NDP Leadership 84

125 posts / 0 new
Last post
flight from kamakura

i very very much doubt that anyone from topp's paid campaign made the call, indeed, i find it highly unlikely that topp even has a montreal office from which people would make calls.  if it was a montreal number and the person sounded at all professional, it was probably issue from the famously affordable opinionsearch.  what would have happened in this case is that the worker would have had a script, but may well have gone off script based on his/her own views, or even just what they'd heard from the last person they talked with.

most likely, topp's campaign manager (is it himself?) has volunteers calling from either their own portable phones (which would explain the montreal number as a local number from a recent transplant to montreal, almost certainly from bc or ontario) or google chat/skype/a paid hosting service (which would explain the montreal number as a clever ploy to make contacts believe that the call originated from a locality in which the candidate is unpopular).  so it could have been a topp volunteer calling out of toronto or vancouver, or some concordia student (or, i'll darkly concede that a mcgillian or two also might be supporting m. topp) calling from a phonebank meet-up in some living room or whatever.

essentially, you can't blame the candidate for a call like this, he couldn't have had anything to do with it, and every campaign attracts supporters who'll apply pressure in whatever ways they believe may benefit their candidate the most.

mark_alfred

Interesting.  In one of the CBC Radio news reports on this leadership race, the news anchor described the last debate by saying it was basically a "pillow-fight"*, mentioning that this was basically how the whole leadership race had been.  Given that this is the perspective of the outside world, it's fascinating that posters here on Babble are describing the leadership race as "a dirty game" sullied by big money.  Regarding money, the spending limit of 500Gs for this long race is peanuts compared to other comparable races (IE, I don't anticipate seeing many television advertisements by any of the candidates during the SuperBowl).

___

* right after the debate, they did say "the gloves came off" reporting a couple of the exchanges, but later they did actually refer to it as a "pillow-fight".

 

Stockholm

Bärlüer wrote:

Three possibilities: 1) that staffer was so stratospherically incompetent as to not know that Saganash is perfectly fluent in French (or confusing Saganash with another candidate or something); 2) that staffer decided to go off-script and lie about another candidate; 3) the lie was actually in the script and emanated from the campaign.

In any case, it's pretty sad.

[ETA: posted this before reading the above BT post.]

On top of all that, it really makes no strategic sense whatsoever for Topp (Or any other leading candidate)'s campaign to diss Saganash of all people. This is a preferential ballot, the conventional wisdom is that Saganash is very very very unlikely to make it to the final count. If I was calling as a Topp volunteer and came across a Saganash supporter, my tactic would be to praise Romeo to the moon and ask the person to consider making Topp their second choice.

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:
If I was calling as a Topp volunteer and came across a Saganash supporter, my tactic would be to praise Romeo to the moon and ask the person to consider making Topp their second choice.

Brilliant! Any fuckin' lie will do when the stakes are that high, eh? Can you help with tips for this "How to Beat the Shit out of the Other Candidates" manual I'm compiling please? There are many others here I'm sure with some valuable battlefield strategems.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Stockholm wrote:

This is a preferential ballot, the conventional wisdom is that Saganash is very very very unlikely to make it to the final count.

What bullshit is this???

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:
Given that this is the perspective of the outside world, it's fascinating that posters here on Babble are describing the leadership race as "a dirty game" sullied by big money. 

"Big money"? Got any quotes to that effect?

The pathetic joke is that it's all a small-stakes cheapsville imitation of what the real bigshots do. That's what makes it so horrifying that these people call themselves progressive. They don't even do corruption well.

 

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

This is a preferential ballot, the conventional wisdom is that Saganash is very very very unlikely to make it to the final count.

What bullshit is this???

It's not bullshit, BB. It's the real thing. Cold-blooded a-moral political calculation of the lowest sort. Don't blame Stock. He's probably quite right.

 

Stockholm

Unionist wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
If I was calling as a Topp volunteer and came across a Saganash supporter, my tactic would be to praise Romeo to the moon and ask the person to consider making Topp their second choice.

