NDP leadership race #125

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture
NDP leadership race #125

Boo! Smile

Issues Pages: 
Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Rosie Barton just made a very public appeal to Thomas Mulcair to come on P&P before the convention.

LeftCoastPocket

The Vancouver debate was my first exposure to the full field of candidates, how they interact with one another and with the public. I've seen various sound bites and also decided to watch a few recommended interviews of Brian Topp. I will disclose in advance that I rejoined the NDP at the 11th hour (February 18) specifically to support Thomas Mulcair as a I felt this opportunity to support our next Prime Minister was too important an opportunity to pass up, and it would be an epic disaster if he was not chosen.

My impression, as a pragmatist who hasn't been drinking NDP kool-aid in many years, is as follows:

Paul Dewar: inarticulate candidate, lacking in intellect and charisma. I was relieved that very few opportunities presented themselves for Mr. Dewar to speak during the debate. Very reminiscent of Justin Trudeau, he comes across as one born with a silver spoon in his mouth, with this curious naivete about the world. He was simply unbearable. Are Mr. Dewar and Ms. Ashton running for class president or for leader of the official opposition?

Ms. Ashton: Ms. Ashton seems confused. Her robotic presentation was much like a grade 11 student delivering his or her very first social studies oral presentation. She had a prepared script of verbal diarrhea and recited it from start to finish. She never once answered a question directly (lest it veer her from the prepared script). She's clearly lacking intellectual and emotional maturity. I am floored, absolutely floored, that anyone would consider her suitable for leadership of the NDP. She would be more suited to running for president of the North Korean Communist Party Youth Wing. Someone said it earlier, she neither represents new politics nor the interests of youth. This young woman (and I am the same age as her) has likely been brainwashed by her father.

Brian Topp: Mr. Topp should be judged by his actions, not his words. Mr. Topp is an architect of centrist governments, and assisted Layton in the much needed modernization of the NDP. Mr. Topp is a centrist who, strategically, is campaigning from the left to distinguish himself from the front runner, Mr. Mulcair, who has stated that he will continue Layton's process of modernization. Mr. Topp, if he was capable of being elected, would govern from the centre. Which brings me to my next point. Mr. Topp is awkward and inarticulate. I found his debate performance to be extremely poor. Yet people comment that he has improved. He lacks the social skills and social intelligence needed to succeed. He articulates himself, much like "Ms. Ashton" as a polished and rehearsed ideologue. The lack of real life work experience shows. Mr. Topp is an anglophone who hasn't lived in Quebec for some 30 odd years. And he thinks he can just parachute into a francophone Quebec riding and win a by-election? Who would he force out? Poor Ruth Ellen Brosseau? Mr. Topp will not win in Quebec. He would be advised to ask his ally Libby Davies to step down and allow him to run in Van East, where he has a chance of being elected. Mr. Topp's laundry list of endorsements, coming from the dinosaur wing of the NDP establishment, speaks volumes. Clearly these people lack sound judgement, if they would choose to destroy the NDP by taking a gamble with the back room political strategist.

Peggy Nash: Peggy has spent her career entrenched in the union movement. Canadians primarily work in non-union, private sector industries. The Cons will simply paint the NDP yet again, as being in bed with the unions. What frustrates me about the Peggy types is that they simply don't understand life outside of the trade union movement and they don't understand the needs of non-union workers who earn a small penance compared with the well to do in public and private sector unions. Most workers will not support union activists, and sadly these activists don't understand how to appeal to workers. Peggy has also demonstrated an inability to be re-elected to political office. She lost her riding in both 2004 and 2008. She projects herself as rather meek and timid, with a quiet, high pitched voice. She would be crushed by Harper. She could learn a thing or two from Margaret Thatcher.

Collectively, I see these four candidates as being representative of the traditional, "big labour" wing of the NDP. These candidates would take the NDP backwards. These candidates would fail in Quebec and in Western Canada, and reduce the NDP to fourth party status. Most alarming, the consequences of this would be the ushering in of a new age of Bloc Quebecois resurgence in Quebec. I believe it irresponsible for anyone to support one of these candidates. It's like saying you want the NDP to fail.

