Thomas Mulcair, Parte Deux

113 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture
Thomas Mulcair, Parte Deux

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Successor thread to THIS ONE:

 

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/thomas-mulcair

 

because this seems to be the discussion that WON'T die.  Have the cool, frothy beverage of your choice(hopefully NOT month-old milk)and join in.

Aristotleded24

I am very concerned with the possibility of Mulcair being leader of the NDP. Remember that prior to federal life, he was a Cabinet minister in one of Quebec's most right-wing governments in recent memory.

The flap with Libby Davies is also concerning. It is not just a minor disagreement over the Israeli issue, the fact is he has spoken clearly against what the NDP policy is on that subject area. As NDP leader, he is responsible to uphold the NDP policies. Additionally, you look at his attack on Libby Davies, while being flat wrong on the issue is bad enough itself, Mulcair also handled the issue poorly. Whatever issue he had with Libby, he should have resolved it with her privately within caucus. He didn't, instead he publicly undermined her in a way that was totally unacceptable under ANY circumstances.

Nope. If there is a "Mulcair" movement, sign me up for an "anybody but."

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I think we'd call that a "Libby 4 Leader" movement.

takeitslowly

I definately will not even bother to vote if he is the leader. I live in a safe liberal riding afterall.

Winston

I won't bother to vote if the NDP gets hijacked by a bunch of people who want to hyperfocus on a Middle East issue that has squat to do with the struggles average Canadians face.   Let's clean up our own backyard first before we start proselytizing abroad.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I would like to know his real views on deep integration with the US and how he would reverse it.  His support for Israel makes me worry that at best he just doesn't understand the current imperial system and who the various players are.  This is not a sideline issue for me it is the core of the reason to be involved in politics.  

wage zombie

I will bother to vote regardless of what any particular party does.

George Victor

That's the spirit, wz.

And another of your rational ilk got to say this in the long thread:

Life , the Envir... : "So Thomas Muclair - I presume by this thread he only talks about Israel and Palestine 100 per cent of the time.  How did he manage to do that when Environment Minister in Quebec.  That must have been a neat trick.  If only all politicians had such message discipline."

I've been wanting to pair you two for a long time, and that thought of LE was the heart of another that met death at the hands of a Mod who rode up out the the back 50 - or wherever he's been sequestered for a couple of days - in a still short thread .  My question was  to do with what Libby Davies would think about all this.  She has been noted first as a fighter on behalf of the marginalized of Canada.

oldgoat

I'm a card carrying dipper.  If Mulcair were to become leader I would resign.  Now, given the riding I live in I've always been able to be enthusiastic about the local NDP candidates, and would continue to work during elections.  Were it otherwise, I suppose I'd vote for my local Communist candidate. 

George Victor

Remember (from "don't think of an elephant") Reframing Is Social Change..."Reframing is changing the way the public sees the world. It is changing what counts as common sense. Because language activates frames, new language is required for new frames. Thinking differently requires speaking differently."

Steve had worked at developing the frame for the issue (with lots of help nationally from the Israel-firsters) and Libby Davies had walked right into it.  And I'll bet she has kicked her behind since...but not just out of mortification at her naivete in front of a news hound plant, but because of what it did to the party in an era of limited public information. Where you cannot explain.

Constant moralizing hereabouts not only does B all for the Palestinian people ...it does the same for the disadvantaged in old Canuckistan for whom this party fights...while the ideologues and protected indulged in protracted whining in the manner that the Cons delight in satirizing. The spirit that in its most-developed form, brings about the call for the closing of threads after three dozen postings.

