babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Running against Alexa would have been 'icky'

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Running against Alexa would have been 'icky'
Hunky_Monkey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6081

posted 22 May 2007 08:13 PM      Profile for Hunky_Monkey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Running against Alexa would have been 'icky'

May considered battling Halifax MP, but friendship stood in way

By AMY SMITH Provincial Reporter


Green Party Leader Elizabeth May says she had a good shot at winning the federal seat of Halifax but decided not to run there because of her friendship with the current MP.

“I was not willing to run against Alexa McDonough,” Ms. May told The Chronicle Herald’s editorial board Tuesday. “I just thought it was opportunistic and icky and horrible and I wouldn’t do it.”

Ms. May said polling done by her party showed she would do better in Halifax than in Central Nova.
“It was definitely doable,” Ms. May said when asked if the numbers showed she could defeat the long-time New Democrat MP. “I just couldn’t bring myself to run against someone I respect and like as a friend.”

Ms. May said she was more comfortable running in Central Nova against Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay since he is a member of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet. It’s the best way to get out her message — Harper is dangerous — even though winning the seat could prove to be “an uphill battle,” she said.

Ms. May and Liberal Leader Stephane Dion stirred up controversy in April when they held a news conference in Stellarton to announce the Liberals would not run a candidate in Central Nova and the Greens wouldn’t run a candidate in Mr. Dion’s Montreal riding.

Ms. McDonough, who has served as an MP since 1997, said Tuesday she didn’t have much comment on Ms. May’s plans.

“She has a perfect right to choose where she is going to run, not run. She has her own reasons. It doesn’t matter what I think of the reasons,” the former federal and provincial NDP leader said. She said she hasn’t done any polling of her own.

When asked if she is friends with the Green Party leader, Ms. McDonough said they have never been political colleagues but that she has friends that don’t support her political views.

“I just don’t have anything to add to it,” the Halifax MP said. “I think that endless stories about where she is running, where she is not running… just kind of means she is not addressing the real issues.”

But Ms. May did focus on the issues during Tuesday’s editorial board, including the Canadian military and its role in Afghanistan, the Harper plan for compact florescent light bulbs and the fact she plans to use the train as much as possible during the next federal election to promote the need for a better rail system.

The Green Party leader said she would not reduce spending for Canada’s armed forces, but expressed concern that soldiers are “too exposed at the moment” in Afghanistan. One reason, she said, was that NATO ignored Canada’s advice to leave the poppy crops alone.

She said it doesn’t make sense to keep the Taliban out of discussions. She said the group at the end of their reign had an era of hard-core religious fundamentalism, but in the earlier days provided a more stable political presence.

“I’m not pro-Taliban,” she said with a chuckle, “but the point is that in the Afghani context, they are not the devil we paint them as here.

There’s mixed feeling about the Taliban in Afghanistan. If there’s mixed feelings in the hearts and minds of Afghanis about the force that we are trying to remove, it seems to me that that negotiation ought to take place.”

Last year, federal NDP Leader Jack Layton was criticized heavily for suggesting Canada withdraw its troops from the mission in southern Afghanistan and invite the Taliban to take part in peace talks.

...


The Chronicle Herald


From: Halifax | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
leftyboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14159

posted 22 May 2007 08:25 PM      Profile for leftyboy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fiberal spin. The Greens didn't make a deal with the Fiberals, May just didn't want to run against her BFF. Oh and Taliban Jack.

Ignore and walk on by.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 22 May 2007 08:42 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, she's clearly not motivated at all by a desire to help Stephane Dion outflank the NDP. Just look: she could have won Halifax West if she'd wanted to....
From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 22 May 2007 08:50 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
“I just don’t have anything to add to it,” the Halifax MP said. “I think that endless stories about where she is running, where she is not running… just kind of means she is not addressing the real issues.”

Bingo! The prize for cutting through BS goes to Ms McDonough.


quote:
“I’m not pro-Taliban,” she said with a chuckle, “but the point is that in the Afghani context, they are not the devil we paint them as here.

There’s mixed feeling about the Taliban in Afghanistan. If there’s mixed feelings in the hearts and minds of Afghanis about the force that we are trying to remove, it seems to me that that negotiation ought to take place.”

Last year, federal NDP Leader Jack Layton was criticized heavily for suggesting Canada withdraw its troops from the mission in southern Afghanistan and invite the Taliban to take part in peace talks.


Yeah, and Elizabeth May was only too happy to join in that criticism while she was pouting about Layton's failure to join her and Dion in subverting the democratic process.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 22 May 2007 09:07 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
According to Elizabeth May, she would have been a shoo-in in pretty much every riding in the country. If you don't believe her, just ask her. That's what all the sycophantic journalists do.

Liberal Lizzie could have won anywhere. That's why she's running in a seat where she does not live, where she has never lived, where she has no roots. 'Cause she could have won anywhere.

No. Really.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Marc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 287

posted 22 May 2007 10:12 PM      Profile for Marc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Icky"??? Is this the best that May can contribute to political discourse? It...like sounds...like...sooo valley girl...like whatever.

It is pretty clear that Alexa, a strong woman leader who actually has real roots in Nova Scotia, would absolutely wipe the floor with May if she ran against her. I really wish I could have seen it but alas she decided to run against Mackay.


From: Calgary, AB | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
-=+=-
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7072

posted 22 May 2007 10:46 PM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
According to Elizabeth May, she would have been a shoo-in in pretty much every riding in the country. If you don't believe her, just ask her. That's what all the sycophantic journalists do.

Liberal Lizzie could have won anywhere. That's why she's running in a seat where she does not live, where she has never lived, where she has no roots. 'Cause she could have won anywhere.

No. Really.



Soon she'll be musing about running in more than one riding. They used to do that in at one time.

[ 22 May 2007: Message edited by: -=+=- ]


From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 23 May 2007 06:00 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is quite funny since I have been told that Alexa MacDonough absolutely LOATHES Elizabeth May and has for many years. Apparently, if you want an earful about what an opportunistic, sanctimonious, egotistic person Elizabeth May is - just ask Alexa MacDonough to elaborate!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 23 May 2007 06:04 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dear Elizabeth: please engage brain before putting mouth in gear.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Wizard of Socialism
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2912

posted 23 May 2007 06:29 AM      Profile for The Wizard of Socialism   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
So Elizabeth May thinks she could beat Alexa McDonough? HAHAHAHAHAHA! Bring it on! It would take "Star Trek" technology and "War on Iraq" kind of budget to make such a thing remotely possible. For May to even compare herself to McDonough shows incredible disrespect for Alexa's years of dedication and experience.

I hope that when the next election is over, and the so-called greens have still not won a seat, that Elizabeth May has the decency to apologize to the Canadian people for squandering taxpayer's money on her ego-trip while there are still hungry kids in Canada.

And I hope that the so-called green support falls beneath the level required for federal funding, and that money goes back to where it belongs, instead of this disgraceful spectacle.

The so-called green franchise hasn't been a great success for whoever picked up the Canadian rights for it. I suggest they should throw in the towel and try something like a KFC or Tim Horton's.

[ 23 May 2007: Message edited by: The Wizard of Socialism ]


From: A Proud Canadian! | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 23 May 2007 06:33 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In the Manitoba election last night, the so-called Green Party got 1% of the vote and their leader got a paltry 138 votes in his riding!

As Manitoba goes, so goes Canada!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Oppo-Guy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4159

posted 23 May 2007 06:43 AM      Profile for Oppo-Guy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Elizabeth May? Who is that?
She's kinda just disappeared, hasn't she?

Just like her party did in Manitoba last night.

A poll that came out on Monday had them at 5 percent in the province. So, what did they get last night? 1.3 percent.

'nuff said.


From: here | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 23 May 2007 08:12 AM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, I'm starting to find the unmitigated hate towards EM a bit icky as well. I'm no fan of hers, but come on. There are bigger fish to fry.
From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 23 May 2007 08:34 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Unmitigated hate?

Beside Stockholm, who talks that way about anything he doesn't like, that's a bit of an extreme description, don't you think?

As for me, my own May-o-metre has gone from respect to exasperation to contempt.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 23 May 2007 08:35 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not that EM does not deserve it, but there's a point there.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 23 May 2007 08:39 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But I also agree with Scott: that people express contempt, not hate.