Nathan Cullen, Thomas Mulcair, and Martin Singh are the "idea" candidates. It is telling that so many members of the youthful "new left" in Quebec so overwhelming endorse Thomas Mulcair. The Ruth Ellen Brosseau's of this world represent the future, the Ed Broadbent and Peggy Nash's, the distant past. I was impressed by both Mr. Singh and Mr. Cullen, not only because they are both well spoken and articulate, but inject much needed new ideas/new blood into the NDP discourse. These are two accomplished people who, in contrast to most in the NDP, have run their own successful businesses. I can tell when they speak that they are open minded and progressive but also realists. We need more of this in the NDP. I hope Singh finds an appropriate riding and that Mr. Cullen and Mr. Singh find prominent roles in a Mulcair cabinet.

What can I say about Thomas Mulcair? He has run a very safe, pragmatic, front-runner's campaign. A seasoned veteran with experience in cabinet, he has appropriately made few specific spending commitments. To do otherwise at this juncture would be irresponsible. He is the only candidate to come from a professional background. He has the combination of intellect, education, private and public sector work experience, and experience in government that the NDP needs. This candidate is a prime minister. The other candidates simply cannot compare. Mr. Mulcair is the first and only NDP candidate to be re-elected in Quebec. He demonstrates his NDP bonafides through his actions, and his unwavering participation in this movement. To say otherwise is slander, pure and simple. For the other candidates to hold Mr. Mulcair to some "purity" test is truly, truly petty. Reminiscent of classical elitist snobbery, and a good way to discourage youth from participating in politics. Mr. Mulcair is the real deal, and a true New Democrat. Mr. Mulcair did not jump into the NDP leadership race - he built up grass roots support and, as he should, went out on the hustings to sign up new NDP members. Contrast this to the approach of Mr. Topp - who, like too many NDP politicians these days, went from the "Topp - down" by currying favour with the establishment elites, in the hope that he could create an insurmountable campaign and be the "inevitable" candidate. So many NDP nomination contests these days are run just like this.

I am excited about this campaign for the opportunities it creates. The NDP has three candidates who truly understand the real world, who represent the new left, who can unite progressives. For the first time, we have a candidate who can unite all regions of this country under the NDP banner - and that is Mr. Mulcair. It would be irresponsible and irrational for any NDP supporter not to fully support him. It would be nice to see people rally behind Mr. Mulcair and deliver to him a strong mandate - maybe even a first ballot victory - instead of rebelliously supporting a no-hope and flawed candidate as their first choice.

 

duncan cameron

Tom Flannigan just came out for Tom Mulcair, another hot headed short tempered Irish man like me, or words to that effect. Tom wants Tom because of the sparks that would fly in the House, the entertainment value of the clashes with Harper.

Flannigan has gone over to Wild Rose from the Alta. Cons which I did not know.

Hunky_Monkey

sdm... thanks for your response in the previous thread.

Question... does being specific in raising the top bracket to a specific number make you more left wing than someone who says they support a fairer, more progressive income tax system?

Hunky_Monkey

duncan cameron wrote:

Tom Flannigan just came out for Tom Mulcair, another hot headed short tempered Irish man like me, or words to that effect. Tom wants Tom because of the sparks that would fly in the House, the entertainment value of the clashes with Harper.

Flannigan has gone over to Wild Rose from the Alta. Cons which I did not know.

I love how you make it sound as if Tom Flannigan "endorses" Mulcair LOL

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Tom Flanagan is always making wisecracks on P&P, for the sake of humour. I'd take his comment accordingly.

nicky

LPC, welcome to Babble. I agree with almost everything you have said. 

The leadership question we face is simply whether the party is prepared to spurn our most compelling and electorally promising potential candidate in order to keep a blinkered and parochial establishment in place.

