and less "red tape" is the wrong way to go. I don't think we gain anything by abandonning our principles. Particularly now, when the NDP's critique of blind faith in the market looks more and more accurate.
ETA: I've responded to a phantom comment. It's vanished.
I agree NWL.
I have addressed Gilles voting against the ESA a few times before. It is a majorly flawed bill that places the entire economic burden of saving species on the individual landowner that had the foresight to protect the habit that the rest of us destroyed. Dumb-ass stupid doesn't come close to describing how poor the Act is. Gilles deserves credit, not condemnation for doing the right thing on that bill.
Horseshit. This was a completely flawed act. Many, many progressive rural people opposed this bill. If you want to be that way you could claim that those who supported this legislation were the reactionary ones since they were using the power of the state to impose this act on individuals without any democratic representation.
However, I see it more that this was urban people just not getting the reality of what rural Ontario actually looks like and why it is that these spots have become the last refuge of these species.
No one is suggesting that Andrea is evil, but when you dine with the devil you had better have a long spoon. Kidding aside, and this only further highlights a major drawback of not having a critical left friendly voice in the MSM (trotting out Linda McQuaig once in a while is only pretense on the part of The Star).
We know the editorial board of the Star has become increasingly brazen and unequivocal in its support for the Liberals. And it's not only motivated by the fear of Harper's Reform Conservatism. The Star endorses neoliberalism. It should have been a campaign expense for the Liberals in the last provincial election. More recently, The Star has even actively joined in the chorus against labour and the left in this province. Their recent coverage of the CUPE 3903 strike was simply appalling.
So, in an article whose subtext, as you rightly point out, is to pillory the ONDP, the editorial board "tepidly" and on the back of completely feeble reasoning come out in support of Andrea Horwath. Can you imagine Andrea running on that basis? "Vote for me: I'm young, I haven't the mettle yet to be leader but will grow in office. Not only that, have I mentioned that I'm a woman? Moreover, are you aware that I'm from Hamilton? What's that? policy you say? I'll stick with the old tried and true middle road tricks that have almost reduced us to total obscurity." Seems to me The Star does "really" see her as the best candidate, but in whose best interests? The ONDP or the Liberal Party of Ontario?
Andrea of course is not evil, in fact she's quite a wonderful person, as frankly, are all the candidates. That they knock themselves out seeking political office would be enough to earn my respect, but to put themselves out there for the leadership (while a great opportunity, seems like mostly thankless and heavily scrutinized work that must make being an MPP a walk in the park by comparison) is deserving of much respect. But the Liberals are evil and worthy of being approached with caution.
I would point out that Bisson has not called for corporate tax cuts and less "red tape" across the board or anything like that. What he has been talking about is taking a more moderate approach to such things and less absolute. Also, he's talked about doing anything like that as a trade off for other things, like job guarantees, anti-scab legislation, better environmental protect by industry and better labour laws. As he's said, he's talking about all of this stuff in the context of Corporate Ontario's duties to the people of the province. He's not talking about blind give-aways like the Liberals and Tories have done, what he's been talking about is using things like corporate tax cuts in some situations almost like bargaining chips. That seems to me to be very much in line with the party policy of making sure that guarantees are attached to any money going out the door. I wouldn't call that selling out principle; I would call that making use of everything a government has at it's disposal.
Thanks for agreeing
Listening to three candidates yesterday (Tabuns had a prior commitment in his home riding), did not make the big decision any easier. They're good. And as one observed, that's what 41 "debates" will do for your presentation style.
But what I have finally decided , by reading people's comments on Star articles the past couple of days, and views on the Globe and Mail, and a discussion with Gilles Bisson about what it takes to get some lineage in the north country - between elections and at election time - I've decided that now is not the time to think about radical innovation. First develop a structure prepared for battle.
The point was well made that New Democrats have to stop being centered on the legislature and be creative, putting forward innovative proposals, be pro-active.
But who is going to learn of change in all its complexity if there is not a solid network of well-financed riding associations with IT put to active work across the land informing all, not waiting, helplessly, for a paid-for and increasingly ad-desperate MSM to decide, for some masochistic reason unrelated to their business, to come on board?
