Are we now saying some caucus support is better and more pure than others?
Sure - why not?
Do all NDP MPs endorsing one candidate or the other have significant life experience and especially significant experience in politics? Most likely they do not.
I'd count endorsements from long-serving MPs especially from notables that have fought for social justice a hell of a lot more than from rookie MPs with little or no experience in social justice issues or politics in general.
HM, you are hopeless. Even when the attitude gets generally better around here, you just cant resist your insinuations... as usual not explicit, but nasty nonetheless.
I've flagged as offensive you referring multiple times to The Archtitect as "Brad".... whether or not he knows or cares what the reference is about. I resent your snide poisons on my own.
Quote: "Jim Laxer's a good guy, and certainly no right-winger, but frankly, I don't think his endorsement of Mulcair really says much about Mulcair because Jim, to my knowledge, doesn't have any personal experience with Tom that would allow him to know anything more about Tom's values and drives then what's generally known to the public."
Jim Laxer's position, of course - and he stated this in his endorsement of Tom Mulcair - is from the historical vacuum of Quebec social democrats on the federal scene. Anyone who has been witness to that, knows exactly what he means. Tom Mulcair has bridged the gap,in Jim Laxer's estimation, making possible a social democratic federal government. There is a strange lacuna on the subject, hereabouts.
KenS, you object to The Architect being called "Brad". Don't you often refer to Mr Gaian by some other name? Should you also flag yourself?
Mulcair has quite a diverse group of endorsers, Brad. From those deemed on the left of the party, such as Phil Toone his Official Agent, as well as those on the party's "right". He has new support from those just elected in May and those who have worked with him since he was elected like David Christopherson, Wayne Martson, and Don Davies. And of course, over 40 caucus members in total. So I'm not sure if you want to keep going down that road. Are we now saying some caucus support is better and more pure than others?Jim Laxer's a good guy, and certainly no right-winger, but frankly, I don't think his endorsement of Mulcair really says much about Mulcair because Jim, to my knowledge, doesn't have any personal experience with Tom that would allow him to know anything more about Tom's values and drives then what's generally known to the public. The endorsements that I think should really matter are the endorsements of senior caucus members and others who have personal experience with the candidates that allows them to judge the candidates better than the average person.
Mulcair was also endorsed by Ed Schreyer, who is certainly neither a centerist or a "right-winger". Disagree with Tom on policy, but don't try to paint him as something he isn't.
I'm surprised to see you say this, Arthur; Ed Schreyer was a good premier, but he was always regarded as being on the right edge of the Manitoba NDP. He's very much a centrist New Democrat.
Addressing me as "Brad" is a bit bizarre. If you think I'm Brad Lavigne, I suppose I can only say I'm honored.
You mention three MPs who have worked with Mulcair "since he was elected." First, Don Davies cannot be described that way; he was first elected in 2008; Mulcair was first elected in 2007.
It's true that David Christopherson and Wayne Marston are supporting Mulcair. Those are good endorsements. The point is not that NOBODY from the pre-Mulcair caucus is backing him; the point is that it's not very many. If you look at the people who were in caucus at the time Mulcair was first elected, Mulcair's running behind Topp, Dewar, Nash, and Cullen; he may be running in first place among today's caucus, but among that caucus, he's in fifth place.
Wayne and David are good people who have personal experience with Mulcair and obviously think he's the best candidate for the leadership. They're entitled to their opinions, of course. However, it's clear that most of their senior colleagues have reached a different conclusion.
I don't deny that Mulcair has some left-wing people who are endorsing him. However, the fact is that most of his non-Quebec endorsements do come from people on the right of the party. At his launch, Mulcair had two prominent politicians from outside the caucus speak: Lorne Nystrom and Dominic Cardy. I don't think that a lot of people would challenge the characterization of both Lorne and Dominic as being on the right of the NDP. Lorne ran for the leadership openly calling for the party to move to the centre. He's now on the board of a group which advocates closer Canadian alignment with Israel. Dominic Cardy has himself said himself that he wants the NDP to follow the path laid by Tony Blair. He didn't just talk about "modernizing" or "moderating" or any of those ambiguous words—he actually mentioned Tony Blair by name as an exemplar of the kind of approach he wanted to see the NDP take.
Double post.
Weak.
Despite having more endorsements than all the other candidates and old goat's dogs combined, Mulcair receives the lowest score for Works with Others. So the candidate with 43 caucus colleague endorsers, including the two that dropped out of the race is a bad boy. Meanwhile, Brian "I will not use negative campaigning" Topp, gets the highest score!
I call him George because he is George Victor. I'm not insinuating anything.
And its not just because I, and a number of other people, recognised him by his distinctive style.
Really nicky, why do you want to defend HM's history of snide insinuations?
You may agree with the thinking behind his insinuations, but you would never do that. So why give it a pass?
Ken, after several thousand unpleasant postings based on insinuation and innuendo, surely you must have reserved a bit of patience, yourself, for the forthright...i.e. "distinctive style"?
Love this picture:
It's true that David Christopherson and Wayne Marston are supporting Mulcair. Those are good endorsements. The point is not that NOBODY from the pre-Mulcair caucus is backing him; the point is that it's not very many. If you look at the people who were in caucus at the time Mulcair was first elected, Mulcair's running behind Topp, Dewar, Nash, and Cullen; he may be running in first place among today's caucus, but among that caucus, he's in fifth place.
If you look at the people who were in caucus at the time Topp was first elected....
Also, don't you think it's a little important to have the support of the current caucus, as opposed to say the caucus of oh, I don't know, 1952?
The last time a leader had a big Quebec caucus that didn't support them, it didn't turn out so great.
Love this picture:
Sunday afternoon fever?
HM, I've received a number of complaints about your repeated referral of TheArchitect as "Brad." I'm hoping you will not only stop that practice, but also stop your incessant innuendo, slandering and general negative influence on this board. Sometimes I wonder what repuation Mulcair would have on this board if a number his supporters didn't resort to such slimy and sycophantic tactics.
ETA. And closing for length