 

duncan cameron

Leadership races are like sporting events for people like Tom Flannigan and many in the press as well. Even causual observors pick a favorite and cheer them on. Do you not agree H_M ?

NorthReport

LCP

Welcome to Rabble - what a refreshing and incredibly good post.

 

Hopefully you will stick around as some will need to view your message many times before it begins to resonate.

MegB

LeftCoastPocket wrote:

The Vancouver debate was my first exposure to the full field of candidates, how they interact with one another and with the public. I've seen various sound bites and also decided to watch a few recommended interviews of Brian Topp. I will disclose in advance that I rejoined the NDP at the 11th hour (February 18) specifically to support Thomas Mulcair as a I felt this opportunity to support our next Prime Minister was too important an opportunity to pass up, and it would be an epic disaster if he was not chosen.

My impression, as a pragmatist who hasn't been drinking NDP kool-aid in many years, is as follows:

Paul Dewar: inarticulate candidate, lacking in intellect and charisma. I was relieved that very few opportunities presented themselves for Mr. Dewar to speak during the debate. Very reminiscent of Justin Trudeau, he comes across as one born with a silver spoon in his mouth, with this curious naivete about the world. He was simply unbearable. Are Mr. Dewar and Ms. Ashton running for class president or for leader of the official opposition?

Ms. Ashton: Ms. Ashton seems confused. Her robotic presentation was much like a grade 11 student delivering his or her very first social studies oral presentation. She had a prepared script of verbal diarrhea and recited it from start to finish. She never once answered a question directly (lest it veer her from the prepared script). She's clearly lacking intellectual and emotional maturity. I am floored, absolutely floored, that anyone would consider her suitable for leadership of the NDP. She would be more suited to running for president of the North Korean Communist Party Youth Wing. Someone said it earlier, she neither represents new politics nor the interests of youth. This young woman (and I am the same age as her) has likely been brainwashed by her father.

Brian Topp: Mr. Topp should be judged by his actions, not his words. Mr. Topp is an architect of centrist governments, and assisted Layton in the much needed modernization of the NDP. Mr. Topp is a centrist who, strategically, is campaigning from the left to distinguish himself from the front runner, Mr. Mulcair, who has stated that he will continue Layton's process of modernization. Mr. Topp, if he was capable of being elected, would govern from the centre. Which brings me to my next point. Mr. Topp is awkward and inarticulate. I found his debate performance to be extremely poor. Yet people comment that he has improved. He lacks the social skills and social intelligence needed to succeed. He articulates himself, much like "Ms. Ashton" as a polished and rehearsed ideologue. The lack of real life work experience shows. Mr. Topp is an anglophone who hasn't lived in Quebec for some 30 odd years. And he thinks he can just parachute into a francophone Quebec riding and win a by-election? Who would he force out? Poor Ruth Ellen Brosseau? Mr. Topp will not win in Quebec. He would be advised to ask his ally Libby Davies to step down and allow him to run in Van East, where he has a chance of being elected. Mr. Topp's laundry list of endorsements, coming from the dinosaur wing of the NDP establishment, speaks volumes. Clearly these people lack sound judgement, if they would choose to destroy the NDP by taking a gamble with the back room political strategist.

Peggy Nash: Peggy has spent her career entrenched in the union movement. Canadians primarily work in non-union, private sector industries. The Cons will simply paint the NDP yet again, as being in bed with the unions. What frustrates me about the Peggy types is that they simply don't understand life outside of the trade union movement and they don't understand the needs of non-union workers who earn a small penance compared with the well to do in public and private sector unions. Most workers will not support union activists, and sadly these activists don't understand how to appeal to workers. Peggy has also demonstrated an inability to be re-elected to political office. She lost her riding in both 2004 and 2008. She projects herself as rather meek and timid, with a quiet, high pitched voice. She would be crushed by Harper. She could learn a thing or two from Margaret Thatcher.

