NDP Leadership 74

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
Howard

Lou Arab wrote:

We may be a cheap date, but you still have to *at least* buy us a drink first.

You can buy a drink in Toronto for $5 Surprised

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Maybe a draft beer. At the Brunswick.

Unionist

Charlie Angus wrote:
Paul Dewar connects with families and their priorities and is the best person to carry on Jack's work. 

 

He brings to the table the kind of ideas, energy and leadership that a majority of Canadians want from their government. 

 

This is a Real Majority that works hard to pay their taxes, send their kids to school and build a future for their family. They're people that want health care to be there for them, when they need it. They want education and job opportunities for young people. And they want to know our seniors are being looked after.

Wow, my opinion of Charlie Angus is taking a nosedive. It's not just empty rhetoric - it's wrong.

"Works hard to pay their taxes" is false. Taxes are deducted at source, unless he's talking about the middle-class self-employed (because the poor don't pay income tax). You get what's left over after taxes are deducted. Or is it sales tax and property tax (for the lucky young home-owners)?? Why is he talking about paying taxes at all??

Folks don't "work hard ... to send their kids to school". Tuition is free - unless he's talking about textbooks and other fees. But why not talk instead about the expense of raising kids in general? Such as child care, so that parents (i.e. primarily women) are freed from the home so they can go "work hard"??

As for "build a future for their family" - that's the empty rhetoric part.

And how does all this distinguish Paul Dewar from the other candidates? They don't "connect" with "families and their priorities" as well as Dewar? They won't be able to "carry on Jack's work" as well?

Pretty shameful stuff. Not worthy of Charlie Angus. Maybe worthy of Paul Dewar.

 

northwestern_lad

Hot off the virtual presses, a piece from the Toronto Star on Romeo Saganash from his visit with their editorial board today.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1116528--ndp-leaders...

 

Bärlüer

According to this article, Mulcair intends, if he were to become prime minister, to keep the French citizenship he acquired by virtue of being the spouse of a French citizen.

Scandale! I'm outraged!

(Not.)

The same article provides the interesting anecdote that his wife once ran for the UMP in France (i.e., Sarkozy's party).

Skeena13

Unionist wrote:

"Works hard to pay their taxes" is false. Taxes are deducted at source, unless he's talking about the middle-class self-employed (because the poor don't pay income tax). You get what's left over after taxes are deducted. Or is it sales tax and property tax (for the lucky young home-owners)?? Why is he talking about paying taxes at all??

Folks don't "work hard ... to send their kids to school". Tuition is free - unless he's talking about textbooks and other fees. But why not talk instead about the expense of raising kids in general? Such as child care, so that parents (i.e. primarily women) are freed from the home so they can go "work hard"??

Given that a very substantial portion of everyone's incomes goes to taxes, I think it's fair to say that people "work to pay their taxes". While I agree that paying taxes hardly motivates people to work hard, it's fair to say (or claim) that Canadians work hard at the their jobs, that they recognize the benefits that their taxes pay for, and that they consequently "work hard to pay their taxes". 

As for tuition costs, I can only assume that he was alluding to the crippling costs of attending post-secondary education. If you don't happen to live near the institution, then you have the choice of contributing to your children's post-secondary costs to the tune of about $15,000+/year or letting them graduate with a $50,000 debt (broad assumptions made, of course). When I attended university about 10-5 years ago, the vast majority - perhaps 80% - of my peers held part time jobs while attending, had familial financial support, and still graduated with substantial ($10,000+) student debt and no guarantee of a job upon graduation.

Having said that, I agree that Charlie's comments do nothing to distinguish Dewar from the pack. His comments have done nothing to address my concerns with a) Dewar's french, and b) his stiff and awkward performances in front of large audiences. 

janfromthebruce

good write-up

 

northwestern_lad wrote:

Hot off the virtual presses, a piece from the Toronto Star on Romeo Saganash from his visit with their editorial board today.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1116528--ndp-leaders...

 

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

DSloth

Bärlüer wrote:

According to this article, Mulcair intends, if he were to become prime minister, to keep the French citizenship he acquired by virtue of being the spouse of a French citizen.

Scandale! I'm outraged

Cullen apparently is the only one who thought the matter worth commenting on, with suprisingly classy results:

Nathan Cullen wrote:
We allow those with dual citizenship to serve in our army, to sit as judges, and we don't question their loyalty. I know Tom well and I trust his belief and convictions. Anybody who stood up as strong as he did in Quebec in defence of Canada earns points with me.

