Broadbent endorses Tabuns, Kormos endorses Horwath, how will it affect 2nd choices?

My first choice for leader was Peggy Nash, my second was Scott Piatkowski. I know whom Scott is endorsing. Anyone hear from Peggy?

 

Stockholm wrote:

BTW Unionist - you were saying before that you thought endorsements were worthless and irrelevant - but it sounds like if Peggy Nash enthusiastically backed one of the candidates - it would make you sit up and take notice - so obviously SOME endorsements do matter to you.

I think you misunderstood this comment:

Quote:

... some people seem to think that endorsements by big names mean something.

My focus was on the phrase, "big names". My whole emphasis in this thread has been to say: "Look at the views, actions, policies of those who are doing the endorsing - not just the fact that they have some celebrity - and judge their endorsements accordingly."

I admire Peggy Nash, and Scott Piatkowski for that matter, and I think both are principled - so their recommendations mean something to me. You've heard what I think of some others, and whether you agree or not with my conclusions, those conclusions are based on my perception of what they have said and done, not just who they are.

Not only do I have little use for Broadbent, but please read carefully his endorsement:

Quote:

"Peter Tabuns has exactly the qualities of leadership the party and Ontario need. He is very intelligent, has a comprehensive view of social democracy and has the capacity to persuade new people to come with us," said Broadbent.

Doesn't say Peter Tabuns is a person of principle, of conscience, of accomplishment, of integrity, whose heart beats for the downtrodden of our society, nothing like that.  Even if I respected Broadbent's opinion, I'd still be left scratching my head wondering what exactly he was saying about Tabuns' principles...

There's a lot Broadbent never mentioned during his entire "career" as "leader" and beyond. My point is that it is important to see [i]what[/i] someone is endorsing, not just [i]whom[/i]. At least, it's important to some of us.

Sunday Hat wrote:

This is interesting.

Responding to questions about who the frontrunner is Tabuns says Horwath is his real competition.

 

 

Actually it was in response to the comment  about observers seeing the race as betwen Prue and Tabuns:

"Some observers say Tabuns, who once worked for Greenpeace, is the front-runner along with Prue. Tabuns is flattered, but believes he and Horwath are the front-runners".

 that suggests  to me  Tabuns does see Prue as his main rival, but is trying to be nice to Horwath, especially in her home base. and hoping to get her support second ballot..

Perhaps this is a cheap shot, but the article about Tabuns mentions he is a graduate of the separate school system.  Interesting how he believes the religious education he received should be publicly funded, but not others.

Stockholm wrote:

Hmmm...no one has remarked on the fact that Kormos and Horwath are both Hungarian names. I think that this alliance is evidence of a Hungarian conspiracy to take over the party. Before you knowit they'll have us all eating goulash and dancing the csardas!

Not to give any credibility to your post, but "Kormos" is a Slovakian name. Of course, with my endorsement as well, you can add Poland to the list of conspirators.

peterjcassidy wrote:

That suggests  to me  Tabuns does see Prue as his main rival, but is trying to be nice to Horwath, especially in her home base. and hoping to get her support second ballot..

Usually when someone goes on the record as saying "Candidate X and I are the frontrunners", it's because they believe that to be the case. I believe it to be the case as well.

Your alternative explanation is both condescending and counterintuitive. 

Kormos is a Hungarian name, Scott.

Slovakia used to be part of Hungary and a lot of ethnic Hungarians lived in what is now Slovakia.

I have a Hungarian surname - I have Hungarian Jewish roots (Hungary was one of the most tolerant societies for Jews but after the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire and the backlash against Bela Kun - it became very anti-Semitic and my grandfather left the country) - but I'm undecided.  So there.

Scott Piatkowski wrote:

Kormos' family is from Slovakia.

I'm sure you're right. But his name is from Hungary. Anyway, stop arguing with me, you were my second choice for leader.

You might be surprised. Michael Valpy who was the NDP candidate in Trinity-Spadina in 2000 is an ardent monarchist.

Another example of an issue that I think is way ahead of its time is marriage. For all the talk about same sex marriage - I personally think that marriage of any kind should be abolished and that the law should only recognize individuals. I'm fed up with how society offers all kinds of treats and perks to people who marry - while singloe people get treated like second class citizens. But, that being said I would not recommend that the NDP call for the abolition of marriage at this point in time in our history.

Scott Piatkowski wrote:

peterjcassidy wrote:

That suggests  to me  Tabuns does see Prue as his main rival, but is trying to be nice to Horwath, especially in her home base. and hoping to get her support second ballot..

Usually when someone goes on the record as saying "Candidate X and I are the frontrunners", it's because they believe that to be the case. I believe it to be the case as well. 

If Tabuns is trying to get support from Horwath-leaners by saying she's likely to win is not a smart way to do it. If anything it makes people more likely to vote Horwath since they think their candidate could win.

It's possible that this is a plot by Tabuns to throw people off - and that Prue's the real threat. Except, in Hamilton that's really not likely the case. If he was engaging in this tactic he'd say he was fearing Bisson, I think. 