Anyone else I can agree with while I am in the mood?


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 23 May 2007 08:52 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Green number of around 1% is a little misleading as it comes from 16 of the 57 constituencies. That's all the candidates they ran. In Wolseley, the Greens ran 2nd at 12% - ahead of both the Liberals and Conservatives. Recent Green history in Manitoba includes a rather ugly internal fight around the previous provincial leader.

The current leader lives in his mom's basement. Suffice it to say that the Greens in Manitoba - despite having possibly the best constituency in which they might win in Canada - need to be a little more polished to have serious hopes of winning a seat.

[ 23 May 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 23 May 2007 08:58 AM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why should I be understated?

To me, the hate coming from different quarters (not just here), is palpable. For some, it appears to border on obsession. I'm not concerned for EM, she can take care of herself, I'm sure. I'm mostly concerned for its diversionary effects. It's not constructive.


From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
sandpiper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10581

posted 23 May 2007 09:05 AM      Profile for sandpiper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[QB]The current leader lives in his mom's basement. QB]

Our current Premier lived in his mom's basement this past summer. Downshifting's a green trend, hopefully.

I think May drives half of the environmentalists here nuts. But she's at least driving them to volunteer for the NDP.

I would guess May's comments about Alexa were an attempt to get an emotional response from Alexa that would drive the story and help May portray NDP candidates as 'negative', 'partisan' and not helping to make the world a better place by halping to get May elected. If the journalists had gotten some heat or anger off Alexa, May would be in the press here for weeks. Hopefully Alexa's smart response has killed that story.

But May winning Alexa's riding! Does she actually think that? Or just going for a headline?


From: HRM | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 23 May 2007 09:07 AM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Running against Alexa probably wouldn't have netted her the riding, but it probably would have allowed the Liberal candidate to come up the middle and win. She wants to try and take down a Conservative minister and the Conservatives, not the Liberals, and not the New Democrats (as much as you want to believe she does).
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
sandpiper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10581

posted 23 May 2007 09:25 AM      Profile for sandpiper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
May said Alexa's riding was 'doable', not that the Libs would come up the middle (which wouldn't happen, if as you say, the Greens take votes from all parties).

When you say 'you' you mean me, or a general rabble you? Because I like the Greens. I just think May's out to lunch.


From: HRM | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ravenj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5357

posted 23 May 2007 09:42 AM      Profile for ravenj     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does backroom Lizzie actually think she can beat Alexa? I never thought she is vain, so I'm adding that quality now.
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 23 May 2007 09:53 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ravenj:
Does backroom Lizzie actually think she can beat Alexa? I never thought she is vain, so I'm adding that quality now.

Maybe she was hoping that the NDP would agree not to field a candidate.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 23 May 2007 03:24 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hate to say it, but I think I've fallen into the trap that Elizabeth May's secret psy-ops have laid out for me and other political junkies like me.

I have this natural gravitation towards Elizabeth May threads...

Every time I come on babble and see a new one here, it's almost always the first one I'm going to read. I don't know what it is, but I have this addiction to listening what people have to say about her, and then speaking about my often hostile and contemptuous own points of view about her.

It's an addiction that's she is creating and I'm hooked.

Damn you Elizabeth! DAMN YOU!

The worst part about it is that I don't even like her!


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 23 May 2007 04:49 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't by the way think that May goes out of her way to harm electoral chances of individual New Democrats.

I'm probably representative of others who developed a lack of respect of her: that she would do anything to avoid doing particular harm to a Liberal, while New Democrats are fair game.

Aside from the fact she knows beating Alexa would be impossible [while beating McKay is a very long shot], it just wouldn't look good for her to run against Alexa. No brainer.

I'm sure polling by the Greens would show that she would do better in Halifax than in Central Nova. No surprise there.

Polling would naturally show that a Green/May base in Halifax would be less slim than it is in Central Nova.

But enough growth from that base to even have a chance at winning would be impossible in Halifax against MacDonough, while remotely possible against MacKay.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 23 May 2007 06:57 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course, she COULD run in a riding where she actually had some sort of connection. Like, say, the riding where she grew up. Or the riding where she lives.

I'm just saying. Since Liberal Lizzie is clearly favoured to win any riding she runs in (provided enough parties give her a free ride), why won't she run in one of those?

Or, if she wants to take down a Tory Minister (snort) why doesn't she take down the Minister for her party's signature (and only) issue, John Baird. If the Liberals gave her a free ride there, she might actually have a shot (unlike Central Nova, where she will finish no better than third - and possibly not that good).

BTW, is she still repeating that canard that party leaders traditionally get a free ride in a general election campaign? It's a complete fabrication, but she was quite determined to flog it a few weeks ago.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 23 May 2007 08:50 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
Maybe she was hoping that the NDP would agree not to field a candidate.

On the money, scott, she was trying to set up a tit for that situation, failing that, more free publicity, and oh gee she failed at both.

She has set back women being taken in politics seriously, for a good long while, perhaps that is her main initiative?!


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 23 May 2007 09:23 PM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
The Green number of around 1% is a little misleading as it comes from 16 of the 57 constituencies. That's all the candidates they ran. In Wolseley, the Greens ran 2nd at 12% - ahead of both the Liberals and Conservatives. Recent Green history in Manitoba includes a rather ugly internal fight around the previous provincial leader.

The current leader lives in his mom's basement. Suffice it to say that the Greens in Manitoba - despite having possibly the best constituency in which they might win in Canada - need to be a little more polished to have serious hopes of winning a seat.

[ 23 May 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]



I heard that the Greens doubled their vote since last election. But they only had candidates in 1/4 of the ridings, one more than in the last election.

From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 23 May 2007 09:29 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, this thread is NOT about the Green Party and how they are doing, even though you want to deflect away for your incredibly stupid leader, forestgreen

It is about another stupid commentary and action by EMay. Talk about it or move along.

She is an embarassment to feminists and females in Canada who want to make politics an even playing field, if you want to talk about how the Green Party is doing start a fucking thread about it.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 23 May 2007 10:38 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sandpiper:
May said Alexa's riding was 'doable', not that the Libs would come up the middle (which wouldn't happen, if as you say, the Greens take votes from all parties).

When you say 'you' you mean me, or a general rabble you? Because I like the Greens. I just think May's out to lunch.


General rabble you. Although I didn't read your post before mine.

I think that the Greens would pull a little (not a vastly disproportionate amount) more from the NDP than the Liberals, like in the London by-election (it was like a 2-1-1 pull). I thought the gap between Alexa and the Liberal challenger last election was only 2%, but apparently it was 17%. The Liberals wouldn't be able to catch up from there with May running.

In short, I was wrong.


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 23 May 2007 10:41 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Actually, this thread is NOT about the Green Party and how they are doing, even though you want to deflect away for your incredibly stupid leader, forestgreen

It is about another stupid commentary and action by EMay. Talk about it or move along.

She is an embarassment to feminists and females in Canada who want to make politics an even playing field, if you want to talk about how the Green Party is doing start a fucking thread about it.


1) I agree (not the EMay is stupid part, please head to the Manitoba election thread)
2) This is not how I would express contempt.

[ 23 May 2007: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 24 May 2007 05:03 AM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
She has set back women being taken in politics seriously, for a good long while, perhaps that is her main initiative?!

Let me re-iterate my disdain for EM, but gee, do you really believe that's even possible? That she said to herself one day, How am I going to go about and make politics more difficult for women?

Let me also echo Joshua Kubinec's sentiments. Reading what crazy thing EM did lately is like watching some kind of hilarious political version of The Office, and she's the Michael Scott character. Hilarious if it wasn't true, that is.


