NDP Leadership 17

159 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24

Howard wrote:
Former Kenora Federal NDP candidate Tania Cameron

Don't you mean, "Kenora's next Member of Parliament?"Wink

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

nicky wrote:

So Brian why did you ask that the announcement be delayed until just before Paul's launch? Or is the Star making that up?

More tinfoil hats.

It is standard procedure to set a release time as well as a release date. As a courtesy to media, one will generally issue the news release well in advance with the notation "Embargoed until date time."

People issue embargoed news releases all the time, and many will embargo all news releases as a consistent practice.

During the last SNDP leadership race, we issued several embargoed news releases from the Meili campaign. Does that mean we were all unethica tricksters?

Seriously guys, this paranoid conspiracy-seeking needs to get reined in.

Bird on a Wire

Agree with Malcolm people issue embargoed news releases all the time.......nothing wrong with that - what is wrong is that release date and time was right before Dewar's announcement (a coincidence - not)  No paranoid conspiracy seeking just the facts from from a perspective other than yours Malcolm.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Howard wrote:

What's wrong with the video?

Just the guy asking him questions was adamant, I found it painful to watch even though it was the same questions I would have asked...why is that?

Howard

It was known by the media that Paul Dewar would launch on Sunday at exactly the time he did, early last week, and was reported as such. How unforeseen and coincidental.

Howard

-

AnonymousMouse

Malcolm wrote:
nicky wrote:

So Brian why did you ask that the announcement be delayed until just before Paul's launch? Or is the Star making that up?

More tinfoil hats.

It is standard procedure to set a release time as well as a release date. As a courtesy to media, one will generally issue the news release well in advance with the notation "Embargoed until date time."

People issue embargoed news releases all the time, and many will embargo all news releases as a consistent practice.

During the last SNDP leadership race, we issued several embargoed news releases from the Meili campaign. Does that mean we were all unethica tricksters?

Seriously guys, this paranoid conspiracy-seeking needs to get reined in.

Embargoed press releases are common, but they're not "standard" in the sense that most releases are embargoed; most are not. Releases are embargoed when there's a specific reason for it, like circulating the text of a speech before it's delivered or making sure newspapers can meet their print deadlines when an event occurs late in the day.

In this case you might expect a release to be embargoed to make sure the story can make the papers, but also make sure that it isn't published until after the actual event. But that wasn't the case here. The question in this case was why embargo the release until 11:00am the next day, thus PREVENTING it from being printed in the paper?

The Topp campaign announced one endorsement on Friday before Nathan Cullen's campaign launch and another endorsement on Sunday before Paul Dewar's campaign launch. Several posters here suggested that this was done deliberately to step on the opponents' campaign launches. Even those posters who defended Topp's campaign, approving of the tactic, seemed to agree it was self-evident that this was the reason for the timing. Brian Topp then posted claiming that the timing was a coincidence.

Do you really think that under those circumstances it's "paranoid conspiracy-seeking" for nicky to ask--if it's true that the timing was a coincidence--why the release was embargoed until two hours before Dewar's announcement?

KenS

Fair game to say that Brian Topp has given non-answers to media. But I dont remember him blaming the media for .'getting it wrong' or whatever.

But really as to the timing thing: when was it known the time of Dewar's announcement.

You'd be appalled if you saw the orchestration that goes into a chain of events like what the Shirley Douglasis announcement fit into. Thats just orchestrating your own dog and pony show. If you tried to include tripping up other campaigns, it would be sure to backfire on you.

And I dont mean backfire because people dont like it. That MIGHT happen also... but what is virually guaranteed to happen when you get too cute and clever, is it doesnt work, and the edifice looks stupid.

ETA: People may think that if the Douglas timing was set 3 days ahead, that its a trivial matter to move it if Dewar's announcement time becomes known after. You are entitled to think that it should have been moved anyway. But its not a tivial matter to campaigners, or the people they line up. So it is fallacious to hold that since the timing doesnt matter, the timing viz Dewar's announcement 'must have been' for that reason.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

There's a famous cliche (American) that goes "there are no coincidences in politics".

KenS

For what its worth- I dont think that particular bit questioning the timing is paranoid.

But in general there hasnt been much that could honestly be called 'questioning' (even this particular bit).... its been more like insisting on THE 'explanation' for how things have come down the pike.

KenS

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Several posters here suggested that this was done deliberately to step on the opponents' campaign launches. Even those posters who defended Topp's campaign, approving of the tactic, seemed to agree it was self-evident that this was the reason for the timing.

You are reading in much more than was warranted.

"They" didnt say they thought it was deliberate. One poster who has defended Topp (among other contenders), and who takes being pointy to an art form, made approving comments. He didnt say he thought it was deliberate. The comment was in the nature of "if it was deliberate, so what?... probably a good thing."

Paranoid is not everywhere in the anti-Topp narrative... but stretching it is pretty pervasive.

