;;
Issues Pages:
NDP leadership race #128
Thu, 2012-03-15 22:38
#1
NDP leadership race #128
Thu, 2012-03-15 22:39
#2
Firsdt order of business is a whipping for calling Ed Broadbent brain dead.
Thu, 2012-03-15 22:40
#3
You dont like what he did.
You REALLY dont like what he did.
You've lost your respect for Ed.
All that is fair game.
Thu, 2012-03-15 22:41
#4
Too bad!
Firsdt order of business is a whipping for calling Ed Broadbent brain dead.
Thu, 2012-03-15 22:43
#5
Jesus, I was hoping you had something more extensive than that to distract him, NR.
Thu, 2012-03-15 22:44
#6
Yes, he was only having a senior's moment.
Whoopes, forgot to add this... :) :)
Thu, 2012-03-15 22:51
#7
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2012/03/leadership-2012-roun...
I believe only Singh & Cullen will have the power to "steer" significant numbers of NDP voters to other candidates. That's because they're the only underdogs who've "reached out" to non-traditional NDP voters in any successful way.
Singh is especially remarkable. The guy could never count on traditional NDP voters to back him. So, more so than any other campaign, he looked outside the party for support. If you believe his claims, he's brought in "10, 000" new members based on his appeal to the Sikh community. He will have a strong influence especially on the eastern-Canadian Sikhs...who are brand new to the NDP.
Cullen has brought in a significant amount of soft Green/Liberal voters. But Cullen has made it explicitly clear on his website that he wishes his supporters to either leave secondary choices "blank" or choose based on ones own instincts. I think this instruction reflects his understanding that the campaigns supporters are a MIX of "new" NDP members (lib/greens who will leave secondaries blank)...and traditional NDP supporters (like myself who will rank candidates).
As for the rest of the candidates, I believe only Mulcair was successful in appealing outside the NDP family...especially in Quebec. But his "second choice" means nothing because he will be a finalist in the leadership contest.
Today, 12:19:11 PM PDT
– Like – Reply
Dan Tan
P.S.
The Singh/Chow model is something the party needs to consider in its future recruitment of ethnic voters.
Singh walked into the Sikh communities with a practical message that fused everyday business concerns with social democratic values. It appealed both to their pocket-books & inherent religiosity. Olivia Chow has been doing a relatively similar thing with the Chinese community for years now.
The party should consider prepping emissaries from currently sitting MP's (& even talented future prospects) to go into these various communities with a similar NDP message.
Why isn't Hoang Mai's pretty face greeting Vietnamese voters right across this country? Why is Rathika Sitsabaiesan's smile only known to the Scarborough Sri-Lankan community instead of the wider South-Indian-Canadian community?
Where the Conservatives only have Jason Kenney's ugly mug, we have actual stars from these communities within our ranks. Let's unleash them with a message.
Thu, 2012-03-15 22:55
#8
Too bad!
Explain please.
Too bad about going to be whipped?
Or too bad that I'm to be dissapointed that you wont submitt to whipping?
If so, I'll never recover.
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:06
#9
You know where you can stick that effing whip, eh?
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:07
#10
Nice pace in this thread.
While the self parody thread #126 hurtles along at light speed.
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:14
#11
Boom Boom
(edited) I'm out of here until after the election.
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:17
#12
Thank you Unionist for at least making a stab at honesty about what is actually taking place within the NDP.
I don't know why the NDP even bothered to have this contest - Broadbent should have just annointed Topp Leader, and just like the Liberals, all the NDP problems would have been solved by now. WTF!
.
LOL!
I predicted on day one that this six-month beauty contest, by a party incapable of (/ afraid of) organizing broad popular consultations on issues of actual importance and principle, would end up in a self-destructive performance by a gaggle of greedy self-serving opportunists.
And so it has come to pass. Attacking each other in public. Undermining each other everywhere. With legions of minions wearing their star's jersey and attacking all the others.