From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Wizard of Socialism
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2912

posted 24 May 2007 07:25 AM      Profile for The Wizard of Socialism   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
How DARE you insult Michael Scott by comparing him to this trainwreck? Michael Scott, for all his ineptitude, has a good heart. He never tried to disenfranchise voters, rig elections or destroy democracy. He's harmless and fictional. Elizabeth May is a very real threat to every Canadian's right to vote. Bit of a difference there, I'd say.
From: A Proud Canadian! | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 24 May 2007 07:47 AM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Easy, tiger.
From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Wizard of Socialism
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2912

posted 24 May 2007 07:58 AM      Profile for The Wizard of Socialism   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I apologize for my bellicosity. It's just this issue. And mostly, it's the kids I'm worried about. What with all the crystal meth going around the highschools nowadays, I can see it could be really easy for them to be sucked into things like the so-called green party. Guys like Greeny and Wiggy are already write-offs. But the kids still have a chance to live good, productive lives if they can keep from falling in with this sort of element.
From: A Proud Canadian! | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 24 May 2007 08:50 AM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're being mean, but I have to admit that last one made me smirk.
From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 24 May 2007 01:38 PM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Actually, this thread is NOT about the Green Party and how they are doing, even though you want to deflect away for your incredibly stupid leader, forestgreen

It is about another stupid commentary and action by EMay. Talk about it or move along.

She is an embarassment to feminists and females in Canada who want to make politics an even playing field, if you want to talk about how the Green Party is doing start a fucking thread about it.


I was responding to a point raised by Stockholm, who, in saying the Greens got a pathetic 1% of the vote, ignored the fact that they received 5.5% of the vote in the ridings they actually ran. It's not unusual for a thread to stray off topic. Most of the time, though, people just say something like, "hey let's bring this back on topic," but I guess the bellicose rhetoric is not out of character for you.

(fixed typo)

[ 24 May 2007: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 24 May 2007 01:47 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1. Not being able to get more than 15 people run in a province with 57 seats speaks volumes about a party having no organization or ground troops.

2. I would guess that the 15 seats where the Greens did run in MB were the ones where they would have done the best - so while they may have averaged 5% - we cannot assume that they would have had 5% in the other 32 seats where they didn't run. in fact most likely not.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Life, the universe, everything
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13982

posted 24 May 2007 02:56 PM      Profile for Life, the universe, everything     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hello -best case scenario 5%. Not exactly break out the bubbly time.
Back to the topic. May is becoming a charicature of herself. Not endearing in a political leader.

From: a little to the left - a bit more-there perfect | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 24 May 2007 03:25 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I for one really like her the NDp needs Green leaders like her to highlight how good they really are. With her and Dion maybe we will make a federal break through. It is clear watchng her and Dion that there is only one party to vote for if you want integrity and a progresive voice.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Wizard of Socialism
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2912

posted 24 May 2007 04:05 PM      Profile for The Wizard of Socialism   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, it's called the NDP.
From: A Proud Canadian! | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 24 May 2007 07:04 PM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
1. Not being able to get more than 15 people run in a province with 57 seats speaks volumes about a party having no organization or ground troops.

2. I would guess that the 15 seats where the Greens did run in MB were the ones where they would have done the best - so while they may have averaged 5% - we cannot assume that they would have had 5% in the other 32 seats where they didn't run. in fact most likely not.


Well, the NDP is only running in about half the ridings in PEI, even less than the Greens.

Speculating how Greens would have done in ridings where they were not running is not particularly meaningful to me. I think how they do in a particular riding has to do with the particular candidate, and their exposure. I suppose they could have run paper candidates, but I'm not sure if there's a real point, unless votes leads to funding, as in the federal election. Or if you're trying to make a point about credibility. I don't think the Greens have ever been as organized provincially.

And sorry if anyone is offended by the off-topic post. If this conversation appears to lead anywhere, I will start another thread.


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 24 May 2007 08:17 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ForestGreen:
And sorry if anyone is offended by the off-topic post. If this conversation appears to lead anywhere, I will start another thread.

Does forestgreen = EMay?

And you wonder why snappish tones are used with some.

Nice passive aggressive non-apology, BTW.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 24 May 2007 08:59 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RP.:
To me, the hate coming from different quarters (not just here), is palpable.

There is a line between contempt and hate. And I do have a lot of contempt for Liberal Lizzie. Just like I have contempt for other people who pretend to be progressive and then set out to undermine the left and to build up the right.

Liberal Lizzie.

Prominent Liberal Hack Basil Hargrove (TM).

Bob Rae.

Ross Thatcher.

Y'follow? I mean hypocrites and quislings in general.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 24 May 2007 11:04 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:

Does forestgreen = EMay?

And you wonder why snappish tones are used with some.

Nice passive aggressive non-apology, BTW.


Normally, I walk away from these types of threads after they drift off-topic, but now for the first time, I find that a poster is being attacked and bullied solely for his political affiliation.

Remind, ForestGreen has done absolutely nothing to earn that kind of response from you. He has been as respectful and as civil as possible to this community since he's arrived and you... well you're just being an asshole towards him. Even I've lost patience with you (and a couple others). And I'm a very patient guy (I have posted here for over 2 years now)

FG made one reply about the Manitoba election (a topic which Stockholm brought up), one of the most marginal cases of thread drift possible in a thread which has already devolved into "EMay is contemptable". You scream bloody murder. He comes back agrees with your point, actually apoligizes to you, and you yell at him again because... well I don't have a fucking clue why your yelling at him again. What do you want him to say? How do you want him to apoligize? Wait, let me do it for him.

(clears throat)

Remind, I'm sorry for derailing your thoughtful and informative discussion of how deluded and egotistical the Elizabeth May is with a piece of information about the Green Party. I should have realized this thread was for the sole purpose of discussing what a contemptable windbag Elizabeth May is. I will refrain from attempting to add any more actual content for the remainder of this discussion.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was to leave this board... again... because of your behaviour. You should be happy that you're going to get what you wanted: A senseless and unending war of words and insults between Dippers and Greens and ultimately, a discussion board free of any dissenting thought and political diversity.

[ 24 May 2007: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 25 May 2007 12:54 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that WCG's characterization is fair.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
toddsschneider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6280

posted 25 May 2007 01:51 AM      Profile for toddsschneider     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
Of course, she COULD run in a riding where she actually had some sort of connection. Like, say, the riding where she grew up.

Elizabeth May grew up in the States. Wikipedia implies Connecticut.


From: Montreal, Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 25 May 2007 01:59 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ForestGreen:


Well, the NDP is only running in about half the ridings in PEI, even less than the Greens.

Speculating how Greens would have done in ridings where they were not running is not particularly meaningful to me. I think how they do in a particular riding has to do with the particular candidate, and their exposure. I suppose they could have run paper candidates, but I'm not sure if there's a real point, unless votes leads to funding, as in the federal election. Or if you're trying to make a point about credibility. I don't think the Greens have ever been as organized provincially.

And sorry if anyone is offended by the off-topic post. If this conversation appears to lead anywhere, I will start another thread.


I don't think you need to apologize for going off topic, its not like that doesn't happen here all the time.

In any case, it's perfectly fair to speculate as to how they'd do in certain ridings that they didn't run in. While it's true that candidates, and local organization, play a role in determining votes it's also true that even a party with support that's a kilometre wide and centimetre deep like the Greens will have stronger and weaker areas. So I think the same would obviously be true in Manitoba. As you probably know the BC Green Party is one of the strongest in the country. As you may or may not know, there are clear regional variations in support for that party. It usually does pretty well in affluent areas of the Lower Mainland like the North Shore, or the West Side of Vancouver, and poorly in lower incomer suburban areas like Surrey or Maple Ridge. Speaking of which the former Green leader, Adriane Carr, ran in a by-election in a Surrey riding. She did atrociously, whereas say she decided to run against Carole James in Victoria she would've still been crushed, but perhaps she could've beaten the Liberal candidate because Victoria is more culturally hip than suburban Surrey. Different dynamics would be at play in Manitoba, but that's to be expected considering its different socio-economic makeup.

So dragging that back to McDonough vs May, I'd agree that May would do better in Halifax vote total wise, than she would in Central Nova supposing a Liberal where to still run there. But I don't think she'd stand a shot at defeating McDonough, considering all the political accomplishments McDonough has compared to May's complete lack of them. But then again that's the real speculation. Why May felt the need to bring it up who really knows. Either she's trying to entrap McDonough and the NDP, as others have noted, or she really is the leader of a 'Merry Band of Amateurs' wondering allowed so as to stay relevant in the media considering her lack of substantive contributions to the political discussions going on in this country.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 25 May 2007 04:13 AM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
There is a line between contempt and hate.

Y'follow?


Yeah, I follow. I'm not trying to be the Be Nice To EM Sherriff or anything.


From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
ravenj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5357

posted 25 May 2007 05:52 AM      Profile for ravenj     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ForestGreen:
Well, the NDP is only running in about half the ridings in PEI, even less than the Greens.

