j44

I did not know this.

Yeah if he going to fire back with nonsense rhetoric he should at least have used an actual left-wing leader 'NDP hacks' would support. Putin? Really? Also, last night on the news (sorry I didnt read the article posted) they said that the veteran group in the meeting was going to sue him for libel? Not to split hairs here but from what I gathered from them interviewing the two veterans present it seemed to me that it was them individually that said they would sue and not the group. And he said it so wouldn't it be slander? Back on topic...I loathe this kind of rhetoric but it is possible he was cranky because he didnt get a full nap in.

I think on paper she looked good to Layton and he had some good reasons for picking her (Quebec, she has executive experience, and she wouldn't be someone who could use the interim slot to make a push for permanent leader). While I get your point she hasn't really been even a decent leader in my opinion. But can we really expect anyone to be able to jump into that job and do well under the circumstances? I will admit that a good chunk of the bad rating I give her is due to the fact that I can't understand a _____ing word she is saying most of the time. Throw in dozens and dozens rookie MPs who never in a million years thought they would ever being MPs and you couldnt pay me enough to be in her shoes. Plus she has to fend off Rae who is obviously no slouch. I'm all over the place here but....in a year or two when the NDP will have had a full-time leader for a while will people even remember her? will she even have an affect on people when they go to the polls? I would say no. People have relatively short memories. While she may not have brought in votes now I don't know how much affect she will have on their election chances in the future. PS. Thanks for reminding me that John Reynolds existed. :angry: I couldn't stand watching him in the house.

No predictions per se from me but I'm looking at Tenn. And Ohio. I think Mitt can shut up at least some, if not most, of his critics if he wins some southern states and more of them if he wins some south and Ohio. I hope Newt loses Georgia so he backs out.

Man, you must really love weed. Lisa Raitt impresses me when I see her in interviews. Although he is a parliamentary secretary Chris Alexander deserves a mention. He doesn't impress me as much as I thought he would but I think that is because he is usually trying tomake up for Peter MacKay, has some tough issues in his hands and is technically a rookie despite his background.

I more or less agree. It would be preferable for the new leader to hit the ground running with as little of a learning curve as possible. This is even more important considering that Turmel hasn't been great (to say the least) and Rae is coming up the back. One could maybe argue that a new leader with no experience at that level could MAYBE afford taking some time to learn the ropes but not much and I think any new leader will have some stumbles out of the block regardless. Of course someone other than Mulcair could win and prove a lot of people wrong but I don't think that is a safe bet. I would like some opinions on what people think Topp will do if he loses this race. Does he still run for MP spot down the road or go back to the backrooms? And does anyone have any insight into any possible backroom deal at the convention? anyone willing to speculate?

Thanks.

I just think it would be something they would do to muddy the waters. IMO he comes across well sometimes but other times he doesnt overly impress me. They could be concerned that he would get the NDP base worked up so it could be legit. I didnt read those Hill articles but I know when he was going across the country he was staying at the homes of local supporters instead of hotels. I know when he was here he was going around the city working out of a local MLAs car. He does appeal to a certain segment of NDp supporters for sure. When I saw him he was wearing a suit jacket but had on a pair of cords and Doc Martens. And I did hear that he has a lot of Layton's old staff working for him. I do however think that insiders will 'leak' things to the media to bend the narrative in the direction they want. You no doubt could be right though. Do you have any links regarding the insiders and Baird stuff?

