I'll go checking eventually, but I guarantee that you will not find Schwartz and Munk distributing money among leadership candidates. It isnt uncommon for rich people to spread it around, but you arent going to be seeing it this time.
Is Bay Street backing Thomas Mulcair?
Fri, 2012-02-24 15:38
#52
Fri, 2012-02-24 15:46
#53
Schwartz and Munk both gave $500 each in December to Mulcair only.
Highly likely they have given more since- reporting period only went to year end.
If I get time I'll scan his contributors for other maes I recognize. Ithe list is for all contributors to all candidates. The EC database is clunky and I've forgotten how to sort on it for Mulcair contributors only.
Fri, 2012-02-24 15:54
#54
The issue here isn't so much that Mulcair accepted the donations as that the donors thought that it was in their interests to support Mulcair. And these donors are not people with the NDP's best interests at heart.
It seems to me that there are two plausible reasons that they could be donating to Mulcair:
1) They want to prevent an NDP government, and think Mulcair would be less likely to beat Harper than some other candidates, or
2) They think an NDP government is a serious possibility, and want that government, if it does come to power, to be led by the person who is least likely to actually implement the NDP's policies in government.
Either possibility should raise serious concerns about the prospect of making Mulcair leader.
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:03
#55
I do have a question for the people who actually think this is a legitimate story, which donors exactly should the campaigns be turning away? If there was some kind of definition to this concern trolling it would be a lot easier to tell if any of the candidates can pass this particular purity test.
Schwartz and Munk both gave $500 each in December to Mulcair only.
Highly likely they have given more since- reporting period only went to year end.
This is completely specious. I have no idea whether or not they've given more (and neither do you) they didn't max out last year so there is no reason to asume they're dedicated to giving Mulcair the maximum they can.
The EC database is clunky and I've forgotten how to sort on it for Mulcair contributors only.
KenS I can respect because at least he's admitting this is a one candidate witch hunt.
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:05
#56
derrick
First of all, this piece is by no means exhaustive. It is very much a preliminary investigation. I think TheArchitect lays out pretty well the reason that NDP members should consider this carefully.
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:05
#57
There's a difference between Bay Street Lawyers and very wealthy corporate executives.
Well yeah, I see "Bay Street" and I tend to think the latter. I wonder how much that was the intent.
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:12
#58
derrick
What led me to look more closely at who was supporting Mulcair was indeed his position on the Middle East. As it happens, I had a chance to ask him a few questions about his record on this file after his town hall meeting in Vancouver on Monday evening. Basically he just repeated one talking point that he adhered to NDP policy on the issue, but he would not answer anything specific - whether he opposed Operation Cast Lead in 09, or what his views were on the ongoing blockade of Gaza.
I was interested to see if any well known supporters of what I would call a pro Israel lobby in Canada were on his list. I did not expect to see a name like Gerry Schwartz on there - as soon as I saw that I suspected there was a bigger story here. Onex Corporation is arguably the biggest player on Bay Street. Their CEO and 4 of 8 (by my count) managing directors donated to Mulcair all around the same date. A basic follow up question for journalists covering the leadership race would be to ask if Mulcair held a meeting in Toronto or elsewhere with Schwartz, Onex or with other colleagues.
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:16
#59
What a great thread. Everyone wildly throwing darts while blindfolded hoping to hit something. Making wild speculations as to the meaning of a few donations out of several hundred or more.
Here's one... maybe Tom is having a hot love affair with each of them! And he's so good, they can't help but donate to his campaign!
There's my wild dart of the day :)
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:17
#60
Oh my god Sloth, what the hell are you on about?
Someone speculated that maybe they did the common practice of rich people spreading the money around.
Nope. Only to Mulcair. And I just wanted to note that was $500 as of year end when the reporting period ended. There could easily be more.
What's 'specious'? If it confuses the issue, then leave it at they gave $500 apiece to Mulcair.
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:22
#61
derrick
I am not actually suggesting that Mulcair somehow should not be allowed to take these donations -- just to be clear. I do think, however, that it speaks volumes about how his candidacy is perceived by some of the most influential players in corporate Canada. Establishment figures always have an interest in exerting influence on the leaders of both government and opposition. That has certainly been the history with Schwartz. His presence on an NDP donors list is fascinating to me. But NDP members should consider the full implications here.