Is the concentrated oxygen in your forest distorting your reality? NDP had run candidates in every riding in every election.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 25 May 2007 06:03 AM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, it's true, NDP running in 15/27 ridings in PEI prov. election right now.

For that matter, if you go back I'm sure you'd find that all of the big parties have run less than full slates at different times in the past, say, 30 years.

Examples: NDP in 1980, 280/282; 1993, 294/295; 2000 298/301


From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Wizard of Socialism
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2912

posted 25 May 2007 06:07 AM      Profile for The Wizard of Socialism   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Why are you bothering to debate a so-called green? You know once the Aylmer takes hold the host loses all ability to reason.
From: A Proud Canadian! | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 25 May 2007 07:01 AM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:

Remind, I'm sorry for derailing your thoughtful and informative discussion of how deluded and egotistical the Elizabeth May is with a piece of information about the Green Party. I should have realized this thread was for the sole purpose of discussing what a contemptable windbag Elizabeth May is. I will refrain from attempting to add any more actual content for the remainder of this discussion.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was to leave this board... again... because of your behaviour. You should be happy that you're going to get what you wanted: A senseless and unending war of words and insults between Dippers and Greens and ultimately, a discussion board free of any dissenting thought and political diversity.

[ 24 May 2007: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


Don't worry, I won't let these kinds of things drive me away. After a while, I start taking things less personally, when I see how predictable certain responses can become. And the apology was only meant for those capable of receiving it.
Now, back to our regular programming...


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 25 May 2007 01:09 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
I think that WCG's characterization is fair.

seconded.


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
sandpiper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10581

posted 25 May 2007 01:28 PM      Profile for sandpiper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know when FG first started posting, I was concerned about an attack on a moderator, but certainly haven't seen anything lately to be so dismissive, and find the possibly tongue-in-cheek politeness to be sort of cute.

I do have a question for WCG and FG, though. Do you think there actually WAS any polling done? Because the reporter didn't ask to see the poll, and I find it really hard to believe any reputable polling company would have come up with results showing Alexa's riding was 'doable'. I used to donate and volunteer for the Green Party. Is that where my dollars ended up? Polling to see if May could knock off Alexa?

(edited for splling)

[ 25 May 2007: Message edited by: sandpiper ]


From: HRM | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 25 May 2007 04:16 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The kind of riding polling the Greens would have been doing, when done by any party, is usually pretty rough and ready stuff. Relatively low cost stuff useful for making basic decisions.

So you don't make entirely ad hoc decisions about things like where the Leader runs.

When May was first talking about where she would run and saying she leaned strongly to her home riding, I said then that I presume the Greens will do polling and then she'll find out how she still has a pretty negative image in her home riding.

At the time I was just thinking of a normal level of delusional thinking that you could expect from any political figure: in this case, May having left and knowing people who will tell her how popular she is 'back home'.

Since that time I've concluded that she does much more than a normal amount of seeing things in a self-serving manner.

At any rate, when it comes to the 'home riding', the polling presumably fixed those delusions.

quote:
Do you think there actually WAS any polling done? Because the reporter didn't ask to see the poll, and I find it really hard to believe any reputable polling company would have come up with results showing Alexa's riding was 'doable'.

May said winning Halifax was 'doable'. Even she wouldn't claim the polling told her that. She just said the polling for Halifax was better than for Central Nova. That doesn't mean a lot.

Going from 'the polling was better in Halifax' to 'winning Halifax was doable' is pure puffery.

I expected them to poll, and even I don't think May would just make up that Halifax riding was included in the polling.

The obvious question is, given that running in Halifax would be "opportunistic and icky and horrible and I wouldn’t do it.” .... then why did she have the riding polled?

Personally, I find the idea of her running against Alexa less cheeky and opportunistic than the very disengenuous claim "I wouldn't think of doing that."

[gagging noises here]


.

[ 25 May 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 25 May 2007 04:58 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I find May to be impressive and a good orator but she's inexperienced in the ways of the sound bite. She seems trustworty, however her organization and affilations are not.
From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 25 May 2007 05:58 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think a lot of us would put that precisely the other way around- the organization is OK, it's May we don't trust.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 25 May 2007 07:11 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
I think a lot of us would put that precisely the other way around- the organization is OK, it's May we don't trust.

Look closer at their affiliations. A mite too corporate for comfort.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 25 May 2007 07:21 PM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sandpiper:

I do have a question for WCG and FG, though. Do you think there actually WAS any polling done? Because the reporter didn't ask to see the poll, and I find it really hard to believe any reputable polling company would have come up with results showing Alexa's riding was 'doable'. I used to donate and volunteer for the Green Party. Is that where my dollars ended up? Polling to see if May could knock off Alexa?

(edited for splling)

[ 25 May 2007: Message edited by: sandpiper ]


I don't know much about the inner workings of any party. When numbers were being thrown around during the LNC byelection, I was wondering if those were derived from telephone canvassing, or if they were done in a way to obscure the source of the polling.
Also polling companies can also be contracted to do special surveys or ask certain questions.
I wonder, too, if they have any additional information they only release to certain people who request it. Like riding by riding polling results (which of course would only be meaningful after a large number of polls were taken).

[ 25 May 2007: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 26 May 2007 02:20 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When parties do 'internal polling' it is seen very selectively within a party.

And it varies from this kind of rough and ready stuff used for comparing riding possibilities, to broader polling where parties want to ask more 'sophisticated' questions than you get in public polls.

What the Greens did in however many ridings they polled before May decided, may heve been in between in its expense and sophistication.

IE, they may well have asked questions that would allow them to get more at how much chance there is people would consider voting for May [maybe even at the time remind who she is]. Because the simple 'who would you vote for' might not have done them much good.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
sandpiper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10581

posted 26 May 2007 04:44 AM      Profile for sandpiper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:

May said winning Halifax was 'doable'. Even she wouldn't claim the polling told her that. She just said the polling for Halifax was better than for Central Nova. That doesn't mean a lot.

Going from 'the polling was better in Halifax' to 'winning Halifax was doable' is pure puffery.]


The thing is, Ken, May DID say the polls showed her as having a good chance to win:

quote:
“It was definitely doable,” Ms. May said when asked if the numbers showed she could defeat the long-time New Democrat MP.

Maybe that's just her being optimistic. But when asked if the polls showed her that she could defeat Alexa, May said yes.

And I don't think the numbers, COULD have said that. May just makes stuff up. She says she's good friends with every politician in Nova Scotia. She says she has roots where she doesn't. She says some really odd stuff about abortion and then denies she ever said anything anyone could find remotely controversial. She says everyone but her and Stephane Dion are partisan and then says a whole lot of partisan Liberal shit.

It was nice, so nice, to have two parties to vote for, for a few years.

And while I knew May had some of these tendancies, I thought she would put it together now that she was the leader. I actually had some hope for her. I think that's why I read every May thread on Rabble. It's shame and embarrassment for having volunteered for the Greens.


From: HRM | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 26 May 2007 09:07 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is true that May clearly imparts, and obviously intended to impart, the message ‘that from the polling I knew that I could beat Alexa McDonough, but I wouldn’t want to do that.’

This delivers the message both that she is a winner, and that she is noble.

Dream combination for a politician.

Personally, I have gone from her pissing me off to finding it creepy how uncanny- seemingly automatically off the top of her head- she is able to parse the edge of what is literally true and convincingly imply what is not.

This is a case in point. I still maintain that she did not literally say that the polling told her that beating Alexa was doable. And if anyone went back to question her she could emphaise that she said that she COULD beat Alexa…... where of course anything is possible.

Part of this rapid calculative ‘talent’ she has, is the capacity and sense to make use of her position with the media. Unlike Leaders of the other parties she is a ‘phenomena’, rather than a leading politician they will ask close questions of. But even with that help, she still has to be good at parsing and fuzzing that line between what is literally true and what she is suggesting is true.

In a general way this is stock in trade for what May calls ‘old style politics’- you know, what the other parties do. I guess that’s what is ‘new’ about her style of politics- I have never seen anyone remotely as good at parsing and fuzzing that line between truth and implication.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 26 May 2007 09:17 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that she may have been misquoted. I think that, rather than saying that beating McDonough in Halifax was "doable", she may have actually said that McDonough would get "more than double" the votes that May would get if May ran in Halifax and the Liberals didn't run a candidate there.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 May 2007 09:23 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think KenS has really gotten to the heart of the issue here:

If May thought that running against McDonough would be "icky" and she would never consider such a thing, then why did she have the riding polled?