So far, Scott's explanation seems most probable. The guy just told the truth.

It certainly jibes with what I'm hearing.

janfromthebruce wrote:

Strategically speaking, it wouldn't surprise me for Tabuns to suggest it's a competition between him and Horwath. It gives her some credibility and also might move some people from Prue (who has good support in Horwath's backyard) to Tabun's ledger to prevent the youngest, most inexperienced NDP leader candidate winning if one believes she is actually the competition.

So, your theory is that Tabuns is raising the threat of a Horwath win so that Prue voters will run to Tabuns in an "Anybody-but-Andrea" frenzy?

That works if you ignore the fact that anybody supporting Prue likely has Tabuns as their last choice (unless you assume that the hamfisted efforts to paint Tabuns as the prince of lies are having no effect).

And you ignore the fact that most Hamiltonians seem to be rallying behind Horwath (federal MPs, Councillors, etc)

And you ignore the fact that most people likely won't view serving as Mayor of a non-existent burough as "experience" that's particularly relevant and will likely consider all of the candidates pretty equal in experience (if not in age) given that they all served in municipal government and provincial opposition.

ETA: Except Bisson who never served in municipal government.

Sunday Hat wrote:

And you ignore the fact that most Hamiltonians seem to be rallying behind Horwath (federal MPs, Councillors, etc).

Plus, oddly, the Ottawa Labour Council. How did she do that?

Plus the Kingston District Labour Council, the President of the Sudbury and District Labour Council, the President of the Cornwall District Labour Council, and so on. How did she do that?

 

This leadership campaign has been rife with disinformation about the question of Catholic school funding. If the misinterpreted stand on the ability to debate anything as a party elects a candidate, it speaks volumes about the lack of common sense amongst the voters. Certain camps muddying the waters about open debate as well as the new voting system will make for an interesting convention.

Stockholm said: 

 I'm quite sure that if you asked Prue supporter Marilyn Churley who her second choice was - it would be Tabuns.

Personally, I prefer to traffic in facts, so I won't say I'm quite sure you're wrong. Rather, I'll say I'm quite sure you you should ask her and find out.  I'm almost, but not quite sure you haven't. Which makes me almost quite sure that you're engaged in the perfectly normal and healthy practice of spinning as people are preparing to cast ballots. All well and good, but let's at least keep it in mind when people make completely baseless assertions that they can't back up.

Khan, I appreciate your sentiment, but this thread was more or less going to degenerate into spin the moment you came up with the title. Stock's spin is just the most recent evidence of such. I take your desire for a thoughtful discussion of strategy at face value. I'm quite sure it's shared by a lot of other people, but spin is one of the most crucial components of campaigning. I'm quite sure just about everyone who actively supports a candidate contesting an election does it (Stock: Note how I qualified that statement with the qualifier 'just about').

That's why facts are important, and that's why a 13-year-old incident actually does have some import when discussing this race. Unlike the stock market, in politics, past results are quite often (another qualifier!) an indicator of future performance. That's why candidates should be vetted better before they get supporters that they might wind up embarassing.

The Harvey's story was huge back in the day. One of the biggest embarrassments ever perpetrated in the old city of Toronto. It was an emarrassment to anyone who claims to be progressive in their politics. It was a further blow to a left already damaged by the NDP's experience in government. It didn't just make us look collectively bad, it reinforced in people's minds that we were a bunch of wild-eyed thought police hellbent on punishing anyone who didn't think the same way we did.

Look, I hated Mike Harris (and continue to hate the damage his government inflicted on people) as much as the next lefty. But you've gone down a very slippery slope when you start putting limits on the rights of ordinary people and organizations of any sort (that includes business, I'm sorry to have to tell you) to participate in the political process. When you use your office to orchestrate a boycott of a company, simply on the basis of a donation to a political party whose policies you disagree with, that's just plain wrong. It's an inappropriate use of your office, especially when it's an office that has pressing issues to confront. Things like infectious diseases (we've seen what being slack on that during SARS did for the city), safe drinking water, etc.).

I mean, when Barbara Hall accuses you of a 'witchhunt', I mean, geez...

  Monday, February 26, 1996
BY DON WANAGAS

As chairman of Toronto's board of health, Councillor Peter Tabuns should have no trouble getting his head examined.

All he needs to do is pop up to the 7th floor of City Hall's east tower where Dr. David McKeown, the public health department's chief medical officer, can give him a brain scan.

McKeown, you see, is pretty much expected to do anything Tabuns asks of him. Which is why the good doctor will soon be posting notices in health department offices around the city urging people to boycott the Harvey's hamburger chain.

Tabuns, with the backing of a slim 7-6 health board vote, has decreed that Harvey's burgers are bad.

Does this have something to do with cholesterol or saturated fat in those charbroiled patties, you ask?

Not on your life. Tabuns wants to hit Harvey's where it hurts because its parent company, Cara Operations Ltd., made cash donations to the Ontario Progessive Conservative party. That's $4,000 a year for the past three years, if you want to be exact.