In the simplest terms possible, I'm putting the organizing horse up front of the cart with its baggage of political innovation(and yes, I know what Gilles has done in Timmins) , looking to see an influx of youth and a wider representation of our changing demographics at the riding level.
And information.
So it's Andrea.
http://trssastt.blogspot.com/2009/02/well-since-toronto-star-endorsed-an...
Well, since the Toronto Star endorsed Andrea Horwath...
...it clearly follows that Dippers should not elect her party leader.Indeed, I'm not sure why the Horwath campaign is touting this endorsement as anything significant. To call it "tepid" would be an insult to lukewarm tea. They trash Hampton as "too confrontational" -- seriously, Howard Hampton? -- and "too northern" -- whatever that means (can we call McGuinty and Tory "too southern", then?). They list three candidates that they'd rather have in the race, only one of whom they give reason to believe is actually in the party. And they say "none" of the four candidates are inspiring (again, whatever that means).
Gilles Bisson is dismissed as, again, "too northern". I have to wonder, really, whether this is some sort of anti-francophone bias, or possibly anti-rural; it's really inexplicable otherwise. Bisson is articulate, clever, and has clearly thought about what needs to be done to push the ONDP forward. Michael Prue supposedly questioned the party's decision to delay passage of the York U bill, which, as far as I can tell, is a flat lie: Prue wanted the government to defend the need for the bill, and said he would support it if that defense was forthcoming (shocking news: it wasn't). Other than that, he's called "hackneyed" -- because of his campaign slogan. What are they going to criticize next, his voice? His haircut? Peter Tabuns is called a one-issue candidate, with a heavy focus on energy policy -- which is grossly unfair, as all four are pushing environmental issues, as is typical for the NDP.
So, why pick Andrea Horwath? She's young, from southern Ontario, and female. Seriously. That's their reasoning.
Why is the Horwath campaign proud of this "endorsement"?
Labels: government, ontario, politics
As already noted, the Star endorsement might not help Andrea tremendously but I'd argue it's a serious blow to Tabuns and Prue who are dismissed as "hackneyed" and "single issue" respectively.
I think the conspiracy theory that the Star is endorsing Andrea out of some secret desire to sink the NDP is too crazy to take seriously.
I think the theory that media doesn't matter is also a little off base.
It's not a roaring endorsement of any candidate but, it's a really SOUND rejection of the two Toronto candidates.
"the Star is endorsing Andrea out of some secret desire to sink the NDP is too crazy to take seriously."
Not a conspiracy since there's nothing secret about The Star's allegiances and desire vis a vis the NDP. The Star has been brazenly undermining the NDP's credibility for a long time. Whether their choice of Andrea is so motivated is anyone's guess, but I don't think anyone could fail to see that the article is broadly and foremost an unflattering portrayal of the ONDP.
As far as "a really sound rejection of the two Toronto candidates", seems that the editorial board undermines any and all credibility in that regard when it proffers such a superficial appraisal and unreasoned endorsement of Horwath. Unless, of course, you find The Star's reasons compelling ones upon which to base a choice for the next leader of the ONDP.
In general, I tend to agree with Stockholm on the criteria for choosing a candidate.
However, I will say I am aghast to find that ... even after they all PROMISED in the Ottawa leadership debate to do better ... the final pitches coming out of the Tabuns and Prue campaigns have been in English only. Horwath's last one contained a french translation at the bottom (although the subject line was in English only), and of course Bisson's campaign materials have been bilingual all the way through.
I wrote back once to Tabuns' campaign about this ... to no response. I've just written again to say that if they don't take the time to reply this time, I'll withdraw my support for his campaign.
It's not nothing that someone from Ottawa was prepared to support a Toronto candidate, in spite of how we get treated by Provincial Office. Sadly, the continued unwillingness to follow through on a commitment to communicate in both official languages by the Toronto candidates' campaigns does give pause for thought.
Prue phoned through again the other day in English and French, but again the French was unpracticed and halting. Regardless, he lost me in the Ottawa forum when he flipped out at the other candidates, so I'm not sure he could have won me back regardless.