Brilliant! Any fuckin' lie will do when the stakes are that high, eh? Can you help with tips for this "How to Beat the Shit out of the Other Candidates" manual I'm compiling please? There are many others here I'm sure with some valuable battlefield strategems.

 

 

It wouldn't be a lie. I (and just about everyone else in the NDP) absolutely adore Romeo Saganash and if I was a supporter of any of the other seven candidates I would honored if any of his supporters would make my preferred candidate their second choice. I don't see what your problem is with that. 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

It's such a fucked-up thing for someone to say, especially at this stage.

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
If I was calling as a Topp volunteer and came across a Saganash supporter, my tactic would be to praise Romeo to the moon and ask the person to consider making Topp their second choice.

Brilliant! Any fuckin' lie will do when the stakes are that high, eh? Can you help with tips for this "How to Beat the Shit out of the Other Candidates" manual I'm compiling please? There are many others here I'm sure with some valuable battlefield strategems.

 

 

It wouldn't be a lie. I (and just about everyone else in the NDP) absolutely adore Romeo Saganash and if I was a supporter of any of the other seven candidates I would honored if any of his supporters would make my preferred candidate their second choice. I don't see what your problem is with that. 

Because, Stockholm, you correctly called it a "tactic", didn't you? And that's exactly what it is. I give you credit for honesty. Don't start up now with how it also happens to be "the truth". Truth is at best a secondary consideration when you're an X supporter happening upon a Y supporter. The aim is bait, switch, duck, manoeuvre, neutralize, and if you can't, then go for the kill.

 

Stockholm

People running for public office employ tactics and strategies!!! I'm shocked SHOCKED to learn this!

Wilf Day

Unionist wrote:

Stockholm, you correctly called it a "tactic", didn't you? And that's exactly what it is. I give you credit for honesty. Don't start up now with how it also happens to be "the truth".

I suspect you could look up a quote from Sun Tsu and/or Mao Ze Dong that honesty is the best tactic, and honesty is the best strategy too.

Unionist

Wilf Day wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Stockholm, you correctly called it a "tactic", didn't you? And that's exactly what it is. I give you credit for honesty. Don't start up now with how it also happens to be "the truth".

I suspect you could look up a quote from Sun Tsu and/or Mao Ze Dong that honesty is the best tactic, and honesty is the best strategy too.

An old schoolfriend tried to sell me insurance once. I told him that honesty was the best policy.

 

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

People running for public office employ tactics and strategies!!! I'm shocked SHOCKED to learn this!

The NDP "family" are employing them against each other - with your enthusiastic encouragement. We need a kind of politics far newer than anything Niki Ashton has in her script.

 

Stockholm

I give Jo. I'm not going to waste all night trying to answer these "when did you stop beating your wife?"-type questions.

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:

The pathetic joke is that it's all a small-stakes cheapsville imitation of what the real bigshots do. That's what makes it so horrifying that these people call themselves progressive. They don't even do corruption well.

It is a contest to distinguish oneself as the best to lead a political party, with fundraising, volunteers, statements, and sometimes errors.  That said, I thought it was pretty decent of Topp to take responsibility for the phonecall his volunteer made to writer and apologize and set the record straight. 

And so far, in this campaign, I feel all the leadership candidates have been very decent.  Candidates spend most of their time promoting their vision of leadership for the party and policy for the country, rather than personally attacking each other as is common in other political parties' races.  The race so far has been a good reflection of the NDP and its values.

socialdemocrati...

If you're horrified that politics involves tactics, strategies, and a lot of self-serving assholes... spare us the outrage and go firebomb something. We'll be happier and so will you.

 

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

I give Jo. I'm not going to waste all night trying to answer these "when did you stop beating your wife?"-type questions.

Good night, Stock. And I wasn't asking you any questions. I was evaluating your answers.

