IF Mulcair's envelope situation makes him unmarketable, what has to be done..................

173 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
IF Mulcair's envelope situation makes him unmarketable, what has to be done..................

Did you see the capitalized "IF" at the beginning. That's good!

 

 

 

NorthReport

1 This has nothing to do with Mulcair's honesty, and everything to do with reality: Canadian politics is very dirty.

If you had any doubts, wasn't the recent BC election campaign enough to drive home that message!

2 We have to move quickly, reason being Canadians need time to get to know the new Leader and Harper and Trudeau are already well known. The only thing a lot of BCers knew about Adrian Dix before the BC election campaign began, was from the right-wing attack ads defining him. Canadians knew Layton as he had been the leader in several previous elections. 

3 Competent campaign management teams are helpful, but are much more important when the leader needs some help to sell themself, as opposed to when you have a candidate like Jack Layton?  And do we we need campaign management affiliated with the right-wing?

4 If the unthinkable happened, who are the possible contenders now? Do we absolutely have to have a leader from Quebec to keep our Quebec base?

How is Leo Girard's French?  Seriously!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Gerard

 

6079_Smith_W

Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

-Cardinal RIchelieu

Anyone in that position is going to face shit like this. If a lame attempt at a smear like this can't pass, then shame on the Canadian people for buying it. You only have to look at the birther movement to see that slanderers don't need any real evidence at all to do their work.

Beyond stating what did and did not happen, I wouldn't give any undue energy to this. It is a distraction.

 

 

 

NorthReport

I would agree with you possibly if we had an unbiased media, but we don't, and I prefer to live in reality, rather than the nonsensical recent BC NDP election campaign.  

Once again, I remind folks, there is a big "IF" at the beginning of this thread, but sorry, sweeping it under the rug just isn't going to cut it for me

jerrym

The NDP have actually got a big but momentary break with regard to Mulcair keeping quiet about the bribe offer for a number of years. In reporters' eagerness to pursue the hottest story, there has been much more news commentary on the Senate scandal than on Mulcair. If Mulcair can put this to rest by providing an acceptable explanation right after the long weekend, he could put this problem to rest, at least for now. It could come back during an election, but if handled properly, like Layton did with the old news of his visit to the massage parlour, it could blow over. However, if not handled well it could blow up either now or in the future.

If Jack's response had been something like Dix's "I was 35", there would have been no Orange Crush. You need someone who can communicate and respond effectively, because no matter who you are, the attacks are coming.

6079_Smith_W

North Report.

I'm not, and I'm not blaming you, because I agree it is a fair question. My point is that anyone in that position is going to run that gauntlet. But to depose a chosen party head without just cause seems to me not only selling into that slander and letting the opposition control the field, it is an injustice.

And while I'm not that familiar with the BC situation, even there I think it would be an injustice to assume that Dix needs to go, and that to replace him would solve all the problems. There are lessons to be learned there for sure. I am not sure that this is one of them. And by saying that, I am not saying that his going might not be the right decision, but I think things need to cool off before that decision is made.

 

NeedToVote101

It will pass. Canadians will be fixated on the senate story 8 times out 10 for the next couple of weeks. I was on twitter for two days straight, lol, yes, even while at work. Not a single tweet was made about Mulcair. Like all stories that have no traction it will disappear and nobody would be the wiser. The only people keeping up on the story are Conservative led papers who are trying to create a distraction. Again, twitterverse doesn't mean anything, but it is in a way a good device to measure what is "trending". If we can go by that, Mulcair's story is dead in the water. If it doesn't budge, the media will back off. Also important to note, Mulcair or his office, not sure which one it was, stating "there is still an on-going commission, no comment will be made until further notice" So the papers can write all the commentaries they want, Canadians won't know the truth (not to even say the vast majority even care!)

Brachina

The answer is simple you spend whatever amount of money you have to on a mix of positive ads a for Mulcair and attacks against your enemies and pray you have the better ads and they have more baggage (which they do by a large amount).

Also you put a positive spin on it. Given most people believe all or most politicians are corrupt having one that turned down a bribe puts him ahead of the pack.

Truth be told this will die down as he's innocent and keeping something secret for 17 years pales in comparsion to the scandals of the other parties.

When they find it has no traction everyone will lose interest.

I would still prefer an explanation and honestly I don't give a fuck if its before the courts as I'm already tired of thinking about it.

NorthReport

Right.

Let's just wait until we are in the middle of an election and the envelope attack ads come out.

Sounds about par for the course with the recent BC NDP election campaign.

