Yeah, I don't buy JKR's spin either. From what I've read, Mulcair started going after Libby about the video BEFORE it got on Small Dead Animals, when it still only had 28 views. He caused the media controversy, he didn't stop it.
Maybe I'm naive. but I think Libby and Mulcair will patch things up.
In any case, they'll have to work together when they're both ministers in the next government.
Canada needs more MP's like Libby, that speak the turth about Isreal.
Way to go Libby.
You called it "a speck". This isn't "a speck". This is a huge betrayal that happened, Fidel. It was a complete break in solidarity, a complete stab in the back, and harmful to the party as a whole. It could have destroyed a principled fellow NDP MP.
Minimizing it as "a speck" in order to urge people to forget about it and support him anyhow does sound like defending him to me.
Can you point to anything I've said specifically where I agree with Mulcair's views on the Middle East in general? No you can't. Therefore, you're gilding the lilly in my opinion. This is not that large a prize to be rewarding the political alternatives with given the way our mathematically absurd electoral system works. Forest before trees always.
Besides, if those people in Mucklair's riding are going to abandon him for this reason only, then they were cheap dates to begin with. They likely have all the social conscience of a box of wet kleenex. But that's just my personal opinion.
Minimizing it as "a speck" in order to urge people to forget about it and support him anyhow does sound like defending him to me.
Maybe not forget but forgive.
I got my organizational acronyms mixed up. I wasn't thinking of the Candian Muslim Union when I called them a bit dodgy to be calling allies.
1. CMU Canadian Muslim Union
2. CIC Canadian Islamic Congress
3. MCC Muslim Canadian Congress (a group of no more than 12 people with a website who call any Muslim who does not agree with them "islamist")
If any chance of mixing up acronyms, that would be the case between 2 and 3.
Some white once called me "Paki". When her friend told her that I am not from Pakistan, she said "it makes no difference they are all brown."
KenS doing what KenS does best. Come to the rescue of poor maligned NDP establishment, at any cost.
?
Is it not time for Layton to discipline, or fire, Mulcair for his filthy and disloyal public attack on Libby?
An attack, by the way, that Libby is still suffering the consequences of with continued and sustained attacks from the media, from the opposition politicians, and from hordes of apartheid-supporting freaks sending abusive and hateful messages to her.
Same problem over and over with this split around here.
There are two very differnt things:
One is to say on principle that you cannot go along with [in this case] Libby having her knuckles wrapped. That statement is cut and dry- arguable solely as a question of principle.
Then there is what Michelle said above: that as a consequence of the NDPs treatement of her, she "is still suffering the consequences of with continued and sustained attacks from the media, from the opposition politicians, and from hordes of apartheid-supporting freaks sending abusive and hateful messages to her." That is a statement around facts and what can happen.
And it is wrong. Flat out wrong. There is nothing the NDP could do that would lessen the attacks and filth. If anything, standing up for her would increase them and run them longer. And there is no doubt at all that Jack Layton would then be getting the crap as well. Which in itself wouldnt be bad, except that it wouldnt even have taken pressure off Libby in the process. When you step on a hot button, the way you get away from it, is that you apologize. In this case, that required more involvement thn just Libby saying it. And after you've said what you needed to say, you say no more. You do not "explain." You do not talk about the context, the parts of what you said that were right, etc. Because all of those will just add fuel to the fire.
Now you can say I don't want to be part of politics where that sort of thing is part of the game. Fine. Perfectly understandable.
But don't go around pontificating about how it works. Not principles- how it works. And then use your pontification as a fact, a fact which "proves" that people in the NDP just didn't give a fuck.
Is it not time for Layton to discipline, or fire, Mulcair for his filthy and disloyal public attack on Libby?