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:23
#62
The specious part is where you claim it's "highly likely" he gave more without any evidence. No one knows what any of the candidates have raised from whom since January.
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:23
#63
Go ahead and laugh it off HM.
Mulcair has done a lot of things I dont like. But this is the first one for which I think it is likely he is going to pay where it matters: with swing votes in the balance.
If he is smart he'll say the money has been returned because the person who took the contributions was not aware it was not appropriate about. He, Tom Mulcair. didn't know about it. Etc.
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:25
#64
But then someone in the habit of leaving gems for Harper to pick up maybe isnt going to care about this indiscretion.
But then, attacked by Harper is later. Leaving be things that can bite you now, that might be different.
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:29
#65
Catchfire
Derrick, for me the grouped Onex donations on the same day is the most troubling part of the story. As I said above, I expect all capitalists who value money to spread their bets over many different horses--so the donations themselves aren't (that) alarming. But the possibility that Mulcair or a fundraiser held a meeting with Onex execs is.
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:30
#66
When I think of Bay Street I tend to picture banks, bond salesmen, and corporations. IOWs, the usual big money grifters and influence peddlers.
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:37
#67
I think its leaping to even suspect that there was a meeting.
We only know there is a connection. Interpret what we know.
All it would take is Gerry telling his pals- I'm going to give $500 to Tom Mulcair who you all know of, for his NDP leadership bid.
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:39
#68
The date reporting is pretty loose by the way. And it is done by the campaigns, or by the party when it receives the donations from the campaigns.
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:49
#69
Rebecca West wrote:
If you guys are quite finished congratulating each other on how witty you are ...
Josh wrote:
Just a part of the "renewal" process.
North Star wrote:
Spin this Mulcair supporters:
KenS wrote:
But Schwartz and company are in very tight with Harper Crew. So it's really basic- what the fuck does Tom Mulcair think he is doing?
Catchfire wrote:
ETA: @DSloth. It's the title of the blog post. Why don't you answer the allegations instead of ... (c) belittle or minimize?
Rebecca West wrote:
This isn't an attack thread. Its purpose is to provoke discussion.
Both sides are attacking the other. Furthermore, the title of this and the Israeli-Mulcair post, the above comments including the insinuation of a Harper-Mulcair link, and the bannings, do not seem to me to be meant to provoke discussion on whether or not to support Mulcair. Instead, they seemed designed to put anyone who questions the premise of these titles on the defensive, especially when accompanied by the one-sided bannings. The evidence provided seems to me so thin and extended to the nth degree of innuendo. Am I banned now?
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:51
#70
it speaks volumes about how his candidacy is perceived by some of the most influential players in corporate Canada.
Alright, out with it! What does it say?
NDP members should consider the full implications here.
Again. Enough innuendo. Out with it. What are the full implications?
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:54
#71
Catchfire
The date reporting is pretty loose by the way. And it is done by the campaigns, or by the party when it receives the donations from the campaigns.
That's interesting, KenS, thanks for that bit of info. Still, would it be fair to say that it's likely the donations came in around the same time? What prompted that? And of course, I'm speculating, but Derrick is right: it's worth a question, don't you agree?
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:56
#72
Both sides are attacking the other. Furthermore, the title of this and the Israeli-Mulcair post, the above comments including the insinuation of a Harper-Mulcair link, and the bannings, do not seem to me to be meant to provoke discussion on whether or not to support Mulcair. Instead, they seemed designed to put anyone who questions the premise of these titles on the defensive, especially when accompanied by the one-sided bannings. The evidence provided seems to me so thin and extended to the nth degree of innuendo. Am I banned now?
Of course you are! You dare to question the clearly evident Bay Street/Arch-Zionist/Conservative plot to infiltrate the NDP in order to simultaneously keep Canadians and Palestinians down.
And to so flagrantly doubt the impartiality of our venerably impartial "Moderators" is a serious breach of Babble doublethink.
Your 24 hours starts now!
Fri, 2012-02-24 16:59
#73
The date reporting is pretty loose by the way. And it is done by the campaigns, or by the party when it receives the donations from the campaigns.That's interesting, KenS, thanks for that bit of info. Still, would it be fair to say that it's likely the donations came in around the same time? What prompted that? And of course, I'm speculating, but Derrick is right: it's worth a question, don't you agree?
