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

144 posts / 0 new
Last post
KenS

Geoff OB wrote:

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

The left needs to get over this propensity to try to read people's inner politics as if it were reading auras or something like.

Jack Layton recruited Mulcair to play what turned out to be a fantastic role in the party. He was not recruiting a future leader.

We were judging Mulcair as a leadership candidate. For which, Jack's summation of Mulcair, whatever that may have been, is exactly irrelevant.

KenS

And almost no one any more is judging whether Mulcair is suitable to be Leader. He is the Leader, and will remain so with our support.

The question is where we all go with that now.

If some of you think the only appropriate thing to do now is unreserved cheerleading about whatever is coming, why do you bother with the discussion?

Polunatic2

@RR - Please don't come to conclusions based on a couple of comments from a couple of people on this board.

Quote:
In other words, you see no need to reach out to the many left social activists who see the NDP as being largely irrelevant.
I do see this need and I think there are opportunities to explore it. These efforts to "get to know each other better" should include both unifying the party and expanding the base within the social movements. That's not just for votes but for activists to help out. Honest efforts have to be made to strenghten the electoral left because we've got to dump Harper. Those who have already jumped to conclusions (I think Rebick poses more questions than answers) without making their own efforts to strengthen the party and its relationships are making a big mistake and really minimize their own credibility. 

His re-appointment of Libby Davies should be seen as a serious move to dispel the "talking point" that he will rebuild the party in his own image. And we should distinguish between those on the "left" (inside and out) who want to see the NDP succeed with those who will never be satisfied with Mulcair or the NDP more generally. They're not worth the time because nothing Mulcair can do will satisfy them. 

Polunatic2

Giving a new leader a chance is not "unreserved cheerleading". Until the "left" figures out the difference, it will continue to be immature when it comes to electoral politics. Those who have already charged, tried and convicted Mulcair are not serious players. 

Gaian

Gaian wrote:

I missed Judy's take on Tom's environmental position...his telling Charest to shove the ministry when the park w2as threatened, and his statement that he didn't want his kids and grandkids to be left with our leavings, sort of impressed this granddad, and quite a few more, I'll bet. Maybe Judy is just not into Earth things and it doesn't cross her radar.

But this one by Judy really left me scratching my head: "My view is that the NDP has elected an old-style patriarchal politician who has the same politics vis-a-vis Quebec as the pre-Jack NDP, seeing sovereigntists as bitter enemies instead of potential allies, is more of a liberal than a social democrat and who will move the party to the right especially on international issues, including free trade and Israel, two issues at the centre of Harper’s agenda."

As I was able to tell Tom a couple of weeks back, I was on the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway engineering crew when Duplessis died,just up the line in Schefferville, and I watched those young guys around me develop into real Social Democrats. "It took you 50 years to bring them on board federally," I said, to a fella who would have been five years old at the time, "but better late than never."

My joke was appreciated, but Judy does not seem to appreciate the nature of Jack and Tom's triumph...or much else, apparently.

Judy's idea of the convertibility of social democrats in Quebec is "different," - please read her piece through to the bottom - and Judy's world is not the world of those concerned with Earth.

Rabble_Incognito

I was a PN supporter at the convention. Mulcair knows where I stand I waved at him while wearing a PN t shirt and gave him a big smile when we made eye contact.

KenS

Polunatic2 wrote:

Giving a new leader a chance is not "unreserved cheerleading". Until the "left" figures out the difference, it will continue to be immature when it comes to electoral politics. Those who have already charged, tried and convicted Mulcair are not serious players.

You are right that giving a chance is not unreserved cheerleading, and that the [Canadian] left is immature.

But it is also true that all criticism is lumped together, 'immature' or not. Look back and see if you can see any substantive difference between the kind of reaction I get, and Murray Dobbin gets.

Gaian

True.

Strange, that.

KenS

Not to mention the generalized response across all the threads to pointing out there may be some problems in this picture, is that there are none. Nothing to talk about, look how well hes doing, he's taking care of all that, etc.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Brachina wrote:
I do agree we need to reach out to Judy and other activist types, but Judy's open hostility makes it hard to build that.

The whole point of seeing the need to "reach out" to "activist types" is to acknowledge that the party has failed to engage their interests, and naturally this engenders hostility to the party. It's easier said than done.