[i]As if it's a noble thing for a progressive organization to have a Supreme Dictator who decides everything, right down to whether the party goes left, right, or straight down.[/i]
And now you have the hallowed Saint Idiot Himself, Broadbent, staggering onto the scene in a last desperate effort to prove that he was right all along.
Oh, and anyone who doesn't like me launching "personal attacks" against Ed Broadbent, can consider themselves personally attacked in advance, in florid violation of babble policy.
On a sad and serious note: We will never build a new world in this way.
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:22
#13
Sure would be safer for the blood pressure, Boomer, but it could not remain at this bizaar level of plain silliness forever.
Although, clearly, the mods must have decided that we should stew for a bit.
And the lead violin only gave us a brief selection and then fled.
I'm finding it quite cathartic.
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:24
#14
Today was the most exciting day of the NDP leadership race. 
Revered statesman Ed Broadbent rips Thomas Mulcair on national television. Who would have thought we would see something like that?
As they said on At Issue tonight on CBC, it's unprecedented for a former party leader to rip into the frontrunner in a leadership race.
But what I found interesting was that Broadbent was expressing some of the same points about Mulcair that I myself just posted on this board last week. 
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:26
#15
Don't rise to the bait folks - it is absolutely not worth it.
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:30
#16
Very nice pic of Nycole Turmel here:
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:44
#17
Very nice pic of Nycole Turmel here:
Yes indeed. Nycole Turmel has shown incredible grace under pressure as interim leader. Thrust suddenly into a job she had never expected to do and for which she never asked, and under attack by a hostile press, she rose to the challenge, and has provided stable, unifying leadership at the most difficult of moments, keeping the party afloat in these past months. What a fabulous lady she is.
The caucus has done a fantastic job during this interim period. In addition to Nycole, I think three MPs in particular deserve special recognition for the roles they've played. Peter Julian has been superb as caucus chair and as finance critic; I'd say he's been the strongest parliamentary performer in the caucus. Alexandre Boulerice has really stood out among the new group of Quebec MPs, and has been doing such a great job on his file. And Chris Charlton's quiet confidence as chief opposition whip has been such an asset for the NDP team in these past few months.
Today has been a contentious day in the leadership campaign. Hopefully, however, we can all be in agreement in thanking Nycole, Peter, Alexandre and Chris for their work.
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:46
#18
Indeed today was the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak.
And how much silliness are people supposed to endure at the hands of posters like "TheArchitect" who has consistently been attacking Mulcair since he arrived here. It would not surprise one bit to find out that he was working for the Topp campaign.
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:48
#19
North Report, you have been shilling for Mulcair for a long time. That's your right to do so, and I think it's been obvious from the beginning that Mulcair was going to be Jack's successor. Jack himself wanted Mulcair to be his successor from what I gather. The problem is that the NDP is now facing the same situation that the Republicans are facing in the primary race.
Romney is going to win the nomination in the end whether the Republican base likes it or not, and Mulcair is going to win the NDP leadership whether the establishment likes it or not.
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:49
#20
I really believe Turmel showed constant improvement. The press in its typically lazy way overlookd that fact. She could be very effective in QP. I much prefered her to that bloviating egotist, Rae.
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:50
#21
While the self parody thread #126 hurtles along at light speed.
KenS, are you a nihilist?
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:51
#22
Get lost.
North Report, you have been shilling for Mulcair for a long time. That's your right to do so, and I think it's been obvious from the beginning that Mulcair was going to be Jack's successor. Jack himself wanted Mulcair to be his successor from what I gather. The problem is that the NDP is now facing the same situation that the Republicans are facing in the primary race.
Romney is going to win the nomination in the end whether the Republican base likes it or not, and Mulcair is going to win the NDP leadership whether the establishment likes it or not.
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:53
#23
That's uncalled for. I don't talk to you like that, so I'd ask that you extend me the same courtesy. I think the moderators would agree.
Get lost.
