It doesn't matter if the reason he walked away is corroborated by senior conservatives. What matters is that he entered into discussions in the first place. A Liberal going to the NDP, fair enough. Someone who wandered to and fro between the centre to the far hard right to the left is something else. Even in 2007, a politically aware person knew exactly what Harper was all about. A man of principle hangs up as soon as he hears that it is Harper's Team on the other end of the line.
A future leader of the NDP doesn't enter into negotiations. |He shouldn't be allowed to skate away with the claim that it wasn't about a salary dispute but rather it was about environmental policy as if that was a display of principle. If Harper had called Stephen Lewis would he have entertained the idea of working with Harper?
Exactly. But just as Harper is not of the timbre of Diefenbaker, Stanfield or Clark, Mulclair is no Lewis, Broadbent or McLauglin. The heritage of the NDP is about character and principle. Mulclair is about Mulclair.
Why bother changing our current tyrant for a wannabe one?
Recommend this Post
Monday, July 6, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
What, you mean the Stephen Lewis who accepted an appointment as Canada's Ambassador to the UN from Prime Minister Brian Mulroney?
As I understand it, Mulclair considered going to work as a special environmental advisor to the Prime Minister. Working for the Canadian Government, including advising the Prime Minister, is not the same as working for the Conservative Party. If I were ever asked to advise a government - even of a political stripe that I disagreed with - and I felt that there was some potential that I would have a positive impact, I would certainly discuss it. And that would not be a "dalliance."
I'm not going to say that it gives reason to consider Mulcair's character, since at the time he had become a dissatisfied Liberal to a free-agent on the prowl, with an obvious need for a job (high-paying job at that -- you can't remortgage your house 11 times and not need cash quick!)... But I think closer to the election there will be better opportunities to scrutinize other curious acts by Mr Mulcair, including his serious footsy with Quebec nationalists (50+1 of a 63% voter turnout to break up the country? That's crazy talk), his less-than-straight talk about Canadian petroleum industry (hey, off go the federal funding, but hey, i love that LNG!), his waffling on C51... generally, the fact that like Layton, he sees Harper more as a compatriot (the enemy of my enemy is my friend - so forget national childcare, the Kelowna Accord etc) will be revealed over time. His hatred of Liberals seems to run deep so him and Harper are blood brothers. Being from BC I'm afraid to tell him how that movie ends, where you can pit the far right and the far left in a two-person one-legged race. You might win two times out of 10... But the pain of those 8 losses...
He's getting a pass on this one because, clumsy as his excuse sounds, his true believers have a profound need to believe. It's called "suspension of disbelief." He said he walked away once he discovered Harper opposed the Kyoto accord. A political savvy guy like Mulcair expects us to believe he didn't know Harper was dead set against Kyoto a good bit before their bout of footsies? When you look at his record there's no reason at all to give Mulcair the benefit of the doubt on anything but the Dippers are completely self-blind to that.
Post a Comment