You're coming off about as legitmately curious about these "questions" as Lou Dobbs does talking about Obama's birth certificate.
Fri, 2012-02-24 17:00
#74
Schwartz and Munk both gave $500 each in December to Mulcair only.
Highly likely they have given more since- reporting period only went to year end.
Its possible but keep in mind that the TOTAL amount anyone is allowed to donate to an entire leadership contest is about $1,100 - and that can stardle severla years. So it is conceivable that they each gave Mulcair another $600 and exhausted their $1,100 and would then not be allowed to donate another penny to Mulcair or to any other candidate running for the NDP leadership 2012.
Fri, 2012-02-24 17:01
#75
Catchfire
Ok, Winston, that's enough. You win. You get the 24-hour suspension you've been angling for. It's more of a time out, however. I'm sorry if you disagree with me, but you don't get to endlessly needle mods because of it. And I'm not overlooking the allusion to Nicky's anti-Semitic conspiracy accusation either.
ETA. And DSloth, final warning. This kind of debate tactic ends now. We disagree over Mulcair's viability for leader. You don't insult anyone over that, or you earn a suspension. I hope that's clear.
Fri, 2012-02-24 17:11
#76
Why is Bay Street donating to not just Mulcair, but Topp, and possibly others?
OBVIOUS CONCLUSIONS
1) The NDP is no longer seen as toxic to business. (Some may even think that a more equal economy would grow faster.)
2) Some Bay Street Liberals hate the Conservatives enough to support the New Democrats.
3) Some Bay Street Liberals actually feel comfortable with the NDP. Afghanistan, Climate Change, Childcare... You name it.
PROBABLE CONCLUSIONS
4) Rich executives are donating to the individual candidate who is "the least of the evils" (in their eyes). If the NDP has a shot at governing, may as well pick someone like Topp or Mulcair, who seems "reasonable".
5) Individual donors have found common ground with an individual politician on an individual issue. (The blog does note that CanWest has been strongly pro-Israel.)
LESS PLAUSIBLE CONCLUSIONS
6) Conservatives are trying to sabotage the NDP from within by supporting the least electable candidate.
7) Lobbyists hope a few $500 and $1000 donations will counter the hundreds of thousands of other small donations from progressives.
8) Due to the exchange rate, the neoliberal conspiracy that costs a billion dollars in America only costs 2500 bucks in Canada.
9) Space aliens sucked out their brains and flipped the "hate socialism" switch to "love social democrats".
Agreed.
I'd add two things to the probable list.
1) The Mulcair campaign didn't notice who made the donations to them.
2) (In a harsh tone to the critics and the campaign I could say...) The Mulcair campaign is not particularly attuned to the sensitivities and obscurantism of his internal party critics.
Or:
3) (In a non-harsh tone I could say...) The Mulcair campaign is not particularly adept at internal party politics.
Of course I'll get accused of trying to "shut down debate", but this thread and the silly little question mark at the end of the title, has a certain, "when did you stop beating your wife?" rhetorical quality to it. "But, but, but... I didn't accuse you of anything! I added a question mark!1!"
Note: This piece is by no means a comprehensive analysis of donors to Mulcair's campaign, which includes others with ties to Onex and Bay Street -- executives, lawyers and so forth. Hopefully others in the media with more time and resources will examine this. There has already been investigation along these lines with other candidates; this case seems more remarkable and newsworthy, given the support of Schwartz and other high level directors and executives.
Okay, then it seems like your musing could've been condensed into a tweet or something.
Admittedly, I like Mulcair and plan on supporting him. But I'm not pro-Mulcair above all others, so I could be convinced to support someone else. Provide a substantive criticism and I'll consider it. Don't provide a substantive criticism and I'll mock it. By adding that lame paragraph and repeating it in this thread you basically said I shouldn't take your criticism seriously.
So basically if someone where to do a subtantive analysis of the donations, then I'd consider it. Although selling out for a few hundred to a few thousand dollars would make Mulcair a pretty cheap date.
Fri, 2012-02-24 17:12
#77
To be clear, the Onex corporation only connects two of the names. There are three names connected through the Heseg Foundation for Lone Soldiers, possibly more (I haven't checked the whole database, only the names in the article). So it's not conclusive that this is about the activities of Onex more than the mission of the charity.
Can someone send me a quick link to where I can search the list of names on the donor list?