North Report, you have been shilling for Mulcair for a long time. That's your right to do so, and I think it's been obvious from the beginning that Mulcair was going to be Jack's successor. Jack himself wanted Mulcair to be his successor from what I gather. The problem is that the NDP is now facing the same situation that the Republicans are facing in the primary race.
Romney is going to win the nomination in the end whether the Republican base likes it or not, and Mulcair is going to win the NDP leadership whether the establishment likes it or not.
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:55
#24
Indeed today was the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak.
And how much silliness are people supposed to endure at the hands of posters like "TheArchitect" who has consistently been attacking Mulcair since he arrived here. It would not surprise one bit to find out that he was working for the Topp campaign.
Such a shame that I post a comment in the spirit of unity only to find that in the meantime, I've been attacked like this. The accusation that I've been attacking Mulcair since I arrived here, however, simply isn't true—nor is the suggestion that I work for the Topp campaign; I don't, and while I've decided to support Topp, if you've followed my postings here, you'll know that I came to that decision only quite recently. Indeed, in the past, I've posted a lot of quite critical comments about Topp. It's worth noting that in the NDP Leadership 18 thread, I said:
Topp is untested in electoral politics and is seen by many people as lacking charisma and possibly being too right-wing. He also has run his leadership campaign in a way that has turned off many people.
Quite a comment coming from someone supposedly working for Topp, eh?
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:56
#25
Debater-You have stated that you are a lawyer working presently on policy not practising law. Are you working for the Liberals?
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:57
#26
-
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:58
#27
North Star
The reality is as someone has so wisely previously posted, Topp's campaign has failed miserably, and Topp and his other backroom cronies are now in full-time panic mode.
This mud-slinging has been going since the very beginning of the campaign from Topp. Some of it very suble, and some, not so much.
It would not surprise me for Topp to do a lot worse than people's worst expectations of him.
Mulcair wants to take Harper down and win the next election and so do I.
It is about time you clued into what is actually going on here.
I never denied or tried to spin what Topp has done. I was merely pointing out what Mulcair supporters have been doing that is in fact hurting the party in the long run that has nothing to do with ideology, and you chose not to respond to any of it. There are people outside of the Topp campaign who are very concerned about Mulcair too but they are a little classier than Topp is on the issue. All you've done is repeat the talking points of Mulcair supporters about Topp's campaign and have insinuated long time New Democrats comitted to a more left wing vision than Mulcair is should just leave the party. As for what is "going on here" it's more than just the Topp campaign's attacks.
Thu, 2012-03-15 23:59
#28
I still think everyone is over reacting.
None of the criticisms from Ed Broadbent were particularly scathing. It can still be summed up as "I trust Brian Topp more."
There isn't an attack ad to be found in Broadbent's quotes.
You want to know what's going to affect the party's unity? What's going to affect the party's chances?
On March 26th, Ed Broadbent, plus Olivia Chow, plus any other number of senior NDP figures can show confidence in the leader -- whoever the member chooses -- to beat Stephen Harper and be a champion for social democracy in Canada
OR
Everyone can continue to focus on the smallest of differences between the candidates, swear that the leadership race was unfair, that the members backed the wrong horse, and we're on our way to our doom.
Most of this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want to whine about divisiveness, we'll be divided. If you want to brush it off, move on, and win together, we'll win.
Fri, 2012-03-16 00:00
#29
I have no intention of interacting with you. Fuck off and leave me alone.
That's uncalled for. I don't talk to you like that, so I'd ask that you extend me the same courtesy. I think the moderators would agree.
Get lost.
North Report, you have been shilling for Mulcair for a long time. That's your right to do so, and I think it's been obvious from the beginning that Mulcair was going to be Jack's successor. Jack himself wanted Mulcair to be his successor from what I gather. The problem is that the NDP is now facing the same situation that the Republicans are facing in the primary race.
Romney is going to win the nomination in the end whether the Republican base likes it or not, and Mulcair is going to win the NDP leadership whether the establishment likes it or not.
