Thomas Mulcair, the right-wing Liberal, pro-Israel, political bully

mark_alfred wrote:

Fidel wrote:

And I think we should encourage everyone to vote strategically for the NDP next election. Really.

It pains me to read that, having always opposed strategic voting.  It would be another of my life's ironies if in the next election I began to encourage my Liberal friends, who previously had encouraged me to vote strategically for the Libs, to now do the same but for the NDP.

I believe our legs are being pulled on that one, ma.

I have a lot of respect for Murray Dobbin but I think he may be jumping the gun here and engaging in some hyperbole like describing Mulcair as a "right wing liberal" - not just a regular liberal, but a right-wing one. As for voter turnout it wasn't as "incredibly easy to vote" on e-day. I don't think that's what went wrong with the turnout but there were no doubt some who gave up. As for the "when did the occupation of Palestine begin" issue, people made a lot of noise in defence of Libby at the time. He just reappointed her as NDP House leader. That's got to count for something, no? Dobbin makes some valid points about our concerns but makes them sound like fait accomplis rather than challenges for progressives.

Here's my latest blog post on Mulcair. And while I woke up on Saturday morning not intending to give him my vote, in the end, I did because he was the better of the two remaining choices in my view.

Congratulations to Tom Mulcair

To quote myself :-),

Quote:

The stakes are too high to substitute sound bites and slogans for concrete analysis or a critique of Tom Mulcair. There are still many NDP members who don't know that the NDP doesn't have a provincial party in Quebec. There are many creative approaches that can be taken by the party and social movements which can help both get closer to their goals.

As Nathan Cullen said, we need to have a respectful, open conversation and never be afraid of ideas.

And when someone can show me where Mulcair supports a flat tax, I will concede that he's against progressive taxation. There can be disagreements about the tax rates or the number of brackets, but for now, Canada does have a progressive tax system. It's just that it's weighted in favor of the 1%.

Lachine Scot wrote:

I voted for Mulcair. I also think a lot of the emotional anti-Mulcair reactions I have seen in the past 2 days have been too simplistic. However, I'd like to know where the line is drawn between legitimate criticism (especially from the left) and "divisiveness", being a liberal stooge,etc. Don't forget, this isn't an official NDP message board, no one has to be ashamed of themselves just yet.

I think legitimate criticism would have to involve something real and verifiable to criticise. Dobbin's article doesn't qualify, being the same sort of stuff we hear from all the detractors: "Mulcair's right-wing because... just because. But he is! And I'm against that!" Repeating innuendo and sketchy smears to rationalise your antipathy towards someone is just embarrassing yourself. When Mulcair actually does something, then we can talk about it in a reasonable fashion and hopefully no one will pull out the "don't be divisive" card. Right now, the card is appropriate.

OK, that makes sense.

And we have Radiorahim. We have Unionist and others. Principled progressive people both in and out of the party who will speak their minds and say what must be said.

Let Mulcair earn his praise-- but give him a chance to do that now that he has won the leadership.

And don't hesitate to criticize when mistakes are being made. If you keep that side of the bargain you can make Mulcair keep his.

Rebick's diatribe isn't fair to the many women who worked very hard on Mulcair's campaign.

From campaign co-chair Heather Harrison, who I finally got to meet at convention, who could be described as a tireless and fierce campaigner to Lydia Treadwell, the all-star fundraiser who almost singlehandedly raised more money than any other candidate in this race by working many 18 hour days, while also running a phone bank, her assertion that the campaign was "devoid" of women is quite frankly insulting.

The campaign could not have functioned, and would not have won without their hard work and dedication.

Also consider Quebec youth chair Renee Taylor and Quebec youth chair Catherine Hame, (forgiveness for my keyboard's lack of french accents for both), as well as the countless female Quebec MP's backing him on Day 1, and her criticism belies a certain lack of research, or an unwillingness to actually count.

Especially telling is the fact that of the apple-of-her-eye Nathan Cullen's endorsements, the proportion of women was certainly no more than Mulcair's.

This kind of disingenuous criticism of those who consider themselves "to the left" of Mulcair is the main reason they fail:  Rather than highlight real policy differences (which are limited in scope), or actual hard facts, they use conjecture, or things they truly believe to the the case, which on further inspection turn out to be false on the surface.  This is, in my opinion why Ed's attack on Tom failed.  For every criticism he had that could be verified, he used two that relied on information he thought to be true, but the facts showed otherwise.