There is nothing the NDP could do that would lessen the attacks and filth. If anything, standing up for her would increase them and run them longer. And there is no doubt at all that Jack Layton would then be getting the crap as well. Which in itself wouldnt be bad, except that it wouldnt even have taken pressure off Libby in the process. When you step on a hot button, the way you get away from it, is that you apologize. In this case, that required more involvement thn just Libby saying it. And after you've said what you needed to say, you say no more. You do not "explain." You do not talk about the context, the parts of what you said that were right, etc. Because all of those will just add fuel to the fire.
Yes there is. The NDP could lead the counter attack in defense of free speech and human rights. This is the point. The NDP is not only failing to defend a party member, MP, and Deputy PM from vile smears and attacks for daring to speak her personal opinion and the truth, the NDP is failing to defend itself, its values, and its principles. If the NDP will not stand up against these rabid but little minds, what will it stand up for? The Harpers and Raes and the little racists at Bnai Brith are nothing compared to the global corporations that will bring a media firestorm to bear against the NDP should it ever try to impose the least of its poliicies. And what the NDP is proving is that it has not the spine to even stand up when told to sit down and shutup while these people are disappeared into history. To argue the NDP must be silent lest it invite upon itself more criticism from those from which criticism ought to be welcomed is counter-productive. Do we really want to support through the consent of silence Israeli racism, violence, and apartheid? All the NDP is proving is that it is weak and timid and will shrink at the slightest challenge.
Shalom to you. I am a card-carrying New Democrat active in Vancouver and a modest financial donor to the party. We met a few years ago as you and Libby Davies were walking out of Vancouver City Hall and I was walking in.
I also am a rabbi with a Vancouver synagogue. I lived in Israel four different years since 1971. I am very deeply tied to that land and its people. My son is there now and my daughter is going in less than a month for a year. I am involved with Israel daily and know its realities well.
Unfortunately, you make a real mistake in criticizing Libby Davies for her comments about the Israeli occupation beginning in 1948. (http://tinyurl.com/369ggcm) You fell into a trap, Jack. A blatantly manipulative political ploy was set up to capitalize on a volatile and emotional issue. You played right along.
http://rebdavid.blogspot.com/2010_06_01_archive.html#3002382674389795855
The Harpers and Raes and the little racists at Bnai Brith are nothing compared to the global corporations that will bring a media firestorm to bear against the NDP should it ever try to impose the least of its poliicies. And what the NDP is proving is that it has not the spine to even stand up when told to sit down and shutup while these people are disappeared into history ... All the NDP is proving is that it is weak and timid and will shrink at the slightest challenge.
Aha. There is Bob Rae's area of expertise, the story of his inglorious time as premier of Ontario, which has left him a most vulnerable politician from both the right and the left, a fate he richly deserves.
Good letter, FM, which is why I linked to it [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/stand-libby-davies-part-3#comm.... We really have to do something about the structure of these threads.
Remind us again KenS what it is about the Liberals you don't like?
Well, if anything good came out of this incident it's to clearly show that the NDP are really no more than Liberals with lower poll numbers ... willing to trade principles for votes at every turn ... and with defenders that believe that on the way to power the NDP can toss aside principle after principle, but once in power they will somehow solidly stick to whatever progressive principles remain (actually I tend to agree with that amazing belief, as the way it is going, by the time the NDP make it to power the remaining progressive principles they will have left to actually defend and implement will be apologizing to the extinct Polar Bears, and the possibility of parole for women serving life sentences for having an abortion.)
In any case, they'll have to work together when they're both ministers in the next government.
Can't resist: 
She had the guts to say that which is on many people's minds but don't dare say it. The case of US journalist Helen Thomas is the same. Israel's barbaric behaviour must no longer be tolerated and all those who keep looking the other way have their conscience and hands soiled with the same blood. For shame! The entire world is being tyrannized by Israel through fear mongering and spread of hatred. A country that is losing it's moral compass for sure. We keep hearing Israel's line about "self hating Jews". All those Germans who fought against Hitler...were they to be considered "self hating Germans"? It is no secret that the Zionists, even before the founding of the state of Israel, meant all along to cleanse the entire area of Palestinians/Arabs. What have these people done to deserve this kind of treatment? Who killed 6 million Jews?
