This is equivalent to suddenly quitting the CAW and going and campaigning for the Steelworkers,
More like campaigning for privatization. Are the CAW and the Steelworkers in some kind of opposition to one another?
Part way through this guy seems to have decided that success isn't being elected, success is some other guy not being elected. It's a pretty bizarre election that way. "This election, who do you want to not win?"
Anyway, this one is even more pathetic:
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/fantinos-li... Liberal rival defects, throws support behind Tories[/url]
Liberal-Conservative coalition!! Poor Harper. He just can't make that "c"-word draw blood...
I've got a thread going on that one here:
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/fantino-endorsed-liberal-forme...
It looks like the NDP, and other parties if they're smart, will have to start doing a better job at periodically checking to see if their candidates are still 100% behind their candidacy.
This episode makes you wonder how many candidates, from all of the parties, are running for office while not believing in the desirability of their candidacy.
And I think Dolby may have started something that maybe needed to be brought out into the open.
Needs to be brought out into the open? Like 'strategic voting' doesnt get talked about around here, and all around?
Do you actually mean that you think what Dolby did, there needs to be more of, and he's making it more prominent?
And what about the rather obvious bringing it into the open like talking to people in the riding association instead of what he did: kicking it around in his head for at least several months?
And Ken, why would I care about the obligations of Dolby (whom I don't know) to his riding association (whom I don't know)? Is that what's important? Why are you and so many others making judgments about his moral character? Of all the irrelevant (and unknowable, for that matter) issues.
The lesson I learn from the comments here is the toxic nature of partisan politics.
It did occur to me that when it comes down to it his obligations to the people he works with are not really our concern. The main impact of this is on a broader level, and for what its worth, I dont think he has any of those kind of obligations to the NDP. That said:
** Not in your case Unionist, but Dolby is getting strokes from some people here. And if anything, he deserves the opposite.
** What he did viz the people in his association is not irrelevant, and hardly 'unknowable'. His own words: he did not discuss this with anybody in his riding association, and he's been thinking about it for months. Just because no reporter has sought out comments from the executive- which they would not do- that makes it 'unknowable'? You have not just argued that all things considered, what does it matter to us? You've just dismissed any merit to the point at all.
The lesson I learn from your comments is that you are so fixated on the harm of partisan politics that this is all you see, and you cant even look at the merits of peoles arguments.
But I've already allowed that in my opinion, Dolby's betrayal itself doesnt really matter to most of us, or the 'bigger issues.'
I do think that his act speaks volumes to the immaturity of left politics... that people can just concoct bullshit like this in their heads. To the point that even someone who does have obligations to other people- which I bet would stick out like a sore thumb if you were there- can just say, "this is a good idea, it will be good for all of us, I'm going to do it."
Are the CAW and the Steelworkers in some kind of opposition to one another?
Yes! But maybe I should have said, CAW and SEIU (from a decade ago) - or CSN and FTQ - or (and here I'm on shaky ground because I don't know) Workers' United and UNITE HERE. I wanted to give an example of two unions that compete for the same sectors, same workers, same workplaces, raid each other, etc., and may have differently policies or philosophies on various issues.
In other words, two groups of people share the same goal - getting organized against the employer; or averting a Conservative victory; etc. - but choose different organizations at a particular moment as the best vehicle for achieving that goal. As opposed to, joining the boss. Or joining the Conservatives.
It looks like the NDP, and other parties if they're smart, will have to start doing a better job at periodically checking to see if their candidates are still 100% behind their candidacy.
This episode makes you wonder how many candidates, from all of the parties, are running for office while not believing in the desirability of their candidacy.
The two old line parties have all kinds of extracurricular funds and resources for just this kind of thing. I doubt there will be much of an investigation into bank acounts of the people involved. The payoff prolly comes after the fact. Maybe a few thousand bucks here or there, or maybe a windfall job opening for them some time down the road. It doesn't take much.