I'm starting to think that he isn't as good of a debater as I thought at the beginning. He did come off well in the first debates I watched but the last one I saw (in Winnipeg, I didnt watch this past one in Montreal) he didnt really hold his own or hit back well when he was attacked. I'm starting to think that now that it is getting serious and not the friendly type debates they had at the start he is showing his real abilities. Just a theory though. Like I said I didnt watch this past debate. I'm not quite sure a merger is even remotely likely even if the Liberals don't make it back to official opposition next election. I know that would indicate they are still in trouble but just because they drop to 3rd party status two elections in a row they dissolve the party? I don't think I buy that. And the problem with any merger is that no party will want to negotiate from a position of weakness. I would think that for a merger to be really taken seriously both parties would need something approaching equal status. Whether that means a roughly equal number of MPs or some other way to quantify their standing.... That tells me a lot about her. She was their finance critic and possibly her biggest issue in the debates is explaining her fiscal policies. And from what I watched of her in interviews even before the leadership race she didnt come across as capable in my book. I just cant take to her. Yeah I would love to hear from some people who did watch it. How did Mulcair hold up to the attacks? Did anyone take it really easy on him (maybe a sign of a pact coming up)? Who got the most attention other than Mulcair? If they came out and said this my reaction would be that they could be thinking the opposite.

Ask John Manley if he would rather a Conservative or NDP government.

I'd never want to disappoint you. I'd bet that you spent more time here today than I have. And it is not like you have to spend any significant amount of time searching. You would just have to tell me what you saw that made you say I was a conservative to begin with. But you won't do that. You should have facts to back up your case before making comments.

Face it you know they don't exist. Thanks.

What is it that turns you off from him? Or that You think will not appeal to independents/Liberals?

You don't think he can/will appeal to independent and traditionally Liberal voters?

I don't think I attacked her opinions I said her debate performances were poor. I didn't say I was a 'true NDPer' (although I don't know what that means) I said I wasn't Conservative. I'm still waiting for you to post my conservative comments. Take your time.

I believe that you either didn't bother to check or that you are so convinced that you know my views more than I know them that you will see whatever you want to see. And I'm adamant about my views because they are my views and you are telling me you think you know them better than I do. I'll be offline for a few hours so you have that time to find my apparently conservative comments and post them here. I'm afraid you'll find several comments about Nathan Cullen and how he impresses me and how I think Mulcair will make a very capable leader.

1. Good for you. Your parents must be proud. 2. You don't have to 'buy' my opinion because I'm not trying to sell anything. It's just my opinion 3. You're paranoid. Where have I said anything that would say Im Conservative?

I know you'll say you didn't make the claim but you are probably the last person on here that should try to call people out for being biased. I agree Layton moved them more to the progressive area than the social democratic but I think Mulcair would move them more to the center. And you are right it does depend on what you consider the NDP mainstream. I should point out that I meant the mainstream of the party voters and not the party brass. I consider the voters more to the left and more social democrats and maybe even left-wing of social democrats. I consider Dexter more to the center of most of his voters. I'm still of the opinion that Topp would be terrible for the party. As I mentioned here before I think he would give them the Liberal disease from the last two elections. A smart leader but not a real or good leader. I could be proven wrong though. I wonder who might be the Gerald Kennedy for the NDP.

If I assume what you are doing is simply subtracting the number of people employed in natural resource industries that isn't really a way to conclude the standing of the country if those industries didn't exist. It we didn't have natural resources efforts would be concentrated on developing other parts of the economy. What is getting worse and worse?

I didn't say he is going to win and I don't care what quote you are referencing. And if you care about the party you should be paying attention to the debates and Nash's poor performances in them and not be blinded because she is spouting left-wing talking points.

Yeah he came out pretty quick with that when the race started. Edit: Which kinda set the tone for his campaign. For me anyway.

People need to stop paying attention to Don Cherry.

I think you are getting out front a little. Singh has been a surprise in the debates but he hasn't been amazing. And he has to win a seat first. Agreed. He's not just one contender he is the front runner. And IMO he is the only one that will immediately attract outside voters to the party and help them in Quebec just by his presence. Is the 10 times better a fact? He's spoken pretty plainly about his policy views and they don't seem to be in the mainstream of the party.

I thought he was French. Didn't he live there for a while? I would guess it is very prevalent in Europe.

1. Why Belize? 2. My choices are Luxembourg and The Vatican.