Collectively, I see these four candidates as being representative of the traditional, "big labour" wing of the NDP. These candidates would take the NDP backwards. These candidates would fail in Quebec and in Western Canada, and reduce the NDP to fourth party status. Most alarming, the consequences of this would be the ushering in of a new age of Bloc Quebecois resurgence in Quebec. I believe it irresponsible for anyone to support one of these candidates. It's like saying you want the NDP to fail.

Nathan Cullen, Thomas Mulcair, and Martin Singh are the "idea" candidates. It is telling that so many members of the youthful "new left" in Quebec so overwhelming endorse Thomas Mulcair. The Ruth Ellen Brosseau's of this world represent the future, the Ed Broadbent and Peggy Nash's, the distant past. I was impressed by both Mr. Singh and Mr. Cullen, not only because they are both well spoken and articulate, but inject much needed new ideas/new blood into the NDP discourse. These are two accomplished people who, in contrast to most in the NDP, have run their own successful businesses. I can tell when they speak that they are open minded and progressive but also realists. We need more of this in the NDP. I hope Singh finds an appropriate riding and that Mr. Cullen and Mr. Singh find prominent roles in a Mulcair cabinet.

What can I say about Thomas Mulcair? He has run a very safe, pragmatic, front-runner's campaign. A seasoned veteran with experience in cabinet, he has appropriately made few specific spending commitments. To do otherwise at this juncture would be irresponsible. He is the only candidate to come from a professional background. He has the combination of intellect, education, private and public sector work experience, and experience in government that the NDP needs. This candidate is a prime minister. The other candidates simply cannot compare. Mr. Mulcair is the first and only NDP candidate to be re-elected in Quebec. He demonstrates his NDP bonafides through his actions, and his unwavering participation in this movement. To say otherwise is slander, pure and simple. For the other candidates to hold Mr. Mulcair to some "purity" test is truly, truly petty. Reminiscent of classical elitist snobbery, and a good way to discourage youth from participating in politics. Mr. Mulcair is the real deal, and a true New Democrat. Mr. Mulcair did not jump into the NDP leadership race - he built up grass roots support and, as he should, went out on the hustings to sign up new NDP members. Contrast this to the approach of Mr. Topp - who, like too many NDP politicians these days, went from the "Topp - down" by currying favour with the establishment elites, in the hope that he could create an insurmountable campaign and be the "inevitable" candidate. So many NDP nomination contests these days are run just like this.

I am excited about this campaign for the opportunities it creates. The NDP has three candidates who truly understand the real world, who represent the new left, who can unite progressives. For the first time, we have a candidate who can unite all regions of this country under the NDP banner - and that is Mr. Mulcair. It would be irresponsible and irrational for any NDP supporter not to fully support him. It would be nice to see people rally behind Mr. Mulcair and deliver to him a strong mandate - maybe even a first ballot victory - instead of rebelliously supporting a no-hope and flawed candidate as their first choice.

Welcome to babble.  Word of warning, while partisanship is welcome here, and makes for better discussion, personal attacks are not.  Please confine your remarks to the candidates' platforms, strengths and weaknesses.

Thanks.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

LeftCoastPocket wrote:
Ms. Ashton: Ms. Ashton seems confused. Her robotic presentation was much like a grade 11 student delivering his or her very first social studies oral presentation. She had a prepared script of verbal diarrhea and recited it from start to finish. She never once answered a question directly (lest it veer her from the prepared script). She's clearly lacking intellectual and emotional maturity. I am floored, absolutely floored, that anyone would consider her suitable for leadership of the NDP. She would be more suited to running for president of the North Korean Communist Party Youth Wing. Someone said it earlier, she neither represents new politics nor the interests of youth. This young woman (and I am the same age as her) has likely been brainwashed by her father.

"verbal diarrhea"???? Really? You and I must have been watching different debates.

"She would be more suited to running for president of the North Korean Communist Party Youth Wing."   Wow, just wow. Why are you here, anyway???

I've flagged your post as offensive.

NorthReport

Screw them.