Fri, 2012-02-24 17:26
#78
derrick
There are at least five names connecting with Onex - the CEO plus 4 of 8 managing directors.
Fri, 2012-02-24 17:34
#79
Has Onex done something particularly evil that I'm not aware of?
Fri, 2012-02-24 17:41
#81
What's the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn from these donations to Mulcair (or Topp, or others, for that matter)? I'm curious as to what babblers think it means.
It means not being enemies with the country's Official Opposition, esp. as it edges toward being a possible Govt.;
That sounds pretty plausible to me - especially when Mulcair looks like the most likely to win.
A darker (and much less likely) interpretation - which no one seems to have mentioned - is that certain wealthy folks have planted a poison pill - in full public view, and cheap like borscht - to discredit Mulcair and give some of his opponents a talking point.
I hate to say it, but Derrick's investigative journalism piece - and the storm it has created in this thread - look overblown to me.
If this is a conspiracy by some powerful forces to support Mulcair, would it really take place in full view of the public - and so cheap? Really?
My concerns about Mulcair (among others) relate to his rather uncontrollably emotional and fanatical support for Israel in the face of some mild criticisms. Those are all on the public record (notwithstanding SDM's repetition, in at least a million posts to date and counting, that we don't know for sure where he stands on the U.N. statehood bid...). Do we really need evidence worth a few hundred bucks that notorious pro-Israeli champions like Gerry and Heather and the rest would be ideologically aligned with Mulcair on this point?
Put differently: If Mulcair is the most right-wing mole since Tony Blair, do we really think Gerry and Heather and Peter are better at sussing out his true colours than we are?
In short, I fear that this is much ado about nothing. In fact, taken at its worst, it's the kind of innuendo which, if we allow it to influence our political culture, could be used to destroy someone much purer and nobler than Tom Mulcair.
[/quote]
Fri, 2012-02-24 17:45
#82
Catchfire
I don't throw in with any of the conspiracy theories, Unionist. But surely the donations could be seen that some of Canada's biggest voices in the pro-Israel lobby at least perceive Mulcair to be an ally?
Fri, 2012-02-24 17:47
#83
Unionist has a decent point.
Fri, 2012-02-24 17:47
#84
Yes. Start here.
So some asshole used to work there?
Campaign fiance is a serious and important issue but nothing in your article suggests you've given it any serious thought. What standard exactly are we supposed to apply here? No one who works for a corporation, no one who sits on a board? No one who's ever said anything nice about Israel?
I would love if the NDP had a set of ethical guidelines for candidate donations but the rules have to be a little more clear than six degrees of seperation from anyone we don't like.
Fri, 2012-02-24 18:00
#85
derrick
DSloth, to repeat: I am not actually suggesting that Mulcair somehow should not be allowed to take these donations...
Unionist, Occam's razor: Schwartz and his colleagues think Mulcair is the best candidate to protect their interest or at least to not
at all threaten their interests in the event Harper loses power. At the very least, NDP members and other media should follow this up and ask the basic
questions about Mr. Schwartz and others and their support for Mulcair.
Fri, 2012-02-24 18:02
#86
derrick
Also, Dsloth, if you read the piece I linked it is actually about Onex being up to their eyeballs in the military industrial complex, not about some asshole who used to work there...
Fri, 2012-02-24 18:03
#87
derrick
Or rather, some asshole who still technically works there but is on loan to be chief of staff to Stephen Harper for a couple of years.
Fri, 2012-02-24 18:03
#88
The issue here isn't so much that Mulcair accepted the donations as that the donors thought that it was in their interests to support Mulcair. And these donors are not people with the NDP's best interests at heart.
It seems to me that there are two plausible reasons that they could be donating to Mulcair:
1) They want to prevent an NDP government, and think Mulcair would be less likely to beat Harper than some other candidates, or
2) They think an NDP government is a serious possibility, and want that government, if it does come to power, to be led by the person who is least likely to actually implement the NDP's policies in government.
Either possibility should raise serious concerns about the prospect of making Mulcair leader.
Are you kidding? The NDP is not the socialist party you seem to think it is. It has been modernizing over the past decade in order to appeal to more than 15% of the population; you know, so they actually have a chance at getting elected. This is what Jack was doing, bringing us closer to the centre. It's a smart move, if you are interested in actually making change in this country. Now, if all you are interested in is "leftwing cred", then fine. Have fun sitting on the sidelines forever. I'll work on trying to actually get something done.