Unless your idea of "reaching out" is aimed at people who are already on friendly terms with the NDP?

Gaian

For Ken's consideration

Can't recall genuflecting in his direction, just getting entirely pissed off with the picayune nature of the endlessly thoughful statements while Earth (our part of it) sets daily temperature records and the bloody leader of the Great Misled carries on without comment.

KenS

For Gaians consideration:

Earth doesnt care a fart for the differences we're talking about. And what effect we will have on Earth, and more our species surivval, is not given by you or anyone else making their pronouncemnents about where 'Earth's interests' lie.

 

KenS

There is a problem with standing back and waiting if you think there are identifiable problems that can be addressed by the new Leader.

There are two sides to that immaturity of the Canadian left. One is that the left says a lot of simply off the wall things. But the other side is that within the NDP serious internal deliberation is very undeveloped, to say the least.

There is at the moment a lot up in the air as to the directions that NDP will take in the near future. Even if the 'discussion' process is very opaque- and all of the real action is inside the bubble- say your piece now.

 

Gaian

KenS wrote:

For Gaians consideration:

Earth doesnt care a fart for the differences we're talking about. And what effect we will have on Earth, and more our species surivval, is not given by you or anyone else making their pronouncemnents about where 'Earth's interests' lie.

 

It's the interests of the species - and their youngsters - that you never get around to mentioning. You and Judy and a helluva lot of others.

Gaian

Or perhaps you can show me where you once, in a thousand posts, mentioned Mulcair's up-front plans for BEGINING to deal with environment, his depth of concern evidenced when he told Charest to shove the ministry up his ass.

Polunatic2

Quote:
The whole point of seeing the need to "reach out" to "activist types" is to acknowledge that the party has failed to engage their interests, and naturally this engenders hostility to the party. It's easier said than done.
Right on! This is the challenge but we should start out hopeful and bring constructive ideas "to the table". As a new NDP member, I agree with those who suggest that there is an "all or nothing" culture that needs to change. If there is goodwill with Mulcair and social movements to do this kind of outreach, it should be applauded, cultivated and made to work. "Hope".

mtm

to be fair, I understand you don't have to be a member to criticize.  I was more referring to Rebick's interview on CBC where she flung mud while establishing and proudly brandishing the fact that she wasn't at all a member.  

In the midst of a leadership race, you can easily have a say by voting, and campaigning for the candidate of your choice.  If Ms. Rebick had found the time to participate in the process to contribute to the outcome she would have liked to have seen in some meaningful way, I would welcome her criticism.

I just resent this feeling she fosters that it is all beneath her, and it is insulting to the activists who pour their heart and soul into making the party, and the country better.  That is how it makes me feel when people who aren't even members of our party like to fling mud.

Two  things as a disclaimer:  Yes, I know Ms. Rebick founded this site.

Other disclaimer, I am a male, I just happened to work with and for many great women on Mulcair's campaign.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I wonder if the topic/issue of "reaching out" might make a good thread topic?

KenS

Dont hold your breath about Mulcair reaching out to social movements.

But I for one will not judge him on that. If there are results while people are held at arms length, fine.

For some perspective, how much was it worth Jack's reaching out to social movements? Really, how much was there? I'm not sure there was any more than being nice to us.

Gaian

With a steel glove and gauntlet protecting the proffered hand, Boomer? :)

Gaian

The campaqign poster: "Jack Layton's Kyoto Plus Bill (C377)" hangs above my desk. It would/should have attracted some Green attention.

Slumberjack

mtm wrote:
I just resent this feeling she fosters that it is all beneath her, and it is insulting to the activists who pour their heart and soul into making the party, and the country better.  That is how it makes me feel when people who aren't even members of our party like to fling mud.

You might want to be careful with that.  This is exactly the type of sentiment, if one is prone to such carelessness, that can just as easily be transposed to the Canadian public in general.  How dare those 'know it all's' look down their noses at our 'making it all better' platform.  It actually makes as little sense when vectoring in on an individual who dares to speak out, as it does when inveighed against larger swaths of malcontents.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

On P&P last night, Solomon brought up an article Mulcair wrote, and the Alberta "tar sands". Now, we all know they are indeed "tar sands", but Solomon was saying folks in the west take umbrage at that, and want them called the "oil sands".