Fri, 2012-03-16 00:01
#30
I think this is the moment when someone turns to the managers of Brian Topp's beleagured campaign and says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhKnEo9ZyEs
Years have passed and I keep thinking
What a fool I've been
I look back into the past and
Think of way back then
I know that I lost everything I thought that I could win
I guess I should have listened to my friends
All the burning bridges that have fallen after me
All the lonely feelings and the burning memories
Everyone I left behind each time I closed the door
Burning bridges lost forevermore
Fri, 2012-03-16 00:02
#31
The NDP race hasn't even had a fraction of the divisiveness, disagreement, or disrespect of the GOP primary. Not even close.
Back away from the ledge, put your head back on, and keep Mr. Broadbent's comments in context.
Fri, 2012-03-16 00:05
#32
The NDP race hasn't even had a fraction of the divisiveness, disagreement, or disrespect of the GOP primary. Not even close.
Back away from the ledge, put your head back on, and keep Mr. Broadbent's comments in context.
Yes. Let's aspire to be better than the GOP. Set your sights high after all.
Fri, 2012-03-16 00:07
#33
The NDP race hasn't even had a fraction of the divisiveness, disagreement, or disrespect of the GOP primary. Not even close.
Back away from the ledge, put your head back on, and keep Mr. Broadbent's comments in context.
Yes. Let's aspire to be better than the GOP. Set your sights high after all.
Everybody can succeed if you aim low enough.
Fri, 2012-03-16 00:12
#34
Mulcair: "I'm trying to bring the centre to us" Broadbent: "You win by moving people in the centre towards you"
Seems they're on the same page but Ed doesn't realize it :)
https://twitter.com/#!/pameladclark/status/180441702211911681
Fri, 2012-03-16 00:23
#35
NDPPI really believe Turmel showed constant improvement. The press in its typically lazy way overlookd that fact. She could be very effective in QP. I much prefered her to that bloviating egotist, Rae.
http://www.ndp.ca/press/statement-by-nycole-turmel-on-death-muammar-gaddafi
"our troops have done a wonderful job in Libya over the past few months.."
Bravo nycole well done!
Fri, 2012-03-16 00:25
#36
The NDP race hasn't even had a fraction of the divisiveness, disagreement, or disrespect of the GOP primary. Not even close.
Back away from the ledge, put your head back on, and keep Mr. Broadbent's comments in context.
Yes. Let's aspire to be better than the GOP. Set your sights high after all.
My point is Ed can close the door on his comments the day after the leadership race by saying "hey, I prefer Topp, but Mulcair would be an excellent leader".
A lot of babblers here are saying far more divisive things, albeit on a much smaller forum, that are causing far more anger between each other.
We'd be so much better off if everyone just said "okay, Broadbent prefers Topp. May the best man (or woman) win".
Don't inflame a pretty ordinary remark. Don't be surprised when people argue for their candidate.
Fri, 2012-03-16 00:28
#37
The NDP race hasn't even had a fraction of the divisiveness, disagreement, or disrespect of the GOP primary. Not even close.
Back away from the ledge, put your head back on, and keep Mr. Broadbent's comments in context.
Yes. Let's aspire to be better than the GOP. Set your sights high after all.
I recall that in one debate, Brian Topp referred to Mitt Romney three times. I was thinking, WTF? Maybe he thinks he is running in a Republican primary (just joking) - but he is such a backroom guy that I bet he religiously follows all the latest Republican electoral strategies. Maybe some of that is rubbing off a bit.
Fri, 2012-03-16 00:34
#38
I recall that in one debate, Brian Topp referred to Mitt Romney three times. I was thinking, WTF? Maybe he thinks he is running in a Republican primary (just joking) - but he is such a backroom guy that I bet he religiously follows all the latest Republican electoral strategies. Maybe some of that is rubbing off a bit.