I can't believe that Libby Davies would see such behaviour as anything but self-destructive of her - and her party's - primary goals.

takeitslowly

For those who remember, Stephen Harper asked for Libby Davies to resign over her comment about Israel and Mr. Muclair 's behaviour toward Libby Davies was, imo, similar to collaborating with the Prime Minister to crush any criticism against Israel. Its not just about the middle east, it is about the right to free speech, and it is about fear mongering people into silence, which is what the Harper Regime is very infamous for. I cant actually support a party leader that condone Harper and his McCarthyism like behaviour. Under the Harper Regime, so many people have to silent themselves in order to keep their jobs, I feel that this is a very important and relevant issues for a lot of Canadians. If the NDP cannot have the courage to stand up for Palestinians, whom many consider to be not relevant to Canadian politics, than I also trust that the NDP cannot have the courage to stand up for the rights of many other Canadians who are considered to be less socially desirable, like sex workers, drug addicts, GLBT people, pinko, or refugees and many others who live on the edge of society.

 

Not to mention many Canadians are also Palestinians, including the famous author of the book called "I shall not hate". He lost his daughters to an Israelie bulldozer. He is also suing the Israelie government. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/913423--failing-to-do-wha...

Fidel

It would depend on the party's platform and funding sources as far as I am concerned. If they started looking like another Liberal Party on the take from Bay St. and mirroring the reformatories on all the big stuff, then I would have to consider moving to another country for lack of any hope of democratizing this Northern Puerto Rico with a few polar bears. 

KenS

I think Tom Mulcair's politics on Israel and Palestinians are unfortunate, to say the least. And even a couple years in the future- a time frame within which politicians can change- I doubt he could satisfy me that he could or should be the Leader of the NDP. 

But Tom Mulcair is definitely part of my left.

As are a lot of other people inside and outside the NDP, and who are Liberals, who also would not pass muster around here.

Check out controversies on the Right blogosphere sometime. From where they sit, conservatives have even more reason to be unhappy with the government they worked to put in power.

And they definitely make no bones about that. But they say their piece, then get on with working together. And that is over feeling dissapointed or worse over what the Conservative Party did as government, which is objectively just much more likely to dissapoint the core than what the party in question does in opposition.

They dont just make pious statements about finding common ground. In fact, I'm not sure they bother with that kind of talk. They just do it. It seems like second nature for them.

They would find never engage in what comes naturally for us. They never eat their own. And would find incomprehensible a discussion about who among people they share work with is or isnt an 'enemy' or 'traitor.'

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

takeitslowly wrote:

I definately will not even bother to vote if he is the leader. I live in a safe liberal riding afterall.

If it's REALLY a "safe Liberal riding", would you bother to vote if ANYBODY was leader?

George Victor

quote: "They dont just make pious statements about finding common ground- they do it. It seems like second nature for them to do that."

 

They understand power, and could care less about "the world." Two distinct advantages.

 

quote: "They would find never engage in what comes naturally for us. They never eat their own. And would find incomprehensible a discussion about who among people they share work with is or isnt an 'enemy' or 'traitor.' "

 

You clearly missed out on the days of John George Diefenbaker and Dalton Camp. : ) Although, that was the "progressive" not the hard-nosed neo-con period that came to disgust Camp, eh?

 

 

KenS

George Victor wrote:

The [Right] understands power, and could care less about "the world." Two distinct advantages.

I dont think any such sacrifice on some altar is required. I dont really see that the latter is one of the Right's material advantages. Moot, because I'm not interested in going there and dont think its necessary.

All that is required is a certain amount of discipline, and especially to mean the words working together on common ground.

Picture chunks of the Right blogosphere having serious discussions when Prentice was there about whether or not he was an enemy or a traitor.

George Victor

quote: "I'm not interested in going there and dont think its necessary."

 

 

Great Gaia, you are hard (impossible) to pair up with. That was just a pair of generalizations about the character of the neo-con and their exchange. Even hinting at humour.

Oh, I know....you're not interested in going there either. Laughing

Aristotleded24

George Victor wrote:
I can't believe that Libby Davies would see such behaviour as anything but self-destructive of her - and her party's - primary goals.

You go on about "the left" constantly eating itself, yet you forgot that Mulcair himself publicly attacked Davies. How is that in any way acceptable? How does that show unity to the Canadian public? What is trustworthy about such an individual? I could have overlooked his position had he resolved it with Libby in a more private fashion, but he didn't.

You also have to consider that Quebec is the most pro-Palestinean region in Canada. How is having a spokesperson like Mulcair conducive to advancing the NDP in Quebec?