The Toronto Star article is a slurr against the NDP. Take a bunch of potshots, say there could be something better in the choices, undermine those in TO, write off a Northerner, and then underwhelmingly support Andrea and spell her name wrong.
I wouldn't put anything into the article. The Star had nothing good to say, which is on par with their Liberal Bias. The Star is as irrellavent to the NDP as the NDP is irrellavante to the Star.
I can see them taking potshots at whomever becomes the NDP leader in March. Even if it is Andrea, they will continue to say bad things about the NDP, and if it is the other choices, they will have a 3 in 4 shot of undermining that choice of the NDP.
I think the NDP should be happy with any coverage of the Star, as no news is the worst news. Bad News is better, and Good News the Best.
Yesterday in Cambridge, Bisson used a line that I hadn't heard before. Oddly enough, he's started touting the fact that he is the SECOND YOUNGEST member of caucus during debates. With the person who is the actual youngest member of caucus sitting beside you, it's a tough argument to make (i.e. age is a factor, so vote for the second youngest).
I shared a quick WTF-glance with Andrea's tour person when he said it twice yesterday. I really don't know what he's thinking. If he was saying 'Isn't it sad that the second youngest member of caucus is 51; We need more need blood.' that would be different. But, he's not. Anyone want to explain the rationale (assuming this argument works on them)?
Scott.... maybe it had something to do with the fact that while he is the 2nd youngest candidate at 51 (only like 5 years older than Ms. Horwath), he has over 19 years of elected experience at Queen's Park in both government and opposition. That combination of youth and experience is something that many members are looking for in this race, especially these days. The argument is that he's young enough to be in this for the long haul to rebuild the party, but has the most elected experience of the whole group. That's a powerful combination.
NWL. Agreed. Experience does matter. So does age. Andrea should put her time in and run in a few years when she has been at the provincial game a little bit longer.
To visit the ageism angle....
If Bisson wins, at 51 he probably has two terms as leader in him.
Once done, Horwath would be 55, seasoned and a bit more ready for the job.
Prue and Tabuns are already too old to have the energy needed to do the job (for long) and would be better off as senior advisor MPPs to the leader.
Here's some fun facts:
- Tommy Douglas became Leader of the Saskatchewan CCF at age 38.
- Ed Schreyer became Leader of the Manitoba CCF at age 34.
- Stephen Lewis became Leader of the Ontario NDP at age 32.
But now we're actually having a serious conversation about whether a 46 year old working mom who has served as an MPP, City Councillor, community organizer etc. has enough "experience" to lead the NDP?
I know some folks are scared of change but this is crazy.
So now we're actually having a serious conversation about whether a 51 year old working father who has worked and served in the labour movement and as a MPP in both government and opposition for over 25 years has to some how apologize for the fact that he has the most experience of the bunch? Especially one who is actually running on changing how our party organizes itself and reforming the party.
I know some folks are scared of an actual change, but this is crazy
I don't think Gilles should apologize at all. I just think his "experience" is not his best selling point. 20 years as a backbencher doesn't impress me much. If it did, I'd think Tony Ruprecht was God.
Maybe if he had spent 20 years as a backbencher, I would be worried, but that's not what Gilles has been doing. Trying to paint him as such is just wrong.
Last time I checked, being a Parliamentary Secretary in a government isn't being just a backbencher. It's being heavily involved. Also, in all of his years in Opposition, it's not like there were that many people in our benches, so I would argue that no NDP MPP in Ontario for the past 14 years has been a backbencher of any sort simply because they've had lots to portfolios to pick up. He's held many tough critics positions (on top of being party whip), as have all the members of the caucus.
Wow.... doing ones job as an elected official is now considered to be "padding ones resume". Bravo for trying to reduce the work of our elected officials
As for the best choice for the job, I want the candidate who is best able to reach out to the province, who's best able to communicate with them and is best able to sell our party to the electorate. To me, that's Gilles Bisson and many people who have been attending these debates across the province have come away thinking that he's the best person for the job too.