I think Brian Topp was referencing Mitt Romney to make a point about his tax plan. The fact that Mitt Romney would actually pay less tax in Canada than in the United States is evidence of how little tax the top 1% are paying now—and exhibit A in Brian's argument that the wealthiest are not paying their fair share.
Fri, 2012-03-16 00:36
#39
well, let me jump back in here. personally, i don't think broadbent's attacks will come back to haunt mulcair beyond the temper thing. i really wish that hadn't figured so heavily, because that's nearly certain to be the cpc's major line on mulcair. aside from that, i actually sort of like what broadbent did - he went to the wall for his candidate, and he did it in a way that seemed to me to be pretty sincere, and not really all that critical of mulcair, but maybe not so great for party unity.
the laurier st critiques are going to be completely irrelevant to all but the most insider of types, making me feel that broadbent probably could have done a better job of laying out his case, rather than giving a sort of "bubble" assessment of why the insiders don't like mulcair or whatever. it won't play with members and really doesn't help morale (though i think that a few nice polls will do a lot to change that).
next off, i can't really decide if i still agree with the "topp is toast" line. i really feel like that debate performance should have turned things around and then there came a few good new endorsements, and a clear bump in positive mentions online, and now they've asked broadbent to attack mulcair (and noone else). it's looking like maybe the campaign is getting back on track here to close out, but then the gut kicks in and i think that maybe topp could still go out early. if the guy had just run in 2008 and established himself in parliament and got known in quebec and really got his game up to the level it's at now (or maybe a little further still), he'd be sailing onto the final ballot, no question.
anyway, i feel like the last 140+ posts have been really unhelpful and even a little destructive. broadbent probably shouldn't have stepped in to the arena, but it's not going to help to do anyone any good to answer that intervention from inside the mulcair bubble.
Fri, 2012-03-16 00:37
#40
I recall that in one debate, Brian Topp referred to Mitt Romney three times. I was thinking, WTF? Maybe he thinks he is running in a Republican primary (just joking) - but he is such a backroom guy that I bet he religiously follows all the latest Republican electoral strategies. Maybe some of that is rubbing off a bit.
IIRC, the point Topp was trying to make is that Romney would pay less tax here than he does in the US.
Fri, 2012-03-16 00:38
#41
it's unprecedented for a former party leader to rip into the frontrunner in a leadership race.
In Quebec it happens all the time. Look at how Parizeau and Landry are constantly denouncing more recent PQ leaders like Boisclair and Marois and how Parizeau in particular is always blatantly trying to be the "godfather" of the PQ anointing new leaders (with less and less success)
Fri, 2012-03-16 00:40
#42
Broadbent and Parizeau should date - they have a lot in common.
Fri, 2012-03-16 01:03
#43
I have heard this theory said before concerning Harper so nothing new here. The only thing I say to the PM is be careful what you ask for, as you are probably going to be receiving it.
Thomas Mulcair would bring Harper’s dream of Liberals’ demise closer to reality
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/15/michael-den-tandt-thomas-...
f anyone still has a shot at becoming the “anybody but Mulcair,” compromise candidate, it may be Nash. More likely though, observers say, is that Mulcair wins either on the first or second ballot. Cullen’s supporters are deemed likely to go to Mulcair as a second choice. Martin Singh’s supporters, we now know, have been asked to do likewise. (Keep in mind, much of this will have been decided before the convention March 23-24, since most of the party’s 125,000-plus registered members will have voted in advance.)
But let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that the smart money is correct, and Mulcair wins. And let’s further assume he names Cullen, a fellow centrist and a popular British Columbia MP, as his deputy in English Canada, perhaps with a strong female Quebec MP — foreign affairs critic and former diplomat Helene Laverdiere has been mentioned — as Quebec deputy. What then?