 

Seriously though, things ae looking better and better for Tom with every passing day as we approach D-Day, so why should he go to visit the enemy's den when it is not necessary to do so. Stay away from those CBC clowns Tom, you are doing just fine without them.

 

Boom Boom wrote:

Rosie Barton just made a very public appeal to Thomas Mulcair to come on P&P before the convention.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

The Martin Singh interview - well, he claims Topp is smearing his (Singh's) campaign and continues not to tell the truth about his (Topp's) tax plan.

Says he is in the race to win, and his supporters can mark Mulcair second.

Maintains Topp's tax plan hurts women's right to choose an abortion.

Ian Capstick is eviscerating Singh on P&P, because as Ian says, no one supports a woman's right to choose more than Brian Topp, and Singh should apologise, then drop out of the race.

 I'm pretty sure Mulcair isn't reading Babble, but if he were, I'd advise him not to have anything to do with Marty Singh.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

NorthReport wrote:

LCP

Welcome to Rabble - what a refreshing and incredibly good post.

 

Hopefully you will stick around as some will need to view your message many times before it begins to resonate.

So - you agree with LCP's comments on Ashton, then?

NorthReport

I agree with most of his post, but I'm not in love with him/her.  Laughing

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

LeftCoastPocket wrote:
Collectively, I see these four candidates as being representative of the traditional, "big labour" wing of the NDP. These candidates would take the NDP backwards. These candidates would fail in Quebec and in Western Canada, and reduce the NDP to fourth party status. Most alarming, the consequences of this would be the ushering in of a new age of Bloc Quebecois resurgence in Quebec. I believe it irresponsible for anyone to support one of these candidates. It's like saying you want the NDP to fail.

You're obviously not aware that your candidate, Mulcair, has Labour endorsements - significant ones.

duncan cameron

http://www2.lactualite.com/jean-francois-lisee/mulcair-pit-bull-pour-la-...

In this second part of his blog post on Mulcair, Lisée indentifies Tom as the good guy in the struggle over the enviroment in Ville Laval, where in defending wetlands he ran up against the developers who fund the Liberal Party. Already blocking Premier Charests project to sell off Mt Orford Park, Tom got the hook, and was offered a demotion from the Environ Ministery.

The rest is history. Tom left cabinet and the PLQ, and Jack was succcessful in recruiting him. JFL does not explain why Tom did not become the Liberal candidate in Outrement. Stock can correct me, but I think Tom and Dion had fallen out when they were both envrion ministers and Dion was getting along with nobpdy in the PLQ.

Lisée is a story teller, and he has a political agenda, to help the PQ return to power. The tale of Mulcair helps him undermine the PLQ, which is on the ropes, and in serious trouble for not having kept construction money out of reach of political decision-making.

Lisée recognizes how effective Tom was in opposition, and credits him with being effective in government as well. He saw Mulcair as two-faced and unscrupulous in opposition fighting the Lisée guys in the PQ, but able to administer his department with competence.

Overall his tale supports the widely held view that Mulcair has great qualities as a front bench opposition figure and would make a fine minister in an NDP government (with or without Liberals in support). 

Whether he should be leader or not is another question. Part one of JFLs blog post is a cautionary tale in that regard I would think, one that Mulcair suuporters should ponder carefully, if such suggestions are still allowed at this stage of the proceedings. 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

NorthReport wrote:

I agree with most of his post, but I'm not in love with him/her.  Laughing

Did you bother to read LCP's post at all? I think it's one of the most offensive things I've seen posted on babble.

LeftCoastPocket

Wow, just wow. Why are you here, anyway???

Because I am a member of the progressive left and share the same values as others in this community. If you run for leadership of a political party, you can expect some harsh criticisms. I'm just being honest as someone from Niki's "generation". I'm not going to give her the kid glove treatment because of her age, as some politically correct supporters of hers will.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

LeftCoastPocket wrote:

 She could learn a thing or two from Margaret Thatcher.

 

That tells me where you're coming from. Why are you here again???

