The fact that this deliberate attempt to differentiate comes from the re-election Co-Chair is telling. What Reynolds said is patently absurd, and I'm surprised the Tories continually get away with the overt distinctions. From the Conservative perspective, how can you characterize abandoning NATO, the Afghan people, the fight against terror and our moral responsibility as "principled"? If the Liberals are "reckless", then Reynolds must view the NDP as "dangerous".
The only way to reconcile the logical contradictions is to accept the premise that the Tories have made it a priority to prop up the NDP. Keep the supposed left divided, make the Liberals the villians and hope soft support might leak the NDP's way, which lends itself to the grand scheme of capitalizing on fractured ridings. People like Reynolds don't respect the NDP, or their positions, they simply see the NDP as a convenient pawn that furthers the end game.
14 comments:
It's such a completely idiotic position. They are just making it more obvious that the NDP and the Cons are working together to try to fracture the left. It's not working because Canadians are way smarter than both the Cons and Layton.
All conservative organizations have to find and co-opt their own useful idiots.
In Canada it's the NDP.
Indeed Steve. He also said, that Canada will be at war for at least ten years. Duffy, as he is wont to do, clarified that he was not just referring to Afganistan but other missions such as Darfur. Both Hall Findlay and McPhail raised concern because Darfur has never been talked about with anyone. Then Reynolds said something I think we all must take into account. He said, "We don't know what will happen in Iran or Iraq."
Huh? I actually shook my head.
I know I'm a bit off topic here, but the point remains that Reynolds is plugged in to the con's and either he knows something or he's losing it. I tend to think the latter and I mean no malice by that. If that is the case, get him out, preserve some dignity. If on the other hand, he's just sloppy and spewing what the gov't is talking about, we have a big problem.
Bottom line, Steve I think you are right. That's the plan for the con's, prop up the NDP. The NDP won't stop criticising the con's, but their venom is specifically aimed at the Lib's. I cannot tell you how disappointed I am with McDonough. I want to write her and tell her, but Ive resisted because I know my language would be too emotional.
The con's are supporting the NDP and attacking the Lib's. The NDP are playing their typical role and challenging the gov't, while attacking the Lib's. It may be tacit, but there is an agreement here.
What a sad, sad state this country is in, though, unless you follow this stuff like we do, how many people know what is going on? If you live on the left side of the political spectrum, it's choice time.
I'm not criticizing the NDP in this post, but the Conservative attitude is just so patronizing. The Cons are basically saying, we don't take the NDP seriously, they are not a threat, just a tool for our purposes.
Just once, when a Tory spews this nonsense, I would love for someone to point out the motivations.
But the liberals are the villans.The LPC might say missapproprate ,but the rest of the country still has a problem rationalizing that with the words inept,entitled,corrupt ,steal and now whine.Unfair in a liberal mind,but well deserved The liberal partys desparation will relegate it to 3rd party status in the next election,where real renewal can take place.
"The liberal partys desparation will relegate it to 3rd party status in the next election"
Have another swig of the KOOLAID.
dougie, its just too sad that you believe all that you said. Closed, closed, mind my friend. Closed means, it leads you nowhere.
Steve, it was not my intent to take on the NDP. I concur with you. The con's have found their natural ally and they are condescending in how they exploit it.
It must be noted though, that the NDP either seem not to see that or they are willing partners.
Dougie merely regurgitates that with which he is fed - be it koolaid or pablum. Clearly the most imortant requirement for membership in Layton's NDP is the capacity to parrot Jack's talking points independent of critical thought.
Suppose partisan consideration had ruled Tommy Douglas' drive to introduce a national medical insurance program. Do you think he would have allowed a Liberal PM to be the one to sign the Act?
Jack Layton wouldn't have allowed it. He would have found the idea ideologically abhorrent that a Liberal PM would be historically recorded as the signatory. He would have forced election after election over it and we *still* wouldn't have it.
Which maybe might have turned out to be a good thing since Harper got his start in politics in an organization explicitly dedicated to bringing an end to national medical care.
Just think - if Layton had been the the leader of the NDP back then we wouldn't have medicare and we thus wouldn't have been saddled with Harper.
Ah...the things that might have been.
Steve, Quit pouring the kool aid.
Steve's friends, quit drinking the kool aid.
Is this post for real. Are you guys really debating the legitimacy of the LPC demanding the government tell NATO that we ARE leaving in 2009?
My recollection is that the LPC is no longer the government. They may want to be the government, they may think they ought to be the government, but they are not the government.
The real government has indicated that there was a vote that passed that will keep troops in until 2009 and that if the real government wished the troops to stay longer they would bring it back to parliament for a vote.
Sounds liek a government acting in good faith.
Quit drinking the kool aid!!!
Sheesh.
Tomm
One of the tenants of principle is consistency.
Two of the parties in your story exhibit that, one does not.
Cheers,
lance
tomm
I didn't realize we were in a majority situation. If the Liberals didn't back the 2009 commitment, we would be pulling out now, its that simple. Slurp, slurp.
lance
Only one party seems to have the mental capacity to imbrace pragmatism, which is the new ideology, for a complicated world. You make it seem like re-assessing a fluid situation is a negative, that is the danger of purity.
To quote from someone who will remain nameless (to 60% of Canadians), "this is unfair." No one should be forced to clarify anything John Reynolds says.
That said, Reynolds was undoubtedly taking a (deserved) shot at the Liberals for having flip-flopped on the mission in Afghanistan, what is it: twice, now?
Fact: if wasn'f for Liberals voting with Harper, and 11 Liberals not even showing up, we would have been out of that mission in two months ago.
"Fact: if wasn'f for Liberals voting with Harper, and 11 Liberals not even showing up, we would have been out of that mission in two months ago."
Where's the inconsistency? Liberals don't favor immediate withdrawal, but they aren't willing to endorse an endless exercise. 2009 exit strategy doesn't detract from voting to extend beyond 2007, it's a timetable.
Look, if people are naive enough to think the Conservatives have respect for the NDP that's their choice, in my mind it's careful manipulation to try and keep the NDP viable.
C'mon "lobbyist" and adviser to Harper is just plain scuzz.
He and the Harper gang are patronizing the NDP as well as manipulating them. No rocket science.
As far as the NDP stand on the war - they are consistent. Tommy Douglas was against fighting Hitler in WWII.
The NDP are still in the hippie era of make peace not war. If we were ever attacked, God help us if the NDP were in power. They wouldn't fight back.
Post a Comment