George Victor

Yeah, the guy's long record of electoral success there was probably just a fluke.  But I remember speaking to a Quebec tourist visiting the campaign office I was managing and delighting in his observation that Ontario New Democrat policies and expectations were very similar to his own opinions.

And you've probably read, somewhere, Libby Davies own feelings on the matter.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

You know, George, you MIGHT have a better chance of getting somewhere in this discussion if you made your case for Mulcair as the next leader calmly, on the man's merits, and with respect for the rest of the posters here.  Instead, you've continually taken this "I'm the ONLY grown up here...DO WHAT I SAY!" tone towards everyone.

I really doubt that Thomas Mulcair would see your tactics here as helpful to him, assuming the man even WANTS the party leadership.

You might consider, for one thing, committing yourself(and working to commit other Mulcair supporters) to lobby Mulcair on the I/P issue and to try to influence him to change the way he expresses his views.  It would be helpful if you were to send him letters calling on him to apologize to Libby Davies, who even YOU would have to admit did not deserve the public ferocity of his attacks on her, and encourage him also to make it clear that, even as a person who self-identifies as "pro-Israel", he could still make it clear that he doesn't regard all criticism of Israel as "anti-Israel" or antisemitic.  I'd even suggest that you call on him to admit that, just possibly, he might have gone a scosh too far in implying that anti-Zionism was just antisemitism in disguise(obviously, it can't be, given that there are Jewish anti-Zionists, some of whom post on this board, as you've had reason to learn).

Just a few thoughts.

 

George Victor

quote: "You know, George, you MIGHT get have a better chance of getting somewhere in this discussion if you made your case for Mulcair as the next leader calmly, on the man's merits, and with respect for the rest of the posters here.  Instead, you've continually taken this "I'm the ONLY grown up here" tone towards everyone."

 

Read again the LONG thread, how many times I advanced and supported the OP's attempt to do just that.

 

Read where those attempts went, how they ended up in the frenzied discussion.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I'm trying to imagine the NDP with Mulcair as their leader. Doesn't compute. Brain cells frizzle out.

Life, the unive...

Funny how Libby is still working within the NDP and Mulcair on a regular basis.  She mustn't care enough about the right issues.  We'll need to let her know.  I expect she will be really grateful for having these obvious failings pointed out to her.

George Victor

Boom Boom wrote:

I'm trying to imagine the NDP with Mulcair as their leader. Doesn't compute. Brain cells frizzle out.

But don't keep us in suspense, Boomer.  You folks east of the Ottawa must get ALL the inside dope on the guy, and as you can see from discussion hereabouts, it's information scarce as knowledge about the queen's sex life.  Don't repeat the Libby story without saying just how she feels about what happened. And give us details about everything that hasn't been mentioned here a gazillion times.

Please.

Erik Redburn

Aristotleded24 wrote:

George Victor wrote:
I can't believe that Libby Davies would see such behaviour as anything but self-destructive of her - and her party's - primary goals.

You go on about "the left" constantly eating itself, yet you forgot that Mulcair himself publicly attacked Davies. How is that in any way acceptable? How does that show unity to the Canadian public? What is trustworthy about such an individual? I could have overlooked his position had he resolved it with Libby in a more private fashion, but he didn't.

You also have to consider that Quebec is the most pro-Palestinean region in Canada. How is having a spokesperson like Mulcair conducive to advancing the NDP in Quebec?

 

Because the good old boys who are ruining the party are more concerned with supressing dissent within the party than reaching out to others, although I do detect a genuine lust for approval from the Yuppie set the Liberals usually claim.

Life, the unive...

You mean like Libby Davies who has kept working with that spawn of evil Mulcair?  Those damn yuppie NDP boosters like her really are the death of progressive politics in Canada.

Erik Redburn

George Victor wrote:

Remember (from "don't think of an elephant") Reframing Is Social Change..."Reframing is changing the way the public sees the world. It is changing what counts as common sense. Because language activates frames, new language is required for new frames. Thinking differently requires speaking differently."