And mark_alfred, pay attention to what Stock says, please. It's reality. And just wait until the balloting starts. But I'm sure there won't be any private discussions and deals (or haven't been already), because it's really all so decent and collegial.

 

Unionist

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

If you're horrified that politics involves tactics, strategies, and a lot of self-serving assholes... spare us the outrage and go firebomb something. We'll be happier and so will you.

 

Please retract that. I don't make horrendous personal attacks, not even against people who make statements like that. Retract it, please.

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

Hahaha. You call this a political party? Bunch of fucking opportunists drooling at the prospect of becoming prime minister.

A six month race to see who gets to rule the roost. They should all be expelled. They don't give a damn about the people. Reading from scripts, playing their transparent little tactical games, lying.

If they had any feeling for the so-called "families" that they ludicrously claim to represent, they would gather in a room and agree which of the 8 should lead the party, then 7 of them drop out. When hell freezes over, right? Every one of them is better than all the others.

Sorry, I just had a moment where I thought telling the truth wouldn't hurt.

Is this a serious suggestion?  Eight movers and shakers go into a room and then tell the rest of us who's in charge?  You seem to be promoting this as good process.

Chatbrat

Having run many a phone bank I know first hand that sometimes well intentioned callers make mistakes or say things they should not.  Brian would not endorse a call like the one about Romeo nor would his campaign team.  He apologized - let's move on folks.

Unionist

wage zombie wrote:

Is this a serious suggestion?  Eight movers and shakers go into a room and then tell the rest of us who's in charge?  You seem to be promoting this as good process.

No. Not "tell the rest of us who's in charge". Tell the rest of us which of them is best suited to be the leader. Develop a consensus on that. Some of them could even bow out after the exercise. Give it a try. Sounds radical, right? Consensus for the best interests of the party, rather than competition? If it doesn't work, fine. But why would you be so hostile to the notion?

 

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

No. Not "tell the rest of us who's in charge". Tell the rest of us which of them is best suited to be the leader. Develop a consensus on that. Some of them could even bow out after the exercise. Give it a try. Sounds radical, right? Consensus for the best interests of the party, rather than competition? If it doesn't work, fine. But why would you be so hostile to the notion?

It does indeed sound radical--which is not in and of itself a negative.  I think a cross country leadership decision may strain the consensus process, especially given the number of people who are not familiar with working this way.

I am not hostile to the notion, I am asking you if your suggestion was one you are willing to defend.  If it's something you want to promote, I'm willing to engage, as I'm also interested in better and novel processes.

But I don't understand your position.  When candidates demonstrate how they would present policy, you feel this is disrespectful to a membership that ought to be democratically deciding policy.

Choosing a leader involves also choosing the approach.  I feel members should have a say in the approach.  I'm glad that every member gets to be involved in choosing our approach.  I don't think that should be decided for us.

I think these candidates/campaigns are largely doing what they think they're supposed to-- selling memberships, presenting party policy, promoting the party across Canada, etc.  It may not be very innovative, or edgy.  I think we could use a lot more innovation and edge--but that's an entirely different discussion.

I was surprised that you saw hostility in my post, and even moreso given the post I was responding to.

wage zombie

Are you talking about a different process than Ignatieff's coronation?  Everyone agreed Dion had to step down.  Then everyone agreed that they would need a new leader.  Then a small group of decision makers, including Bob Rae, decided that the best thing for Canadians was for Ignatieff to become leader.  Because of the shaky minority situation, the Liberals decided that having a real leadership race wouldn't serve the people.  Bob Rae stood aside so that Ignatieff could step up.

Then that small group of decision makers told everybody else.  And everybody said "Great!  He's the next Pierre Trudeau!"

Then Ignatieff became leader and scrapped the coalition.

 

mark_alfred

Here's a thought I had about the last debate.  When I saw the exchange between Mulcair and Dewar over bulk-water exchanges, where Mulcair got annoyed and delivered an angry retort to Dewar, I thought (and previously posted on Babble) that I found it "weird".  Various Mulcair supporters stated that it was great, and not "weird", and pointed to a Lawrence Martin article in the Globe (LM is a known fan of Mulcair).