Amen.
Aha. There is Bob Rae's area of expertise, the story of his inglorious time as premier of Ontario, which has left him a most vulnerable politician from both the right and the left, a fate he richly deserves.
An aside:
Many people understand the pejorative "Benedict Arnold" and know it is synonymous with treachery. Most know it has some connection to the revolutionary war in the U.S.
But few know that the original Benedict Arnold, Benedict Arnold being his name, finished his days flat broke busted because no one would hire him. Even though he did service to the Crown, when the revolutionary war was over no one in England would touch him with a ten foot pole.
Not even the British East India Company (aka John Company) would put him on their roster and these were not men burderned with a conscience or prone to the entanglements of morals or ethics in business dealings.
But, in these enlightened times, Bob Rae walks the streets fully employed and unspat upon.
This has probably been quoted in other threads...and maybe I've lost track...even this one. But I think Larry Haiven of IJV-C puts it best:
“What’s next?”asked IJV-C spokesperson Larry Haiven. “Will Canadian politicians have to take a loyalty oath to the State of Israel in order to hold office? The feeding frenzy is outrageous. Libby Davies is one the bravest and most honest politicians in Canada. She has done more for a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians than any other Canadian politician. ”
What's happening brings back visions of "I am not and have never been a member of the Communist Party"
Canada needs more MP's like Libby, that speak the turth about Isreal.
Way to go Libby.
Maybe with electoral reform to ditch our antiquated and mathematically absurd electoral system.
But until then though we can count a lot more white males with good educations sent to Ottawa, and making laws and making the big decisions for women and for their children and everyone else. Iows, more old line party rule by phony-majority and coalition dictatorships as far as the eye can see.
If Mulcair won then wouldn't he be looking a bit more smug? There is little that Layton could do publicly to Mulcair which would not open him up to the claim of muzzling his MPs or create sympathy for Mulcair - neither which is in the party's best interests. However, Mulcair asked very few questions compared to usual in Question Period - which indicates that, even if Layton has not done anything publicly, Mulcair is in the dog house with basically no support from the other NDP members. Hey, even if they agreed with his views, they would frown against him doing something that dirty against one of his own members.
Libby did make a gaffe in that she said something that was interpreted in a way that she never intended for it to be interpreted. She did not intend nor want to say what they accused her of saying. It cause her a bit of pain.
But she kept her portfolio. She kept her name on the bill they introduced. She asked a lot of questions during Question Period. She got to talk to the Ambassador from Israel who knew that she was at at pro Gaza protest and has attended them before.
Her party made it sound as if they were muzzling her but they were protecting her from questions beyond her referring reporters to her webpage. If the reporters had got Libby to talk, they would have no need to go to her webpage. It was not in her best interest to talk to reporters and I doubt that Libby really wanted to at that point. She had just been burned and was a bit upset and that is when reporters usually smell blood.
Various people and groups have come out in Libby's defense and public sympathy is on her side.
Libby has enough ammo to prove that her detractors are racist wierdos - just ask Michele who has posted some of the comments.
And the Tony Martin bill (second post in this thread) - doesn't it, the way it is worded, sound like a pro-Gaza bill? The bill makes reference to thethe Dignity for All campaign which says:
We believe that freedom from poverty is a human right.
We believe in equality among all people.
We believe that everyone is entitled to social and economic security.
We believe in dignity for all!
Mulcair's name was not on that Bill but Libby's was.
The real lesson in all this, is that any high profile activist political figure who attends a public event should have a very clear pre-prepared message that they have ready to use when questioned.
The answer to the question "When did the occupation begin, in 1948 or 1967?" should have been: "I am here because I support this protest against the killing of the Gaza aid workers on the Mavi Mavara by Israeli armed forces."
End of quote.
This is really politics 101 stuff.