 

 

AnonymousMouse

KenS wrote:

Fair game to say that Brian Topp has given non-answers to media. But I dont remember him blaming the media for .'getting it wrong' or whatever.

Topp's response to Don Martin was something like "journalists are gonna do what they're gonna do". His response above, in this very thread, was that the Toronto Star was responsible for creating the impression he was stepping on Dewar's announcement.

KenS wrote:

But really as to the timing thing: when was it known the time of Dewar's announcement.

Well, the Facebook event page with the date and time on it has comments going back to about Friday morning. As if that weren't enough time to write a press release, I also saw it publicly reported as early as Wednesday and the event was obviously likely to take place in the afternoon.

KenS wrote:

You'd be appalled if you saw the orchestration that goes into a chain of events like what the Shirley Douglasis announcement fit into. Thats just orchestrating your own dog and pony show. If you tried to include tripping up other campaigns, it would be sure to backfire on you.

And I dont mean backfire because people dont like it. That MIGHT happen also... but what is virually guaranteed to happen when you get too cute and clever, is it doesnt work, and the edifice looks stupid.

It is the easiest thing in the world to send out a media advisory and announce an endorsement on Parliament Hill. It's even easier to embargo a press release until the morning after a private event. Even if such events were pre-planned, anyone with any experience would know that if you went ahead with such endorsements after TWO other candidates made it known they were launching their campaigns on those SPECIFIC days, it would look like you were trying to step on their announcements.

What I find even more peculiar, however, is that Topp is now claiming on the public record that it was all just a coincidence.

AnonymousMouse

KenS wrote:

ETA: People may think that if the Douglas timing was set 3 days ahead, that its a trivial matter to move it if Dewar's announcement time becomes known after. You are entitled to think that it should have been moved anyway. But its not a tivial matter to campaigners, or the people they line up. So it is fallacious to hold that since the timing doesnt matter, the timing viz Dewar's announcement 'must have been' for that reason.

But surely it would have been a trivial matter to refrain from embargoing the press release until just before Dewar's announcement? And to move Libby Davies' endorsement as there was no event planned and the mere fact that Cullen was announcing that day would change any strategy involved.

AnonymousMouse

.

AnonymousMouse

KenS wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Several posters here suggested that this was done deliberately to step on the opponents' campaign launches. Even those posters who defended Topp's campaign, approving of the tactic, seemed to agree it was self-evident that this was the reason for the timing.

You are reading in much more than was warranted.

"They" didnt say they thought it was deliberate. One poster who has defended Topp (among other contenders), and who takes being pointy to an art form, made approving comments. He didnt say he thought it was deliberate. The comment was in the nature of "if it was deliberate, so what?... probably a good thing."

Paranoid is not everywhere in the anti-Topp narrative... but stretching it is pretty pervasive.

The comments on this thread defended the tactics and none of them suggested that the timing was not deliberate. I think that justifies my statement that "those posters who defended Topp's campaign, approving of the tactic, seemed to agree it was self-evident that this was the reason for the timing." Either way, my point was it was Topp's post above that introduced the suggestion that this was a coincidence.

I respect that this is all a matter of opinion, but I think it is those who are dismissing the criticisms of Topp's campaign who are stretching. I suspect, for the moment, that we will have agree to disagree on that.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

AnonymousMouse wrote:

Embargoed press releases are common, but they're not "standard" in the sense that most releases are embargoed; most are not. Releases are embargoed when there's a specific reason for it, like circulating the text of a speech before it's delivered or making sure newspapers can meet their print deadlines when an event occurs late in the day.

In this case you might expect a release to be embargoed to make sure the story can make the papers, but also make sure that it isn't published until after the actual event. But that wasn't the case here. The question in this case was why embargo the release until 11:00am the next day, thus PREVENTING it from being printed in the paper?

The Topp campaign announced one endorsement on Friday before Nathan Cullen's campaign launch and another endorsement on Sunday before Paul Dewar's campaign launch. Several posters here suggested that this was done deliberately to step on the opponents' campaign launches. Even those posters who defended Topp's campaign, approving of the tactic, seemed to agree it was self-evident that this was the reason for the timing. Brian Topp then posted claiming that the timing was a coincidence.

Do you really think that under those circumstances it's "paranoid conspiracy-seeking" for nicky to ask--if it's true that the timing was a coincidence--why the release was embargoed until two hours before Dewar's announcement?

Actually I do really think it's paranoid conspiracy-seeking. That's why I called it paranoid conspiracy-seeking.

I'm also not aware that "standard" means "every single time." I understand "standard" to mean a regular practice used by most / all participants in the activity / profession. Virtually everyone in the business of issuing news releases will embargo a release from time to time and therefore it is a standard practice. Politicians do so more frequently than most.

One embargoes a news release because one wants it released at a particular time. It MAY be something time sensitive like a speech. It may be any number of reasons. Your seem to be suggesting that there are limited circumstances in which an embargo could happen. That's simply wrong.

