Wellie-well-well. Way back on July 14, DJ! posted the link to Tim Hudak's 2009 abortion position. He said he was in favour of defunding it. We thought Ontario voters needed to know that.
Various bloggers, like partisans gritchik and Warren Kinsella, as well as others picked up on it.
Then, mirabile dictu, the MSM asked him about it. He waffled and weaseled. And when pressed, he skedaddled.
When the Star repeatedly asked Hudak if he is “pro-life” he refused to answer the question and walked away from the microphone.
Which was an extremely stooopid thing to do.
It just provoked more questions with ensuing weaselling.
On July 25, the Star published this bit of drivel by the guy whose organization published the 2009 information.
DJ! wanted space to rebut it but the Star won't print stuff by pseudonymous contributors.
So, we posted our rebutal here. Which got the progressive blogosphere's panties twisted into a grand show of solidarity (lotsa links in comments on that post).
On July 31, Heather Mallick weighed in.
Somewhere in there, a website called Say No to Hudak, complete with Twitter account, sprang up. (And no, that's is ^NOT DJ!'s doing.)
The story seemed to have, as they say, legs.
And still does. Today, nearly a month later, the Spec offered an editorial titled 'Straight Talk, Mr. Hudak'.
DJ! is delighted to note that the Spec writer gets it, as so many other pundits and commenters do not.
Yes, health care is a federal responsibility, but that isn’t stopping provincial governments in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island from discouraging abortion service provision by refusing to fund training and cutting funding to clinics that perform abortion. Could the same thing happen in a Conservative-led Ontario?
Tim Hudak opened the door to these questions. He’d be wise to offer a credible response sooner rather than later.
Also today, another rabid partisan blogger posted a paternalist projection, titled 'Progressive Women Across Ontario Seem to be Getting Ready to Back Andrea Horwath and the ONDP', referring to the Say No to Hudak site.
When I commented that it was perfectly possible to be anti-Conservative without being a 'Liberal shill' (fuck, I'm sick of that phrase), the schmuck condescended to tell me:
Second, to the extent that progressive women against Hudak will/ should endorse any political party, the obvious choice is the ONDP; for not only is the ONDP authentically committed to progressive values of social justice, democratic reform, economic and environmental justice, but also the Liberals are not a “progressive” party.
(Note to Dippers: It is exactly this tone used by the anointed on us benighted souls that PISSES us right off.)
So, some good news, some bad news on a day when everyone has gone nuts. Good news: Hudak is still twisting in the wind on this. Bad news: NDP shills are just as obnoxious as any other flavour.
14 comments:
I consider myself to be a progressive woman (implying that I'm also against the Conservatives), but there is a lot I don't like about the NDP.
Ugh, and that blogger does sound condescending and paternalistic.
While it's possible Ontario NDP might see a surge of those unwilling to vote for mcguinty, the last laugh from the grave will be if Ontario splits the vote again and brings in Hudak by accident.
Then the fishing trips will be very cozy between Harper, Hudak and Ford.
That's exactly what I'm terrified of, Niles.
I'm no fan of McGuinty, but to avoid Hudork, I can put up with more of him.
I don't get that Spurs blogger. Does he seriously believe that you can't be Catholic & pro-choice at the same time? I've got news for him. There are many of us in his midst.
His prejudices are astounding indeed!
Ah yes, "strategic voting" the last bastion of desperate Liberals. I found it very interesting that as the NDP overtook the Liberals in the polls in the last federal election, Liberals went silent on their pleas for strategic voting. Not one Liberal suggested sacrificing a Liberal vote to help an NDP candidate win over a Conservative one. It's fine to ask Dippers to sacrifice their votes, but not to ask it of those who see themselves as having a natural right to govern. It should be noted that Harper's majority came precisely on the backs of Liberals in Ontario who rather than opting for the greener pastures of the NDP ran into the waiting arms of Stephen Harper.
Strategic voting is stupid and worse not at all strategic. Don't take it from this hack, read it from one of Canada's most knowledgeable and respected political pundits: Alice Funke from a Pundit's Guide to Canadian Federal Elections. The following piece is essential reading on the topic of strategic voting: http://www.punditsguide.ca/2011/04/why-the-conservatives-love-the-strategic-voting-sites/
Here's Alice's wonderful summary:
"A vote "against" someone or something is a vote in favour of nothing. It gives no mandate to elected officials, creates all the wrong incentives for the politicians who are elected that way, and guarantees that Parliament will descend even further into the partisan barking we see there now. Indeed the perverse problems with the methodology itself have led respected website Democratic Space author Greg Morrow to stop publishing his "strategic voting guide" from previous elections.
In this election, read the platforms, watch the debates, take a measure of the leaders and the candidates, and vote your heart. If everyone did that, who knows what we might come up with together."