I agree with that 100%. One of the first things you learn in public life is that no matter what question someone asks you - wherever possible you should just say what you want to say and avoid getting sucked into answering a question as framed by the questioner.
Yeah, that's probably a smart way for politicians to handle issues, but that doesn't diminish the need for ordinary people such as ourselves from rubbing their noses in the truth and demanding that they start tailoring their "political talk" to better reflect the truth ... and in the case of the NDP a real progressive social agenda.
So, when Layton fails to strongly and publicly defend Davies for telling the truth, and then fails to strongly and publicly punish Muclair for attacking a fellow NDP MP with bullshit and lies, it's not us that should just shut up about it, it is the NDP that should have had their political talk lined up a lot closer to the reality of being a progressive party supposedly interested in defending social justice.
Cueball is right on. That's really the subtext of this whole incident.
But when a courageous activist screws up (as she did) and gets sucked in, we are all tested as to whom we defend and how. Murray Dobbin called it a "test of leadership". I am absolutely convinced that if Libby keeps her Deputy Leader role, it is because of the innumerable voices raised in support. Even the best leaders need occasional help and encouragement in passing the leadership test.
No Yards, you seem to be saying that punishment should be done publicly. Sometimes putting out a fire requires that the punishment be dealt out privately. Or do you doubt that Mulcair has been repremanded privately?
Jack Layton has dinged the Tories on their treatment of whistleblowers and would like to continue to have the moral ground on that issue - even if it means that Mulcair doesn't get the public repromand he deserves.
Whether Israel has any credibility left or not, Layton is also fighting against Harper who has publically advocated for the one state solution - that state being Israel. So either Layton agrees with Harper in principle and choses the other state or has the NDP stand for a two state solution against Harper's one state solution. If Layton choses the latter, he avoids allowing the criticism of being anti-jew stick while being able to launch a few attacks of his own.
Cueball, you are right that both Libby D and Helen Thomas underestimated those who use the new technology. However, your comment makes me wonder about how these amateur journalists came up with their traps.
You know the phenomenon of the same words coming out of different mouths - usually involving different world leaders using the same catch phrases but taken to an extreme when Harper stole whole paragraphs from a speech given by John Howard. I doubt that the person who dinged Thomas nor Katz came up with their strategies on their own. There will be more similar ambushes before this is all over. The pro-Israel lobby is getting desperate to discredit their distractors since they are starting to lose the PR war - and a few more reputations will be tarnished before this is all over.
With the controversy surrounding the Toronto gay parade, it will be telling whether Jack is in Toronto that day - or in another city attending a different parade because "his schedule did not permit" for him to be back in Toronto in time. How Jack navigates this will show more than public words where he is on the issue.
Part of the problem here, as evidenced by this case and the recent ambush journalistic attack on Helen Thomas, is that even experienced public figures are falling into the trap of thinking that a cell phone camera indicates that the person is an amateur home video maker.
No Yards, you seem to be saying that punishment should be done publicly. Sometimes putting out a fire requires that the punishment be dealt out privately. Or do you doubt that Mulcair has been repremanded privately?
Yes, I seriously doubt he was punished at all.
Davies "mistake" was something said more or less in private that came out publicly, and she was reprimanded in public.
Mullcair's real mistake was something he said very publicly, and even if he was reprimanded in private it should have been done in public.
Let's look at what these "mistakes" were. Davies "mistake was to state an inconvenient fact, while Mulcair's mistake was to try to belittle, embarrass, and possibly even have a fellow MP fired for stating that fact.
If Jack can stand up in public and tell the country that Davies was wrong for speaking a fact, then he sure as hell can stand up in public and tell the country that Mulcair is a fucking backstabbing asshole that plays loose with the truth (of course Jack can couch that in political speak if he wishes.) It's a matter of what priorities Jack wants to put on what the NDP is going to stand for; Protecting members who speak the truth, or protecting members who offer some perceived political advantage.
I highly doubt that he was disciplined privately.