KenS

The only relevance the citizenship thing has in the NDP is whether the Cons could use it against Mulcair as Leader. Anything is possible. But that is well beyond the line of where we want to go. [And it would be a double edged sword if the Cons wanted to go there.]

JKR

KenS wrote:

The only relevance the citizenship thing has in the NDP is whether the Cons could use it against Mulcair as Leader. Anything is possible. But that is well beyond the line of where we want to go. [And it would be a double edged sword if the Cons wanted to go there.]

Judging by their recent record, the Conservatives will likely use their financial advantage to frame the image of the Leader of the Opposition in the minds of Canadians by way of multi-million dollar tv advertising during the non-election period.

So which NDP leadership candidate can best deal with a malicious 24/7/365 Conservative media campaign?

KenS

I think there are only two things you can do:

* Have strategic messaging smarts. [Which is not specific to this.]

* Stay away from leadership candidates that have obvious issues that anyone could poke at.

We can all point at likely handles the Cons could use on each of the candidates. I'm not talkking about those. I mean really egregious stuff that literally any opponent could have a field day with. And I dont see any of that.

"Dealing with" nasty attacks frames the need in a way that is not going to get us pointed in the right direction. You don't just let negative attacks go by [Kerry, Dion, Ignatieff], but 'dealing with it' via direct counter-attacks and simplistic invarnished 'telling the truth' is also a loser.

Those 3 losers werent immobilised because they had nothing to say in response. They and their campaigns at least knew enough not to just answer. They were immobilised because they were not sufficiently competent to mount effective counter-strategies.

[And the best counter-strategy of all is to anticipate where you are going to be attcked, and put neutralizing messages out there before the attacks. Messages that tend to also build towards where you want to be anyway-the vision thing. Win-win.]

doofy

What I have always suspected:

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/...

Some Liberal delegates at their recent convention were stupid enough to reveal their fears of Mulcair to Bellavance of "La Presse".

Meanwhile, further proof that a Mulcair victory would catach the Liberals flat-footed:  Sheila Copps's best strategy seems to be deny that he could win. Here is what she wrote in the "Hill Times"  (Unfortunately her full article is behind a firewall)

" Ex-Liberal Thomas Mulcair will not win the leadership of the New Democrats. (If he had a fighting chance, St-Denis would not have bolted). And the socialist tsunami in Quebec died with Jack Layton".

Considering how much damage a revived Liberal party could do to the prospect of a NDP gov't, I really hope people take this seriously.

 

 

algomafalcon

Skeena13 wrote:

Having said that, I agree that Charlie's comments do nothing to distinguish Dewar from the pack. His comments have done nothing to address my concerns with a) Dewar's french, and b) his stiff and awkward performances in front of large audiences. 

I think that pretty much sums up my perspective. And I think most people have concluded that Dewar blundered in selecting Angus as his "Deputy" - a move that is 1) Presumptive (like Dewar almost assumes he has the leadership in the bag) and 2) seems to place Dewar in a universe where Canada consists of one region, Ontario.

robbie_dee

[url=http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/16/ndps-mulcair-will-keep-french-citiz... Sun: Mulcair will keep French citizenship[/url]

IMO the most interesting part of the article was this tidbit:

Quote:

Among other things, Mulcair's citizenship gives him the right to vote in French elections. It's not clear though if he has ever exercised that right even though his wife ran unsuccessfully in 2008 for the Assembly of French Citizens Abroad, a political body that represents French citizens outside France. Mulcair's team was unable to say if he had voted.

Notably, while Mulcair is running to lead Canada's socialist party, his wife ran for French President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP party, a conservative party which opposed the socialists in France.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

From the Saganash link:

Quote:

“All my life I have tried to bring people together in order to move forward. It is more than a slogan for me — it has been my life,” he said. “I don’t consider myself as an aboriginal candidate or a First Nations candidate or a Cree candidate or a Quebec candidate . . .”

Saganash said it is obvious from the declining voter turnouts that there are many people in Canada who feel disaffected.

“They have a chance to elect a prime minister in me that understands what it’s like to be disaffected. They have a chance to elect a prime minister that did not grow up with privileges. The have an opportunity to elect a prime minister that most of the time was on the wrong side of the power equation but yet came out victorious for the people. So this is what I have to offer,” he said.