Mulcair has taken great pains to avoid open comparisons with former British prime minister Tony Blair, who held power in the U.K. from 1997 to 2007, after jettisoning the most impossible of the British Labour Party’s socialist policies. But the parallels are clear. A couple of weeks ago, I asked Mulcair about the NDP’s reputation as a party that doesn’t understand kitchen-table economics. “To concede the point,” he said, “we’ve always been very conscious of the fact that a majority of Canadians share most of our goals and values. It’s been difficult in the past to convince them that we can provide good, competent, confident public administration.”
His solution, he said, would be to demonstrate while in Opposition that “we’re capable of running a G7 country.” Reading between the lines, in my judgment, that means he intends to pull a Blair.
Small wonder then, that there’s more than a whiff of fear, in Liberal ranks, at the prospect of a Mulcair victory. Should he transform the NDP into a mass-market party, as Blair did to New Labour, what remains of Liberal support could easily bleed away, permanently. In that event, a merger — say in 2014, after the smoke of the Liberals’ own leadership race has cleared — would be more akin to a takeover.
How would this benefit the Conservatives? Gerry Nicholls, a conservative consultant who worked alongside Harper at the National Citizens Coalition, holds that this PM would love nothing better than to do politics in a two-party system. That’s because, in a standup fight between a socially moderate party of the centre-right and a party of the centre-left, this PM believes Conservatives will win every time — because most Canadians, while socially moderate, are economic conservatives. The Liberal party, because of its chameleon-like ability to mould its ideology as needed, will always be a threat to the Conservatives. But a Liberal-Democratic Party, with the history of the NDP embedded in its DNA? Perhaps, not so much.
It’s an interesting theory and, I think, plausible, with this caveat: It only works if the Tories avoid becoming reviled and disrespected, by the time 2015 rolls around.
Fri, 2012-03-16 01:13
#44
Hit the kip, NR. As long as we can rise before "the whip," the thread should be safe. :) And I've got your back for a bit.
On second thought, good night.
Fri, 2012-03-16 01:16
#45
it's unprecedented for a former party leader to rip into the frontrunner in a leadership race.
In Quebec it happens all the time. Look at how Parizeau and Landry are constantly denouncing more recent PQ leaders like Boisclair and Marois and how Parizeau in particular is always blatantly trying to be the "godfather" of the PQ anointing new leaders (with less and less success)
And the Liberals were of one mind when Chretien didn't exactly endorse Martin as sucessor, too.
Fri, 2012-03-16 01:21
#46
parizeau and broadbent? that's just flamboyant.
Fri, 2012-03-16 01:46
#47
Very nice pic of Nycole Turmel here:
Yes indeed. Nycole Turmel has shown incredible grace under pressure as interim leader. Thrust suddenly into a job she had never expected to do and for which she never asked, and under attack by a hostile press, she rose to the challenge, and has provided stable, unifying leadership at the most difficult of moments, keeping the party afloat in these past months. What a fabulous lady she is.
The caucus has done a fantastic job during this interim period. In addition to Nycole, I think three MPs in particular deserve special recognition for the roles they've played. Peter Julian has been superb as caucus chair and as finance critic; I'd say he's been the strongest parliamentary performer in the caucus. Alexandre Boulerice has really stood out among the new group of Quebec MPs, and has been doing such a great job on his file. And Chris Charlton's quiet confidence as chief opposition whip has been such an asset for the NDP team in these past few months.
Today has been a contentious day in the leadership campaign. Hopefully, however, we can all be in agreement in thanking Nycole, Peter, Alexandre and Chris for their work.
Sweet suffering sycophants.
Fri, 2012-03-16 02:04
#48
We have an impressive slate of candidates, and I have no intention of saying anything negative about the others
Fri, 2012-03-16 02:04
#49
Holy crap.
I have just read the last 150 posts and have a few observations although hoping not to make it worse.
I have not enjoyed Broadbent's comments from the first day-- his introduction of the first declared candidate saying this was the only person who could/should be leader was to me offensive. The latest round of comments have solidified my perception of the campaign.
I believe Broadbent is fighting for the party and so are the people in Mulcair's camp.