My feeling is that anger-fueled dramatic retorts in debates don't win over the general viewer.  Political pundits and fans of the candidate usually like such retorts, but not general viewers.  For instance, in the election debate that had Stockwell Day, he responded to suggestions that he favoured two-tier health care by stating that he has been very clear about not favouring it and was amazed that the opposition still was asking about this.  He then said that to make sure the opposition understood, he would make it simple for them, upon which he made a sign on a paper that said something like No Two Tier Health Care.  Pundits and fans of his thought 'wow, he really showed them -- he truly put them in their place.'  But everyone else just found it weird.  Likewise with Mulcair's irritated declaration toward Dewar.  Pundits and fans liked it, but I feel stuff like that turns off regular voters. Mulcair is apparently prone to this sort of thing.

Compare it to when Mulcair tried to bait Cullen into exploding by suggesting he previously had said something outlandishly stupid along the lines of Newt Gingrich's moonbase comments.  Cullen made a light dismissive reference to Mulcair's "Newt comment", and then answered the question.  Far better than delivering an angry retort, I feel, which just weirds out the regular viewer.

 

Unionist

WZ, I said this at the very beginning of NDP Leadership Thread 5000000. I questioned why all these people thought they would be the best. I questioned what gave them the notion - or the right - to individually make up policy and run on that. I still do. Yes of course I'm willing to defend the process I outlined. And when I said "why would you be so hostile to the notion?" I meant "hostile" as "opposed" - which I clearly thought you were. I didn't mean "hostile" the way some babblers are hostile to all the candidates except "their own".

Unfortunately, in these threads, you're not allowed to discuss topics of the kind that I'm raising. You're only allowed to talk about what the individual candidates are doing - the brilliant ideas they come up with - their terrible gaffes - whether they look better with or without glasses - and so on. It's accepted as the way things are done. I don't accept it.

 

CanadaApple

mark_alfred wrote:

My feeling is that anger-fueled dramatic retorts in debates don't win over the general viewer.  Political pundits and fans of the candidate usually like such retorts, but not general viewers.  For instance, in the election debate that had Stockwell Day, he responded to suggestions that he favoured two-tier health care by stating that he has been very clear about not favouring it and was amazed that the opposition still was asking about this.  He then said that to make sure the opposition understood, he would make it simple for them, upon which he made a sign on a paper that said something like No Two Tier Health Care.  Pundits and fans of his thought 'wow, he really showed them -- he truly put them in their place.'  But everyone else just found it weird.  Likewise with Mulcair's irritated declaration toward Dewar.  Pundits and fans liked it, but I feel stuff like that turns off regular voters. Mulcair is apparently prone to this sort of thing.

I didn't think it was "weird" or "great", just that it stood out since Mulcair hadn't really shown that side of himself before in the debates (at least the ones I've seen). Though I agree that for the average person, it can turn them away.

 

socialdemocrati...

Unionist wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

If you're horrified that politics involves tactics, strategies, and a lot of self-serving assholes... spare us the outrage and go firebomb something. We'll be happier and so will you.

 

Please retract that. I don't make horrendous personal attacks, not even against people who make statements like that. Retract it, please.

I'll retract it. But it wasn't a personal attack. You have a horrible sense of humor and take yourself way too seriously -- that might be considered a personal attack.

Unionist

Thank you.

By the way, I think you look good in glasses.

 

Wilf Day

Unionist wrote:
I questioned why all these people thought they would be the best.

There were exceptions: Joe Comartin, Peter Julian, and Megan Leslie, but none of them have helped us make the choice.

socialdemocrati...

Winning a debate is always about winning the audience. Wimps lose. Assholes lose. Robots lose. Idiots lose. Winning the audience is a delicate balancing act, or something that happens by default when the other candidates suck.