Brachina

M. Spector wrote:

Brachina wrote:
I do agree we need to reach out to Judy and other activist types, but Judy's open hostility makes it hard to build that.

The whole point of seeing the need to "reach out" to "activist types" is to acknowledge that the party has failed to engage their interests, and naturally this engenders hostility to the party. It's easier said than done.

Unless your idea of "reaching out" is aimed at people who are already on friendly terms with the NDP?

Mulcair has already said that sort of thing, about reaching out to groups that previously didn't support us.

Gaian

Boom Boom wrote:

On P&P last night, Solomon brought up an article Mulcair wrote, and the Alberta "tar sands". Now, we all know they are indeed "tar sands", but Solomon was saying folks in the west take umbrage at that, and want them called the "oil sands".

Do you want him to sound more like Bob Rae, Boomer? (Can't recall Bob's pronouncements on the tar patch. Probably less viscous.

Polunatic2

Quote:
For some perspective, how much was it worth Jack's reaching out to social movements?
I'm not sure that's a valid question. Jack had very close ties to many activists. They knew him. I think Mulcair is more of a blank slate for many and needs to become better known - both for his views and for his commitment to these important issues.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

KenS wrote:

Dont hold your breath about Mulcair reaching out to social movements.

But I for one will not judge him on that. If there are results while people are held at arms length, fine.

For some perspective, how much was it worth Jack's reaching out to social movements? Really, how much was there? I'm not sure there was any more than being nice to us.

Ken I thinkk you make a valid point. I have to say that during the convention it really galled me listening to Sid Ryan attack Thomas for the same reason, the unions haven't been able to deliver the votes of their members. But, having heard Thomas in Winnipeg, I feel optimistic he will be able to have success. I think he is sincere in wanting to expand the party's base, that is, he means it when he says "move the center to us". I voted for him on PB, and I trust the membership to keep him "honest" if its needed.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I would prefer for all of the NDP, not just Mulcair,  to use the term "tar sands" and not the Conservative talking points/politically correct  "oil sands".  Even some Albertans are fed up with the oil patch's influence on the environment and use the correct term "tar sands" themselves.

 

On that P&P interview last night - which was awesome - Mulcair said the existing regulations are not being enforced by any level of government - for example, there is a  law against dumping effluent into fish habitat. Every day CBC shows a clip of tar sands residue being pumped into a body of water although that exact location is not identified.

Gaian

Boom Boom wrote:

I would prefer for all of the NDP, not just Mulcair,  to use the term "tar sands" and not the Conservative talking points/politically correct  "oil sands".  Even some Albertans are fed up with the oil patch's influence on the environment and use the correct term "tar sands" themselves.

 

On that P&P interview last night - which was awesome - Mulcair said the existing regulations are not being enforced by any level of government - for example, there is a  law against dumping effluent into fish habitat.

So as for Evan's cautionary note: "but Solomon was saying folks in the west take umbrage at that, and want them called the "oil sands"....we reply, a rose is a rose is a rose. Or simply say that, by any other name, the Tar Patch stinks. Shakespeare had it right.

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

I would prefer for all of the NDP, not just Mulcair,  to use the term "tar sands" and not the Conservative talking points/politically correct  "oil sands".  Even some Albertans are fed up with the oil patch's influence on the environment and use the correct term "tar sands" themselves.

With all due respect, Boom Boom, I've been listening to some University of Fort MacMurray petrochemical scholars lately, and apparently the scientifically correct term would be: "the sands of love".

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yes, Gaian, and that is precisely what Mulcair was doing by way of reply.

 

Unionist: Laughing

KenS

M. Spector wrote:

The whole point of seeing the need to "reach out" to "activist types" is to acknowledge that the party has failed to engage their interests, and naturally this engenders hostility to the party. It's easier said than done.

Brachina wrote:
Mulcair has already said that sort of thing, about reaching out to groups that previously didn't support us.

Wait a minute. This is WAY out there in rose coloured glasses land.

It is very clear from the discussion context when Mulcair made those statements that he is talking about reaching out to the mainstream that does not already suppport us. Not to mention that he went out of his way earlier in the campaign [before the last month or so] to portray in negative terms doing things the same old way, talking to the same old people, etc. That definitely includes social movement groups who we have always thought highly of.

