A woman for all seasons, an answer for all audiences

Since being elected leader of the provincial New Democrats, Carol James has consistently refused to answer questions about whether she wants to move the party to the centre. Instead, Ms. James has said she favours a "balanced approach" to politics - which members of the chattering classes have simply assumed means she's a centrist. Not so, it seems.

During an appearance last month at the Hospital Employees' Union's summer school, which was recorded for posterity by Working TV, an agitated member of the sisterhood informed Ms. James that "through the election and post-election, it's been said that you're going to be moving to the centre and not being so closely associated with the working people or the unions in particular. I caution you, if that's the case, don't bite the hand that feeds you. I worked 18 hours a day to get you back where you are, as well as my brothers and sisters. And we expect you to be in bed with us." So what was Ms. James's response to this rather direct question?

Chortling happily, the New Democrat leader said, "Thank you. And just to clarify it's the press who continually try to point which direction the party is going. And I think they'd love to have everybody in the province move from the middle to the right, to the way right. It's the direction the media love to push. People who've heard me answer this question know that I'm always very clear that what I'm talking about is a balanced, commonsense approach. It doesn't have anything to do with moving left, middle or right. It says that we all should work together and there's some basic, fundamental values we believe in which includes respecting working people in this province. And that's always going to be there in this party." The audience's response: enthusiastic applause.

Bonus point: astute Public Eye readers will note other politicians blaming the media these days also include the Campbell administration's flappable Children and Family Development Minister Stan Hagen, whom Opposition member Adrian Dix seems to be taking particular delight in torturing.

38 Comments

Carol James was a 'wet noodle', is a 'wet noodle' and always will be a 'wet noodle'! The last election was a 'I HATE GORDON CAMPBELL' vote and Carol had better realize this or else!

I have no time for people who did nothing, and then falsely make stupid-ass claims, such as " I worked 18 hours a day to get you back where you are, as well as my brothers and sisters". They're a real bore, but unfortunately, an integral part of the BC political landscape.

While she doesn't say she's moving to the centre, she doesn't say she's moving to the left either. I doubt, after winning 33 seats on a moderate commonsense platform, Carole James is suddenly going to take the party in the direction of the freaky left. I too get real tired of the freaks in the party who think that the way to electoral success is to go hard left. I get even more tired of the left wing freaks who think they're the backbone of the party.

When times are good, the left-wing freaks complain, bitch, and moan. When times are tough, the left-wing freaks desert the NDP. The freaky left are worth about what they contribute to the party: nothing.

Most people aren't hard left. Most New Democrats aren't hard left. They're hard workers who want the party to reflect working people. The NDP is the party of the Cariboo and the 'burbs, not the Ivory Towers at Universities or the Fringe on Commercial Drive smoking pot and playing bongo drums. Time to bring back the tax-cutting, crime-fighting, shit-kicking NDP of old. Tommy would have wanted it that way.

P.S. Hey Budd. Glad to see you're still around and kicking!

Yours in exile,

Dagmar

Poor, poor, poor Tommy - did he know it would turn out this way?

No longer does he even have a last name!

Like others before him, he has taken on the persona of a God - to which his numerous humble servants regularily genuflect and bow and then turn to us - ignorant as we are - and in a most sanctimonious matter inform us as to the wisdom of his ways.

Poor Tommy.

Greetings Dagmar,

audra trouwer estrones williams is a Liberal tool. The reason is simple. Rabble/babble gets some federal funding that is used to pay two full-time salaries, that of the Editor, Sheila Fraser, and audra's. IOWs, she and Fraser are "sponsorship" dependents.

So she tows the Liberal line, uses babble as a place to denounce moderate NDPers and Tories with equal intensity, and plays along with the Liberal strategy of ethnic and regional politics, plus the new material around gay issues, where the idea is not to advance gay rights, but rather to use that advance as a wedge issue. Kind of like Bush in reverse. She's very good at what she does, but it makes me wonder when I see that actual NDP MLAs in Nova Scotia have used william's company to handlge their PR work.

williams was once a child TV star on The Littlest Hobo and is probably in pretty good with the Toronto CBC crowd, hence her endless toleration of RealityBites (M5W 1E6).

Anyway, the whole babble thing is a real god damned disgrace, and when you see even half intelligence people like Scott Piatkowski playing along, let alone very intelligent people like Wilf Day or Jeff House, ... well, ... it's kind of sad, kind of disgusting.