Unionist

wage zombie wrote:

Are you talking about a different process than Ignatieff's coronation?  Everyone agreed Dion had to step down.  Then everyone agreed that they would need a new leader.  Then a small group of decision makers, including Bob Rae, decided that the best thing for Canadians was for Ignatieff to become leader.  Because of the shaky minority situation, the Liberals decided that having a real leadership race wouldn't serve the people.  Bob Rae stood aside so that Ignatieff could step up.

Then that small group of decision makers told everybody else.  And everybody said "Great!  He's the next Pierre Trudeau!"

Actually, yeah, I'm talking about a process like that - except that the same process can produce crap in an anti-democratic secretive party of the super-wealthy vs. a party where (imagine this) everything is up for broad discussion all the time. The meeting of the 8 candidates I'm talking about could very well be public. Radical. And as I said, it might or might not produce a consensus.

Why - do you think having a membership vote would have produced superior results for the Liberals? On what basis?

Quote:
Then Ignatieff became leader and scrapped the coalition.

Of course - because in that party (something like the NDP, Cons, and others), leaders can do whatever they please. Plus, he probably had a secret deal with Harper.

In fact, I always thought Dion (whom I kind of like, notwithstanding his position on Québec's right to self-determination) was doing somewhat of a solo flight in getting involved in the coalition. Leaders can do that, you know. Once Harper ordered his servant in Rideau to thwart the will of Parliament, the powers behind the Liberal throne heaved a sigh of relief and dumped Dion. After that, they couldn't leave anything to chance.

That's why babblers, and everyone else, pay so much attention to the "platforms" and "planks" and "policy papers" that the candidates dutifully issue. They know that once a leader is elected, they can do whatever they want.

 

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:

 I questioned what gave them the notion - or the right - to individually make up policy and run on that.

The NDP Constitution states, "Conventions are the supreme governing body of the Party and shall have final authority in all matters of federal policy, program and constitution."  So, I don't think you have to worry about a leader ramming through policy on her or his own.  However, I do wish to hear what direction the candidates wish to take the party in (IE, what policy changes and/or enhancements they plan to bring to Convention).  For example, Layton openly announced that he was opposed to the war in Afghanistan before it was brought to Convention, but this did not become party policy until the membership passed it at Convention.  Layton merely let people know well in advance that this was his intention.  Even though he was leader, it could have been rejected at the Convention.

Wilf Day

nicky wrote:
Quebec MP Romeo Saganash, $17,552.10 and Manitoba MP Niki Ashton, $10,215.

They have each added amazing dimensions to this contest; I hope they don't end up with deficits.

In the absence of any Ashton boosters here, I'll lift one from Pundit's Guide:

Quote:
Gyor says:

I will say you're under estimating Niki Ashton. There is a reason that she is going through small town Quebec, her co campaign manager is a rural Quebec MP, a farmer I believe. Most of the other campaigns are focusing on more on the big cities, except Saganash. I hear she is getting a great reception.

I fully expect Niki to surpise people, I believe her asymetical approach to the gun registry will help her both in the west and in Quebec, possibly in Northern Ontario. Her youth and energy, as well as her strong position on gay and lesbian issues will serve her well in the big cities, and her record on fighting against corporate predators such as in Thompson for Vale, will appeal in medium sized industrial cities like Hamilton and Windsor.

The path to victory for Niki runs through Peggy Nash, if Niki shows that Peggy can’t appeal beyond the english Canada big city urban core she can take some of her support. Here is how I see it going first when Saganash goes Niki takes his northern support, then when Dewar goes down Niki gains his Manitoba support, and if she weakens Peggy’s support enough and she takes Peggy she will drain most of Peggy’s support and use that to beat Mulcair.


http://www.punditsguide.ca/2012/01/battlelines-visible-under-the-surface...

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Unionist wrote:

 I questioned what gave them the notion - or the right - to individually make up policy and run on that.