As far as the councillor is concerned, corporations that bankrolled the election of Premier Mike Harris have to share the blame for his welfare and social services cuts.

They're a health risk, Tabuns says. And consumers should boycott Harvey's until Cara publicly renounces the Tories and pledges not to give them any more money.

"This is nuts," says Councillor John Adams, who voted against the boycott at last Thursday's health board meeting.

Nuts it is. And Dr. McKeown would likely come up with the same prognosis if given the chance to read Tabuns' electroencephalogram.

As Adams pointed out, health board members received no report from city staff requesting any kind of action against Harvey's. All they got was a letter and a brochure from a group calling itself the "Riverdale Against the Cuts Committee."

Not surprisingly, the "committee" is headquartered in Tabuns' east-end ward. And, the truth be told, the councillor's City Hall staff were distributing notices of the group's boycott plan in early January - dutifully printed on stationery from his office and reproduced on a council photocopier.

If Tabuns wants to throw his personal weight behind the group and its cause that's one thing. But for him to use the health board as a tool to give the perception the boycott has the sanction of the municipal corporation is wrong.

It's anti-democratic and downright stupid.

In this society, individuals and corporations have the democratic right to make financial contributions to the party of their choice within the established legal guidelines.

If Tabuns and his NDP colleagues don't like the fact Cara gave its allowable contribution to the Tories, that's their problem. Just like it was Tory supporters' problem that unions and organized labor gave cash to help install Bob Rae's NDP government at Queen's park in 1990.

There are some folks out there who will claim the New Democrats also posed a big threat to the public health with the programs they brought in during their five-year tenure. But we never heard a thing about boycotts from Tabuns and the board of health during all that time.

That's because the Harvey's boycott has nothing to do with public health concerns. It's purely political.

As an angry Mayor Barbara Hall pointed out on Friday, Tabuns' action "verges on a witchhunt."

Today it's Harvey's. Tomorrow, who knows who else in the corporate world will be targeted?

And council wonders why it has trouble attracting new businesses to the city to help strengthen its suffering economy.

I suspect if Tabuns had his way even individuals would be subject to checks concerning which political organizations they make donations to. Give to the wrong bunch and, who knows, you might not qualify for a building permit.

You bet it's scary. The inmates are indeed running the asylum.

I believe the race is now between Prue and Horwath. Tabuns has a lot of first ballot support, but not enough to get him elected on the first ballot (50% +1). Tabuns doesn't seem to have the necessary second ballot support either. That leaves us with Prue and Horwath who each have a strong support base of first ballot supporters, and a significant number of second ballot supporters. Prue and Horwarth are the only candidates with enough first ballot and second ballot support to win. While I like Andrea, especially her energy throughout this campaign, I want to see Prue take the leadership. I think his experience as mayor of East York, and certainly his governing experience during the 90's recession, makes him the better candidate to lead our party. Most interesting, Prue was able to get his agenda through even though most of the city councilors were liberal conservative and very much against his ideas. He was able to do this because he was so widely popular. There is no doubt that this is going to be a very exciting race right to the end!

For those interested, the full London leadership debate is available on youtube and nicely clipped into individual questions.

Stock - I spoke with Marilyn too just the other week. She told me it was a hard decision between all the candidates because she has a good relationship with all of them. As such, she was trying not to get heavily involved in the race. But hey, good friends like you make her the focus of attention on rabble and air your private conversations on line. I'm sure she appreciates that. Maybe if she had known your intentions to use her on rabble she would have dished out so much more to you.... then again, perhaps she did know your intentions and that's why she chose to keep her second ballot choice to herself.

My only point is that contrary to what you are trying to spin - very few people in the NDP have the kind of pathological hatred of any of the candidates you seem to be trying to provoke. I know that you seem to wishing and hoping that thousands of people will share your pathological hatred of Peter Tabuns and that some sort of "anyone but Tabuns" movement will materialize. Dream on.

Quite frankly, I don't get it. We all have our preferred candidates etc...but I don't see why some people insist of making this into some sort of personal hate fest. I've met all the candidates (except Horwath) and they are all what I would call "nice people" with very pleasant personalities and whatever Tabuns's strengths or weaknesses might be as leader, I actually found him to be the friendliest and most personable of them all. I really don't see what he has done to deserve having three or four people on babble bouncing off the walls foaming at the mouth because they hate him so much and then trying to project their personal feelings of hostility towards the entire of ONDP membership.

I just hope that if Tabuns wins the leadership you will have some blood pressure medication nearby. I wouldn't want you to hyperventilate and have a seizure.

I, on the other hand, am prepared to support and work with whichever candidate wins the leadership.

That's a valid point. However, the other difference with a delegated convention is that a voter was more likely to actually have met Hampton and realize that he wasn't some sexist, homophobic, gun toting, ogre and that they'd been lied to. If the vote had been OMOV with members voting at home, or in their communities, and had heard a rumour or read it on a blog (had there been such things then) the bromide of actually meeting the targeted person in person and realising that maybe the rumours were false would not have been as readily available.

As Churchill said "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."