Hey Budd. That's a bit harsh, don't you think. Audra doesn't seem like a Liberal to mee -- she seems, rather, very committed to progressive causes. Your whole thing sounds pretty conspiratorial to me and I'm not down with that. Sorry dude.

And I think Audra is a fair adjudicator of Babble: I get banned for good reasons. Bannings are good for the soul... sort of a 'cleansing' of the bad cyber-karma... a time to stop, get away from the rabble, and reflect... make a concerted effort to do better next time as one aspires to a higher plane... It's all very Dalai Llama...

I like you, Budd. And I like Audra too.

Anyway, have to go... there's a voice, that keeps on calling me...

Yours in penitent rabble purgatory,

Daggy

uh yeah, as i was going to say before this conversation got off down this strange road, it doesn't sound like carol said anything even remotely different from what she always says. i can even imagine the way she said it, all coached and balanced.

where's the story here??!?

I think the story here is that Carol (in her own elemental, unconcious way) understands that there are some Truths (values in her words)that cannot be understood through 18th century eyes - like if you do not know everything (as some would profess on this site) then should should always act in a prudent manner - or again in her words in a "balanced, commonsense" way.

This is in contrast to Gordon Campbell who shows know self-reflective ability whatsoever.

That is the story.


You know its summer when......

Let's be real here. I believe that you will see what direction Carole and the NDP are headed once the legislature fires up. Sean et al are looking for stories to generate, fires to start (ok that's probably too close to some people's houses and hearts) and controversies to uncover in the long hot dog days of summer.

What ever happened to the sit down and be more conciliatory approach by Campbell after 30 of his collegues walked the plank in May? Between the disgraceful handling of that little girl's case in MCAF, all in the name of budget cutbacks, Campbell's ongoing pouring gasoline onto the smouldering fire that is the teacher's dispute, and some disappointing job numbers from last quarter, and all this site can drag up is...

A woman for all seasons, an answer for all audiences????

How about some of that hard hitting investigative journalism that helped propel this site into the limelight Sean?

But back to the story. As I can attest to, not everyone in a union thinks the same way politically. For example not every HEU member is automatically involved in the NDP or even supports the NDP. And without knowing the true situation of what happened at this Q & A session, for all we know, the person making the statement about working 18 hours a day to get the NDP elected... could very well be a Liberal supporter, aware of the media in the room, attempting to embarass not only Ms. James but her own union brethren.

If you read the answer from Carole, its pretty much in line with what the party's direction seems to be going. As I said, when the lights are on, the cameras are rolling, and the house is sitting, that's where the direction will be shown.

Greetings again, Dagmar,

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this but I find audra and the entire babble insider crowd to be very sophomoric and unfair.

Her bannings are, for the most part, arbitrary. She'll ban people like you and me who don't toe her ideological line. Meanwhile, a guy like RealityBites can swear his head off at any one and everyone and is NEVER told to stop.

The bit about the funding is very real. There are federal funds going to rabble.ca that pay audra's salary, and while I think she's immature and intellectually dishonest, I don't think she's so stupid she doesn't know what side of the bread the butter is on. When I look at some of the funny accidents that happened on babble especially around the 2004 federal election, it's just too much to be coincidence.

Have a good day, Dag ... and see if you can use your influence to persuade Glen Clark to take on David Emerson in Vancouver Kingsway. A real battle royal that would be!!!

If the NDP wants to win Vancovuer-Kingsway, they'll avoid Glen Clark like the plague. Budd, seriously come on, if your seriously suggesting he become the NDP candidate in the riding, you've got a wicked sense of irony and a whole lot of scales over your eyes if your accusing someone else (Audra @ rabble) of being a Liberal plant. He'd be the dream Liberal, and Conservative, candidate....it would seriously hurt the NDP's chances at being competitive federally. Carole James did a good job of distancing the BC NDP from Glen Clark, there's no reason the federal NDP would want to reverse all that and dig him up again.

In any case I suppose Sean is a smart fellow. He should know that sensible and moderate aren't the same things. And being progressive and sensible can work well together. Just because Carole James says "a balanced approach" ad museum, doesn't mean she's going to govern from the centre to right like the traditional forces for buisness liberalism in the province would like. I agree with those who said she's trying to present a reasoned alternative to the more divisive Gordon Campbell. It's all part of her strategy. Gordon Campbell's Liberals moved to the centre, somewhat, for their election campaign sensing that's what the people wanted (thus sensing that they wern't seen as sensible from their more ardently right-wing position)...whereas Carole James and the NDP felt they needed to seem sensible but didn't really move anywhere ideologically (as they wern't particularly left wing in a general sense during the 90's either).