The NDP Constitution states, "Conventions are the supreme governing body of the Party and shall have final authority in all matters of federal policy, program and constitution."  So, I don't think you have to worry about a leader ramming through policy on her or his own. 

Really. Please explain how Layton announced support for the Clarity Act in the midst of the 2005-6 election campaign, after previously opposing it. Who determined the original and the following policy?

Quote:
However, I do wish to hear what direction the candidates wish to take the party in (IE, what policy changes and/or enhancements they plan to bring to Convention). For example, Layton openly announced that he was opposed to the war in Afghanistan before it was brought to Convention, but this did not become party policy until the membership passed it at Convention.  Layton merely let people know well in advance that this was his intention. 

I would be very grateful if you could provide some evidence for your assertion. My recollection is that Layton made some statement to the effect of bringing the troops home approximately one day before Convention opened, because everyone knew that position was going to pass overwhelmingly. Until then, he had never made such a statement - he had, in fact, retreated from Alexa's initial opposition in October 2001 to Canada joining the U.S. invasion. All through the 2005-6 election campaign, Layton's platform was that the matter should be debated in the House. He never said the troops should just come home, until around August 31, 2006 or thereabouts.

 

mark_alfred

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Winning a debate is always about winning the audience. Wimps lose. Assholes lose. Robots lose. Idiots lose. Winning the audience is a delicate balancing act, or something that happens by default when the other candidates suck.

I agree.  And even if a debate is won, it doesn't always mean that the winner of the debate will win the election.  The debate is just a small piece of it really.  It can help, but the important factors are a good ground-game, decent financing and smart messaging.  Which of the candidates is best to deliver on all these factors for the NDP?  Currently I'm leaning toward Topp, but all the candidates seem quite talented.

socialdemocrati...

mark_alfred wrote:
I agree.  And even if a debate is won, it doesn't always mean that the winner of the debate will win the election.  The debate is just a small piece of it really.  It can help, but the important factors are a good ground-game, decent financing and smart messaging.  Which of the candidates is best to deliver on all these factors for the NDP?  Currently I'm leaning toward Topp, but all the candidates seem quite talented.

Who I'm leaning towards changes from week to week. But in terms of the right combo of talents, the frontrunners (Nash, Mulcair, Topp) are the frontrunners for a reason. None of them have everything. Hence why I'm waiting, and I'm encouraging others to wait.

NorthReport

Holy smokes!

That was quite the incredible conversation writer had with the Topp campaign.

I suppose we can chalk today up to another losing day for the Topp team.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
If you're horrified that politics involves tactics, strategies, and a lot of self-serving assholes... spare us the outrage and go firebomb something. We'll be happier and so will you.

sdm, this is a totally unacceptable comment--it's a personal attack and it's against board policy. Mocking radical politics is absolutely not on the level. Thanks for the semi-retraction, but as someone who happens to have an excellent sense of humour, I can't see a single thing funny about it. 

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:

I would be very grateful if you could provide some evidence for your assertion. My recollection is that Layton made some statement to the effect of bringing the troops home approximately one day before Convention opened...

My memory is that the motion to bring the troops home was announced long before the Convention, and that the NDP thoroughly informed the membership of the upcoming motion along with the fact that Malalai Joya was going to be in attendance at the Convention to give some perspective on it.

Hunky_Monkey

mark_alfred wrote:

Compare it to when Mulcair tried to bait Cullen into exploding by suggesting he previously had said something outlandishly stupid along the lines of Newt Gingrich's moonbase comments.  Cullen made a light dismissive reference to Mulcair's "Newt comment", and then answered the question.  Far better than delivering an angry retort, I feel, which just weirds out the regular viewer.

 

You don't like Mulcair. How you viewed that exchange is based on that. Enough said.

Tried to bait Cullen into exploding? WOW LOL

Hunky_Monkey

NorthReport wrote:

Holy smokes!

That was quite the incredible conversation writer had with the Topp campaign.

I suppose we can chalk today up to another losing day for the Topp team.