Bacchus

It could cost him (and thus the NDP) big in Quebec tho, even if it doesnt play in ROC

jjuares

What would be the problem in Mulcair saying, "In retrospect, I wish I had reported my SUSPICIONS."

Stockholm

There has been so much scandal in Quebec in recent years that the mere fact that Mulcair refused to take a bribe and testified to the police about will be seen as a plus that vastly outweighs the "minus" of not having gone to the police 17 years earlier.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure what I would have done in Mulcair's position in 1994. You are running for office for the first time, you meet the mayor of Laval who at the time was incredibly popular, powerful, credible and respected. He hints that if you do such and such you will be rewarded. He is careful not to explicitly say he is offering a bribe and there are no witnesses. Its just your word against his. He waves an envelope - you assume its full of money but do you actually see money in it? No. You reject his entreaties and you leave. What are your options? I suppose you could go to the police and claim that the mayor of Laval "hinted" at a bribe and that you saw an envelope but you did not actually see money in it...if its your word against the mayor of Laval's and you you didn't physically see the money - you would be laughed out of the police station and possibly sued for libel by Vaillancourt. Flash forward 17 years when there is a whole investigation and Vaillancourt has already resigned in disgrace and all of a sudden the incident in 1994 fits into a larger pattern of corruption and suddenly the police take an account like this seriously - its a whole different situation.  I suppose in retrospect, Mulcair COULD have taken part in a "sting" operation and offered to wear a hidden tape recorder and meet with Vaiilancourt again and try to entrap him etc... but the fact that Tom didn't volunteer to act out a Law and Order episode strikes me as a pretty weak accusation against him.

The important thing is - he thinks he was offered a bribe. He rejected and and he has cooperated fully with the police when asked. The worst thing that can be said about him is that he criticized a PQ cabinet minister for not going to the police after a similar incidence - ho hum!

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Stock, I think that you make an important point; he didn't take a bribe. He continues the tradition of honest NDP leaders. Yet, that doesn't seem to matter. I find that really, really, really, really, really, really, odd.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Geez, what might have been offered in that envelope: discount coupons for Carrefour Laval?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

In all of my adult life, I have NEVER heard where someone turned down a bribe and had it initmated in return that they were still a crook. I guess that is a rule that ony applies to the leader of the NDP. That`s odd.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Perhaps it's because he criticized a Pequiste cabinet minister for exactly the same reason that he is now being called on to explain. I believe that's called hypocrisy. I haven't heard anyone label him a 'crook' for not accepting what he now claims was hinted at. If this occurrence hadn't come out in the wash, most recently, when might he have revealed it publicly, if at all? This is no longer just a Quebec affair. It involves the integrity of a potential prime minister. Canadians have a right to know what's going on, and what else he may have hidden, if anything. Accountability, and trust are what's at issue here, presently.

nicky

Stockholm's post puts this matter in some valuable perspective.

I would also point out that it is doubtful that the mayor's actions actually amounted to a crime, let alone one that Tom had any duty to report.

The only section of the Criminal Code that remotely fits is s. 121 which in fact does not cover the situation for two reasons:

1. It only applies to offering to bribe a government official.Tom was merely a candidate at the time.

2. It has to be "consideration for cooperation." There is no evidence as to what was in the envelope (although we may surmise) and more importantly no specification that there should be anything in return. Tom seems to have nipped it in the bud before either of these things could be made clear.

janfromthebruce

yes, Autoworker, you and Sun media want to know, cough.

NorthReport

The more I am hearing about this envelope situation the more uncomfortable I am becoming about our chances in the 2015 election.

Stockholm

If you take drivel from Sun News and the National Post and Conrad Blake as the gospel and consider it more credible than what New Democrats are saying the maybe you are in the wrong party?

BTW, I hope you realize that the Tory (and Liberal) back rooms have people whose job it is to monitor sites like babble and every word that North Report posts here goes right to CPC communications and they are enjoying every word of it!

NorthReport

This kind of response is really going to help the NDP. With this kind of shove it under the carpet and hope it goes away, instead of possibly taking some preventative action before it is too late, it is no  wonder the NDP has a limited success rate. Sorry Stock, I don't pass your purity test for members.

Stockholm wrote:
If you take drivel from Sun News and the National Post and Conrad Blake as the gospel and consider it more credible than what New Democrats are saying the maybe you are in the wrong party?

Stockholm

All you are doing is helping to amplify a non- story...did you not bother to read some lengthy posts above that might shed some light on a situation like this?