Well, Vancouverite, here's the perspective from people outside Vancouver (the rest of the country): The bongo drum-playin', left-wing freakin', coffee-suckin', namby-pamby NDP of the last Federal Election left most of us voters cold. The Federal NDP could do a lot worse than Glen Clark, a smart businessman who's making an assload of money with Pattison. The Federal NDP could do a lot worse in Vancouver... and frequently does do a lot worse. Look at the last batch of candidates to come from Vancouver.

If Glen Clark was so great why did he only have an 11% approval rating by the time he resigned?

That doesn't make him much far behind the Federal NDP approval rating going into the last election.

And some times are clearly better than others. Clark wasn't helped by party infighting either.

Nonetheless, the Vancouver NDP really are a lacklustre lot. You can't argue that Glen would be a hinderance, at this point.

kegler,carole james,, regardless how much she try,s, is nothing but a puppet.........


so,, enjoy the good times,,ehh.

nic

so what is babble

babble reminds me of daytime television,,

oprah, the veiw,, lifestyles,, oh and that comedian dyke????

anyways,, babble,, daytime t.v. ==

one big vagina.....

Actually I can argue that Glen Clark would be a hindrence at this point as the federal NDP can only hope to win 3 (and have a very outside shot at Vancouver-South mening 4 seats) of the 5 seats in Vancouver. They had a strong showing in Vancouver-Centre, a near miss in Vancouver-Kingsway, and a blowout victory in Vancouver-East. And really now if the NDP, at best, got 20% (1988), yet got 16% last time they really aren't far off their best mark (raw votes wise they're at the same level) "left wing freaks" or not. Whereas the legacy of Glen Clark was 22% from an average of 35-45% (for the BC NDP). If the federal NDP were able to get 18-20% overall, instead of the 16% they ended up with, they'd likely win both of those seats (not to mention seats that contain "real people" read non-urbanites) without Glen Clark and with their bongo-drum loving, frappachino drinking, (electric) Volvo driving candidates. But I suppose that doesn't matter since Vancouverites aren't real people...which intresting because the city has produced many ass-kickers including one of your favourites, Glen Clark.

If any NDP movers and shakers are reading, please run Glen Clark. Also, please run any other politicians who were convicted of conflict of interest. Pretty please!

vancouverite, please explain to me why glenn clark has not shown all of us leftys how it,s all done .jimmy said this is the other side,,, congrats for glenn, he does see the big picture,,

a fine example of [life,s what u make it ]

You think the NDP are going to win Van-Kingsway? Get a grip. Vancouver Centre. Not likely. And we're not going to win any in Quebec either. But that doesn't stop the ultra-urban, cafe-patronizing, vintage loafer-wearing, deodorant-eschewing, freaky-left party apparatchik syncophants from running a Federal NDP campaign that caters to their own (admittedly small) subculture as opposed to ordinary working people. Sure, the NDp will win a blow-out victory in Van-East, but when that particular MP gets publicity, she all but ensures Conservatrive blowout victories elsewhere across the province. If the Vancouver NDP miraculously disbanded, the party's numbers would skyrocket elsewhere in the country.

Yes, Glen was from Vancouver. But he worked for a living, had a real job, and was in touch with ordinary people. There are many ordinary people in Vancouver. But not the Vancouver NDP.