Topp wants to keep himself in the news cycle so he's got news releases coming out more or less daily. What a horrible human being he must be.

Sorry, this is tinfoil hat foolishness.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Further observations. An embargo not only ensures a release does not go out early, it ensures the release goes out at a specific time. In other words, an unembargoed release will hit the media when the editors / producers decide it will hit the media, not when the releaser wants it to hit the media. Saying "immediate release" is no guarantee that an editor or producer will publish / broadcast it immediately. (Of course, saying "embargoed to 9:00 am" is no guarantee it will be published / broadcast at 9:00 am, but it does make it far more likely in my experience.)

Yes, embargoing the news release to two hours before the Dewar event ensured that it didn't happen three or four hours before the Dewar event. It also likely ensured that it didn't hit the media one hour before the Dewar event - or at the same time as the Dewar event.

If I were doing Topp's media and I really wanted to screw other candidates, I'd either embargo for the same time as their launches - or even better, for about two hours after their launches in hopes of knocking them off the top of the story feed.

But then, I've worked in communications so what do I know?

AnonymousMouse

Malcolm wrote:

Actually I do really think it's paranoid conspiracy-seeking. That's why I called it paranoid conspiracy-seeking.

I'm also not aware that "standard" means "every single time." I understand "standard" to mean a regular practice used by most / all participants in the activity / profession. Virtually everyone in the business of issuing news releases will embargo a release from time to time and therefore it is a standard practice. Politicians do so more frequently than most.

But I didn't write that "standard" meant "every single time", I wrote that while embargoed press releases are "common", most press released are not embargoed. Your comment--"It is standard procedure to set a release time as well as a release date. As a courtesy to media, one will generally issue the news release well in advance with the notation 'Embargoed until date time.'"--seemed to me to suggest that you were saying MOST press releases are embargoed, not just that most PEOPLE/ORGANIZATIONS involved in such activities use embargoed press releases "from time to time". If we agree on that, that's great.

Malcolm wrote:

One embargoes a news release because one wants it released at a particular time. It MAY be something time sensitive like a speech. It may be any number of reasons. Your seem to be suggesting that there are limited circumstances in which an embargo could happen. That's simply wrong.

No, I'm not suggesting that "there are limit circumstances" in which embargoed press releases are used, but rather, just as I wrote, that they are used for "specific" reasons. Embargoing a press release is not normally done when one simply "wants it released at a particular time". If that is the only concern, one can just send the release at a particular time. Embargoed press releases are generally used when one wants to give the media lead time before a certain time or event, but does not want the information contained in that release published before that time or event.

Malcolm wrote:

Topp wants to keep himself in the news cycle so he's got news releases coming out more or less daily. What a horrible human being he must be.

Sorry, this is tinfoil hat foolishness.

I have no idea how often the Topp campaign is circulating press releases, but they certainly have not had announcments of this type everyday. And certainly no one is criticizing the Topp campaign for trying to "keep himself in the news cycle". What people here have criticized the Topp campaign for is deliberately timing endorsement announcements to step on media coverage of other NDP candidates' campaign launch annoucements.

If you think deliberately timing these announcements in this way is appropriate, that's your opinion and I won't try to convince you otherwise. But, by definition, that couldn't be called "paranoid", "tinfoil hat" or "conspiracy seeking", because whether something is appropriate is not a question of whether it happened, it's a question of what one thinks of it if it did happen.

As to the question of whether the timing was indeed a deliberate attempt to step on the coverage of these campaign launch announcements, others have pointed out (a) the timing of the campaign launches was known well in advance, (b) it happened to two candidates in a row and (c) the press release with the second endorsement was deliberately embargoed until two hours before Dewar's launch. If those facts are not compelling to you, fine, but they are to me (much less being beyond "tinfoil hat" stuff).

AnonymousMouse

Malcolm wrote:

Yes, embargoing the news release to two hours before the Dewar event ensured that it didn't happen three or four hours before the Dewar event. It also likely ensured that it didn't hit the media one hour before the Dewar event - or at the same time as the Dewar event.

The story was on the Toronto Star website at 11:00am.

Malcolm wrote:
If I were doing Topp's media and I really wanted to screw other candidates, I'd either embargo for the same time as their launches - or even better, for about two hours after their launches in hopes of knocking them off the top of the story feed.

There hasn't been a ton of coverage of either the endorsement or Dewar's announcement so far that I can see, but with Cullen's announcement there were quite a few stories that introduced Cullen then quickly went on to talk about the Libby Davies announcement as well as independent stories about the Davies endorsement. Both have obviously gotten wide circulation in NDP circles. That would be the purpose of releasing just before a rivals campaign launch.