This is a NON- story. The only reason Sun Media is trying to create something out of nothing is because they are desperately trying to create a diversion from the funeral pyre atop which Nigel Wright, Mike Duffy and Rob Ford are burning.

Unionist

Nicky,

No one (other than the most extreme Con hacks) would accuse Tom of having committed a crime. No one is accusing Tom of failing to report a crime (at least I'm not). Crime is a rather technical thing, as you point out. If it's not in the Criminal Code, it's not a crime.

So let's focus.

1. Was it ethical of Tom to refuse a bribe but then say nothing about it - even when his own cabinet was naming Vaillancourt to a position of high trust years later?

2. Was it ethical of Tom to say "no" to Brian Lilley in November 2010, when asked if Vaillancourt had ever offered him money?

3. Why did Tom talk to the police if no crime was committed? In fact, who called whom - Tom or the police - in 2011?

If anyone thinks Tom and his handlers aren't spending the long weekend trying to fine-tune some damage control, they're hallucinating.

If anyone thinks Tom is going to come out and say, "Never mind me, just focus on Rob Ford and Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin" - well no, Tom wouldn't say that, although some here have been saying that nonstop.

So nicky, what do you think about questions 1-3?

I rather think jjuares is on the right track:

jjuares wrote:
What would be the problem in Mulcair saying, "In retrospect, I wish I had reported my SUSPICIONS."

Not only does this sound honest, and accepting some responsibility, it actually sounds like it may be the truth.

Do you really think, nicky, that Tom should say: "Well, it wasn't technically a crime, so leave me alone?" Not prime ministerial material.

 

Stockholm

In the case of the Brian Lilley episode, a rabidly rightwing reporters yells out a question. Are you saying that saying "No" wasn't enough, that he should have said "well yes and no. I met the guy once and he waved an envelope at me, I didn't see what was in it...I think it was probably money but I didn't actually see the contents".

I think Mulcair did the right thing by cooperating with policy detectives in their investigation rather than cooperating with Brian Lilley.

knownothing knownothing's picture

NorthReport wrote:

The more I am hearing about this envelope situation the more uncomfortable I am becoming about our chances in the 2015 election.

Maybe you should get more comfortable with the fact that 2015 will be an all-out war with blood on all sides. Quit bombing our side.

NorthReport

Thanks for sharing.

Is this what passes for political analysis these days? No wonder the NDP has problems.

NorthReport

Political winners

Got a problem in the PMO

Fire someone at the beginning of a long weekend, but make sure the Leader remains as squeaky clean as possible.

 

Political winners

Leak an attempted smear to the media.

Hand out talking points to supporters for when the attempted smear hits the media ( see comments from some posters here at babble). 

 

Political Losers

Got a possible problem with the Leader's reputation around which the entire election campaign is always focused. 

Be naive and don't realize the consequences of a smeared Leader.

Sweep it under the rug, attack anyone, including supporters who brings up the issue, and start increasing your prayers for an NDP victory

 

 

Stockholm

In answer to the question at the start of this thread. The NDP would cross that bridge if they ever came to it...and IMHO this issue will die....so far 99.999999999999% of the attention is on the Duffy/Wright story and the only people who seem to be obsessed with Tom Mulcair NOT taking a bribe are a three chicken littles on babble. I assume the people around Mulcair know what they are doing and if they are smart they will NOT base their response or their strategy on what "Unionist" and "NorthReport" are squawking about on rabble.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Mostly I am pissed because this thread could have easily been placed in the already established Thomas Mulcair thread.

I suggest this conversation be moved there.

NorthReport

Sounds just like the recent BC NDP election playbook. No wonder the NDP rarely wins. But thanks for sharing Stock.

Stockholm wrote:
In answer to the question at the start of this thread. The NDP would cross that bridge if they ever came to it...and IMHO this issue will die....so far 99.999999999999% of the attention is on the Duffy/Wright story and the only people who seem to be obsessed with Tom Mulcair NOT taking a bribe are a three chicken littles on babble. I assume the people around Mulcair know what they are doing and if they are smart they will NOT base their response or their strategy on what "Unionist" and "NorthReport" are squawking about on rabble.

6079_Smith_W

NR, you started this thread underscoring that "IF", but the only argument you are accepting is the worst case one.

Given that most of this is hypothetical (because this is not the BC NDP, Paul Martin dealing with sponsorship, or any other specific situation), what are you recommending? If the PMO leaks a blurry photo they claim is the leader of the opposition picking his nose the proper reaction is to cave because the public is too stupid and the party is too ineffective to deal with it?