Keepin' it real,

The Dagmeister

Oh, dagmeister, you really ought to look at the math that I used, I spelt it out rather simply. Interestingly enough this Vancouverite, as an actual real life Kingsway resident btw...not somewhere around Hope or Chilliwack or wherever but we don't want to go there right now, will tell you that the NDP would win Vancouver-Kingsway if they finished at 20% overall (similar to the percentage that Ed Broadbent an intellectual btw, got in 1988). The polls show that's possible, so David Emerson isn't going to rest on his laurels and pretend that he'll coast to victory even if the NDP nominee is a frappichino drinker (which is interesting cause when have the Liberals been considered a party for working class guys, but I digress). Anyhow the major reason why the Conservatives were able to hold so many seats in BC, despite the loss of votes fom the combined PC/Canadian Alliance totals, was because of incumbency. To enough people that matter, their local MP's were doing just fine, so why vote them out? And no matter how [Dagmar hot-key response 1] the NDP became it wouldn't really matter...they still wouldn't break out so long as the local Conservative MP's show they're not freakish (which Stephen Harper has done a good job of showing that they are, interestingly enough). Anyways, simple fact is, should the NDP actually finish with 20% of the vote (nationally), instead of 16% (nationally), the NDP will win a lot more seats in BC...it's simple mathematics really. Now of course you’ll say the Jack Layton, urban bongo drum loving NDP will never be able to get back to 20% nationally, and therefore the NDP won’t be winning more seats in BC, that however is highly debatable since the Jack Layton urban bongo drum loving NDP improved its showing from about 8% in 2000 to 16% in 2004 so at the very least they’re on the right track. And since the NDP aren’t in government in BC or Ontario, the Doer government is doing fine, and they already have 0 seats in Saskatchewan, so really there’s no reason to suggest that the NDP will become less popular even though they aren’t adopting a [Insert Dagmar hot-key response 1 here] approach.

Note: Dagmar hot-key response 1 is the “crime fighting, shit kicking, beer drinking NDP of old”.

The Federal NDP can only blame provincial entities so much for its misfortune. The facts are these:

1. The NDP is at 16%, not 20, which you claim is the magic number. This despite a disastrous yeare of scandal for both the Liberals and the Tories
2. Poll after poll consistently shows that, while Jack Layton has the trust of Canadians, they don't believe that he or the NDP is competent enough to hold the keys to the store.
3. The far-left, sake-drinking, beret-wearing, co-op-dwelling, smart-car-jonesing politics of the NDP apparatchiks and Libby Davies are COMPLETELY out of touch with Canadians. (In other words, how will the party get to 20%)

Time for the NDP to get back in touch with the workin' man. To do that, Vancouver needs to take a backseat. Sad, but true.

(Is it just me, or people from Vancouver starting to sound WAY too much like people from Toronto?!)

Reximus Dagamus
3. Far left

http://www.nodice.ca/elections/canada/polls.php

Intresting results really, the NDP isn't at 16% if you add up the average of the polls. Hmm if you add up the average from the last 10 polls, you could see that they're at 18.5%. Which is actually over 20% if you add up the average for all polls. Why, I geuss that means this Vancouverite is more in touch with reality yet again.

Besides when was that time that the [Insert Dagmar hot key response] NDP got lots of seats? Other than 1988 when they won 43 they'd usually average 20-30 seats, but I suppose that doesn't really matter.

Make believe is more fun I geuss...

Vancouverite, I am really not happy with your missuse of statistics.

"... And really now if the NDP, at best, got 20% (1988), yet got 16% last time they really aren't far off their best mark (raw votes wise they're at the same level) "left wing freaks" or not. Whereas the legacy of Glen Clark was 22% from an average of 35-45% (for the BC NDP). If the federal NDP were able to get 18-20% overall, instead of the 16% they ended up with, they'd likely win both of those seats ..."

Yes, the federal party's national popular vote is back up to 16%, and that is close to the historic mark of 20%, and in raw numbers, probably higher (haven't actually checked, could be affected by declining overall turnout). Where you're getting the implication that another 4% nationally will necessarily win certain additional Vancouver seats I don't know.

What, if anything, is the basis for your statement that Glen Clark's "legacy" is 22%? You know very well, like all the other Mike Harcourt apologists, that Mike left the NDP with about that level of support in the polls, something in the 20-25% range. Glen Clark managed to get the party's polling numbers up to 45% and win an election, ... though by election day support had slipped down to 39%. That is Clark's legacy and you know it, a second win. Something Mike Harcourt knew he would be denied because his reputation had been completely and totally destroyed by all the John Pollard Prince of Patronage episodes.

If someones simply says, "I like Harcourt's laid back style of leadership better than Clark's", I have no problem with that. But when they have to start making up fake facts and false figures, and then start demanding that we all put aside common sense and our own memories of what really happened, well, that's a bit arrogant really.

Glen Clark would make an excellent high-profile candidate against Emerson. He doesn't have Emerson's PhD in Economics but he does have qualified economists like Tom Gunton to draw on for speech material and was in Govt long enough to know how to debate someone like Emerson intelligently. On qualifications, it would be a draw. Then the riding's traditional leanings could come into play, provided of course, that the NDP across the Lower Mainland is doing what needs to be done to crack the Liberal's Toronto-style grip on the immigrant and ethnic vote.

what an utter waste of time. (this site).