Howard

The media was widely reporting Wednesday morning that Dewar was making a Sunday announcement. They knew the time, place, etc so one can presume the press release was sent out Tuesday under embargo. Also, anyone with Topp's connections not only would have probably known that Dewar was announcing on Sunday before the media knew, but also would have known that Dewar was a candidate based on his pre-announcement consultations with people within the party. Even people on this board knew that Dewar was running weeks ago and intimated as much. So let's move on...

ottawaobserver

If I could interject a few realities into this endless debate of the doctrine of the forms: News releases are embargoed for Sunday at 11:00 AM Eastern in Canadian politics BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN CTV'S QUESTION PERIOD starts. It gives Craig and co-host something to report that's "exclusive" and "breaking news" in Ottawa.

 

melovesproles

Meh, I don't see how Topp owed Dewar or Cullen a free day to announce their running.  Getting Libby Davies was a coup and probably hurts Julian the most.  I like Cullen but I think Saganash would have a better chance of cementing the NDP's position as a national party and forming government.  Mulclair obviously has the chops too but I do think the NDP would be selling out on the extent to which it has been a peace-party.  Topp's intelligence comes across but he just doesn't have it in front of the media. The juxtaposition with Libby in the interview really makes that clear.

AnonymousMouse

melovesproles wrote:

Mulclair obviously has the chops too but I do think the NDP would be selling out on the extent to which it has been a peace-party.

I'm wondering what that's based on? I've hear that criticism of Dewar, though I don't agree with it, but never of Mulcair.

Hunky_Monkey

melovesproles wrote:
I like Cullen but I think Saganash would have a better chance of cementing the NDP's position as a national party and forming government.

Out of curiosity, why?

eastnoireast

maybe dewar's team scheduled his announcement when they did, in order to upstage topp's endorsement press...

also, if a leadership candidate gets knocked off stride by dueling press releases, maybe they shouldn't be running for leader, and maybe it's not something in and of itself to get upset about.

that being said, it seems to fit a larger pattern of calculated, attempted manipulation from the topp campaign. those can be _great skillsets, needed (in measure) when slugging it out with con spin machine, but overall, their overuse, from early, in an internal leadership race (especially in the context of the letter), seems of note.

AnonymousMouse

ottawaobserver wrote:

If I could interject a few realities into this endless debate of the doctrine of the forms: News releases are embargoed for Sunday at 11:00 AM Eastern in Canadian politics BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN CTV'S QUESTION PERIOD starts. It gives Craig and co-host something to report that's "exclusive" and "breaking news" in Ottawa.

 

Good point. That would explain the specific time, but to me the more compelling point is that they chose an embargo time that would prevent it from being printed in most newspapers. A story that breaks at 11:00am Sunday might get picked up for the Monday papers, but that would be a lot less likely with a story about an event that actually happen Saturday night. The fact that these two endorsement announcements happened the day of these two campaign anouncements is reason enough for me conclude it was intentional to begin with.

ottawaobserver

Well, from the video and the coverage, I think Dewar had an excellent launch. It was a very good looking event; he spoke well; they had a huge turnout for an event like that (500) people; and I thought his speech hit on all the right themes. Paul's not one for holding grudges about small slights like a potentially conflicting endorsement, especially since he would understand perfectly well the Sunday 11 AM coveted news release embargo-time. Tempest meet teapot.

nicky

I guess I started this. I don't think it's a big thing. As I said at the outset it leaves a bad taste in my mouth as showing a certain lack of class and respect. If it becomes part of a bigger pattern that may be more significant.

By the way, what does a "tin foil hat " mean ?

AnonymousMouse

nicky wrote:

By the way, what does a "tin foil hat " mean ?

It means you're a conspiracy theorist :).

(As in "I constructed this tin foil hat to prevent the government from reading my brainwaves.")

melovesproles

AnonymousMouse, How can you have a principled pro-peace position when you run cover for Israel's occupation of the Palestinians?  He's on the wrong side of a pretty clear multi-generational international human rights travesty. 

Hunky Dory, honestly just Cullen's French and it's a way better than mine.  It might not be impossible for him to play well in Quebec but he's clearly going to have to show some significant evidence of that for his campaign to have a hope. 

I really like Saganash, I think he'd be an extremely hard opponent for Harper from what I've seen so far.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Thanks to Ottawa Observer for that bit of sanity. Having never targeted CTV's Question Period I wasn't aware of their production timing.

I like melovesproles observation about how odd it is we assume Topp's people should go quiet for a day just because some other candidate is having a launch / major announcement.

The tinfoil hat aspect of this isn't that Topp's people want to influence the coverage, but rather that there is something odious about the fact that Topp's people want to influence the coverage. I suppose yesterday's floating of Dewar's participation in a conference of religious progressives several year ago was a coincidence.

There is no grand conspiracy here. What we have is severl campaigns using what they have available to influence the narrative.

Nothing to see here. Return to your farms and villages.

flight from kamakura

we're all on the same side here, so let's not lose track of that.  even if that devil-spawn topp wins *wink*

so yeah, my brother is on the provincial campaign in ottawa center and it's a really tense thing dewar's entering the race, ot at least so he says.  conflicted loyalties.