There is a division that goes beyond policy here-- Broadbent believes that Mulcair would be an unmitigated disaster and is doing what he can to protect the party from that. Those who support Mulcair feel that he represents either the only or the best opportunity for the party to win and it would be a disaster to not take that opportunity.
I accept that each side is not being selfish and both are acting out of what they see as the best possible direction for the party-- faced unfortunately with the belief that the alternative is an abyss.
I wish I could be absolutely certain of my choice. I would not want to bet anything valuable that I have it right. I suspect one side is though-- either Mulcair is an option we cannot pass up or a complete disaster. I am not surprised to see a tone of desperation as people confront that huge difference of opinion.
Frankly I have never seen anything like this. normally when I am unsure, I at least get to think well both are probably not that bad. But in this case I feel that it is hard to make a choice and the wrong one could be a disaster. I think most of us are acting based on what we have heard or believe or hope or fear but without enough first hand information to be really sure.
I am sorry to see the division but the panic does reflect how crucial I think this vote actually is and how frustratingly difficult it is.
I think we have to be careful about attacking people so hard when they could end up running the party. I must assume since I don't think Broadbent has lost it that his relationship with Mulcair must be so bad that he has nothing to lose. It worries me.
On a personal note-- I have heard enough about Mulcair to worry me. I have not heard enough to convince me that all I have heard is true. I have little evidence that it is not true though. Based on that if there were another candidate I thought was otherwise equal, I'd play it safe and support that candidate. Not because I am sure there is a problem with Mulcair but just in case. My problem is there is not someone else who has won me over to the point where I could replace my risky vote for Mulcair with a vote for them. Sadly, Broadbent may have a good enough case against Mulcair to worry people, but it is not conclusive. Worse, he has not made the case for his candidate who also looks very risky to me. The other candidates look either unready, or too risky or unfortunately unqualified (I have stated my belief that bilingualism is a qualification for the NDP leader at least this time.
I lack the strength of my conviction to say Broadbent is so wrong but I can say he has failed to convince me that he is right and has failed to back a candidate that was right.
Perhaps Broadbent's failure was backing Topp too early. Imagine if had waited until after Saganash entered the race before deciding? If Broadbent had backed Saganash he might have had the money and votes to stay in to win. If Topp loses Broadbent might have to ask himself that question. With the confidence of the establishment, the qualifications he had and without the risk of the others, Saganash might have been "the one."
The party will need to be healed. Let us at least stop insulting each other and assume that conviction, fear and hope is driving us all and that we do admit to a risky choice this time without a prohibitive favorite no matter what others might say. I can forgive those who bring some passion to the table including Broadbent. I can admit I don't know everything he does and I cannot fully understand his motivation.
I voted for Mulcair and would do so still-- but it was no easy decision and I can only hope that if he wins I was right and if he loses it is because I was wrong. I don't want the party to make a mistake and I can't even be sure I have it right never mind everyone else.
To other Mulcair supporters I hope this honesty is not found to be undermining. I have powerful reasons to support Mulcair and believe on balance he is mostly likely the best. I am so sad not to have the luxury of certainty that I had only a few weeks ago when Saganash was still in the race.
Fri, 2012-03-16 02:06
#50
Leadership candidate Brian Topp says NDP can win by not copying Conservatives by suppressing turnout
"So what’s the Conservative playbook?" Topp asked. "It’s to get people angry, to divide them from each other, and to persuade the people not to vote. That’s what their negative ads are all about. They don’t call their negative ads 'negative ads'. They call them voter suppression."
Fri, 2012-03-16 02:20
#51
"Why progressives need guns in a populist knife fight" by Brian Topp, Globe and Mail, February 5th, 2010
It is to say that it is time to fight the bad guys on the real battlefield. It is time to take on their big ideas with better big ideas, point for point.
Like fellow New Democrats with factual infelicities and unvarnished innuendo. "Tis not too late to build a better world!"