Sunday, January 8, 2012

Zach Paikin - the Evil Conservative Conspiracist Of Evil

That's right, folks - Zach Paikin, who is running to become the LPC's national policy chair, is a closet conservative! At least, according to fellow Liblogger Happy Wanderer and Max Naylor.

Now, this feud is what caused Bob Rae's "BS" tweet earlier last month. And it's true, it is bullshit. It's utter, utter, bullshit.

Is Zach Paikin a far right-winger? Probably not. If Naylor or HW believe he is, they've clearly never met one. He has a hawkish foreign policy stance and he probably tilts to the right a tad, but so what? He's not necessarily wrong on every count and if he can justify is reasons with fact-based and reasoned evidence, unlike most right-wingers, then why do we go after him and judge him as "not a Liberal?"

I joined the Liberal Party because I see a party devoted not just to the respectable ideology of liberalism, but because more than the Cons and Dips, we take in evidence and pragmatic reasoning into account. We're the party of intellect because we believe in looking at the facts and then reacting, not just being reactionary or revolutionary as a permanent state of being.

I say if Zach Paikin bases his opinions as I hope the rest of us free-thinking individuals do, I couldn't give a rat's ass what he believes. If he's open to consultation, open to new ideas, open to changing his tract, and open to moving forward, that's good enough for me. Believe what you will, just don't deny the facts, I say.

I see no evidence that Paikin doesn't do this. I've met him. He's intelligent, he's reasonable, and he's open. He wouldn't get the endorsement of someone like Irwin Cotler or Marc Garneau otherwise. Stop with the ideological bickering - we're not those other two parties. If Zach offers solutions, it's good enough for me, and it should be good enough for the rest of us.


  1. I'd rather see a closet Conservative running the party than a closet Dipper!!!

  2. Uh, Zach is also for private for profit health care. He actually wrote about this in the far right winged Prince Arthur Herald. He is a regular contributor to that paper--another babysitter for blogging tories. Remember, private for profit health care in Canada means the carbon copy of the predatorial American health care system. No matter how anyone tries to spin it.

    You there, ridingByriding, why do you say what you do? closet conservative than closet dipper? Conservatives under Harper have us in record deficit, spending has gone up 22% and on what? such frivolities as corporate tax cuts which have proven time and time again not to create jobs, at least not here at home. Pork barreling, mucho. Money to his corporate friends. Heck, he squandered a healthy surplus left to him even before the recession due to spending lavishly on his friends and cutting the GST. Yeah, cutting the GST was a great populist move but stupid economically. No, that increased spending from the Cons certainly didn't go on our social safety nets, something Harper hates--he said so himself time and again.

    Under Harper, unemployment has gone up yet again. And even if there were small bursts of jobs being created, as one unemployed Hamilton steelworker put it, "he only creates Tim Horton Jobs!" So true!

    As for the NDP, be fair. Provincially, many of those governments have not only proven to be economically sound, but have actually left surpluses when they left office. Federally, they've never had a chance. How do you know how badly they'd do? At least I'd be less fearful of our social safety nets. And they couldn't spend more than Harper has already done.

  3. There's genuine debate to have with his opinions, CK, I'm not arguing FOR what he says - God knows I'd throw holy water on him for his foreign policy positions if I could.

    But he's not an idiot, and I know plenty of arguments in favour of what he says. It's a difference of opinion, one that is absolutely fine by my standards.

  4. As for the Dippers... eh. Sorry Teddy but she is right, in a way. My local NDP friends are pretty reasonable - not all, but a good portion. It's the same for the Conservatives as well. I wouldn't want a closet either of them, to be honest - they can be open about it.

  5. If what Max Naylor and CK say is true, then the Liberal Party and I are on the outs. Paikin comes across as a Joe Lieberman. Socially liberal and a right wing hawk. For profit health care, cozying up to the Americans, whining that Obama didn't attack "Islamic fundamentalism", he (Paiken) wants to

    “reintegrate our domestic command structure with the United States” and that our developmental agenda should “pursue a political agenda, if necessary”.

    No thanks.

  6. Christian,

    You know it's an ELECTED position, right? If you don't like him, don't vote for him...

    And, sorry, but that's a highly ridiculous position to take. Don't like the Liberals because of an INDIVIDUAL'S opinion? No offense, but if you assume such collective responsibility then maybe the party and ideology of individual integrity isn't the right place for you.

  7. By the way - nice going with the Obama avatar. Would you like me to list the number of right-wing positions he's taken on matters?