AnonymousMouse

flight from kamakura wrote:

so yeah, my brother is on the provincial campaign in ottawa center and it's a really tense thing dewar's entering the race, ot at least so he says.  conflicted loyalties.

I did find it a bit odd that Dewar announced the last weekend before E-Day in the provincial election, but I'm sure his campaign won't be fully up and running before Thursday and that in the meantime he's encouraging his supporters to participate provincially.

AnonymousMouse

melovesproles wrote:

AnonymousMouse, How can you have a principled pro-peace position when you run cover for Israel's occupation of the Palestinians?  He's on the wrong side of a pretty clear multi-generational international human rights travesty. 

Mulcair has connections to the Jewish community in Montreal. I think his wife and kids are Jewish too. A lot of people assume based on this that he has anti-Palestinian views, but I've never actually seen him say anything to suggest that. In fact, he's repeatedly said he supports party policy on this issue and echoed the exact same positions taken by Jack Layton.

Kady O'Malley reported a while back (a year or so ago) that he gave a speech at a Canada-Israel Committee event taking people to task for calling the organizers of Israeli Apartheid Week anti-semites. He disagreed with the use of that word, as did Layton, but he also had the courage to tell such an audience they it's wrong to use those kinds of fear tactics.

Many will of course point to that dispute with Libby Davies, but in that case Mulcair was reacting to comments Libby made that seemed to suggest that all of Israel was occupied land (present tense)--as if Israelis living there now didn't have the right to do so. Now Libby clearly didn't understand the question being asked of her, the person asking it seemed to make no effort to clarify and Mulcair clearly should have waited to see how Libby ultimately reacted before commenting on the issue, but that's a very different set of questions than what his policy views are on the larger issue.

I think it's pretty obvious that Mulcair will get asked about this if he runs, so we'll definitely get to understand his views more clearly before long.

AnonymousMouse

Malcolm wrote:
The tinfoil hat aspect of this isn't that Topp's people want to influence the coverage, but rather that there is something odious about the fact that Topp's people want to influence the coverage. I suppose yesterday's floating of Dewar's participation in a conference of religious progressives several year ago was a coincidence.

There is no grand conspiracy here.

No one is saying there's anything wrong with trying to influence media coverage. No one is saying there's any grand conspiracy (with regard to this issue, certainly). No one is claiming this dynamic would apply to every major announcement of the campaign. And obviously there's nothing wrong with the stories Dewar has been feeding the press, or most of the stories Topp's camp has been feeding the press.

But...

The moment I saw the Libby Davies endorsement come out before Cullen's launch, I figured the same thing would happen with Dewar's launch. It did. The timing suggests that these annoucements were intentionally meant to step on media coverage for Cullen and Dewar. I also immediately thought that a non-trivial number of people would think this was petty. From what I'm hearing that is also exactly what's happened. I find Topp's comments above denying that this was intentionally timed to be very strange and lacking in credibility. It doesn't come off as what I would expect to see from someone running to be Prime Minister, though, many of Topp's other qualities do.

Now, if you disagree that such tactics are petty, fine, but that's a separate question from whether it is a "conspiracy theory" to think that such tactics are being used. Calling it tin foil hat to disagree with the use of these tactics, suggests that people who disagree with you on a question of opinion (whether the tactics are appropriate) are somehow wrong on a question of fact (whether the tactics are even being used).

KenS

AnonymousMouse wrote:

The comments on this thread defended the tactics and none of them suggested that the timing was not deliberate.

Therfore, you will simply say that they agreed the timing was self-evident.

AnonymousMouse wrote:
But I didn't write that "standard" meant "every single time", I wrote that while embargoed press releases are "common", most press released are not embargoed. Your comment--"It is standard procedure to set a release time as well as a release date. As a courtesy to media, one will generally issue the news release well in advance with the notation 'Embargoed until date time.'"--seemed to me to suggest that you were saying MOST press releases are embargoed, not just that most PEOPLE/ORGANIZATIONS involved in such activities use embargoed press releases "from time to time".

It is self-evident that the meaning was the latter- unless of course, you are looking for something else.

AnonymousMouse wrote:
No, I'm not suggesting that "there are limit circumstances" in which embargoed press releases are used, but rather, just as I wrote, that they are used for "specific" reasons. Embargoing a press release is not normally done when one simply "wants it released at a particular time". If that is the only concern, one can just send the release at a particular time. Embargoed press releases are generally used when one wants to give the media lead time before a certain time or event, but does not want the information contained in that release published before that time or event.

Again, acting as if something is a fact, when you dont know what you are talking about, and are wrong to boot.When that was pointed out to you by OO, you accepted that, but said that I still think the timing was deliberate. Well, yeah. The problem is not what you think. Its the stretches you will go to to convince everyone else. "My god people. Dont you see."