Steve had worked at developing the frame for the issue (with lots of help nationally from the Israel-firsters) and Libby Davies had walked right into it.  And I'll bet she has kicked her behind since...but not just out of mortification at her naivete in front of a news hound plant, but because of what it did to the party in an era of limited public information. Where you cannot explain.

 

You really shouldnt reference a subject you haven't yet grasped yourself George.  By going after Libby the way he did, Mulcair only supported the enemy's 'frame'.    Unless that is you too agree that Israel should be given free reign to destroy the Palestinians with the blessings of Parliament.  

At worst, Libby was in-cautious in her choice of words; Mulcair was consciously pandering to the worst elements in society and betraying the very essence of what it means to be a New Democrat.  Or supposed to.  The continued dominance of the neo-conservative framework, despite its obvious failings and anti-social outlook, is only assured by having every mainstream party agreeing to its basic assumptions.    As I mentioned earlier though, the average voter may not be as reactionary about traditional "allies" like Israel either, certainly not as the guardians of the present order insist.

Life, the unive...

Yet she still works with him and supports the NDP.  Damn sell out

Erik Redburn

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

You mean like Libby Davies who has kept working with that spawn of evil Mulcair?  Those damn yuppie NDP boosters like her really are the death of progressive politics in Canada.

 

Libby is committed to working wihin the party she built, far more than the likes of you.   Please don't assume that you can just attack a faithful emplyee one day then point to their showing up again at the office as a sign that they appreciate your attitude.

 

Erik Redburn

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Yet she still works with him and supports the NDP.  Damn sell out

 

Do you have anything else to say?   Or is that the chosen line for the day?

Life, the unive...

What I am pointing out is your total hypocriscy.  Thankfully the likes of Libby Davies is a much bigger person and far more able to distinguish the true enemy than you.  I expect she would be disgusted with your antics and such obvious and base behaviour.

Erik Redburn

George Victor wrote:

That's the spirit, wz.

And another of your rational ilk got to say this in the long thread:

Life , the Envir... : "So Thomas Muclair - I presume by this thread he only talks about Israel and Palestine 100 per cent of the time.  How did he manage to do that when Environment Minister in Quebec.  That must have been a neat trick.  If only all politicians had such message discipline."

 

And that's even dumber.   Even Benjamin Netenyahu wouldn't be talking about Palestine 100 percent of the time.   What genuine progressives would like to know is if guys like Mulcair have expended even 1% of their efforts defending the right of Palestinian Arabs to live on the land they were born to.   That's the only place numbers like that could count.

George Victor

We are dealing with a born-again literalist here, Ltu.  Argument is pointless.

But may I say how much I've enjoyed this brief exposure to balanced, rational opinion based on long experience with the average Canadian public.   Another world, as it were.

ottawaobserver

I will decide who I support after I've heard them campaign and debate each other at length on all the domestic and international issues. I've never heard Mulcair in person speak about the middle east at length, and am always circumspect about what limited coverage one gets to read about any of this in the mainstream media. I did long ago speculate on how I believed the caucus actually went about resolving the situation with Libby being set up by that videographer, but no-one believed me. On the other hand, the evidence since then, as LTU points out, is that Libby and Mulcair have continued to work together, and still both sit in the front bench on either side of Layton.

I might listen at length and disagree on that topic, and find I agreed on enough other ones to warrant my support for his leadership campaign. Or not. I have no idea, and am not going to prejudge based on what little evidence there is in the public record now, what I will do in five years time or longer.

However, I point out that: (i) Libby was very clearly set up by people seeking to set the cat amongst the pigeons, (ii) that mission has been accomplished over and over and over again, without them needing to do very much further. I think people let themselves get goaded into turning on each other far too easily, when it so clearly serves the interests of their true enemies.

George Victor

Amen, OO.

Erik Redburn

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

What I am pointing out is your total hypocriscy.  Thankfully the likes of Libby Davies is a much bigger person and far more able to distinguish the true enemy than you.  I expect she would be disgusted with your antics and such obvious and base behaviour.