And if she didn't have the riding polled, then how does she know she COULD beat McDonough, and why did she say that she did?

Basically, the question comes down to: was she lying about not wanting to run against Alexa, or was she lying about having the polling numbers?

Either way, she's caught in a big, fat, disingenuous, giggly-oopsie-did-I-say-that-tee-hee, I'm-so-cute-don't-ask-me-any-hard-questions, dissembling lie.

Actually, re-reading what she said, she said that she considered it (thus the polling) but ultimately decided that although the polling numbers said she could win, she didn't want to run against a friend.

Okay, so maybe she wasn't lying about having considered running against McDonough. She considered it and decided not to.

So let's see the polling numbers. Let's see the proof. Let's see if she was lying about having the polling numbers, or about having done a poll at all. I'd bet my left arm she didn't have those numbers. Prove us wrong and produce!

[ 26 May 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
civicduty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13357

posted 26 May 2007 09:53 AM      Profile for civicduty        Edit/Delete Post
Michelle;

The three main stream parties continually poll. They have the money to do so thanks to the taxpayer well of money, corporations and unions.

In all likelihood, Elisabeth has probably had some polling done to see where she could win and found out that she could not win in any riding in Canada.

In the end, her goal like all political parties and politicians, is to promote themselves to be able to better their own lives,their friends and their family members. Therefore, she feels in the long run, by working with the Liberal Party of Canada to attack a wannabe liberal like MacKay, she will receive the best personal gain.

Many may say, I am being cynical. I see it as being realistic. Our political parties and our politicans have long ceased representing the people. During such periods, people tend to take the inadequate governing to a breaking point, and then there will be a revolt. That revolt may be with arms or by peaceful revolution. Canada is near that point.

The USA's recent events with regards to legalizing illegal immigrants, has moved that population to openly talking about a people's revolution to take back their country and their government. Once the USA moves in that direction, Canada will not be far behind.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 May 2007 10:00 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The poll probably said she could get 4% in Central Nova and 6% in Halifax - ergo, yes, I suppose that means that Halifax would be more winnable...or pout it another way, winning in Central Nova is a 1 in 1000 chance and in Halifax it would have been 1 in 900.

Also, since the Liberals finished second to Alexa in Halfax and actually came reasonably close to upsetting her in 2004 - maybe Dion told May in no uncertain terms that the Liberals would only pull their candidate if she chose a riding like Central Nova where they were a distant third and clearly have zero chance of winning.

Also, there are just too many Liberal movers and shakers who live in Halifax who would have been up in arms if Dion had pulled the rug out from under them.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 May 2007 10:11 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yabbut...she didn't say she had "better numbers in Halifax than Central Nova." She said she had better numbers than Alexa McDonough.

An extraordinary claim like that needs to be proven or withdrawn.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 26 May 2007 10:24 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by civicduty:
Many may say, I am being cynical. I see it as being realistic.

I don't think your being either. Board policy prevents me from saying what I actually think you are being.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
mimeguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10004

posted 26 May 2007 03:13 PM      Profile for mimeguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yabbut...she didn't say she had "better numbers in Halifax than Central Nova." She said she had better numbers than Alexa McDonough.
An extraordinary claim like that needs to be proven or withdrawn.

Michelle I'm not sure why you are phrasing it this way. Ms. May says that looking at the numbers made it "doable", that she had a better chance in Halifax than in Central Nova. She doesn't say she would defeat Alexa by a wide margin. Also winning in Halifax is the same as defeating Alexa so I'm puzzled at the difference your trying to make. Stockholm has it more accurately when he says that maybe she was told in clear terms that a deal was not possible with the liberals in Halifax. Alexa won by 3,000 votes in 2000 and only by 1000 or so votes in 2004 so the liberals did not simply come reasonably close they came extremely close. The liberals lost ground in 2006 so maybe this is what Stockholm's reference is to. The green vote tripled from just under 600 votes in 2000 to a little over 2,000 votes in 2004. They kept all of those votes in 2006 with the exception of a hundred or so. This means that without a liberal running the riding was close enough to perhaps pull off an upset depending on how everyone voted.

So I will agree that Alex has many accomplishments as well as being the former leader and I certainly respect her. But the election numbers show that these accomplishments have not given her a safe clear win over the prior three elections. The surge in votes in 2006 could be discontent with the liberals meaning that if Dion does start to build the party back up then she may not keep that increase and certainly may be defeated by the liberals in the next election.

I also think KenS is right when he says she is great at fudging the lines of perception and her strategy of being the sole noble alternative is still working on many people. She is cleverly playing on the discontent with the political system and despite what you may say this will make an impact in the next election. That's her job.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 May 2007 03:15 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Respectfully, mimeguy, the "difference" I'm trying to make is that I don't believe she has the numbers, whether we're talking about "better numbers than Alexa" or even "doable".
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mimeguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10004

posted 26 May 2007 03:22 PM      Profile for mimeguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay. Understood.
From: Ontario | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 26 May 2007 03:33 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by mimeguy:
I also think KenS is right when he says she is great at fudging the lines of perception...

We used to have a word for that: lying.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Wizard of Socialism
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2912

posted 26 May 2007 04:37 PM      Profile for The Wizard of Socialism   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Or, like they used to say on The Beverly Hillbillies: Greening.

Granny: What's a Smog?
Jethro: Why I reckon it's a small Hog.
Granny: You greening me boy?

I guess that's what Elizabeth May was doing. She was greening us.

[ 26 May 2007: Message edited by: The Wizard of Socialism ]


From: A Proud Canadian! | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 26 May 2007 07:27 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I also think KenS is right when he says she is great at fudging the lines of perception and her strategy of being the sole noble alternative is still working on many people. She is cleverly playing on the discontent with the political system and despite what you may say this will make an impact in the next election. That's her job.

For starters, I'm going to take exception with "her strategy of being the sole noble alternative." To me, there is a big difference between being the sole noble alternative, and appearing to be.

That said, I'll take it as a practical point, and I did say she is good at playing this game. But she can be good at it, AND it fail her in the long term.

In another thread I made the point that things will be different IF it ever becomes clear that the Greens are going to hold at 10%+ [a clarity which is probably only possible in the glare of mid-campaign].

IF that ever happens, and I don't expect it, she WILL be questioned FAR more toughly, and her approach that is working now [so far] will sink like a rock.

Mimeguy takes the approach that it is done now because that is what is needed to get attention, and he expects the approach will change at the appropriate time.

I'm skeptical. She is SO good at parsing and fuzzing that line, and it comes so automatically, I doubt she can do otherwise. I think we are getting the real, and only, Elizabeth May.

What you see is what you get.

But my hunch is that we won't even have to wait until May gets tougher treatment from the media- which may never happen.

The more often one plays the line with anything, the greater the odds that it bites you.
Each time you do it, the probability that it goes wrong on you is not great. But that is each single time, in isolation. Over the long run is very different.

Karma.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 26 May 2007 08:26 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A somewhat technical quibble over the Halifax riding vote history and possibilities:

quote:
Alexa won by 3,000 votes in 2000 and only by 1000 or so votes in 2004 so the liberals did not simply come reasonably close they came extremely close.

.....

So I will agree that Alex has many accomplishments as well as being the former leader and I certainly respect her. But the election numbers show that these accomplishments have not given her a safe clear win over the prior three elections. The surge in votes in 2006 could be discontent with the liberals meaning that if Dion does start to build the party back up then she may not keep that increase and certainly may be defeated by the liberals in the next election.


No way at all. And the Liberals themselves have given up on the riding for the time being.

2004 was the anomaly. Two reasons.

1.] It was the peak and last gasp of Paul Martin, Buzz Hargrove and Elizabeth May playing to NDP voters.

2.] Alexa, and people around her, had got a little complacent. That was corrected long before the next election.

As in 2006, the Liberals will probably have a tough time coming up with a decent candidate in the next election. In fact, the Libs will not put a dime into or use any capital for picking up ANY Nova Scotia seat.