But you know what? Even if he was, who gives a damn. Libby's been pilloried publicly and Mulcair started the whole frigging thing. And she still is being pilloried even now. And now we're speculating that, oh gee, maybe Jack scolded him in private?
So fucking what if he did, which I doubt. He scolded Libby publicly, let Dewar condescendingly scold her publicly, and hasn't had boo to say publicly about Mulcair going after her publicly.
Again I will note all of these types of attacks have been against women, and it says much, and as i noted long ago now, if 'Muc'lair had ever made to be in contention for the leadership, I would not vote NDP til he was gone.
Thank goodness he will never ever make it that far now.
It was also an inconvenient fact that Libby did not realise she was making and never intended to make.
Ok Mulcair was a fucking backstabbing asshole, as you put it, but how do you think the Tories view the much more honourable Richard Colvin. If Layton was to go after Mulcair publicly, he would face the accusation that he only likes whistleblowers if they tell him what he wants to hear. If Layton demotes him, then all the talk Layton made about whistleblowers sounds like he was blowing smoke out his ass. Mulcair have a very public profile before this incident and, if Layton is pissed off at Mulcair, that is where it is going to show - a greatly lowered profile. The lowered profile is something that is harder to criticise because the Tories and B' Brith cannot prove that Mulcair's lowered profile is due to his statements - if they make a fuss about it, Layton can call them paranoid - ranting lunatics, if you prefer.
When Jack Layton said "Mr. Speaker, our party has never denied and no one in our party has ever denied the right of Israel to exist. Let that stand on the record." he was including Libby when making that statement. This makes it clear that what he figured Libby did wrong was to allow herself to be tricked into saying that could be misinterpreted. Jack could have came out stronger in favour of Libby, but he also resisted the call from others to make her step down and did not reduce her public profile by limiting the number of questions she asked during Question Period.
I see, so you're saying Jack's priorities are more aligned with protecting the image of a lying p.o.s. who actually offended the party than they are with standing behind a real progressive MP whose only offense was to state a fact?
I can't say I disagree with that assessment as it seems to ring true, but I certainly disagree with the so-called "strategy".
I really don't care what Jack does behind close doors, in politics it's what you do in public that counts. He can treat Libby like a queen and kick Mulcair in the privates 24/7 in private, but when he reprimands Davies in public and does nothing in public about Mulcair, then in the world of politics, and to the public, it is Davies that received the punishment, not Mulcair.
The source for the "fact" that Mulcair was the first to bring attention to this video is one single story in the National Post.
The source for the "fact" that Mulcair was the first to bring attention to this video is one single story in the National Post.
The same would be true for the "fact" that Mulcair demanded Libby apologize for supporting BDS.
Here, on the other hand, are some of the many links where Mulcair angrily denies these slanders, sets the record straight, and expresses his full support for his co-Deputy Leader against the vicious attacks by Harper and Rae:
[i][insert links here][/i]
The next day the interview appeared on YouTube. But in 24 hours it had gone nowhere -- just 28 views. Then the most vociferous supporter of Israel in the NDP caucus, Thomas Mulcair, got wind of it and it escalated out of control. He went on a relentless campaign to punish Libby. The spin he helped create was that if Libby believed the occupation began in 1948 then she, ipso facto, believes that Israel has no right to exist.
BTW, people should be bringing this up at every meeting they go to where there is any sort of NDP presence involved in it. It's disgusting, the way they've treated Libby, and there have been no consequences for Mulcair for the way he stabbed Libby in the back and instigated such a media storm against the party.
In fact, perhaps people should be writing to the party and demanding to know what action is going to be taken against Mulcair for this.
Michelle, Murray's had his facts wrong before. He's basing it on the National Post report. I remember what he wrote during prorogation without checking it in Ottawa, only to discover the next day about Jack's diagnosis. He's in BC now, and is far away. How does Murray Dobbin know this is what happened apart from reading the story in the National Post/Canwest wire. I suggest to you that he doesn't.