 

By George I think you've found a whole new meaning to hypocrite.  Someone who vociferously defends the guy who publically attacked her for SAYING THE RIGHT THING now turns around and calls ME a hypocrite for not just sucking up the continued abuse....on HER behalf!   I must say you have a truly breathtaking ability to turn the whole meaning of a word inside out, I obviously still have a thing or two to learn...

Life, the unive...

Mr. Redburn -you have no ability at self-analysis I see.   What is hypocritical is to continue to use as a whipping post a person who has shown that she is not only willing to work with Mulcair, but is willing to go as far as to continue to promote the NDP regularly and to work and support these people you continue to pound with salt.  Your use of Libby Davies is close to offensive and in some ways rather sexist with you being the white knight riding to her defense.

And if you could read for content you will not find a single place where I vociferously defended anything anyone said.  In fact Mulcair does nothing for me.  I just think people should be intellectually honest.  Something you seem to have a hard time with.

Erik Redburn

George Victor wrote:

We are dealing with a born-again literalist here, Ltu.  Argument is pointless.

But may I say how much I've enjoyed this brief exposure to balanced, rational opinion based on long experience with the average Canadian public.   Another world, as it were.

 

If you want to keep invoking your supposedly superior ability at rational discourse George Victor you have to at least display to others, not yet won over, your Own capacity to at least address what THEy are arguing, preferabl;y in a ratioinal mode.  Constantly voicing an insulting opinion to fellow travellors, withjout even backing it up with anything, isn't convincing to anyone..except perhaps to fellow travellors.   If youre still confused I would suggest starting with what I wrote previously, then saying something like 'this is why I disagree' or 'youre wrong because...yadda yadda yadda.'  See, thats called an argument or debate, as opposed to juvenile namecalling.    Citing some independent facts, figures or opinions helps. Keeping in mind the general thrust of the argument is always good.  Internal consistency is a must, but I'm not refering to consistency in behaviour.

Erik Redburn

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Mr. Redburn -you have no ability at self-analysis I see.   What is hypocritical is to continue to use as a whipping post a person who has shown that she is not only willing to work with Mulcair, but is willing to go as far as to continue to promote the NDP regularly and to work and support these people you continue to pound with salt.  Your use of Libby Davies is close to offensive and in some ways rather sexist with you being the white knight riding to her defense.

And if you could read for content you will not find a single place where I vociferously defended anything anyone said.  In fact Mulcair does nothing for me.  I just think people should be intellectually honest.  Something you seem to have a hard time with.

 

Fuck you too whoever you are.   This little subject could have died off a long time ago if you and your fellow partisans would leave others space to voice Their opinions re this suybject.    Or had anything to say in rebuttal but shut the fuck up.  Which is what my first post today was refering to, if you had any ability to analyse your Own motives.  Even the initial tempest which sparked this could have died back quickly and quietly if Mulcair hadn't opened his own big mouth to attack a fellow pqrty member (of senior standing and respect I might add) with no regard to the merit of what was said or the import of the subject at hand.   The idea that others owe YOU, nomatter what, is perhaps the one thing worse than the rigid conformity of opinion demanded in the party now.   Out here in the West we can still speak out at times, and amazing we still win more often than your lot ever does.

Unionist

Erik, far be it from me to advise you, but I'm here more often than you these days, and I find a useful way to deal with the baiting and insults is to simply ignore them. They get tired and stop. Occasionally they even go so far as to contribute to the actual topic at hand.

 

Life, the unive...

Oh the irony,  Two high irony posts in a row.  It is more than an old body like mine can handle. 

I get it now.  People who think differently than you are supposed to admire your brillaince and only post things that confirm that brilliance for you.  You seek our approval of your brilliance only.  In the future I will only post admiration of your views and how they make total sense for everything on every topic.

Erik Redburn

ottawaobserver wrote:

 

However, I point out that: (i) Libby was very clearly set up by people seeking to set the cat amongst the pigeons, (ii) that mission has been accomplished over and over and over again, without them needing to do very much further. I think people let themselves get goaded into turning on each other far too easily, when it so clearly serves the interests of their true enemies.