Even though they have conceded Halifax indefinitely, I agree the Libs would never have given May a pass to run there.

But when the Green team was looking at the possibilities of the various ridings [including "I wouldn't run against Alexa"], I disagree that Halifax would have really been seen as doable even without a Liberal running.

A hard headed look would show a whole lot less room to grow the vote against Alexa, than the room for growth running against Peter MacKay.

And May would have to look in advance like she stood to roll over Alexa- because she was more important or something like that- to be able to control the national optics of running against a prominent and well like female politician.

So Halifax was a non-starter.

[ 26 May 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
ForestGreen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13611

posted 26 May 2007 09:19 PM      Profile for ForestGreen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Yabbut...she didn't say she had "better numbers in Halifax than Central Nova." She said she had better numbers than Alexa McDonough.

An extraordinary claim like that needs to be proven or withdrawn.


I don't see her making that claim. She was asked a question about whether the polls showed she could beat Alexa. She didn't answer the question straight on. "Doable" just means it's possible. Maybe the polls indicated a certain percentage would consider voting for her, but trying to make any reliable predictions from that, as we know, would be next to impossible. It's all speculation. Heck, anything is possible, even Stockholm would agree.


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jonas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12307

posted 27 May 2007 05:37 PM      Profile for Jonas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The fact that she uses the expression 'icky' (my kid sister used to call spinach icky) and thinks she can beat Alexa just shows what a rank amateur she is. The fact that she thinks Alexa is a good friend and that she could win in either Halifax OR Central Nova shows just how deluded she is.................appart from that - she's a great leader!
From: Ottawa | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 27 May 2007 09:35 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by toddsschneider:

Elizabeth May grew up in the States. Wikipedia implies Connecticut.


Liberal Lizzie spent at least some portion of her youth in Cape Breton.

She isn't running there.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 May 2007 05:52 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The fact that she thinks Alexa is a good friend

Someone should ask Alexa if she actually considers May to be a "friend". With "friends" like her - who needs enemies!

[ 28 May 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 May 2007 05:58 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, excuse me, but unless you can verify that with a source, you need to delete it. You know better. Start your own web site and expose IT to libel actions if you want, but don't pull that here.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 28 May 2007 06:12 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Someone should ask Alexa if she actually considers May to be a "friend".

In the article posted that started the thread, the reporter did ask her.

[ 28 May 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 May 2007 06:16 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm's. You don't get to pass off gossip like that as fact on a public web site. It can leave us open to complaints from either Elizabeth May OR Alexa McDonough and understandably so. We have no way of verifying the truth of what Stockholm is claiming. He needs to remove it.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 May 2007 06:29 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In the article posted that started the thread, the reporter did ask her.


and her response sounded to me like another way of saying "if you have nothing good to say about someone, why say anything at all"

To me a "good friend" is someone I go to movies with, or out to dinner with or on trips with. A "good friend" is someone I might discuss personal problems and issues with (ie: relationship and love issues, health crises etc...)

Considering that Elizabeth May has described everyone from Bill Clinton to Stephen Lewis to Peter McKay (!) as a good friend - to name a few - I wonder what her definition of a "good friend" is? maybe she actually has no good friends at all and therefore thinks that anyone she has ever had a casual conversation with is ipso-facto her "good friend".

[ 28 May 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 28 May 2007 08:28 AM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

...I wonder what her definition of a "good friend" is? maybe she actually has no good friends at all and therefore thinks that anyone she has ever had a casual conversation with is ipso-facto her "good friend".

[ 28 May 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


which would, with "Taliban Jack's" fictional enraged finger wagging at her, qualify him as a "good friend" too!


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Charles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 200

posted 28 May 2007 08:41 AM      Profile for Charles   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Libs have again nominated Martin MacKinnon as their Halifax candidate, he who crashed and burned in 2006. There is zero chance for the Liberals in Halifax right now. Before they nominated him it was next to zero. Lizzie may have done okay in Halifax, maybe 8-10% if all her stars alligned but she had no - read zero -hope of winning the seat. Typical arrogant May making shit up.
From: Halifax, NS | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ravenj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5357

posted 29 May 2007 02:43 AM      Profile for ravenj     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No, it's true, NDP running in 15/27 ridings in PEI prov. election right now.

I stand corrected. Sorry.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 29 May 2007 05:51 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Back to Central Nova, where May is running.

Brief radio news clips today that the Greens had opened a campaign headquarters.

Confirming that they mean to throw everything into winning this, not just doing well.

When the chief strategist quit month or two ago that was one of his complaints- putting all the eggs into getting May into the House... and if that was going to be the plan, it would have been best off in London North Centre.

Anyway- people are bound to spout off that she has/has not a real chance. I don't think I'll want to go back over that ground.

It was discussed in these two earlier threads.

one

two


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 May 2007 09:48 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Brief radio news clips today that the Greens had opened a campaign headquarters.

Confirming that they mean to throw everything into winning this, not just doing well.


What constitutes "throwing everything" into a race for the Green Party in Nova Scotia where they probably have no more than 100 active members in the whole province - very few of whom live in Central Nova. "Everything" for the Green Party is probably about what the NDP would put into a third tier target.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 30 May 2007 01:14 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For starters, the Greens will be spending a ton in Central Nova. We'll never know how much because a lot of it will be before the election in salaries of organizers, rent for the HQ, etc- paid by the party rather than the riding.

But I'll guess they outspend the NDP 3 or 4 to 1. Who knows how much the Conservatives will spend to keep it. They won't have to spend as much as the Greens, but they will want to make sure.

And a lot of that Green money will go into beating the bushes for volunteers- in the riding and around the province. Just the fact of having a HQ, probably for a year or more, will bring a certain number of people in the door. They are even open for the notriously slow season of summer when it's difficult to get people to do anything.

I don't think poring in all these resources is likely to change things much- shorten May's long odds somewhat.

The Greens have a hell of a long time to get a parade going that has the effect of a snowball in slow motion. They will hope it will do the trick.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Wizard of Socialism
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2912

posted 30 May 2007 03:57 AM      Profile for The Wizard of Socialism   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
If that's their idea of "new" politics, give me the tried and true methods of the traditional, legitimate, federal parties anytime. Truly, a disgusting spectacle.
From: A Proud Canadian! | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 May 2007 05:18 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder when it will dawn on people in the Green Party that they are being USED to advance May's personal agenda and that every other candidate of their is essentially being cut loose.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 30 May 2007 05:39 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or stepping back from Stock's way of putting things:

This is what the Green strategist who quit would have had in mind. No one in the Green Party would disagree that it is important to have someone in the House of Commons.

But that is not in and of itself building a party.

Worse still, when resources are with will and competence applied to the grassroots work of broad party building, you WILL get results. But even betting all the chips in the house on getting a seat in the House is betting it on something that in the end you have very little control over, no matter how hard and well you work.

It may be overstating things to say the rest of Green candidates have been cut loose. But it is true that both money and equally scarce focus has been sucked into staking everything on the Leader winning.

Instead of doing one thing as well as you can- broad based party building- the Greens are doing two things half-assed.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 30 May 2007 06:12 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
May was just on The Current, again trying to sell the idea that her backroom pact with Dion was about a new way of doing politics. She called it "co-operation".

To my mind, co-operation would be what happened when Jack Layton secured millions of dollars for social housing, transit and job training in the 2005 Federal Budget or when he managed to secure the help of the other parties to completely rewrite the Clean Air Act.

There's no doubt that voters want their politicians to co-operate in this way, but they want to have a choice when they go to vote. Co-operation in politics is not about the politicians getting together in advance of an election to conspire to limit the options available to voters.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 30 May 2007 07:09 AM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i listened to that interview too scott. i found the host's, anna-marie tremonte, characterisation of the Greens as, to paraphrase "arguably the best suited/positioned" to promote a "green" agenda really irritating for it's leading quality...(i can't remember exactly as i was shouting epithets!) and May went on to expound on her platform, which, if you had listened to Jack last week, sounded like the NDP platform that has been worked on for years and is actually accomplishing concrete work in parliament. yes, i'm partisan, but what the hell?