Go Budd! Go Budd! Go Budd!

I'm always very clear that what I'm talking about is a balanced, commonsense approach. It doesn't have anything to do with moving left, middle or right says Carole James

Anyone else find it ironic how Carole James will preface her comments with being either very clearâ or perfectly clear only to be followed by a statement that is anything but clear.

I like her approach with the BCTF; yes she supports the right for the BCTF to strike, and at the same time NO, she said she would not give the BCTF any more in a contract if elected. What a great common sense approach that is.

It seems Carole James will say whatever she thinks a particular group would like to hear.

Your point being...........

First off Budd, a legacy is something that someone has left behind. The legacy of Glen Clark includes many things, some of them good, and yes he did manage to get the NDP to almost it's full base strength and win an unprecidented 2nd NDP term. However one cannot deny the electoral legacy. Now as a big fan of Glen Clark you probably find this hard to take, but no most of the rest of us BCians don't much care for the man, including those of us in Vancouver-Kingsway. The fact is that while there were various forces out to take him down in various unfair and cheap ways, he helped speed it through his burning of various bridges and his managerial incomptence which left him with an 11% approval rating by the time he resigned. He [b]was[/b] a greater campaigner, but he promised to much and not only wasn't seen to have dilvered, but screwed up on some of the promises. While Dosanjh did a horrible job of trying to salvage anything, the fact was that there wasn't much to salvage after hurracaine Glen Clark's Legacy left the BC NDP. The man is a persona-non grata in BC's political world, and for the NDP to attach himself to him would be electoral suicide. Now of course the Liberals and Conservatives would want this, because it would probably have a similar effect that Bob Rae does on the Ontario NDP (something they still havent' gotten over), nonethless for the NDP to be smart (which Carole James was during the last election and why NDP'ers laughed at Liberals whenever they brought up the Clark boogeyman) they have to play down the Glen Clark connections whether people like you or Dagmar like it or not. Besides Glen Clark would be yet another white NDP politician in multicultural east Vancouver, and while Jenny Kwan is an exception, the rule has been for the NDP to nominate the same types of people it won't be successful with changing demographics forever. Should the federal NDP want to be more competitive in ethnic communities, especially in a place like Vancouver-Kingsway with well over 50% visible minorities, they really ought to be more diverse.

In any case you never properly addressed the analysis of the polls that I had, and of course since Dagmar has been relegated to the roll of pom-pom waiving cheerleader you really couldn't. The fact of the matter is this, if one takes a look at a close race like Vancouver-Kingsway, it would lead to gains across the board from those who vote for parties and not individuals. So while various vote migrations could complicate things the NDP is bound to gain seats like New West-Coquitlam with an extra 4 percentage points...So long as the Conservatives or Liberals vote didn't collapse and magically go to the other party thus swamping any NDP increase. And while nothing is guranteed, meaning the NDP could very will not finish with 4 more points come next election, Dagmar's point that the polls were showing they were stuck at 16% is simply [b]not true[/b]. And really that can't be refuted. The statistics were used properly, but of course when you don't like the story they tell, you must attack my credibile use of them.

Isn't this thread suppose to be about the leadership capabilites of Carole James and not whether Glen Clarke should enter the federal field.
Thank you

You're welcome, buddy. Thanks for playin'

Vancouverite. You're right. I'm wrong. Vancouver Kingsway was way better off without Glen. You did so much better with Alicia Barsallo.

Sounds like typical left-wing drivel. You leftists never had it so good as you did in the 1990's. Now it's up to us ordinary guys to build the NDP back up. Thanks for nothing.

When did I mention anything about Allicia Barsallo being a good candidate? Or the NDP taking a hard-left position on things, or indicate that I'm a hard-leftist? I just prefer to stick to the reality of various situations, and I could care less if your on the right, centre or left...if you're out of touch with reality, or factually incorrect, or I simply disagree, then I'll point it out. But I suppose Glen Clark and the "good old boys" are the only moderate people in the party, whether they're sensible or not and that's really all that matters. Who cares what the population of the province says huh? Well...have a fun time with that. Till next time.

Anyhow, yes politics101, your correct.