 

Riight.  The 'true enemies'...  you have anything tangeable to back THat wild surmise?   No?   Colour me surprised.  Again.

 

In case anyone else here is lacking memory synapses, I used to be called names here for Supporting the party.  I still am and do, but not unconditionally.   Apparently as soon as you stop drinking the Koolaid so readily youre immediately branded another enemy--from Within!    Too funny.  

But then those who are actually undermining the party of Douglas and Barrett are as usual the non-activist mediocrities who only appear in groups but never address anything meaningful except through underhanded tactics.  That's always the dead giveaway and all too often the case alas.   

Hey comrades, if you really want to win over the small-l (neo)liberals, regardless of the costs, I'd suggest the most sensible route is to just join them officially.   I hear they're always looking for another Rae or Dosanjh.  Maybe you could even "affect change from within" more effectively there.  Or you might even find it a more comfortable home, what with having no free standing ethical constructs to uphold beyond winning office once in awhile and sharing a few perks among friends.     They do win occasionally on the federal side, unlike the not so New Democrats.  We do maintain our values though, come hell or high water.  Well, some of us do.

Life, the unive...

Thank you Mr. Redburn that is the most brilliant thing I have ever read on babble.  Thank you so much I feel like a much more complete human being now. 

There is tha better?

Erik Redburn

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Oh the irony,  Two high irony posts in a row.  It is more than an old body like mine can handle. 

I get it now.  People who think differently than you are supposed to admire your brillaince and only post things that confirm that brilliance for you.  You seek our approval of your brilliance only.  In the future I will only post admiration of your views and how they make total sense for everything on every topic.

 

In case you don' get it, if you want to engage with me Engage with what I'm saying as it really gets old, even for an old war horse like myself, to face post after post of personal accusation and smarm.  If one doesn't stick why we just try another.  Then repeat.   Of course it leaves me with little recourse but to return in kind.   Got it now?  Then next move is yours.  Or you can just back off.

Erik Redburn

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Thank you Mr. Redburn that is the most brilliant thing I have ever read on babble.  Thank you so much I feel like a much more complete human being now. 

There is tha better?

 

Try replying to what I write dear, then you might actually get the drift of it.  George was as usual sticking his big nose in it and making stupid comments backed by nothing as usual and doing it in the usual insulting terms so I just pointed out the flaws in his 'analysis'.  Now, do you have anything tangeable to add or should I just asume you inhabit the same blank slate and move on to another more worthy target?

Good.

Erik Redburn

Unionist wrote:

Erik, far be it from me to advise you, but I'm here more often than you these days, and I find a useful way to deal with the baiting and insults is to simply ignore them. They get tired and stop. Occasionally they even go so far as to contribute to the actual topic at hand.

 

 

Yes, you are correct of course.  For your sake and others I will back off and ignore anymore of the usual sniping.  I will add that this kind of thing has a truly deleterious affect on the health of any supposedly open chat site and really should be cracked down upon by management.  I perhaps suffer the fatal flaw of not wanting to go to others when I can handle it myself.    Maybe I can't anymore, as I've faced too much of the same kind of thing here in BC although ultimately we did win that battle.

Unionist

I know I posted this in the other thread, but to be fair, I think we need to look at people's views when the discussion is calm and not boiling over. This was LTUE's very first take on the attack by Mulcair:

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/libby-davis-forced-apologi... excellent post from the original discussion in June:[/url]

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

I have to think there is a little bit of really unsettling politics going on here too.  Muclair's over the top attack on Davies seems like the first shot in the leadership campaign to come at some undetermined point down the road.  The comments are pretty low.

I don't really have a problem with Layton's comments.  It was a mistake, if an inadvertant one, and Davies has taken the needed steps towards rectifying that.  I know those who don't like the NDP will use this in their typical line of attack, but both Layton AND Davies seem to have BOTH realized that Davies made a mistake in how she framed her answer to one question.   Seems to me that they worked together to fix it.  I doubt we will see any reduction of Davies' role in caucus.  (I hope I am not wrong on that)

As for calling for a boycott and so on, Davies speaks for a lot of NDP activists and NDP non-member voters like me on that issue, and if anyone is out of step with NDP membership it is Muclair.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I'm guessing given the heated discussions on this topic that Mulcair is The Chosen One.