Hunky_Monkey

I take issue with Ashton being brainwashed, etc. While I agree she seems robotic and seems to put out rehearsed lines, I think the rest of it went over the line.

MegB

LeftCoastPocket wrote:

Wow, just wow. Why are you here, anyway???

Because I am a member of the progressive left and share the same values as others in this community. If you run for leadership of a political party, you can expect some harsh criticisms. I'm just being honest as someone from Niki's "generation". I'm not going to give her the kid glove treatment because of her age, as some politically correct supporters of hers will.

No candidate should go unscrutinized.  Your remarks about particular leadership candidates violate babble policy and the terms of agreement under which you created your account.  I'm not saying you shouldn't support any individual candidate to the fullest extent -- you should!  I am, however, pointing out that your method of support isn't what this site is about.  Reframe your point of view in a less hostile manner please.

duncan cameron

Nycole Turmel is giving a farewell interview to Rosie Barton. What a wonderful person, so thoughful, intelligent, and kind. She got a raw deal from the media about her leadership. In recent weeks she has been very effective in the House. And the staff and her colleagues obviously hold her in high regard. Today Olivia Chow made a members statement thanking her for taking over from Jack I understand. 

Being opposition leader is the toughest job in Ottawa, and she learned it fairly quickly, despite just becoming an M.P. Chrétien stumbled all over when he won the job, and he had about 25 years in the House before he got it.

LeftCoastPocket

Quote:

No candidate should go unscrutinized.  Your remarks about particular leadership candidates violate babble policy and the terms of agreement under which you created your account.  I'm not saying you shouldn't support any individual candidate to the fullest extent -- you should!  I am, however, pointing out that your method of support isn't what this site is about.  Reframe your point of view in a less hostile manner please.

 

If that were the circumstance, most critiques of Mr. Dewar posted in this forum would constitute violations of website policy. I don't want to get into a debate about this issue, but quite frankly you're being quite selective wagging your finger at my comments.

NorthReport

Easy BB, I said most, I didn't say all. And FWIW, while I basically agree with LCP's comments about Topp and Mulcair, Niki Ashton is my 2nd choice on my ballot.

I do think though BB, LCP had a lengthly post, and if you are going to criticise someone, you need to be very specific about what you are being critical about.

Boom Boom wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

I agree with most of his post, but I'm not in love with him/her.  Laughing

Did you bother to read LCP's post at all? I think it's one of the most offensive things I've seen posted on babble.

hatfield

LCP, i agree with most of your post, thank you for your thoughts.Im 29, just like Niki, and i have been underwhelmed by her. She gives robotic delivery most of the time, and I honestly cannot see her taking on Harper or Rae. Seriously. And Topp is severley Charisma challenged, not to mention I`ve been turned off by his campaign tactics big time. I dont get the appeal, ive tried but i just dont connect with him at all.Cullen has impressed me A LOT in the last few weeks, as has Mulcair.

MegB

LeftCoastPocket wrote:

Quote:

No candidate should go unscrutinized.  Your remarks about particular leadership candidates violate babble policy and the terms of agreement under which you created your account.  I'm not saying you shouldn't support any individual candidate to the fullest extent -- you should!  I am, however, pointing out that your method of support isn't what this site is about.  Reframe your point of view in a less hostile manner please.

 

If that were the circumstance, most critiques of Mr. Dewar posted in this forum would constitute violations of website policy. I don't want to get into a debate about this issue, but quite frankly you're being quite selective wagging your finger at my comments.

If you're looking for that kind of consistency, then you'll have to look at a discussion site that has 24/7 moderation.  Regardless, the "he/she started it" doesn't wash here.  It's not your POV, it's your aggressive and insulting expression of it.  So stop.  Please.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

It's unfortunate that the candidate who has called for accessible and affordable, if not free, education as all, and who has been most vocally supportive of First Nations rights in issues from education, health care and land claims is discounted because they find her too mechanical.

Would that we had that kind of robotics in the house of commons instead of the kind which issues platitudes and dodges with a winning smile.