Democracy is about compromise. Our party needs to understand that many Canadians find some of our more leftwing economic policies unpalatable (which is fair given the party's historical lack of understanding the economy), but still favour our social policies. If we are going to bring them on-side, we need to show them that we can effectively manage Canada's economy in the world of globalization. Business and businesspeople should not be demonized or prevented from having a voice in our party. We need to stop being so insular and suspicious of anyone who hasn't been "NDPer" their entire lives.
Fri, 2012-02-24 18:06
#89
Business likes to support frontrunners in case that should help them get access later. That seems all there is to this.
Fri, 2012-02-24 18:28
#90
NDPPBusiness likes to support frontrunners in case that should help them get access later. That seems all there is to this.
Since we seem to be entertaining this issue (or entertaining ourselves with this issue) could it not also be that the involvement of George Soros via Avaaz and Cullen is also at item?
Fri, 2012-02-24 19:07
#91
it speaks volumes about how his candidacy is perceived by some of the most influential players in corporate Canada.
Alright, out with it! What does it say?
NDP members should consider the full implications here.Again. Enough innuendo. Out with it. What are the full implications?
Fri, 2012-02-24 19:35
#92
derrick
@Howard, I think it is all in the piece and my comments. I do not agree with your characterization that there is anything conspiratorial about this piece. But there are some follow up questions that people, including Mulcair supporters such as yourself, need to ask...
Fri, 2012-02-24 19:52
#93
Do tell what these questions are.
Fri, 2012-02-24 19:56
#94
@Howard, I think it is all in the piece and my comments. I do not agree with your characterization that there is anything conspiratorial about this piece. But there are some follow up questions that people, including Mulcair supporters such as yourself, need to ask...
Dodge
Fri, 2012-02-24 21:45
#95
The issue here isn't so much that Mulcair accepted the donations as that the donors thought that it was in their interests to support Mulcair. And these donors are not people with the NDP's best interests at heart.
It seems to me that there are two plausible reasons that they could be donating to Mulcair:
1) They want to prevent an NDP government, and think Mulcair would be less likely to beat Harper than some other candidates, or
2) They think an NDP government is a serious possibility, and want that government, if it does come to power, to be led by the person who is least likely to actually implement the NDP's policies in government.
Either possibility should raise serious concerns about the prospect of making Mulcair leader.
Are you kidding? The NDP is not the socialist party you seem to think it is. It has been modernizing over the past decade in order to appeal to more than 15% of the population; you know, so they actually have a chance at getting elected. This is what Jack was doing, bringing us closer to the centre. It's a smart move, if you are interested in actually making change in this country. Now, if all you are interested in is "leftwing cred", then fine. Have fun sitting on the sidelines forever. I'll work on trying to actually get something done.
Democracy is about compromise. Our party needs to understand that many Canadians find some of our more leftwing economic policies unpalatable (which is fair given the party's historical lack of understanding the economy), but still favour our social policies. If we are going to bring them on-side, we need to show them that we can effectively manage Canada's economy in the world of globalization. Business and businesspeople should not be demonized or prevented from having a voice in our party. We need to stop being so insular and suspicious of anyone who hasn't been "NDPer" their entire lives.
I disagree with you about the Jack moving the NDP to the center. He actually moved the NDP from 11% in the 2000 elections to 30.5% in 2011 elections. What i liked about him, is that he didn't sell out any of the NDP principles doing that. Maybe he got rid of some the leftist old talking points and replaced them with a more modern message, but he didn't sell out any principles.
That said, I think Mulcair is a gem that is a pity for the NDP to waste. He is very likeable, charismatic, principled and has a history of electoral success. What i like about him that he is progressive in a modern way, doesn't draw any lines in the sand to divide people. The only line for him is the public interest. However, this donor list is a potential issue for me. I don't know what to make of it. If any other party received support from these donors, i would have not second guessed the notion that this proves a sellout. Maybe his support of israel is what draws these donations? that's a plausible explanation, but I'm still not sure.
Fri, 2012-02-24 22:03
#96
Mulcair, at the last reports, had the most individual donors--but a similar amount of total $ as Brian Topp. This suggests to me that Mulcair has widespread, grassroots support and is not dependent on getting support from the well-off. It's also worth mentioning that none of the candidates are anywhere near the $500,000 fundraising limit.