I just want to reiterate that I think the NDP could do no better and much worse than to nominate Glen Clark to run against David Emerson in Vancouver Kingsway. I expect the Liberals would make the mistake of assuming that they can call on all the stock, standard anti-Clark material that Vancouverite had regurgitated for the 4,278th time.

I think they would be in for a nasty surprise, finding that while their CBC handmaidens would of course follow orders, the rest of the media, needing a new story, would make Emerson stand up and justify all his anti-Clark remarks.

If Emerson wanted to say that Clark was responsible for the cost overuns on the fast ferries, he would find, much to his chagrin, that the press would likely print the gist of Clark's response, saying among other things that the Federal Liberal Govt refused to support the training costs for aluminum welders, which helped to drive up costs attributed to the project. In any other province a major provincial project would get federal cooperation and support, but in BC, because of David Anderson's policy of endearing himself to the BC business community by following a scorched earth policy against Glen Clark and the entire provincial government, things were played quite differently.

Emerson's campaign team would be going out everyday looking for their expected slam dunk, only to find that, outside of CBC land, they're having to work hard for every point. By week three of the campaign, they would be tired and in a mild state of shock, and ready for the final plunge.

And remember this. Now that Glen is a millionaire, how do people like Emerson plan to smear him as an imcompetent in business matters? Is Emerson going to say stand up at some all-candidates meeting and say, "Listen Kid, I got more in Canfor stock options than you'll ever get from Jimmy!" How is that going to go over, I mean with people other than Darlene Marzarri?

Budd Campbell... honourary member of the shit-kickin' NDP!

Give up, Vancouverite... I'd say that Budd Campbell laid the smackdown on you that time.

Daggy, trying out for the BC Lions cheerleading squad the felions? I don't know if they'll like the mullet, but whatever floats your boat eh.

All that I've said on this thread with regards to numbers have been proven to be factually correct, neither of you can dispute that and your dodges prove that...so yeah the smack has been laid down, by me. Anyhow it's clear you two members of the Glen Clark fan club would think he'd make a great candidate...how charming. I disagree, but already said why so there's no point in me saying anything more on that subject. Oh one question though, Budd, you said something about Audra being a childhood star on the Littlest Hobo. Was she a regular on that show...or did she happen to appear in one episode? Could you explain the CBC/Liberal conspiracy (theory) here, and how it pertains to undermining the NDP including her nefarious connections to that cabal due to her long and sordid history with that show. Heck, we’ve gone off topic a bunch of times, you may as well expand upon that point. I'll even vacate the field (meaning I'll give you and your cheering section the last word).

In answer to your questions, Vancouverite, I am speaking from memory here, maybe you should ask audra herself how deep her attachment to the Littlest Hobo was. But I believe her's was an occaisional appearance or two, that kind of thing.

As to her yoewoman services for the Liberals, it has to do with the fact that rabble/babble gets Federal (spelled L-I-B-E-R-A-L) funding, indirectly funnelled through some Montreal group. The funding pays for two salaries, one of which just happens to be audra's. Hence her unduly solicitous attitude towards Liberal trolls who use babble to relentlessly denounce Tories in terms Goebbels would have thought a bit libellous, forgive Liberals anything, including Sponsorship, and most important of all, keep on raising the hurdles for the NDP. For example, after the vote on C-38 she had all her Liberal trolls swearing away furiously at Jack Layton, calling him every name in the book and then some. Why? Because he had only fired Bev Desjarlais from her critic posts for voting against the legislation, instead of dismissing her from caucus.

Get the game, here? The NDP is never quite good enough, ... you've got to go back to the Liberals after all, 'cause they can win! It's straight out of the Liberal play book and audra just loves it. She lets them put this stuff forward in the most abusive, obscenity-riddled terms possible. Let someone disagree in equally harsh terms, ... and they'll be suspended or banned! Nice game, ... for Liberals.

audra is, in fact, so transparent in her slavish, slobbering devotion to the Liberal Party that it's kind of funny to watch. What's not funny is that rabble/babble is something of a sink hole for other funds coming from labour, community groups and others on the left who think they're funding something progressive, not realizing that it's been completely co-opted and turned by the Liberal Govt.

I love it. Dippers will never win anything. Look at the incompetence.

Leave a comment

Copyright © 2004 - Public Eye Mediaworks. Reproductions of any portion of this Website are permitted only with the expressed permission of Public Eye Mediaworks.
Canadian Web Hosting graciously provided by dotcanuck Web Services. Layout and graphics courtesy of Art Department Design.