Welcome to babble, LeftCoastPocket. I like your handle.

Jacob Two-Two

Ashton is over-rehearsed, but I wouldn't say robotic. Of all the candidates, she projects the most emotion. She is tense and uncomfortable though. It's a testament to the huge challenge that she's taken on in entering this race. I admire her a lot for deciding to run, with her youth and lack of experience and no backing to speak of. It's amazingly brave. Let's see any of the other candidates at thirty years old. How well would they have done then?

I've been consistently impressed with her intelligence, spirit, vision and energy. Yeah she speaks in slogans a lot, but she'll grow out of that. Seeing her mature through this race has really given me hope that the NDP has a bright future. Next time we have a leadership race, I wouldn't be surprised to find myself backing her from the start.

TheArchitect

Welcome to Babble, LeftCoastPocket!

And on that cheery note, I'm going to join the voices condemning your comment.  It's fine to criticize candidates, but your attacks crossed certain lines—especially your diatribe against Niki Ashton.  "Verbal diarrhea"?  "Lacking in intellectual and emotional maturity"?  "North Korean Communist Party youth wing"?  "Brainwashed by her father"?  It's fine to say you don't support Niki's candadacy, or even that you think she's completely unfit to lead the NDP, but this sort of vitriol is patently offensive.  I actually thought that the very worst of was your putting the name "Ms. Ashton" in quotes for no particular reason.  I don't know exactly what you're trying to insinuate, but I'm pretty darn sure that it has no place in our discourse.

If you support Mr. Mulcair, that's your prerogative.  Saying that "it would be irresponsible and irrational for any NDP supporter not to fully support him," or that people who support other candidates "lack sound judgement" and "would choose to destroy the NDP," and are practically "saying they want the NDP to fail," however, is rather over-the-top, and it also, if I may say so, does no service to your candidate.

josh

Interesting the biggest Mulcairites on the board welcomed the trollish LCP with effusive praise. His left bashing and mouthing of anti-union right-wing talking points apparently give them the warm and fuzzies.

As I said, interesting. And revealing.

Gaian

Just hunker down for a bit, LPC and test the wind. Please. Your forthright position is needed here, but you'll have to learn to "infer." Attack "positions." Compare some positions on babble with those of bedlam. :)

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I supported Mulcair and I condemn LCP's post completely. I flagged it.

josh

Boom Boom wrote:

I supported Mulcair and I condemn LCP's post completely. I flagged it.

To your credit. But I don't consider you one of the biggest Mulcairites on here.

MegB

Gaian wrote:
Just hunker down for a bit, LPC and test the wind. Please. Your forthright position is needed here, but you'll have to learn to "infer." Attack "positions." Compare some positions on babble with those of bedlam. :)

Welcome back Gaian!

Reminder: the underground passive-aggresive post is just as unacceptible as the overtly aggressive and insulting one.  Let's just try to express our differences of opinions in a way that is rational and non-hostile, K?

Ippurigakko

Ugh! many of all you negative some seven race, now im all lose my faith, i might not vote NDP next elections but i might move to Green Party instead.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

josh wrote:
Boom Boom wrote:

I supported Mulcair and I condemn LCP's post completely. I flagged it.

To your credit. But I don't consider you one of the biggest Mulcairites on here.

Thanks. I guess my diet is working! Smile

Gaian

He's describing the attitude of the real working world at the moment, josh, not your idealized version.

Hunky_Monkey

Catchfire wrote:

It's unfortunate that the candidate who has called for accessible and affordable, if not free, education as all, and who has been most vocally supportive of First Nations rights in issues from education, health care and land claims is discounted because they find her too mechanical.

Would that we had that kind of robotics in the house of commons instead of the kind which issues platitudes and dodges with a winning smile.

Welcome to babble, LeftCoastPocket. I like your handle.

Catchfire... do you not recognize that how one performs in debate and on the stump is a factor in how they would appeal to voters?