An example: His comment that 90% of the MP's from before 2008 were against Mulcair.  Well, the people in Hamilton, that was easily refutable because 2 of their 3 MP's were very publicly backing him.  We of course know he had 6 endorsers from the previous caucus, better than Dewar's five, and Topp's mere 4.  It was also rich of Broadbent to suggest that Tom had little to do with the Quebec breakthrough, when he was the only MP in Quebec pre May 2, had the backing of 30+ Quebec MP's and was pretty much on TV constantly as the Quebec Lieutenant.

Rebick and company would do better to stick to factual arguments, hence their chicken little protestations will fall on deaf ears.  This is why Thomas Mulcair will be an awesome leader.  He has cautioned against this kind of reactionary discourse, which is a nasty habit of NDP'ers in past iterations.  He says we've done this as a Party, and we need to be careful not to hyperbolize or get caught in a mistake in fact, as the Conservatives will use that to refute our entire argument and undermine our credibility.

Rebick would be wise to acknowledge that.

Oh, and she should take out a membership and have a say if she wants to criticize my Party as if she's an insider.  It's only ten bucks.

 

OK- I don't agree with Rebick's position but she has done too much for this country, this party and for progressives in Canada to say she needs to pay $10 to be listened to. Sorry but I don't have to agree with everything she says to acknowledge that she has earned the right to not only speak but be listened to.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

OK- I don't agree with Rebick's position but she has done too much for this country, this party and for progressives in Canada to say she needs to pay $10 to be listened to. Sorry but I don't have to agree with everything she says to acknowledge that she has earned the right to not only speak but be listened to.

I agree that Rebick is due, well her due.  However, that doesn't mean she shouldn't be challenged or that her comments are correct because she made them.  I've been a little disgusted by the dismissal of all these fantasic young women MPs from Quebec as if they didn't matter or have some history in the NDP and the statements that seem to only count anglo, middle aged women or older women from Toronto mattered.  At best it is Toronto-centric, but it feels a lot worse than that.

mtm wrote:

This kind of disingenuous criticism of those who consider themselves "to the left" of Mulcair is the main reason they fail:  Rather than highlight real policy differences (which are limited in scope), or actual hard facts, they use conjecture, or things they truly believe to the the case, which on further inspection turn out to be false on the surface.  This is, in my opinion why Ed's attack on Tom failed.  For every criticism he had that could be verified, he used two that relied on information he thought to be true, but the facts showed otherwise.

It was a completely different situation between 2003 and now. In 2003, Broadbent was then the most successful leader the NDP ever chose, so he carried more weight. He also endorsed Jack at the end of the campaign, which came across as a decision having been made after careful deliberation. Last Fall, he had already been surpassed by Jack in the seat count, so he didn't really carry the same clout he once did. And by endorsing Topp out of the gate, before anyone else declared, came across as trying to use his status in the party to get the outcome he wanted. Had he taken a different approach, maybe he would have been more effective.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

OK- I don't agree with Rebick's position but she has done too much for this country, this party and for progressives in Canada to say she needs to pay $10 to be listened to. Sorry but I don't have to agree with everything she says to acknowledge that she has earned the right to not only speak but be listened to.

Agreed.   As someone who's been a member of the NDP for most of the last 30+ years,  I would say that Rebick (or anyone else) has every right to speak their mind whether they pay their ten bucks for a party membership or not.  

And for the Mulcair supporters on here... about that "reaching out" stuff. How about reaching out to folks on the left?

In other words, you see no need to reach out to the many left social activists who see the NDP as being largely irrelevant.

 

 

..and this is where judy's life long activism has taken her today..direct democracy. something the ndp needs to come to terms with or become irrelevant.

quote:

I didn’t participate  in this campaign because I see the hope for change in the new movements that are emerging around the globe rather than in electoral politics.  That is where I am putting my energy these days but it always helps if the social movements can see their reflection in the social democratic political party.  This hasn’t been true in Europe for a long time which is why we see just a dramatic contradiction between what is happening in the Parliament there and what is happening in the streets.

radiorahim wrote:

In other words, you see no need to reach out to the many left social activists who see the NDP as being largely irrelevant.

I'm not sure what is involved in "reaching out" to anyone. I think the party has to perform well, be consistent with its principles however those are defined, and, above all, keep Harper's feet to the fire and show Canadians that the NDP has the capability and integrity to govern the country in an upcoming election. That should be incentive enough to attract folks both on the left, and the big tent centre who might be more inclined to vote Liberal or Green. The NDP is going to need a hell of a lot more seats to form government so it really needs to attract voters from a wide spectrum. Between now and the next election, I expect the party will work to establish itself as a credible alternative to all the decades of Liberal and Conservatve mis-management, because, frankly, the NDP needs to get into power to be able to overturn all the damage that Harper and previous administrations have done to this country.