You think the next person isn't going to get the same treatment?

That would be very handy for Mr. Harper, I should think. May as well pull all the candidates and leave it to the Liberals and the Greens.

 

 

HumbleOne

Mulcair has made a statement on the issue and its time to say nothing more on the issue.  The media is destroying the Cons at the moment and the last thing you want to is to focus the media on Mulcair.  I am sure the NDP braintrust has a plan as to how to answer this issue.  I am sure the media will ask more questions in the future but it can diverted to a future date.  Now is the time to keep a low profile and let the Cons get a media beating. 

NorthReport

I watched the party I support unnecessarily go down to defeat recently in BC because of mistakes made which ignored basic politics 101. 

I have zero confidence right now that we have learned anything from the BC election, and your not so subtle slur on the BC NDP kinda confirms that. By-the-way, there is a difference between exposed corruption and incompetence but the net result is usually the same - you lose.

Maybe we have, but I am not hearing it.

We have just seem what can happen when a leader does not deal appropriately with a political weakness, and I am concerned history is going to repeat itself.

Do people seriously think the attacks against me, and against this thread are going to help ensure a NDP victory federally? 

 

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

NR, you started this thread underscoring that "IF", but the only argument you are accepting is the worst case one.

Given that most of this is hypothetical (because this is not the BC NDP, Paul Martin dealing with sponsorship, or any other specific situation), what are you recommending? If the PMO leaks a blurry photo they claim is the leader of the opposition picking his nose the proper reaction is to cave because the public is too stupid and the party is too ineffective to deal with it?

You think the next person isn't going to get the same treatment?

That would be very handy for Mr. Harper, I should think. May as well pull all the candidates and leave it to the Liberals and the Greens.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

How did I slur the BC NDP? Did you read what I said at #5? I'm just saying that the situations are not the same. And if I was implying anything it is that analyzign results like that in the heat of the moment is not such a good idea. I just find it odd that you are insisting this is hypothetical on the one hand, yet treating it as if it is a direct hit that is going to mean the loss of the election in two years' time.

Not a pointed or attacking question, but just to put our cards on the table, do you think Mulcair should resign over this slur? If you do it is fine, but I think that would be a complete overrreaction and an incredible mistake, because Harper will attack his opponents over their shoe size if he has nothing else. Look at the things he has already tried on Mulcair.

 

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Stockholm wrote:
In answer to the question at the start of this thread. The NDP would cross that bridge if they ever came to it...and IMHO this issue will die....so far 99.999999999999% of the attention is on the Duffy/Wright story and the only people who seem to be obsessed with Tom Mulcair NOT taking a bribe are a three chicken littles on babble. I assume the people around Mulcair know what they are doing and if they are smart they will NOT base their response or their strategy on what "Unionist" and "NorthReport" are squawking about on rabble.

I agree that it is not the time yet to be making contingency plans for Mulcair's departure. I sincerely hope you are right, and I am being a "chicken little". Personally, I feel Mulcair was probably right to say nothing about this matter when it happened, given that anyone he may have reported it to may have been one that accepted the envelope of cash. I also hope that you are right about Mulcair's team having a good reply ready for the inevitable questions about the 17 year delay. You may also be right that answering those questions can wait for a while. I would much rather be wrong about this, but I still see the potential for disaster.

 

NorthReport

Harper is 100% focused on winning the next election.

Harper might hold off and say nothing more now until close to the 2015 election when it was too late to consider changing leaders. And then he would unload.

The Liberals aren't quite as bright as that, or maybe they are just more desperate than the Conservatives.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

 agree that it is not the time yet to be making contingency plans for Mulcair's departure

What the helll are you people talking about. He DIDN`T take the bribe. Seriously folks, give your collective heads a G-d damn hard shake!

Stockholm

There is always the possibility that ANY party "the goods" on the leader of any other party...and we wouldn't know what it was until the last minute. The Liberals and the Tories may have known the Jack layton massage story for years and knew it was something they could deploy some day as needed. We cannot operate on things we have no control over. For all we know the Tories have secret videos of Justin Trudeau having sex with a child that they are keeping on ice until October 2015. These are always possibilities. One thing we learned from the BC election ias that you can be the mosty corrupt government of all times amnd have a leader who has been heavily implicated in endless scandals - and still win an election!

Stockholm

BTW: What is the Liberal "contingency plan" in case Justin Trudeau gets hit by a bus tomorrow?

knownothing knownothing's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Harper is 100% focused on winning the next election.