It may not be ideal but how you communicate is just as important as what you communicate when you're a candidate for Prime Minister in waiting.

josh

Gaian wrote:

He's describing the attitude of the real working world at the moment, josh, not your idealized version.

I didn't realize that you and him were oracles of what is the "real working world."

Gaian

Ippurigakko wrote:

Ugh! many of all you negative some seven race, now im all lose my faith, i might not vote NDP next elections but i might move to Green Party instead.

Take it from one of the dozen or so people who founded the Green Party of Ontario in early 1983. You would have to love the libertarian perspective to move there, Ippurigakko! Although life with Liz might be entertaining. But perhaps not as entertaining as watching Tom Mulcair show up the government ministers for the pack of ignorant, hard-hearted,lying bastards that they are. :)

Gaian

Talk to people outside the womb, josh.

josh

That's what I tend to do.  Those inside the womb don't often respond.

Gaian

:)

How'm I doing, RW?

Hunky_Monkey

josh... who are you supporting and why? And why do you think they will appeal to voters to increase the NDP vote and seat count enough to win in 2015?

Hunky_Monkey

http://www.burnabynow.com/Burnaby+city+councillors+back+Mulcair+leadersh...

Quote:
While Mayor Derek Corrigan is throwing his support behind Brian Topp, some city councillors are opting for Thomas Mulcair as leader of the federal New Democrats.

City councillor Nick Volkow has already cast his vote for Mulcair, largely considered the front-runner in the NDP leadership race, which wraps up March 24.

"He's bright, he's got political smarts, he's been elected, he served in cabinet," said Volkow, rattling off a list of reasons he picked Mulcair.

Coun. Paul McDonell has also already voted for Mulcair with a mail-in ballot.

"He's got the best shot at bringing everything together. He's articulate, he's got experience, he's definitely got the Quebec roots," McDonell said. "I think he's our best shot if we want to form government."

Councillors Colleen Jordan and Pietro Calendino are also supporting Mulcair.

Apparently, 5 out of 8 councillors are supporting Tom.

Sean in Ottawa

I am also supporting Mulcair and I might need to diet.

Still, I did not like the tone or comments and I want to hope that Mulcair himself would not appreciate them. These are people that Mulcair will need to work with as well. Apart from the strategic reasons not to like the comments as they are damaging to the NDP, I resented them as a human being and would in any context.

I realize the poster may be young (and has claimed to be) and may even be female. But the attack on Ashton, claiming a lack of emotional and intellectual maturity shocked me. In watching her I found her far from polished but actually I would credit her with both. I found myself contrasting the critiques of the women with the men and drawing some very negative assumptions about the entire post. I would like to hope that this new poster will adapt and learn and try to see people differently and more to the point recognize some of the sexist overtones in the post. Saying women don't understand, are immature or referring to how they speak in high pitched voices is unacceptable. The idea we would treat other women as seat warmers including Libby who has certainly become extremely valuable to the party also raised flags for me.

I would not want to see punishment from on high meted to this poster but an opportunity to educate, as a public forum provides, must be taken.

I am sorry to the poster if he/she was unaware of the sexism in that post. Often a person is blind to their own sexism and all of us without exception need to have it pointed out as sexism is deeply ingrained in culture.  This is one time screaming for that point to be made. I very much hope the reception will be constructive and that I do not make it worse by saying what I think needs to be said. I am newly back after a few months and really hoping to avoid a flame war. I just can't let that one go by without comment.

josh

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
josh... who are you supporting and why? And why do you think they will appeal to voters to increase the NDP vote and seat count enough to win in 2015?

Of the group, I would hope Nash or Topp would win.

But if winning is all that matters, I suggest the party go after Conservative voters.

Gaian

Your summaries of the situation are always the best, Sean.

Thanks. And I can recommend Dr. Atkins' diet...unless you are herbivour.

josh

No, I'm saying that if winning is all that matters, the party should go after Conservative voters with the type of rhetoric used by LPC.

Pages

Topic locked