Gary Shaul wrote:

 

Here's my latest blog post on Mulcair. And while I woke up on Saturday morning not intending to give him my vote, in the end, I did because he was the better of the two remaining choices in my view.

Congratulations to Tom Mulcair

To quote myself :-),

Quote:

The stakes are too high to substitute sound bites and slogans for concrete analysis or a critique of Tom Mulcair. There are still many NDP members who don't know that the NDP doesn't have a provincial party in Quebec. There are many creative approaches that can be taken by the party and social movements which can help both get closer to their goals.

As Nathan Cullen said, we need to have a respectful, open conversation and never be afraid of ideas.

Good blog post, Gary - as I said in my comment on that page.

mtm wrote:

her assertion that the campaign was "devoid" of women is quite frankly insulting.

Good thing she didn't say that, huh?  Here's what she did say:

Judy Rebick wrote:

Quieter but just as widespread was the knowledge that not very many women who have worked with him for more than a few months were supporting him. I was shocked by how few women were among his published endorsers.

Which makes your comment here rather ironic:

mtm wrote:

Rebick and company would do better to stick to factual arguments, hence their chicken little protestations will fall on deaf ears. 

Maybe you should stick to reading a little more carefully before you paraphrase someone.

mtm wrote:

Oh, and she should take out a membership and have a say if she wants to criticize my Party as if she's an insider.  It's only ten bucks.

Your party?  I'm glad you've asserted ownership over it.  But guess what?  People can criticize anything they want to, whether they're a member or not.  Don't want to hear it?  Then plug your ears and go "La la la la la la".  Also, this line that Mulcair supporters have been pushing about Judy not knowing anyone or anything about the NDP because she hasn't paid her ten bucks lately is hilarious.  Judy has spent decades in NDP politics and social justice movements - a hell of a lot longer than Mulcair has.  If you think she doesn't have a huge number of contacts inside the party, you're dreaming in technicolour.

Also, what radiorahim said.  I guess the only non-members Mulcair supporters like you are interested in reaching out to are people to the right of the party, not people to the left of it.  That's some good outreach there.  "I know you vote NDP even though you don't have a membership, but until you pay us your ten bucks, shut the fuck up - we're not interested in what you have to say, despite your years of activism and past party membership.  We're too busy courting Liberals to bother with you."

Ironically, Mulcair himself has done a better job over the past two days of starting to reach out to people to the left of him and of the party than some of his supporters on babble have (with some notable exceptions like NorthReport).

On second thought, you have the "four freedoms" to criticize Harper!

Freedom Zero:   You have the freedom to criticize Harper for any purpose

Freedom One:   You have the freedom to study the source of the criticism of Harper and adapt it to your needs

Freedom Two:   You have the freedom to make exact copies of criticisms of Harper

Freedom Three:   You have the freedom to help your community by making your own modified criticisms of Harper

 

Reasonable discourse - no one can argue with that.

radiorahim wrote:

The rightward drift of the NDP is not something that's going to happen tomorrow, next week or next month.  But I do see this happening over the next couple of years.

My expectations for Mulcair aren't high.

So far?  Keeping Libby on as deputy leader?   Positive move.

His victory speech on Saturday night sucked.  But in a one on one with Mansbridge right after he did quite well.  He seems to be pretty good at handling the mainstream media and the punditocracy.

So I will praise Mulcair when he does the right thing and I will be critical when he doesn't.

Hmmm, how is it I ended up paying $20 for my membership and right to be skeptical about the Mulcair victory?

On a more serious note, I whole heartedly agree with Rebick and Dobbins. And the more criticism Mulcair hears, the more likely he is to stay on course and not re-invent the NDP into some kind of neo-liberal party.

I will say that I appreciate the fact that Mulcair chose to protect the interest of workers at his first up to bat as leader. There, can I still stay in the club :-)

Actually Dave I disagree respectfully with the belief that "there are no more votes to find on the political Left". Many of those individuals just don't vote but could be entice to vote and support the NDP.

I also agree with many of the opposing arguments here to various degrees. As a NDP member I have worked hard over the years for the NDP and become more engaged - and so I did feel somewhat miffed when I perceived Judy proudly proclaiming she wasn't a member (that hurt as I respect Judy and know she started Rabble which I support too). I disagreed with the assessment of Nathan Cullen as the "new politics" but I also know that Judy supported strategic voting in the past elections, seeing that as an Liberal election strategy that has worked against Left politics, over and over again.