  8. My Obama avatar is a shot at all those right wingers who called Obama soft on terror and said the World would end.

    Is it a ridiculous reason, Volkov? If the Liberal party "ELECTS" a right winger such as Paikin, I lack integrity for disagreeing with their direction? That is what you are suggesting, correct?

    "maybe the party and ideology of individual integrity isn't the right place for you."

    And I'll leave on my terms, not yours.

  9. I think the fact is, Christian, Liberals may or may not elect Paikin. If they do, they aren't likely doing it because of his ideology. But you seem happy to extrapolate the election of someone who has personal opinions as the collective Liberal mass approving and condoning those opinions, even if they're not voting for that.

    Now, how is that not just a bit silly? Not every right-winger is automatically unsuitable to do a job like being the policy chair. Not only is it not a position whereby he can make or approve unilateral decisions, but maybe he'll bring just what the party needs in terms of a fresh look at things, be it ideology or just general new ideas.

    What I'm saying is, don't judge a book by its cover. And even if the book is bad, it doesn't mean the library it's in is all shit as well.

  10. Am I missing something? Is policy chair not an important position? While Paikin may not have the authority to make or approve unilateral decisions, doesn't policy chair give him the opportunity to shape policy?
    To promote his ideology? To drive the narrative?

    If it does, and he is elected, do you not believe it in fact, does matter what his personal opinions are?

    The Liberal Party is a big tent, but welcoming fresh spin on failed right wing policies doesn't work for me. ymmv

  11. I'm glad you read the Blog Volkov hope to see you face to face at the convention.

    When it comes to Zach Paikin I agree with him some of the time when it comes to Israel, but on Health care he may have valid points, but I don't want him to be a policy chair. He is an intelligent man, but I respectfully disagree with him on policy. He is still a Liberal love to hear from him and would love to talk to him more in Ottawa.

    P.S (just as a side note) the blog post against Zach Paikin wasn't mine it was my blogger friend Doggy and Owner, but agree with it nevertheless, but I don't think he has a secret agenda.

  12. I point out again - it is supremely silly to believe that based on a few opinion snippets that Paikin is not actually the kind of candidate that can get past ideology and work in a constructive, rational, fact-based manner that should characterize this party. So what if he's tilting to the right - does it actually matter if he cedes the reasonable ground?

    Paikin has given no indication he isn't of that mindset.

  13. vanillaman,

    Above post isn't for you, just fyi.

    I'm similar to you in position - I don't agree with everything he says. But he seems, to me, to be the kind of guy willing to listen to reasoned evidence. If you talk with him, you'll see. I highly recommend you do. May not change your opinion but you'll see even someone with that kind of nonsense in his head knows when to cede to reality.

    And I know - most of it is Naylor. I've met him too.

  14. Volkov, what is not true regarding the snippets? Do you have ANY evidence to the contrary? Or are you just being silly? For example, does he go on right wing media to bash the Liberals?
    Can you refute that? JeeZ!

    I lack integrity AND I'm supremely silly. Condescension noted .

    Hey, can I make a recommendation? Great! You should follow up that post disparaging the Occupy movement with an attack war protesters! You know, just as a way of promoting different ideas. Put a fresh spin on it!

  15. I didn't say the snippets weren't true... just that you can't base what kind of personality and his temperment and his ability to work towards liberal causes based on them.

  16. But how can I not base my opinion on his statements? That is what I have. You can't dispute them. You've offered nothing. He owns them. I don't give a damn if you think you can turn him. If this is his starting point and folks still vote for him, well, I'm gonna have to question their integrity.

  17. You don't get it, at all... whatever.

  18. I can see being distressed by some of the positions Paikin takes, but as far as I can tell, National Policy Director is there just to organize the policy process. The members are the ones who are suppose to generate the ideas (which will just get ignored at the next election. ;) . Saw a horrific "this is how your policy sausage is made" chart as well that seems to confirm this.

    Paikin can work a room, but I'll probably vote for Maryanne Kampouris at the convention.

  19. Sorry for the late reply. I voted for the Ontario NDP, so I know what the NDP can do. I also know that Harper is a danger, and would vote for the federal NDP before Harper. However, look what our party did in the 90s. Some would say that we used "conservative" policies. A policy is not good nor bad, it's implementation makes it good or bad, and Harper's implementation is terrible. We need to be the alternative to the Conservatives, not the alternative to the NDP.

  20. This little chump - a 22 year old from a rich family - has no place in politics period. He needs to grow up.

    He is in fact one of the 'boys in short pants' - a conservative mole entirely set up to be an agent of the CPC inside the Liberal party. He has NO place in the Liberal party.