I totally think it's appropriate to ask questions about Mulcair's policies and where his donations are coming from. HOWEVER, my main issue with the blog post is that it's lazy. Take a look at the note at the end for example: "This piece is by no means a comprehensive analysis of donors to Mulcair's campaign, which includes others with ties to Onex and Bay Street -- executives, lawyers and so forth. Hopefully others in the media with more time and resources will examine this." That is such a cop-out! Do the reporting BEFORE you write the story. If there's something there, THEN you write about it, not before.
Though I am obviously in the tank for TM, I am certainly open-minded. But he's given me no reason to doubt that his integrity or that he is a true social-democrat in the centre of the NDP, nor has this blog post. Whether the post was well-intentioned or a hatchet job, I want to trust the reporting I see on this website, and I don't want to read stories based on thin evidence and wild speculation. In the future, dear Rabble, please follow through with your investigations instead of leaving it to "others" to do the actual reporting while you post provocative, though baseless, accusations.
Fri, 2012-02-24 22:25
#97
In the 1980s, Schwartz was a major donor and key figure for the Liberals, but also exerted influence on the Mulroney Conservative government.
Canada's oligarchy did this for decades from what I've read. They would donate roughly equally to each of the Conservatives and Liberals parties and currying political favour with whichever party won the election.
In U.S. elections, the most well funded election campaigns do not always produce the winner, but I think that losing candidates are those whose campaigns typically lack big money donations.
These are relatively small donations to Mulcair who is an NDP leadership candidate. This is not a national election campaign. I think the NDP as a party still relies on individual donations in smaller amounts than the Conservative Party receives. We should also keep an eye on anyone in the NDP attending closed door meetings with big time banksters as per the leaked Raitt tape of a few years ago that exposed Michael Ignatieff's Liberals as a party controlled by Bay Street. That's been the case for a long time in Canada, though.
Fri, 2012-02-24 22:37
#98
The issue here isn't so much that Mulcair accepted the donations as that the donors thought that it was in their interests to support Mulcair. And these donors are not people with the NDP's best interests at heart.
It seems to me that there are two plausible reasons that they could be donating to Mulcair:
1) They want to prevent an NDP government, and think Mulcair would be less likely to beat Harper than some other candidates, or
2) They think an NDP government is a serious possibility, and want that government, if it does come to power, to be led by the person who is least likely to actually implement the NDP's policies in government.
Either possibility should raise serious concerns about the prospect of making Mulcair leader.
Are you kidding? The NDP is not the socialist party you seem to think it is. It he's been modernizing over the past decade in order to appeal to more than 15% of the population; you know, so they actually have a chance at gettibf elected. This is what Jack was doing, bringing us closer to the centre. It's a smart move, if you are interested in actually making change in this country. Now, if all you are interested in is "leftwing cred", then fine. Have fun sitting on the sidelines forever. I'll work on trying to actually get something done.
Democracy is about compromise. Our party needs to understand that many Canadians find some of our more leftwing economic policies unpalatable (which is fair given the party's historical lack of understanding the economy), but still favour our social policies. If we are going to bring them on-side, we need to show them that we can effectively manage Canada's economy in the world of globalization. Business and businesspeople should not be demonized or prevented from having a voice in our party. We need to stop being so insular and suspicious of anyone who hasn't been "NDPer" their entire lives.
I disagree with you about the Jack moving the NDP to the center. He actually moved the NDP from 11% in the 2000 elections to 30.5% in 2011 elections. What i liked about him, is that he didn't sell out any of the NDP principles doing that. Maybe he got rid of some the leftist old talking points and replaced them with a more modern message, but he didn't sell out any principles.
That said, I think Mulcair is a gem that is a pity for the NDP to waste. He is very likeable, charismatic, principled and has a history of electoral success. What i like about him that he is progressive in a modern way, doesn't draw any lines in the sand to divide people. The only line for him is the public interest. However, this donor list is a potential issue for me. I don't know what to make of it. If any other party received support from these donors, i would have not second guessed the notion that this proves a sellout. Maybe his support of israel is what draws these donations? that's a plausible explanation, but I'm still not sure.
There could be a 101 reasons and I doubt Mulcair even knows why.