And I strongly belief that there is by necessity reasons to work both in and outside of party politics - pushing from both the inside and outside so to speak. I know myself, that I spent much time in the past working "outside" and came to my own personal conclusion that it only got "progress" so far because those with the "decision-making powers" were inside and where institutional and social change (eg. laws, policies and so on) happen.

And I really hope that the Mulcair supporters not push the "baby in the bathwater" out, again, so to speak because of this: "Whoever is crowned NDP leader Saturday will wake up Sunday in charge of a well-organized, well-funded party machine. He or she will have a sizeable parliamentary budget to advance the NDP cause and, not insignificantly, can plan a move-in day at Stornoway, the official home of the leader of the Opposition."

So please dispense with discarding and demeaning the sizable social democratic roots of the party - the activists including Judy who got the NDP party where it is today. One should always dance with the one that brung you or sadly we will end up with the Bob Rae govt like disaster.

 

From this thread, a sense has emerged which says that people without a pot to piss in, namely without 10 bucks to spare that is, needn't apply to the NDP for a voice.

And then this gem, where first impressions might have thought it were better suited as the OP for another NDP comedy thread, except that the more I read of this thread, the more I find we're already there:

radiorahim wrote:

The rightward drift of the NDP is not something that's going to happen tomorrow, next week or next month. But I do see this happening over the next couple of years.

laine lowe wrote:

On a more serious note, I whole heartedly agree with Rebick and Dobbins. And the more criticism Mulcair hears, the more likely he is to stay on course and not re-invent the NDP into some kind of neo-liberal party.

Its not going to sound like it, but I will say this in hopes it is helpful.

Let alone criticism getting through all the filters to people around Mulcair, as far as what criticism is effective, Dobbin and the content of what he says is pure flakeyness. Despite the parts of it that sound bordering on arrogant, Judy and what she says is this side of seen as criticism from a friend.

[And no, that doesnt by extension make Dobbin a hostile, or a Liberal. 'Just' a flake that gets dismissed.]

KenS wrote:

But change all those, and their support/non-support level will not budge. They'll never be satisfied. Their satisfaction is not within our reach.

It'll certainly take a bit more than the sugar coated lollipop that appears always to be within reach of the easily satisified.

DaveW wrote:

there are no more votes to find on the political Left and plenty of votes to attract in the, uh, centre; Mulcair will try to attract them 

He'd be only performing the work he was hired to do. His resume suggests a particular specialty in this regard. As far as explicit displays of classic opportunism goes, the Liberals may very well spare their best flashing of the public for last, and actually attempt to switch places with the NDP through the use of leftish sounding teasers that attempt to paint the NDP as opportunistic with their scrunching up in the center. Nothing is beneath them after all.

I supported Mulcair, with reservations, after the first ballot.  Although I realize he comes with baggage and several past positions that make some New Democrats nervous, I would suggest that if he is as bad as his severest critics claim, then they should also question Jack Layton's judgement in allowing him to run for the NDP in the first place, and making him Deputy Leader subsequent to his election.  Are Mulcair's critics prepared to level some of those very same criticisms against Jack?  Did our most popular federal leader since Tommy Douglas really screw up that badly?

Michelle wrote:

Judy Rebick wrote:

Quieter but just as widespread was the knowledge that not very many women who have worked with him for more than a few months were supporting him. I was shocked by how few women were among his published endorsers.

Which makes your comment here rather ironic:

mtm wrote:

Rebick and company would do better to stick to factual arguments, hence their chicken little protestations will fall on deaf ears. 

Maybe you should stick to reading a little more carefully before you paraphrase someone.

 

If you can give your arrogant and imperious routine a rest for a moment, Michelle, where are the facts in Ms. Rebicks statement, as quoted, and in the article as a whole?

Did Mulcair have a lower percentage of women supporters than other candidates? If so, you or Judy should cite it.

Women who work for Muclair get fed up with him after a few months? Such as who? Got turnover rates? Got quotes?

What does 'not very many' mean?

What does 'how few' mean?

What do no names mean?

What do no examples mean?

Her article doesnt even bother to cite anyone on background: "one longtime party activist, who wishes to remain anonymous, said..."

What do no quotes mean?

Judy flung mud at all the women like mtm who did work for Mulcair in a shallow, badly written piece.

mtm threw it back.

 

Good for her.