Harper won't be there for the next election

NorthReport

Only when you run an incompetent campaign against them. Take a look at the red light factor story here.

http://therealstory.ca/2013-04-29/bc-liberals/the-red-light-factor

 

Stockholm wrote:

There is always the possibility that ANY party "the goods" on the leader of any other party...and we wouldn't know what it was until the last minute. The Liberals and the Tories may have known the Jack layton massage story for years and knew it was something they could deploy some day as needed. We cannot operate on things we have no control over. For all we know the Tories have secret videos of Justin Trudeau having sex with a child that they are keeping on ice until October 2015. These are always possibilities. One thing we learned from the BC election ias that you can be the mosty corrupt government of all times amnd have a leader who has been heavily implicated in endless scandals - and still win an election!

NorthReport

Is that about as accurate as your comments about the CTV interview?

knownothing wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Harper is 100% focused on winning the next election.

Harper won't be there for the next election

6079_Smith_W

This is just smoke.

And in fact I think the word "marketable" in the title is telling in that this is putting a party leader's rockstar status above the substance of policy. And again, while you are certainly more familiar with the BC campaign than me, I have heard far more criticism about lack of substance and poor offensive strategy than about Dix's past.

On this very different campaign though, should we also pull Mulcair from the leadership because he might get struck by lightning in the middle of the campaign? And again, do you think he should resign over this Vaillancourt issue?

Part of the reason I mentioned Paul Martin is that this kind of behaviour is what earned him the name Mr. Dithers, and we are already reading that in BC ousting Carole James might not have been such a good idea. So it's not like that course is without its risks either.

 

 

 

NorthReport

I never said Mulcair should resign.

But being an NDP supporter, and after unfortunately having seen firsthand the recent political debacle in BC, it is only common political sense to want to ensure we do not have another major fuckup like we just did in BC. What scares me the most is The BC NDP campaign team came right out of Ottawa.

What is not to understand about that!

And for those who think that their federal shit smells better that bc shit, bcers happen to make up a core group in any federal election camapign We are one and the same - check your membership.

6079_Smith_W

NorthReport wrote:

I never said Mulcair should resign.

I didn't say you did; I'm still waiting for your answer to that question, if you want to respond. I have asked twice now, and I said I don't care where you stand on it.

But if you're going to imply that some of us are sticking our heads in the sand and condemning the next campaign to disaster when we say this thing is simply a smear the least you can do is ante up with what you think should happen.

Do you think Mulcair should resign over this or not?

 

Brachina

Stockholm wrote:

BTW: What is the Liberal "contingency plan" in case Justin Trudeau gets hit by a bus tomorrow?

 

 A Plastjc Surgen, after all personality wise who could tell the difference.

Brachina

Stockholm wrote:

BTW: What is the Liberal "contingency plan" in case Justin Trudeau gets hit by a bus tomorrow?

 

 A Plastjc Surgen, after all personality wise who could tell the difference.

NorthReport

I am expressing serious concern - is that not allowed?

But put aside my concerns and perhaps read this:

http://politicalinsider.ca/the-bc-liberals-one-of-the-first-things-they-...

6079_Smith_W wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

I never said Mulcair should resign.

I didn't say you did; I'm still waiting for your answer to that question, if you want to respond. I have asked twice now, and I said I don't care where you stand on it.

But if you're going to imply that some of us are sticking our heads in the sand and condemning the next campaign to disaster when we say this thing is simply a smear the least you can do is ante up with what you think should happen.

Do you think Mulcair should resign over this or not?

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Can we ice the speculation, even im the service of an example, that Trudeau is a pedophile? Apart from being in general bad taste, it invites the worst sort of attention to this site. Thanks.

6079_Smith_W

NorthReport wrote:

I am expressing serious concern - is that not allowed?

Well sure. But if you are going to talk as if some of us will be to blame because the next campaign is going to go sideways, it seems a bit disingenuous if you don't ante up with where you stand.

This dancing between hypotheticals and projecting blame on those of us who have taken a clear position is kind of annoying.

I think this is nonsense and that it will pass. I also think any opposition leader is going to face some sort of attack, and unless there is real substance to it it is a test of leadership and solidarity to challenge that and get onto the real issues - not just cave because we're still in shock over some other fucked up campaign. Remember the doom and gloom about the NDP losing all support in Quebec over Layton's decision to not whip the gun vote three years ago? How did that doomsday scenario pan out?

6079_Smith_W

Cross posted with you , CF.

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that a certain someone picks his nose. Even while stopped at red lights.

 

Pages