I wasn't around on Babble when Jack Layton ran for leadership but were there attacks on those who thought there might be a better leader than Layton. I myself was hoping for a Bill Blaikie victory. But I guess I'm old school or something.

KenS

George Victor wrote:
I can't believe that Libby Davies would see such behaviour as anything but self-destructive of her - and her party's - primary goals.

Libby has given no indication, through back channels or anywhere [and it would come out], that she thought there should not have been a problem with what she said, that there is any lasting effect for her about things said from her colleagues, or any of that. Nor would it be consistent for her.

When that was discussed here, the replies went from:

** that is because she is forced. And if not:

** even if she is not concerned, we are still over the top concerned that it could happen.

In other words, there is no end to it. And Libby is a martyr even if she doesnt see it that way.

 

Aristotleded24 wrote:

You go on about "the left" constantly eating itself, yet you forgot that Mulcair himself publicly attacked Davies.

There are more dimensions to that. I havent read ahead yet, and chances are someone has replayed that. Even if they have not, its not essential. Lets just leave it as Mulcair made an over the top attack and it is not acceptable.

1.] What to do about it.

2.] Since this comes up in the context of how the Left eats its own and spends its time fighting, while the Right finds common ground in comaparable situations and wins... lets look at comparable situations.

 

1.] What to do about it.

Its pretty clear Mulcair went off script. But the main goal for the NDP around tha affair beginning to end is to not sutain serious damage. Most people on this list- albeit yourself [A24] not included- talk about what would and would not be damaging to the NDP, but they really dont give a fuck. Its not all about the NDP, but no one presented a case that the NDP taking serious damage over this case would advance the cause.

So Mulcair goes off script. Once that is done, rebuking him would achieve nothing for Libby, the NDP, or the cause. It would just undermine what Libby's abject apology was for- getting the issue out of the news.

So Mulcair isnt rebuked. Thats the end of it. People don't like the NDP and electoral politics for that, and that being one in a long chain of such things. And most of us partisans can live with it. This is news?

 

2.] the Left and the Right, and eating one's own or not.

Its hard to make a direct comparison. Because in the case of the Right, they are government. So an off script stray and eruption in the ranks that goes as far as 'the Libby affair' is unlikely. But they do happen. Do you suppose that in the Right blogosphere that every time Peter MacKay comes up people seethe with barely contained resentment over him going off script about Baird? Can you imagine that any time leader succession is talked about, that six months and a year later the mention of Peter MacKay will get the majority of the strong conservatives reminding about the righteous moral outrage for what MacKay did to Baird?

Maybe there are better cases for comparability. But whether any can be found, that sort of distracting and self defeating circus would never erupt on the Right.

When leadership succession comes up there will be a LOT of people who would be anyone but Peter MacKay. Mind you, most of them would never support him anyway, even if he did nothing egregious. They just will not suport MacKay, and that will be the end of it.

It should be the case on the Left too. But no way.

Erik Redburn

Funny I was A Blaikie guy too, but no, I don't recall it being this vociferous.   Next time I think I'll just go back to one line replies again and see if theres any real content behind the demand for silence before the face of evil.    Pogge posted a good one explaining why this IS still an important issue to Canadians but I can't seem to find it for some reason.  Maybe someone else can post it here again, at least get this back to the topic again.  If loyalists here don't like it then I suggest they either argue their points like adults or look again in the mirror and butt out for a change.  Mods are free to reprimand me too for that last self-indulgence.       

 

ElizaQ, I don't know why you posted that here except as a veiled comment but, because you have always been a voice for sanity before, I'd just suggest drinking some warm milk or hot chocolate, play with your pets awhile, as they are always sane, or read something mundane and try to get some sleep again.   It works for me when trifles start to seem unpleasantly weird.

Pages

Topic locked