AnonymousMouse wrote:
There hasn't been a ton of coverage of either the endorsement or Dewar's announcement so far that I can see, but with Cullen's announcement there were quite a few stories that introduced Cullen then quickly went on to talk about the Libby Davies announcement as well as independent stories about the Davies endorsement. Both have obviously gotten wide circulation in NDP circles. That would be the purpose of releasing just before a rivals campaign launch.

Look at the articles that lead about Brian Topp in the last few days, they also pro forma mention the other candidates. Your right, there is a pattern here. But its the obvious one, rather than the one you see: the media are copying each other how they now report most announcements by any one.

 

 

KenS

Martin Singh made his announcement ahead of Paul Dewar. And it was reported days ahead that it would be like that.

Self-evident he did that to upstage Paul Dewar. And Brian Topp's Shirley Douglas announcement while he was at it.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

melovesproles wrote:

AnonymousMouse, How can you have a principled pro-peace position when you run cover for Israel's occupation of the Palestinians?  He's on the wrong side of a pretty clear multi-generational international human rights travesty. 

Hunky Dory, honestly just Cullen's French and it's a way better than mine.  It might not be impossible for him to play well in Quebec but he's clearly going to have to show some significant evidence of that for his campaign to have a hope. 

I really like Saganash, I think he'd be an extremely hard opponent for Harper from what I've seen so far.

Here is at least some of the case for Saganash

1)From Quebec, obviously(thus probably making Quebec support rock-solid in the next election);

2)First Nation, which gives him connections throughout Turtle Island, (as opposed to Mulcair, the only OTHER Quebec candidate at this time, who has yet to develop cross-Canada appeal);

3)At ease in both official languages, as well as Cree of course;

4)A record as a fighter on many social justice issues;

5)A presence on television that comes off as soft-spoken, yet passionate, with something of a sense of humor;

6)A new MP, yet a veteran of politics;

7)Potential to be able to moblize activists and their views within the party, and to create a sense among those activists that they and their views will actually matter, whether or not they always get all that they want(which, sadly, nobody ever quite does);

8)Having had Topp try clumsily to block him from entering the race, and being from Quebec but NOT having much direct connection to Mulcair and the Montreal Dippers, Saganash can be a candidate that people from either of those campaigns would have less difficulty swinging their support to if their preferred candidate drops out at some point;

9)Unlike Dewar, not known as a "hawk", so could also be a "come up the middle" candidate for those who want neither Topp nor Mulcair but who also don't want a more prowar NDP foreign policy.

 

These are just a few things.

 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

BTW, if anybody wants to lay out point by point cases for their preferred candidates, go for it.  I'm sure you've got 'em.

AnonymousMouse

KenS wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:

The comments on this thread defended the tactics and none of them suggested that the timing was not deliberate.

Therfore, you will simply say that they agreed the timing was self-evident.

No, refering to several posters who found the tactic unobjectionable but none of whom suggested the timing wasn't intentional, I wrote that they SEEMED to agree that it was self-evident.

KenS wrote:
AnonymousMouse wrote:
But I didn't write that "standard" meant "every single time", I wrote that while embargoed press releases are "common", most press released are not embargoed. Your comment--"It is standard procedure to set a release time as well as a release date. As a courtesy to media, one will generally issue the news release well in advance with the notation 'Embargoed until date time.'"--seemed to me to suggest that you were saying MOST press releases are embargoed, not just that most PEOPLE/ORGANIZATIONS involved in such activities use embargoed press releases "from time to time".

It is self-evident that the meaning was the latter- unless of course, you are looking for something else.

Maybe that was clear to you, it wasn't to me. I simply wrote that most press releases are not embargoed; as I later wrote, if Malcolm and I agree on that, GREAT!

KenS wrote:
AnonymousMouse wrote:
No, I'm not suggesting that "there are limit circumstances" in which embargoed press releases are used, but rather, just as I wrote, that they are used for "specific" reasons. Embargoing a press release is not normally done when one simply "wants it released at a particular time". If that is the only concern, one can just send the release at a particular time. Embargoed press releases are generally used when one wants to give the media lead time before a certain time or event, but does not want the information contained in that release published before that time or event.

Again, acting as if something is a fact, when you dont know what you are talking about, and are wrong to boot.When that was pointed out to you by OO, you accepted that, but said that I still think the timing was deliberate.

You can claim I don't know what I'm talking about, but since I didn't make my argument based on such an appeal to authority that's really neither here nor there. In this case, these are two entirely separate points. I made the point that embargoes are used for specific reasons. That's not wrong, it's right. OO's point only supports that contention. OO suggested why the specific time 11:00am would be used--to give media lead time, but ensure it isn't published until CTV's QP gets a chance to cover it as breaking news. I acknowledged OO's point, and I appreciate it, but it doesn't change the fact that the story was embargoed in such a way that prevented an event from being cover in the Sunday papers that occured Saturday night, thus reducing the likelihood that it would be covered by the newspapers at all. Seems clear to me that the most likely reason for doing that was to make sure it got mixed up in the same newscycle as the Dewar launch, but you clealy disagree. OK, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise.

KenS wrote:
Well, yeah. The problem is not what you think. Its the stretches you will go to to convince everyone else. "My god people. Dont you see."

As to stretches, if you re-read the posts I've written on this subject, I think you'll find they're mostly deidcated to arguing against the idea that it is 'paranoid tin foil hat conspiracy seeking' to believe that the timing of these endorsements was deliberate, and then correcting or clarifying various posts that refer to things I wrote. I get the sense from your posts that you're frustrated by this lengthy back and forth. So am I! But when I feel something I wrote is being misunderstood or misrepresented, I'm generally gonna respond. Again, if you re-read my posts on this subject, I think you'll find that the vast majority of what I've written is simply that sort of response, combined with arguing against the proposition that this whole line of thinking is complete off the wall.

The reference to what I felt other posters "seemed" to be aknowledging as self-evident was in the context of trying to clarify the difference between whether this thing was done and whether it was apprpriate that it was done. I couldn't understand from Malcolm's posts whether he felt it was 'paranoid tin foil hat conspiracy seeking' because there was no evidence to support the claim, or simply because he felt it was an acceptable tactic either way.

KenS wrote:
AnonymousMouse wrote:
There hasn't been a ton of coverage of either the endorsement or Dewar's announcement so far that I can see, but with Cullen's announcement there were quite a few stories that introduced Cullen then quickly went on to talk about the Libby Davies announcement as well as independent stories about the Davies endorsement. Both have obviously gotten wide circulation in NDP circles. That would be the purpose of releasing just before a rivals campaign launch.

Look at the articles that lead about Brian Topp in the last few days, they also pro forma mention the other candidates. Your right, there is a pattern here. But its the obvious one, rather than the one you see: the media are copying each other how they now report most announcements by any one.

I agree completely, but knowing these patterns exist, if you give media outlets more news (endorsements) on a relate subject (the NDP leadership) it can reduce the amount of coverage given to other elements of the same story (the campaign launches).

AnonymousMouse

Ken Burch wrote:

BTW, if anybody wants to lay out point by point cases for their preferred candidates, go for it.  I'm sure you've got 'em.

I have two basic criteria when assessing the leadership candidates: I want a progressive and I want a winner.

The "progressive" element is a bar that needs to be crossed. I think all or most of the candidates will support the policies and approach of the Layton era. That's good enough for me as long as it's genuine--and, for all of the candidates I know anything about, I think it is genuine.

I think finding a winner is mostly about speaking both official languages, political judgement and having the bearing, stature and charisma people look for in a Prime Minister. Most of the candidates have enough general political experience/judgement. As for the charisma factor, I think Cullen and Mulcair have a significant lead. I hear a lot of people who say they are drawn to Paul Dewar, but I don't see it and I'm worried about his French--I'll trying to understand what some people see that I'm missing as the race unfolds, but I can't see supporting him.

Howard

ottawaobserver wrote:

Well, from the video and the coverage, I think Dewar had an excellent launch. It was a very good looking event; he spoke well; they had a huge turnout for an event like that (500) people; and I thought his speech hit on all the right themes. Paul's not one for holding grudges about small slights like a potentially conflicting endorsement, especially since he would understand perfectly well the Sunday 11 AM coveted news release embargo-time. Tempest meet teapot.

Well put Oo.

Howard

It's hard to figure out where the Hill Times is getting their information from in this article, but it expects the leadership race field to round out with:

"The other MPs expected to enter were Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, Que.), Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westiminster, B.C.), Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth-Cole Harbour, N.S.) and either Peggy Nash (Parkdale-High Park, Ont.) or Niki Ashton (Churchill, Man.),  or both of them."

The article seems to forget Martin Singh and I'm still waiting to see who the Socialist Caucus' candidate would be. So if the article is right then there would be 9 to 11 candidates. Given as there is no candidate from the prairies, I half expect Niki Ashton to run. Also, given no mention of a Pat Martin run, despite his wide quoting in the article, I suspect Martin is backing off his threat to run. Does this mean there will be a candidate in the race willing to speak of a Lib-NDP merger? Does this mean Martin will be giving someone his endorsement? We. shall. see.

AnonymousMouse

Howard wrote:
Also, given no mention of a Pat Martin run, despite his wide quoting in the article, I suspect Martin is backing off his threat to run. Does this mean there will be a candidate in the race willing to speak of a Lib-NDP merger? Does this mean Martin will be giving someone his endorsement? We. shall. see.

We SHALL see, but from the moment Martin made those comments I thought that (a) there'd be no merger candidate and (b) Martin wouldn't get in the race anyway. I like Pat Martin, but he is known for his "bold" statements. Eleven candidates would be a lot.