The key phrase is "Thomas Mulcair got wind of it". How exactly did that happen? I'm guessing that Katz sent his video to the reporter (or to someone else who did) and the journalist then contacted Mulcair for a reaction. In fact I would bet on it. It's how most stories like that break. Tom Mulcair doesn't spend his days trolling on YouTube anymore than Mike deSouza does. People with agendas to promote, promote them.
Great defence, OO, but you haven't quite explained why Mulcair hasn't said one single word of denial to these stories quoting him directly and indirectly. Maybe he hasn't been reading the newspapers? Or maybe they're true?
I just find this a little too coy. Mulcair attacked Libby viciously, bragged about bringing the video to the Party's attention, and exactly how can anyone defend behaviour like that? No wonder he isn't talking. But more significantly, he isn't explaining, mitigating, or retracting.
So what about the Bloc does anyone find appealing? What are their views on foreign(read Uncle Sam's) affairs in general?
Unionist, various people have tried to give you one version or another of the answer: it's because anything that anyone from the NDP would add at this point -- whether Libby, Jack or Mulcair -- would only keep this story going and allow the hate-mongers to keep spewing.
I have no doubt that there was a full airing of matters behind closed doors at the last Wednesday caucus meeting. NDP caucus meetings don't leak like sieves, like the Liberal one does, and it's to their credit. But from what I know from days gone by, I have no doubt that there was a full and frank discussion ... followed by a shrewd news management decision to have Mulcair and Libby leave together, and Jack do both political shows to put out the fire.
Any more oxygen taken up by this issue would have taken away from myriad other important issues like: pension reform, the successful vote on Linda Duncan's environmental bill of rights bill, the detainee document negotiations, etc. etc.
The NDP has a hard enough time breaking through the two-party bias of the press gallery to get covered, and should not waste ANY valuable time on the Hill in no-win stories.
In point of fact, I think the CanIsrael tweet may yet become a story this coming week, now that there's less news from the Hill with Parliament adjourned. This will be good, because it will put those groups on the defensive, and perhaps create an opening to start talking about how anyone who dares to criticize actions of the Israeli government is somehow anti-semitic and becomes subject to a cruel feeding frenzy of baiting. The campaign that's been waged by friends of Libby like Murray Dobbin, and also Gerry Caplan on Thursday's CTV Power Play if you didn't catch it, and everyone who has written on her Facebook page, will have significantly helped make that newsworthy, if so.
And, in case I didn't make myself clear enough, just because one might want to extinguish a story in mid-press gallery feeding frenzy, it is NOT the same as saying that the more general issue is unimportant. It means that no progress can ever be made in mid-feeding frenzy. Things have to calm down first, so you can get people to write about it at greater length and in greater depth (editors call those stories "thumb-suckers").
Also, any continued discussion of the subject matter could take place OFF the Hill, and therefore covered by less cynical and pack-like journalists. The debate could only improve from that point.
I just find this a little too coy. Mulcair attacked Libby viciously, bragged about bringing the video to the Party's attention, and exactly how can anyone defend behaviour like that? No wonder he isn't talking. But more significantly, he isn't explaining, mitigating, or retracting.
... remember well the start of this here unionist, though perhaps you have forgotten your initial coments in respect to 'Muc'lair, towards me, and then you got on the band wagon against him.
Then I asked you which it really was to which I received no response. Perhaps you feel your current enthusiastic bashing of him speaks to that well enough, however, it could also be perceived by the reading audience that that this was just an typical opportunity to divide and speak your truths.
Now upon more thinking about this, perhaps your explaing, the processes you went through when you made that change in perceptions, would help others to see why they should be condemning him too.
Ok, OO, that's a reply I can understand. It's a political decision which one can either agree or disagree with. Challenging Michelle or anyone to prove that Mulcair really said something - in the deliberate absence of his explanatory comments - is what I described as coy, and continue to do so.