@acts of citizenship and/or spurs: FFS, we are not fucking Liberals here.
I'm getting tired of your partisan patronizing.
This is the last lecture of yours I'm letting through. Say something interesting or keep it at your place.
To be clear, I'm didn't mean to suggest you are Liberals. What I was reacting to was the fact that two of this blog's contributors had raised the spectre of "strategic voting", a strategy that I believe has been largely promulgated by Liberals, and certainly has historically worked almost solely to the benefit of Liberals (and incidentally Conservatives). So no lecture, just a question.
As an anti-Conservative what are your thoughts on strategic voting? And while we're at it, and if you're feeling generous, what are your thoughts on the relation between the RC Church and feminism?
Feeling a little generous, but also time-pressed.
For me, strategic voting is an act of desperation. Luckily, in my riding, a Con is about as likely as a cheeseburger to get elected.
'Voting the heart' doesn't really work for me, because none of the parties represents what I want for Canada.
As for RC Church and feminism, try a site search with 'Vatican Taliban' and 'Catholic mysogyny'. That should answer your question.
Er. Misogyny. Time-pressed, as I said.
spurt, here are some of DAMMIT JANET! posts regarding Pope Maledict, the Catholic Church and feminism - which is evidently ^NOT Naomi Wolf's feminism.
wow, acts.
What I raised was the highly possible spectre of vote splitting, not strategic voting. I didn't say which way you SHOULD vote. And yeah, you negatively conflated the topic with Liberals, big L. Is this the hill you want to assault with friendly fire when Ms Fern has been outing herself as so staunchly anti-regressive on the election?
I, myself, would rather see proportional representation and actual servant leadership of politicians that might get us to the advanced society level of say oh...Norway, but thanks for demonstrating as to why votes do split. You be representin'.
Be enthusiastic for the ONDP. It being Ontario's wont, the ND *might* pull off enough votes to be the next govt and thus contrast the wretched Feds. But aside from asking if the provincial level progressive pols are capable of an eeeevil coalition where Feds are too gutless to tread, damnnnn, way to make me wonder if the Ontario bunch are as 'needle buried in the whoopsie end of the meter' as the BC bunch can manage.
I can't help but notice your site froths over the Liberals far more than it does the Conservatives, while not pumping the ONDP platform that I can see. Weird.
@Niles: I've voiced my respect for this blog and my clear understanding that you are not Liberal shills, so any criticism I may present should be seen in that context.
The spectre of vote splitting is indissociable from strategic voting (one is the fear, the other the cure). My points are simple. 1)I agree with Alice Funke that vote splitting on the "left" is largely a myth. 2) The cure (i.e. strategic voting) often peddled by well intentioned progressives (e.g. NOW magazine) not only doesn't work, but usually ends up prejudicing the only major progressive party, the NDP, in favour of the Liberals. 3) I also agree with Alice that a vote against something is a vote for nothing and a vote that only encourages negative, cynical politics, especially when there is a party, imperfect to be sure that progressive can vote for.
I'm solidly with you on the need for electoral reform (which incidentally is just another reason why I can't consider the Liberals progressive).
Which leads to the disproportionate attention I pay to Liberals. Because the Conservatives historically have been so openly and evidently anti-progressive, surely any progressive knows not to cast his/her lot with them. The Liberals, however, as a party of pure ideology and opportunism, have managed to fashion an image of themselves as "progressive" and thus are much more insidiously dangerous to real progressivism.
For instance, look at the way Obama has sold out progressives in the US. I've long argued, as an anti-capitalist, that Obama represented the single greatest threat to the Left since Tony Blair (i.e. the nice, likeable face of ethical capitalism).
More to point, McGuinty was elected under a promise to undo and reverse the damage perpetrated by Harris/Eves governments on the Ontario people. He has not only failed to reverse course, he has either maintained it or intensified the damage caused by Conservatives. How?
1) None of the union busting measures introduced by Harris were undone by McGuinty (no anti-scab legislation, continued forced ratification votes, legislating workers back to work)
2) the poor are no better off and relatively speaking are worse off under McGuinty's social welfare programs)
3) McGuinty's security preparations for the G20 Summit in which he "illegally" and 'likely unconstitutionally" expanded State powers and criminalized peaceful protest would make Harris proud.
4) His irresponsible bungling of public treasury to the benefit of those that least need it would also have made Harris blush.
5) His lip service to democratic renewal and his hijacking of the electoral reform referendum very anti-progressive.
If you want to be part of what the NDP used to be join
http://www.socialistpartyofontario.ca and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv_FeO45HmA
I'm not about to join no-hopers, but here are the links made
clickable.
Post a Comment