 

Polunatic2

@KenS - I don't necessarily think Mulcair's strategy needs to be seen as exclusive. He mentioned environmentalists and other social movements in his victory speech. He also mentioned reaching out to those who don't vote at all. And then there are the centrist/"progressive" voters.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Just saw this: 'Tar Sands' vs. 'Oil Sands' Political Flap Misguided?

excerpt:

In fact, there's evidence "oil sands" creates more concern in people's minds than "tar sands."

excerpt:

Two years ago, his firm, McAllister Opinion Research, tested each term on a random sample of 1,629 Canadians, the first time such polling had ever been done.

Half of those surveyed were asked to rate their concern about "Alberta oil sands" while the other half were asked about "Alberta tar sands."

For Canadians as a whole, 39 per cent said they were "very concerned" about the "oil sands" compared to 32 per cent for "tar sands."

excerpt:

"Everybody thinks tar is worse," McAllister told the Tyee. "But when you look at the way language is used, people talk about oil spills, oil cartels, oil lobbyists, Big Oil. I've never heard people get upset about 'Big Tar' or 'Tar Tankers.'"

And it's precisely this long string of negative historical associations that makes people profoundly distrustful of anything relating to oil, he said.

Gaian

I don't believe Tom Mulcair has given up on the small farmer of Saskatchewan...while others clearly have done so. Long ago.

Not sure you could label them "activists." More small business survivors.

Gaian

Classic dismissal.

Rabble_Incognito

KenS wrote:

And almost no one any more is judging whether Mulcair is suitable to be Leader. He is the Leader, and will remain so with our support.

The question is where we all go with that now.

If you think the only appropriate thing to do now is unreserved cheerleading about whatever is coming, why do you bother with the discussion?

An unreserved 'Here here!'

I will relate to this political leader as such - he's not some warm figure I know and love, he's a political candidate. I wasn't here during the Jack love in - I'm glad Mulcair is in now it was starting to feel like a cult of personality on occasion and I distrust cultishness more than I mistrust Mulcair. I feel like the Mulcair haters just aren't over their grief for Jack or the loss of their candidate this weekend.

I'll support TM and listen to his ideas according to merit, as he listens to ours - that's easiest on my mental health. We're a democratic party so we can always vote him out or leave if he behaves like a Tory or a Liberal and sells us out. People evolve - TM evolved into a social democrat. I'm evolving too - we're all developing.

I think not trusting your leader is useful - critical talk means you can have a discerning eye. It is a check and balance that keeps the relationship healthy. And I'm glad the tories don't realize it.

Rabble_Incognito

Boom Boom wrote:

On P&P last night, Solomon brought up an article Mulcair wrote, and the Alberta "tar sands". Now, we all know they are indeed "tar sands", but Solomon was saying folks in the west take umbrage at that, and want them called the "oil sands".

Isn't it bitumen? TM handled himself competently by being clear. The sands of love, good one.

Slumberjack

This all reminds me of that commercial where it's said they can now take tar pond tailings; mix it up with some powdery chemical, which turns the pond into a moonscape.  The actress playing the part of a technician in the ad referred to the process as a 'game changer.'

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yes, but when you use 'bitumen' probably most folks will have no clue what is being discussed.

Westcoast Granny

The people on this coast who are likely to vote NDP call it the tar sands. The Enbridge pipeline hearings are proof that the people of BC are informed and vocal about the filthy bitumen. If the NDP started using the term "oil sands" they would be giving in to the MSM's attempted enforcement of the corporate spin.

Time to get Kalmazoo into every NDP mention of the tar sands.  There is a real difference between an oil spill and a bitumen spill.  The public needs to hear over and over until it becomes common knowledge that a bitumen spill is way, way worse than an oil spill.  The Port of Vancouver has  sophisticated equipment and a decent response system for oil spills in the harbour.  They are all based on oil that mostly floats. Filthy bitumen sinks and therefore the Port has NO defenses against any tar spill.

Laughing  Sands of Love

KenS

I'll take a rain check on the groovy feelings of a victory speech.

And stand by my account of the context in which Mulcair repeatedly spoke of "reaching out to groups that previously didn't support us."

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Long (and nasty) thread.

Pages

Topic locked