Really though this is chump change to these guys, so it could be as simple as he said some nice stuff about Isreal.
Plus with out anything more, thier is no real meaning to be drawn from the donations, because we don't know why, we don't know if Mulcair knows why, and anything else is just letting your imagation go wild, which the real intent of the articial.
Fri, 2012-02-24 22:57
#99
There could be a 101 reasons and I doubt Mulcair even knows why. Really though this is chump change to these guys, so it could be as simple as he said some nice stuff about Isreal. Plus with out anything more, thier is no real meaning to be drawn from the donations, because we don't know why, we don't know if Mulcair knows why, and anything else is just letting your imagation go wild, which the real intent of the articial.The issue here isn't so much that Mulcair accepted the donations as that the donors thought that it was in their interests to support Mulcair. And these donors are not people with the NDP's best interests at heart.
It seems to me that there are two plausible reasons that they could be donating to Mulcair:
1) They want to prevent an NDP government, and think Mulcair would be less likely to beat Harper than some other candidates, or
2) They think an NDP government is a serious possibility, and want that government, if it does come to power, to be led by the person who is least likely to actually implement the NDP's policies in government.
Either possibility should raise serious concerns about the prospect of making Mulcair leader.
Are you kidding? The NDP is not the socialist party you seem to think it is. It he's been modernizing over the past decade in order to appeal to more than 15% of the population; you know, so they actually have a chance at gettibf elected. This is what Jack was doing, bringing us closer to the centre. It's a smart move, if you are interested in actually making change in this country. Now, if all you are interested in is "leftwing cred", then fine. Have fun sitting on the sidelines forever. I'll work on trying to actually get something done.
Democracy is about compromise. Our party needs to understand that many Canadians find some of our more leftwing economic policies unpalatable (which is fair given the party's historical lack of understanding the economy), but still favour our social policies. If we are going to bring them on-side, we need to show them that we can effectively manage Canada's economy in the world of globalization. Business and businesspeople should not be demonized or prevented from having a voice in our party. We need to stop being so insular and suspicious of anyone who hasn't been "NDPer" their entire lives.
I disagree with you about the Jack moving the NDP to the center. He actually moved the NDP from 11% in the 2000 elections to 30.5% in 2011 elections. What i liked about him, is that he didn't sell out any of the NDP principles doing that. Maybe he got rid of some the leftist old talking points and replaced them with a more modern message, but he didn't sell out any principles.
That said, I think Mulcair is a gem that is a pity for the NDP to waste. He is very likeable, charismatic, principled and has a history of electoral success. What i like about him that he is progressive in a modern way, doesn't draw any lines in the sand to divide people. The only line for him is the public interest. However, this donor list is a potential issue for me. I don't know what to make of it. If any other party received support from these donors, i would have not second guessed the notion that this proves a sellout. Maybe his support of israel is what draws these donations? that's a plausible explanation, but I'm still not sure.
I agree with you, this is change in terms of donations. Could be interpreted as good news because he is not scaring the elite. However, these donors used to be staunch Liberal supporters, just switched to the Cons with Harper. It looks more like the israel thing to me, but i could be wrong.
I disagree with you that this is the intent of this article ( or it is a vicious attempt). I like to know these things better than not knowing them. I don't mind changing my opinion if there is new evidence( don't mean that this is clear evidence). I wish that he put links in the article to show where is he getting all this info (the donors, their histories, donation history).
Fri, 2012-02-24 23:06
#100
Conspiracies?
Insinuations of Harper-Mulcair connections?
Who?
The facts are really simple and a matter of public record.
Gerry Schwarz and the Onex buddies are in tight with Harper. The ditched the Liberals for Harper for the more aggresive support of Israel and the expansion of the military industrial complex they feast on. No conspriracies, and nothing vague about it. Its all out in the open and well documented.
And the Onex CEO that was loaned to be the Harper Chief of Staff is not 'some asshole who used to work at Onex'. Its all a product of the close connections.
Fri, 2012-02-24 23:07
#101
Then there are the donations several of them made to Mulcair. Who gives a shit what their intentions were?
What insisnuations are there about connections? For myself, I insinuated nothing, I said flat out that it looks like an awful dumb ass and inappropriate to say the least thing to take the money from these guys.
They arent just any big shot corporate CEOs and owners.