KenS

Doofy,

How does one take seriously the Liberals talking in their echo chamber?

Saying that Mulcair cannot win the NDP leadership has value to the Liberals for the ripples they can hope it creates.

Ditto for the garbled logic about what the LSD defection says about the NDP [if people can figure out what is being said].

 

Rules of Thumb to Keep in Mind

In politics, people who are not your friends will only offer you their strategic opinion if it serves their ends. Their assessment might be what they honestly think to be true, they may be making it up entirely, or the truth may be irrelevant. Who knows which it is? The one thing you do know is that the only reason you are hearing the opinion is because it is in THEIR interest that you think it to be true and/or credible.

If the strategic assesment that they rely on for guidance is NOT going to serve their interests by you hearing it too- you will not hear it.

 

Apply that to what Sheila Copps said.

Stockholm

BTW, if you really want to have fun...listen to Lise St. Denis get totally eviscerated in this radio interview!

http://www.985fm.ca/in/paul-arcand-968.html

Wilf Day

Brian Topp has, to date, the best-developed plan for getting to proportional representation. Stay tuned.

A friend comments that no contender has, to date, a "strategy to convince ANY provincial NDP government to endorse what the federal NDP already has endorsed: Proportional representation. It is so frustrating seeing how absolute power has corrupted all of the provincial NDP governments."

This may be asking too much? Still, it's a point which is raised every day.

KenS

Safe to say that there is a reason that in countless discussions you've never seen such strategy. There isnt even one for the Leader, let alone leadership candidates who have more to lose on that one.

Like a zillion other things, ultimately PR and democratic reform will win and can only win because of compelling qualities built to appeal to people that are not political junkies. Endorsements are great. And endorsements from where they were not expected are even more helpful. But thats all they are, a help. And not getting them is just help you have to do without.

Policywonk

DSloth wrote:

Bärlüer wrote:

According to this article, Mulcair intends, if he were to become prime minister, to keep the French citizenship he acquired by virtue of being the spouse of a French citizen.

Scandale! I'm outraged

Cullen apparently is the only one who thought the matter worth commenting on, with suprisingly classy results:

Nathan Cullen wrote:
We allow those with dual citizenship to serve in our army, to sit as judges, and we don't question their loyalty. I know Tom well and I trust his belief and convictions. Anybody who stood up as strong as he did in Quebec in defence of Canada earns points with me.

I think we can remember that Michael Jean was attacked for her French citizenship and felt she had to renounce it.

doofy

You raise some fair points Ken S; that's why I would never support a candidate just because some Conservative or Liberal insiders "let slip" that "X"is the one they most fear.

The "La Presse" story is quite different, though. These are delegates at a convention, not senior party operatives. I doubt this was part of a calculated strategy.

Moreover, these comments don't come in a vaccum. It's worth considering what Rae & co. are saying about the various candidates. They've already branded Topp as an ideologue with simpistic tax the rich solutions. Mulcair hasn't given them that avenue. So what's the worst they are saying about him? That he can't win the NDP leadership. It would put the Liberals in a might pickle if he did actually prevail. I don't think you can deny that, can you?

dacckon dacckon's picture

I don't think that fear should dominate how we pick our next leader. We should also note that the brands they put on any candidate are worthless, especially when you note how effective the brands they put on Layton were in the last election.

 

And we should also note that we cannot predict what the future will hold, but we can see at the end if certain candidates show the potential to augment their abilities and move the party... or if they are prone to making gaffes...

doofy

I'm sorry to go over this again, but I believe anti-Layton branding was effective. That's why the NDP gorwth in English Canada was marginal (roughly in line with the incremental growh Layton had experienced since 2004). The NDP surge happened in QC, where Layton's image was not at all in line with the one he had in the ROC.

We have to accept that the media and the NDP's political adversaries can be very effective at destroying the next leader. It"s very foolish to gamble that nothing will stick.

Howard

The attack on a person's French nationality does not work as well when they have so painfully Irish a name as Mulcair. It is harder to get people whipped up into francophobia over a person that is so clearly an anglo.

Howard

doofy wrote:

What I have always suspected:

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/...

Some Liberal delegates at their recent convention were stupid enough to reveal their fears of Mulcair to Bellavance of "La Presse".