Wilf Day

ottawaobserver wrote:

Well, from the video and the coverage, I think Dewar had an excellent launch. It was a very good looking event; he spoke well; they had a huge turnout for an event like that (500) people; and I thought his speech hit on all the right themes.

It was a nice performance, although I was surprised by the small proportion of French.

One thing puzzled me: the timing. I assumed he was waiting until he had a couple of endorsements lined up. Not so, unless he's going to release a couple today. So what was he waiting for?

AnonymousMouse

Wilf Day wrote:

One thing puzzled me: the timing. I assumed [Dewar] was waiting until he had a couple of endorsements lined up. Not so, unless he's going to release a couple today. So what was he waiting for?

Joan Bryden suggested that he was deliberately "shunning" big name endorsements to focus on the idea that his would be a grassroots campaign.

vermonster

Ken Burch wrote:

Here is at least some of the case for Saganash

1)From Quebec, obviously(thus probably making Quebec support rock-solid in the next election);

I have a great deal of admiration for Romeo Saganash and am seriously considering supporting him for leader (although I plan to wait to see how the debates and the campaign play out before deciding about any candidate).

But Saganash has a potential significant liability in Quebec if he is elected leader. In the past he has advocated that IF Quebec were to vote to separate, the First Nations and Inuit territory of the province would be allowed to vote to separate from Quebec and stay in Canada.

I don't want to start a debate here around things like the Clarity Act, the divisibility of Quebec territory, etc -- there are extremely complex and difficult positions on both sides of an issue like this. But that position would certainly give the Bloc a huge issue to go after Saganash with and to attempt to regain a lot of the soft nationalist vote that went NPD in the last election - and rather than "making Quebec support rock-solid in the next election" could make it more difficult to consolidate hold in Quebec.

The difficult tightrope that the party needs to walk here in Quebec is full of potential problems like this, and any new leader is going to be scrutinized carefully by all sides for past statements and issues that could damage their appeal. (For example, Mulcair began his political career as a fairly conventional Liberal with some focus on Anglo/Allophone rights issues - I wonder if there are statements he made in that period that might be used by the Bloc to criticise him if he were to become leader. The same tests might be applied to leaders from outside Quebec who might have made past statements that might not be well received in Quebec... or in the ROC.)   

 

dacckon dacckon's picture

Lets create an example.Pretend that today is a quiet day, no other candidate releases any information.There are no launches today, not even a rally. Other campaigns are still in the process of organization. Then BAM, a Shirely Douglas endorsement, or a Libby Davies endorsement.That would have gotten more coverage today, then that of which he received prior(an article or two on the toronto star). If anything, it seems like the reverse to me, that he's either campaigning on an already established date that ocassionally conincides with other dates, or that he's purposely downplaying his campaign so he doesn't seem like a steamrolling juggernaught. Unless he has more endorsements/events coming up that are even bigger( I think Megan Lesie cited something on twitter about one in NS). Anyways, its inevitable that the campaigns will try to build momentum over the course of the leadership election. Oh and I found this being tweeted around.

Gonzaga

(1) Good to know about Saganash and First Nations/Inuit territory. He often seems a bit retiring when I see him, but he might be able to make it work. (2) I don't think Quebecers will consider it a slap in the face if somebody other than Mulcair wins. If somebody who isn't appealing when they speak French wins, they'll stampede (which doesn't mean perfect French (cf. Jack Layton), but the magic has to be there). (3) I spent some time trying to get the actually content of Mulcair's swings at Libby Davis on the divest, boycott, and sanctions stuff, and all I could find was that he was pretty harsh about her seeming to talk out of turn. Is he really a hardliner on Israel? Has he said something pro-colonization? Pro-wall? Pro - Gaza strip bombing? (4) really wish when people belabour an argument (i.e., embargoed press releases) they'd do it privately. The points were all made in the first posts.

AnonymousMouse

dacckon wrote:

Lets create an example.Pretend that today is a quiet day, no other candidate releases any information.There are no launches today, not even a rally. Other campaigns are still in the process of organization. Then BAM, a Shirely Douglas endorsement, or a Libby Davies endorsement.That would have gotten more coverage today, then that of which he received prior(an article or two on the toronto star). If anything, it seems like the reverse to me, that he's either campaigning on an already established date that ocassionally conincides with other dates, or that he's purposely downplaying his campaign so he doesn't seem like a steamrolling juggernaught.

It's a trade off--maximize your own coverage, or step on coverage of your opponent to reduce how much coverage they get and make a show of force. This is not an unheard of tactic. Here's the thing, though: the Libby Davies endorsement was a brief appearence on Parliament Hill. It was not linked to any event. Cullen's announcement date was reported well in advance. If the thinking was that it would be worse to announce on the same day as Cullen's launch, they could have easily changed it. That suggests, at the very least, they didn't think it was strategically worse to release the endorsement on the same day.

Pages

Topic locked