I doubt that conversation was sanctioned by the Topp campaign. Lots to take issue with Topp but I wouldn't nail him on what one volunteer said or did.

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:

Holy smokes!

That was quite the incredible conversation writer had with the Topp campaign.

I suppose we can chalk today up to another losing day for the Topp team.

Perhaps you didn't see it, but Brian Topp himself took responsibility for the actions of his volunteer and posted an apology and clarification to us on Babble.  I think this shows both good leadership and good character.

mark_alfred

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

Compare it to when Mulcair tried to bait Cullen into exploding by suggesting he previously had said something outlandishly stupid along the lines of Newt Gingrich's moonbase comments.  Cullen made a light dismissive reference to Mulcair's "Newt comment", and then answered the question.  Far better than delivering an angry retort, I feel, which just weirds out the regular viewer.

 

You don't like Mulcair. How you viewed that exchange is based on that. Enough said. Tried to bait Cullen into exploding? WOW LOL

Of all the candidates, so far I've donated money to Mulcair, Singh, and Topp, since these were the three that initially impressed me.  I have grown less enthusiastic about Mulcair because of his sparse policy pronouncements (though it's still early), and likewise Singh.  Topp's policy pronouncements so far have been decent, and his last debate performance was good -- I was a bit concerned after the first one, but the second reassured me.

NorthReport

That conversation was unbelievably bad.

Any time you have to go off message and make those kind of corrections is still would not what I would consider a good day for the Topp team, any which way you want to look at it.

Hunky_Monkey

mark_alfred wrote:

Of all the candidates, so far I've donated money to Mulcair, Singh, and Topp, since these were the three that initially impressed me.  I have grown less enthusiastic about Mulcair because of his sparse policy pronouncements (though it's still early), and likewise Singh.  Topp's policy pronouncements so far have been decent, and his last debate performance was good -- I was a bit concerned after the first one, but the second reassured me.

Sorry if I offend you, but I have a hard time believing that.

Also, Mulcair has put out three policy proposal papers with more to come...

http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/category/proposals/?lang=en

Compared to the other candidates, I don't see how they're "sparse".

Life, the unive...

mark_alfred wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Holy smokes!

That was quite the incredible conversation writer had with the Topp campaign.

I suppose we can chalk today up to another losing day for the Topp team.

Perhaps you didn't see it, but Brian Topp himself took responsibility for the actions of his volunteer and posted an apology and clarification to us on Babble.  I think this shows both good leadership and good character.

I'll admit I don't know a lot about apologies, but that was a rather unapologetic apology.   It also does not deny that the action described above happened, just sorry if anyone was offended.  That`s a bit like saying sorry my fart smelled.

mark_alfred

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

I have grown less enthusiastic about Mulcair because of his sparse policy pronouncements (though it's still early), and likewise Singh. [..]

[..] Also, Mulcair has put out three policy proposal papers with more to come...

http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/category/proposals/?lang=en

Compared to the other candidates, I don't see how they're "sparse".

I've read all three of his proposals/backgrounders. I'm looking forward to seeing the tax proposal that he says he'll be putting out, since I believe that the NDP must move to end the structural deficit that government is now in to be able to enhance our services (aka end the social services deficit that we're also in), and I'm curious what Mulcair's approach to this will be.

Regarding not seeing how Mulcair's policies are sparse, feel free to compare them to Topp's policies, with more to come...

http://www.briantopp.ca/ontheissues

ottawaobserver

I will no longer be posting to Babble. I've had it with you guys, and with the either non-existent or self-serving moderation. So long and thanks for all the fish.

KenS

Catchfire wrote:

sdm, this is a totally unacceptable comment--it's a personal attack and it's against board policy. Mocking radical politics is absolutely not on the level. Thanks for the semi-retraction, but as someone who happens to have an excellent sense of humour, I can't see a single thing funny about it.

And nothing about Unionist stirring things up in rant mode? Nothing wrong with that?

Moderation?

Pages

Topic locked