May then went on to use the phrase "keep the lights on" which is a PR slogan invented by the McGuinty Liberals in their fearmongering on power supply in Ontario used to justify their exempting the Portlands Energy Centre in downtown Toronto and thier $40 billion nuclear plan from full Environmental Assessments. She then said she felt that Dion would be the best choice for Prime Minister. She also continually used the terms "efficient, effective, and economical", without actually explaining what that is, essentially using the language of the business sector and the right wing think tanks.

I think what drives me a bit nuts about this is the Greens "claim" to be a socially progressive and pro-environmental party. The NDP "is" a socially progressive and pro-environmental party, as shown by the years of work don, bills presented and legislation tabled and passed. Why would Layton not rate with someone leading a "green" party who seems intent on endorsing another leader other than herself for PM? Why would she endorse the leader of the Liberals, who are internationally recognised for dropping the ball on Kyoto and climate inaction for their 13 years in power?

And why, when asked about running in Nova Scotia against Mckay, she goes off about how he is the last standing former leader of the Progressive Conservatives and how we need to teach the Cons a lesson? Why not run against Baird in a town she actually lives in and is the Environment Minister? That would send a dramatic message. The Greens have no foriegn policy image or experience. what message do they hope to send? She has already parroted Harper and Co's "Taliban Jack" line.

My general feeling after the interview which opened with her alluding to a revenge scheme agains McKay for killing the PC and giving us Harper, was full of a proto-business speak version of the NDP platform, and closed with her Liberal endorsements, made me think, hmmm...why vote for May when i could just vote Liberal....oh, wait, they aren't running a candidate in that riding.

so to me it sounds more and more like May=Liberal with a vendetta against McKay for ruining her beloved PC party.

[ 30 May 2007: Message edited by: farnival ]


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 May 2007 07:30 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know what it is about May that I find so nauseating. There are plenty of other politicians that I disagree with on the issues to a far greater extent and who I dislike but who don't provoke this intensity of emotion. But there is something about May - something about her personality, her tone of voice, her sanctimoniousness and her constant misrepresentations while doing her "Who me? tell a lie? Why, I'm just leading a merry bunch of amateurs...".

She is one of two individuals in public life who are so grating that I can't bear to watch them on television and hearing their voices is akin to someone scratching their nails down a blackboard. (In case you're wondering, the other is George W. Bush)


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 30 May 2007 07:37 AM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
well, for myself, i don't wish any particular Green any ill will, and in fact was hoping that they would be a fresh force on the "left" so to speak. But i do feel bad for Green members who have clearly had their party co-opted by former tories with a green business agenda, starting with Jim "corporate motivational speaker" Harris, and now with May and her obvious self-absorbed quest to get into Parliament and has chosen the Green Party as her vehicle. At what point do you turf your leader for not representing your party platform or ideals and pursuing a personal agenda at party expense?
From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 30 May 2007 07:45 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One could describe the strategy of staking everything on a gamble that the Leader will win her riding, as the trickle down theory of party building.

The time May uses her star power to recruit and encourage workers in Central Nova to fuel the Hail Mary attempt, is time she can't be showing the flag to bring out supporters around the country.

To say nothing of the support you don't get from organizers in the ridings because the money to pay them has been sucked to Central Nova.

First she has to win. Then, even if she does, the Green grassroots have traded support now for the hope that a Lizzie in Ottawa show will [eventually] put shoe leather on the ground for them.

Brings to mind Shrek, where the puffed up Lord Farquar is closing his speech to his gladiators by saying that he knows some of them will die in his service:

[pause for serious and somber demeanour] . . "But that is a sacrifice I am prepared for you to make."

.

[ 30 May 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 30 May 2007 07:56 AM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
well, i would respectfully suggest that she can't win, and knows it (perhaps based on the previously speculated upon polling), and won't win because if I was in charge of Conservative strategy, given that i have tonnes of cash to work with, i would pour major resources into McKay's campaign to demolish whoever the high profile candidate that cut a deal with the Liberals was. She still hasn't, and wasn't asked in the interview this morning, why she chose McKay over Baird. has anyone ever heard her explain why running against Baird wasn't considered? Even i would give her some credit for knocking off that blow hard.
From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 May 2007 08:03 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I believe that she "claims" ( you can never believe anything she says) that she didn't want to run against Baird for two reasons: she wanted to prove that the Green Party wasn't only about environmental isues AND she likes Atlantic Canada and thinks they need to have a party leader running in their region.

I think the real reason is that the Liberals were a close enough second to Baird that they were not willing to stand aside for her in Ottawa West-Nepean. Whereas for the Liberals to not run a candidate in Central Nova was kinda like making the supreme sacrifice of NOT having sex with any really grossly unattractive people during Lent!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 30 May 2007 08:09 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
She may not have run against Baird because Dion wouldn't give her a pass to run there; or if the dealing was not done in advance, that she was less likely to get one where the Liberals were second rather than distant third. [Plus the grumbing in the Liberal Party would have been closer to home... while if the demoralized NS Liberals would feel the pain more, tough.]

And I disagree about the intention to win. They are staking everything on this.

Filling her boots, and anyone else's she can get ahold of.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 May 2007 08:11 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If she actually were to win in Central Nova - how many days do you think would elapse before she would announce that she was joining the Liberal caucus?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 30 May 2007 08:17 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
If she actually were to win in Central Nova - how many days do you think would elapse before she would announce that she was joining the Liberal caucus?

First day in the house after swearing in.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 30 May 2007 08:23 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
well, i would respectfully suggest that she can't win, and knows it (perhaps based on the previously speculated upon polling), and won't win because if I was in charge of Conservative strategy, given that i have tonnes of cash to work with, i would pour major resources into McKay's campaign

That polling would not have told them she could win anywhere. They are taking the range of possibilities then throwing in the kitchen sink for a Hail Mary attempt.

I don't think the Conservatives need to have to spend a ton of cash, or that they would even be well served by it.

Unlike the Greens they have a riding organization, they just have to make sure they use it. And they were probably on track for that right after the last election, before May was in the picture, because the NDP has been getting ever closer.

No doubt, there will be paid people more or less as we speak who are quietly making sure everything is in order. But out of sight will be the watch words.

The NDP by the way has plenty of long term reasons to run a good campaign. Nothing is served by trying to forcefully compete with May because of who she is, but neither is anything served by [tacitly] conceding to her appropriation that she is THE alternative.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 30 May 2007 08:32 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If she actually were to win in Central Nova - how many days do you think would elapse before she would announce that she was joining the Liberal caucus?

Nope.

You all get distracted by the [understandable] depth of your dislike.

In the unlikely event she wins, she'll be in her element with a one woman Ottawa show. Then she'd only be joining the Liberals if she really badly and visibly pisses off her party.

Being a one woman show she can still gush over Dion and otherwise express her long time, uh, 'appreciation' of the Liberal Party of Canada.

A more likely route for her ending up as a Liberal MP is after she loses in Central Nova and there is open revolt in the Green Party to the strategy she committed them all to.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 30 May 2007 08:40 AM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
... her appropriation that she is THE alternative.

ken, i think that is the nub of it for me. that and the media's wholesale embrace of the concept. I listened again to the interview on the Vancouver CBC online stream, and the line i mangled in my previous post was May being introduced as "arguably the strongest advocate of deep cuts to emissions...".

Why arguably? I would argue that the NDP has been arguing this much longer, in fact as long as we have been around, and with Layton weathering the criticism he has on the Clean Air Act rewrite even from our own party members and eventually getting all the opposition parties on board and earning praise from the very critics who claimed he was "working with the Conservatives", it would be Jack that is arguably the strongest advocate for emmission cuts and the environment.

It is obvious the MSM wants to appear "balanced" in thier reportage, but it is anathema to them to portray the NDP in a good light, at any time. But hey, look over here! Here's the merry bunch of amateurs led by E. May, endorsing one of our parties of big business who we can trot out as the "left" point of view. never mind that she is anti-abortion. never mind that she doesn't seem to represent anything alternative to the Liberals. Never mind that her platform talk sounds suspiciously like what the NDP have been saying for years.


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 30 May 2007 10:24 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is obvious the MSM wants to appear "balanced" in thier reportage, but it is anathema to them to portray the NDP in a good light, at any time.

While the mainstream media, including the CBC, are not fans of the NDP, I don't think thats why they pave the way for Elizabeth May.

They like a phenomena [doesn't matter if they are the ones who made the phenomena]. And they are lazy. Climate change action is complicated. They like to 'report' dichotomies, even if they have to puff them up.