As for your last paragraph, I really hope that's true. Sorry to be blunt about it, but the more high-profile Jews, and Jewish organizations, stand up in front of cameras and defend Libby, the more the Zionist lobby and their political allies (Harper, Ignatieff, Rae, Mulcair...) will be discredited. I'm looking forward to it.
I see, so you're saying Jack's priorities are more aligned with protecting the image of a lying p.o.s. who actually offended the party than they are with standing behind a real progressive MP whose only offense was to state a fact?
I think what he said was, Jack didn't fire Libby for stating a fact; he merely dressed her down publicly while tolerating a lying p.o.s. and we should all take consolation in that.
Its nice to know that there are literally three or four people in all of Canada that are still obsessing over this tempest in a teapot. To the other 30 million of us, this is already ancient history.
Mulcair ... bragged about bringing the video to the Party's attention.
What's your source for that assertion? ETA: i.e., both the "bragging" part, and the fact that it was Mulcair who brought it to the party's attention.
Sorry, Stock. I actually haven't given up hope that, after the first blaze of fire has calmed down, there might still be a teachable moment come out of all this.
...and what would you like to teach people in that moment?
Mulcair ... bragged about bringing the video to the Party's attention.
What's your source for that assertion? ETA: i.e., both the "bragging" part, and the fact that it was Mulcair who brought it to the party's attention.
Well - duh, as they say :) - that's how I interpreted this para from Mike de Souza's article:
Thomas Mulcair, the NDP's other deputy leader, said [b]he found the video online last week and "was very quick to point it out" to some of his colleagues[/b] to clarify the party's support of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.
How do you interpret it?
Unionist, I interpreted that as him being alarmed that the party's two-state policy appeared to have been contradicted, and him wanting to reassure his supporters that that continued to be the policy.
Stockholm, I'm hoping that the second leg of the story will talk about 1948 vs 1967, the pervasive baiting/gay-bashing campaign against Libby, and what people on the flotilla were trying to do. The CBC did send Nallah Ayed into Gaza to do a story on the blockade, without mentioning Libby per se, but as a follow to the story. Another reporter (who had previously covered the middle east) asked Layton at his year-ender news conference what he thought of "the reaction to the reaction" to the Libby story.
I think the campaign of hostility actually went a bridge too far, and there may be an opening to turn that around a teeny bit this week. I could be wrong, but that's my sense.
What Libby did is the equivolent to writing "a pubic display of his artwork" when she meant "public" or like a classmate once did when she spoke of the "erection" of Christ when she meant "ressurection." She is basically appologising for making an embarrassing typo - which is how Jack Layton is presenting the issue. Jack also seems to be indicating that the oppology is enough to put the issue to rest on her part - to wipe the slate clean. Libby did not retract her postion on the issue, nor was she expected to do so.
Unionist: No wonder he isn't talking. But more significantly, he isn't explaining, mitigating, or retracting.
It is easier to get away with rectracting if one did not do something on purpose. Mulcair's was an intentional act - he did what he did on purpose so it is up to Jack to make him pay pennance. I get the feeling that an apology or retraction doesn't cut it - that it will be a while before his slate is wiped clean - before he can be forgiven. Even if Mulcair did apologise, no one is going to believe that he actually means it. It would be worthless.
I don't know if Jack kicked him in the gonads but he has been walking around with his tail between his legs. I looked on his webpage and there is no mention of any of this. Also very little mention of anything recent. On the other hand, Libby's retraction has been followed by bills that she is proud of - recent business. And none of her older stuff on Gaza has been taken down.
Jack was displaying Mulcair prominently, but not lately. Mulcair being silent means that the party is not too happy with him because he is rarely silent. Unlike Libby, there is nothing recent on his webpage.
Can you find anything any where sticking up for Mulcair?
I predict that you will see Layton and Libby together soon acting very friendly - before the end of the summer, at least.
Yup, that's what I figure too.