Meanwhile, further proof that a Mulcair victory would catach the Liberals flat-footed:  Sheila Copps's best strategy seems to be deny that he could win. Here is what she wrote in the "Hill Times"  (Unfortunately her full article is behind a firewall)

" Ex-Liberal Thomas Mulcair will not win the leadership of the New Democrats. (If he had a fighting chance, St-Denis would not have bolted). And the socialist tsunami in Quebec died with Jack Layton".

Considering how much damage a revived Liberal party could do to the prospect of a NDP gov't, I really hope people take this seriously.

Here is an English translation of some of what the article said.

Howard

Stockholm wrote:

BTW, if you really want to have fun...listen to Lise St. Denis get totally eviscerated in this radio interview!

http://www.985fm.ca/in/paul-arcand-968.html

Thanks for posting this. If only Emerson could have gotten the Québec treatment when he defected. Unfortunately, the BC media is almost completely run by the far-right.

KenS

The cautionary principle says that you should consider all fears raised.

But even if you acknowedge that a fear has a basis, that does not in itself even rate doing the opposite as the most cautious/prudent thing to do... let alone whether you want to.

Which is just a longer way of saying, don't get suckered into trying to interpret what is best for yourself from second guessing your opponents intentions.

doofy

Didn't the Conservatives win by correctly guessing the Liberals' every move and then adjusting accordingly?

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat."-- Sun Tzu, Ancient Chinese Warrior

theleftyinvestor

"Mulcair" always struck me as a potentially French-language name - phonologically it's compatible with the language. Never occurred to me that it was Irish!

I'm pretty sure Mulcair can spin himself out of this one better than could Dion or Ignatieff. He married a foreign national. He is able to work/live with people of different political viewpoints. And if he availed himself of his marital entitlement to French citizenship it was because that's who his family is. Not particularly damaging. I would think in this day and age, an ability to connect with different cultures can be spun in one's favour very easily. Look at Adrian Dix and his lovely author/poet/activist wife Renée Saklikar who was born in India - okay so AFAIK he didn't try and get Indian citizenship, but still, nobody's using his marriage to a dual citizen against him (and they would be seen as racist fools if they did).

Unionist

Is it true that Andrew Swan (MB Justice Minister) has just endorsed Paul Dewar?

Babblers will recall that Swan is the man who supports Harper's omnibus crime bill, even though he feels that it doesn't go far enough.

Did Dewar promise Swan some federal prisons in Manitoba? Inquiring minds want to know...

Hunky_Monkey

Quote:
Bob Rae, who also holds only a Canadian passport, marvels at the hypocrisy of the NDP – and the hole they’ve dug for themselves on this issue.

The Interim Liberal Leader was referring to criticism by the late Jack Layton of Stéphane Dion, the former Official Opposition leader who is also a dual citizen of France and Canada.

In 2006, Mr. Layton said he “would prefer that a leader of a party hold only Canadian citizenship, because one represents many Canadians, and for it’s better to remain the citizen of one country.”

Remarked Mr. Rae: “There is a terrible sense of irony that while Mr. Layton didn’t hesitate to take a run at Mr. Dion in 2007, he didn’t seem to have the same view about his candidate or member from Outremont, Mr. Mulcair.”

A former cabinet minister in Jean Charest’s Liberal government, Mr. Mulcair won his federal seat in Montreal in a 2007 by-election.

“Mr. Mulcair and the NDP will have to decide whether their invented rule in Stéphane’s case applies now, or whether there has been a miraculous change of heart,” Mr. Rae told the Globe.

He argued New Democrats are now “stuck with either being completely inconsistent, or knuckling under to the Harper line, which in my view is too rigid.”

And there is nothing legally preventing Mr. Mulcair from holding two passports, the Interim Liberal Leader added.

“I’ve no idea how many dual citizens there are in Canada but I’d hate to see any Canadian denied a chance to run for office or even become prime minister because they have a dual heritage or passport,” Mr. Rae said. “Surely, we’re bigger than that as a country.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-and-...

Hunky_Monkey

Former Ontario MPP Elie Martel and former MP Ernie Epp, both from Northen Ontario, have endorsed Mulcair today.

Howard

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Quote:
Bob Rae, who also holds only a Canadian passport, marvels at the hypocrisy of the NDP – and the hole they’ve dug for themselves on this issue. The Interim Liberal Leader was referring to criticism by the late Jack Layton of Stéphane Dion, the former Official Opposition leader who is also a dual citizen of France and Canada. In 2006, Mr. Layton said he “would prefer that a leader of a party hold only Canadian citizenship, because one represents many Canadians, and for it’s better to remain the citizen of one country.” Remarked Mr. Rae: “There is a terrible sense of irony that while Mr. Layton didn’t hesitate to take a run at Mr. Dion in 2007, he didn’t seem to have the same view about his candidate or member from Outremont, Mr. Mulcair.” A former cabinet minister in Jean Charest’s Liberal government, Mr. Mulcair won his federal seat in Montreal in a 2007 by-election. “Mr. Mulcair and the NDP will have to decide whether their invented rule in Stéphane’s case applies now, or whether there has been a miraculous change of heart,” Mr. Rae told the Globe. He argued New Democrats are now “stuck with either being completely inconsistent, or knuckling under to the Harper line, which in my view is too rigid.” And there is nothing legally preventing Mr. Mulcair from holding two passports, the Interim Liberal Leader added. “I’ve no idea how many dual citizens there are in Canada but I’d hate to see any Canadian denied a chance to run for office or even become prime minister because they have a dual heritage or passport,” Mr. Rae said. “Surely, we’re bigger than that as a country.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-and-...

Rae is such an asshole. Layton can't answer for his comments because he is dead, and yet Rae looks to use them as an axe for his political advantage.

knownothing knownothing's picture

I can't wait until Mulcair tears Rae a new asshole 

nicky

Also from the Globe:

 

Stephen Harper has only one passport. It's Canadian. And that's the way he likes it.

Thomas Mulcair, the Quebec MP and NDP leadership contender, carries two passports. One is Canadian, the other is French.

"Obviously, it's for Mr. Mulcair to use his political judgment in the case," the Prime Minister observed in Saguenay, Que. "In my case, as I say, I am very clear. I am a Canadian and only a Canadian."

 

2 questions:

 

Has Harper singled out any other NDP candidate for special criticism?
How many Conservative ministers or MPs are dual citizens?

NorthReport

It's getting more and more obvious with each passing day who the Cons are most threatened by.

Hunky_Monkey

knownothing wrote:

I can't wait until Mulcair tears Rae a new asshole 

I second that. Everytime Rae opens his mouth, I hate him even more.

I find it funny that a lot of Liberals, especially from the Chretien gang, think he's their saviour. Besides one fluke win 21 years ago, his record leading a political party is rather weak. Looking at 1985 and 1987 and then in 1995 in Ontario, his results weren't anything to write home about.

KenS

If he has two passports that is less than ideal. Giving up citizenship is something no one should feel they have to do. But having 2 passports is a whim for most people. He's been a national politician for years now, and there was the warning around the Michael Jean thing. He could have let the passport expire [if he still has one]. But too late for that now.

KenS

The Cons went after Topp's tax plan when it was new. Was it as obvious then they are most threatened by him?

Its not the persons- its any opportunity to fling up dirt around the NDP.

I would be surprised if the PMO did not check for duals in their ranks before Harper went out on this.

Probably just as well get this aired and move on now. Should be harmless now.

Howard

I'm guessing Mulcair is going to let this one slide. He probably doesn't see the dual citizenship attack as enough of a threat to distract him from his mostly upbeat and positive leadership campaign. In fact, he might make some comment about hope, optimism, and love. I will remember this one for the next time I meet a Liberal that wants to tell me about how great (and renewed or similar to the NDP) their party is.

NorthReport

Nonsense.

And as well a lot of our newer Canadians who hold dual passports might resent anyone attacking Mulcair for holding two passports. 

KenS wrote:
If he has two passports that is less than ideal. Giving up citizenship is something no one should feel they have to do. But having 2 passports is a whim for most people. He's been a national politician for years now, and there was the warning around the Michael Jean thing. He could have let the passport expire [if he still has one]. But too late for that now.

dacckon dacckon's picture

I think that the issue of dual citizenship is a personal one when running for the highest position in elected office. I personally would give up my connection to Europe if I was running for PM. It should be an issue for Mulcair to decide on his own without external pressure.

adma

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Former Ontario MPP Elie Martel and former MP Ernie Epp, both from Northen Ontario, have endorsed Mulcair today.

I'm wondering about Elie's daughter and son-in-law (esp. now that the son-in-law's initial endorsement withdrew)

Howard

Looks like Mulcair decided to put Harper on notice, that he will not tolerate any attacks from the PMO, without a hearty response. link

After reading the article, I feel a bit like Harper just walked into a gun fight, holding a banana.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

Howard wrote:

I'm guessing Mulcair is going to let this one slide. He probably doesn't see the dual citizenship attack as enough of a threat to distract him from his mostly upbeat and positive leadership campaign. In fact, he might make some comment about hope, optimism, and love. I will remember this one for the next time I meet a Liberal that wants to tell me about how great (and renewed or similar to the NDP) their party is.

That would be a mistake.  A lot of NDP members want to know how our next leader is going to respond to attacks from Harper.  This is a good opportunity for Mulcair to show us his chops.

Based on Howard's link above, I think he's handling it well.

Howard

It will be interesting to see what Pat Martin, Tony Martin, and Peter Stoffer will say about this. I think they were wrong all along and I would like to hear them say it if they agree.

I still think a positive approach on the part of Mulcair would have been better at this point. IF! Mulcair were to win the NDP leadership he would have plenty of opportunities to spar with Harper.

ETA: I also noted the NDP is not letting the LSD issue go. Seems like the party is making an active point of not letting anything slide, and fighting for what the party believes in. This is a curious strategy given how spineless the Liberals were. At the same time, the NDP has to avoid falling into the morass of negativity generated by Stephen Harper.

dacckon dacckon's picture

I think Peter Stoffer's comment describes it best, its the perception of a future perceived conflict of interest.

 

And we would imagine what commentary could be made if a Canadian party leader also held American citizenship... its not a pretty sight in terms of politics.

Nevertheless, Mulcair's response has been excellent. One question remains however: I had no idea that Mulcair was a dual citizen in the first place...  Was this information in his own bio?  I don't remember reading about this.

And perhaps another question that should be asked is whether or not any of the candidates have anything else that they should let members know now instead finding out later? Don't make me quote the knowing is 1/2 the battle garbage from that wretched cartoon s-, you get the point.

Gaian

dacckon wrote:

I think Peter Stoffer's comment describes it best, its the perception of a future perceived conflict of interest.

 

And we would imagine what commentary could be made if a Canadian party leader also held American citizenship... its not a pretty sight in terms of politics.

Nevertheless, Mulcair's response has been excellent. One question remains however: I had no idea that Mulcair was a dual citizen in the first place...  Was this information in his own bio?  I don't remember reading about this.

And perhaps another question that should be asked is whether or not any of the candidates have anything else that they should let members know now instead finding out later? Don't make me quote the knowing is 1/2 the battle garbage from that wretched cartoon s-, you get the point.

"Mulcair's wife, Catherine, was born in France and is a citizen of both France and Canada, as are their two children. As the spouse of a French citizen, Mulcair, who was born in Ottawa, was entitled to apply for French citizenship himself.

Mulcair said he did so 20 years ago after an unsettling incident at Spain's Madrid airport, where he was separated for 30 minutes from his wife and two then-young children because he was travelling on a Canadian passport while they had both Canadian and French passports.

"Frankly, it sent a shiver down my spine not to have the same travel documents as my kids and my wife." "
---------
And such a human, straight-up response.

Steve will be kicking his ass tonight, knowing he talked himself into a corner. It's all very heartening.

janfromthebruce

Thomas did very well in his response. I like that he responded to Rae's "side smear of Jack" with evoking what Jack said in the past and Jack not being able to respond - good for Thomas to share his conversation with Jack where Jack renounced his public pronouncement on the issue - of course Thomas has credibility on Jack's word!

Howard

Québec media is running with a translation of the headline "'Only a Canadian' fine for PM, says Harper" but the translation is poor and it has come out as more precisely: only a Canadian can occupy the post of PM. Also, the piece with Mulcair responding to Harper (linked above) is running coast-to-coast in the English media. I think Harper and his crew have made a major strategic blunder. They probably thought it was low risk to take a poke, now they are looking like they are trying to strip Mulcair of his Canadian citizenship.

Mulcair has been signaling for a while now that he intends to contrast his defence of Canada in the Québec sovereignty debate with Harper's signature on the build a "firewall" around Alberta letter. This will not end well for Harper, if he continues down this path.

Pages

Topic locked