That statement of May being introduced in the interview as "arguably the strongest advocate of deep cuts to emissions..." is a good case in point.

I challenge anyone to go to the party positions and statement of leaders and on that basis say who is "the strongest advocate of deep cuts". You can say the Conservatives are the weakest [intentionally], but not who is the strongest. Thats a question of judging actions taken.

But it makes for good copy to say it, it corresponds with notions that Green Party = environmental action. So stick the weasel word "arguably" in front of the statement, and away you go.

I don't think the problem is favouratism, it's that they are content to hand it to May on a platter.

Whining won't help. Figuring out how to make the discussion more real is what is required.

Not that i have any silver bullets in mind.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 30 May 2007 01:53 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Personally, I think the best possible outcome for all progressive people (including real Greens) is for this sanctimonious prima dona to come a distant third (or lower), ideally losing her deposit in the process.

In fact, I think I'll cut a cheque to the Central Nova NDP to help out in the campaign.

Ken - what'd be the address?

[ 30 May 2007: Message edited by: Malcolm French, APR ]


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 30 May 2007 02:00 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To donate to Louise Lorefice's NDP campaign in Central Nova:

Make the cheque out to Central Nova NDP

Mail to:

Wayne Pierce
RR#2
Scotsburn, NS B0K 1R0

For those who don't know how tax credits work:

- donation up to $400 you get a 75% tax credit.

That is total of ALL donations to any federal political entity: party or riding association.

- Amounts donated over $400, your tax credit declines to 50%, and declines again before you hit the maximum donation level.

[ 30 May 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cameron W
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10767

posted 30 May 2007 02:50 PM      Profile for Cameron W   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Elizabeth May's hope chest.

For those interested, click above to make a donation to the Green Party of Canada. You may direct your donations to the Elizabeth May campaign in Central Nova as well.


From: Left Coast | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 30 May 2007 03:02 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
To donate to Louise Lorefice's NDP campaign in Central Nova:
Make the cheque out to "Central Nova NDP"

Mail to:

Wayne Pierce
RR#2
Scotsburn, NS B0K 1R0


For those who don't know how tax credits work:

- donation up to $400 you get a 75% tax credit.

That is total of ALL donations to any federal political entity, party or riding association.

- anything over $400 your tax credit declines to 50% and declines again before you hit the maximum donation level.


Thanks ken if I get a windfall, shortly, as expected, I will certainly do so, even if it is across the country, and not my riding.

So you get 75% back per donation to different people/parties up to the $400 mark only?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4168

posted 30 May 2007 03:03 PM      Profile for Robo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
For starters, the Greens will be spending a ton in Central Nova. We'll never know how much because a lot of it will be before the election in salaries of organizers, rent for the HQ, etc- paid by the party rather than the riding.

But I'll guess they outspend the NDP 3 or 4 to 1. Who knows how much the Conservatives will spend to keep it. They won't have to spend as much as the Greens, but they will want to make sure.


Well, that's OK if Ms May plans on violating the law. There are clear limits as to how much any candidate can spend in support of his her campaign in any constituency in Canada. It varies by the size of the constituency, of course. But I would be surprised if the NDP, Conservative, or Liberal would not spend at least half of the allowed limit in this riding.

Renting a campaign office, salaries of organizers who during the campaign period work solely in that constituency, and other such expenses that might fit under "etc." above are expenses that every Leader must declare for costs incurred in their home constituency. Expenses of flying from Vancouver to Halifax don't -- that's more reasonably defined as a National Party expense than a local campaign expense. If one wants to spend more on things solely of benefit to that particular riding, one will have to break the law in terms of delcaring expenses for a local campaign.

In the 2006 campaign, the allowable expense limit in Central Nova was $75,650.95. The expenses of the five candidates in Central Nova reported to Elections Canada were:
Conservative: $56,051.98
New Democrat: $30,275.27
Liberal: $42,271.56
Green: $901.04
Marxisit-Leninist: $0.00

I expect the Green candidate's budget to be on a par with the others this time (hey, they may even get Liberal donors to help them out, if their Leader has any influence...). But there will be no overspending of a factor of 3 or 4 times the others, unless Ms May wants to break the law.


From: East York | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 30 May 2007 03:38 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So you get 75% back per donation to different people/parties up to the $400 mark only?

Not per donation.

Example.

You donate $300 to the Conservative Party of Canada. Then later you donate $200 to the Central Nova Green Riding association. It's the total to all federal entities that matters. In this case that would be a total of $500, so you would get a credit of 75% on the first $400, plus a 50% credit on the last $100.

quote:
Well, that's OK if Ms May plans on violating the law. There are clear limits as to how much any candidate can spend in support of his her campaign in any constituency in Canada.

The spending limits apply for during the election campaign.

The Green Party is free to spend as much as it likes before the election.

Anybody who works in Central Nova duringthe campaign has to have their salary, whoever is paying it, declared under the spending limits for Central Nova.

So organizers paid by the Green Party central campaign must be counted under the spending limit for time they work in Central Nova.

That can be fudged a fair bit by people who are not physically present in the riding campaign, and ditto for some other expenses, but not wholesale 'fudging'.

The Green Party opened a headquarters in Central Nova this week, and you can bet it will not be filled with volunteers waiting for people to walk in the door.

There is no spending limit on pre-election spending. In fact, as long as it is done by the Green Party rather than the [penniless] riding association, it does not have to be reported at all.

That is how the Greens will spend 3 or 4 times what the NDP spends, and will probably outspend the Conservatives as well.

CameronW:

quote:
You may direct your donations to the Elizabeth May campaign in Central Nova as well.

No need to specify that, it's where your money will go anyway.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 30 May 2007 03:47 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, I get that, so let's say I donated $500.00 right now to the NDP how much tax credit would I get, if any?
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 30 May 2007 04:05 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
All Canadians with taxable income receive generous tax credits when they donate to Canada’s NDP. For example, a donation of $500 costs you just $150.

Donate online now! It's fast, safe and affordable.

All donations received before December 31 are eligible for 2007 tax credits.

Your Donation Tax Credit You Pay
$100 $75.00 $25.00
$250 $187.50 $62.50
$500 $350.00 $150.00
$750 $475.00 $275.00
$1,000 $558.25 $441.75


There is a $1,100 limit to a party and another $1,100 can be given to a riding association or candidate.

Elections Canada

quote:
As of January 1, 2007, new rules for political contributions under the Canada Elections Act come into force:
You can make a political donation to registered political entities only if you are a citizen or permanent resident of Canada.


You can give no more than $1,100* in each calendar year to each registered political party.


You can give no more than $1,100* in total in any calendar year to the various entities of each registered political party (registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates).


You can give no more than $1,100* to each independent candidate for a particular election.


You can give no more than $1,100* in total to the leadership contestants in a particular leadership contest.


You can no longer make a cash contribution of more than $20 to registered political entities.


You cannot make a political contribution with money, property or services that were given to you for that purpose.


Corporations, trade unions, associations and groups can no longer make political contributions. However, your employer can give you a paid leave of absence during an election period to allow you to be a nomination contestant or a candidate without that leave being considered a contribution.


If you are running as a nomination contestant or a candidate, you can make an additional contribution up to $1,000 in total per election from your own funds to your own campaign. You can divide this amount between your nomination and candidate campaigns as you wish.


If you are running as a party leadership contestant, you can make an additional contribution of up to $1,000 in total per contest from your own funds to your own campaign.



From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 30 May 2007 04:38 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thought I should clarify that the tax credits are for total amounts of donations in a calendar year.

Make 6 donations of $100 during 2007 to 6 different political parties and/or their riding associations, and you get 75% credit for the first $400 and 50% tax credit on the $200 remainder.

In the case remind brought up, if she were to donate $500 to the Central Nova NDP, and had made no other donations this year, she would get a tax credit of $350: [400 X .75] + [100 X .50]. If you made any other donation after that, the 75% tax credit stuff is gone already.

[ 30 May 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 30 May 2007 05:25 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To be honest, I think that Elizabeth May will beat herself. She's been playing target practice with her feet already and I figure she will eventually gather the wit together to actually take one out.
From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 30 May 2007 05:27 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks you 2, I get it.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 May 2007 05:28 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca