The Moderate Separatist

Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville Wildrose Alliance Constituency Association Meeting

2009-11-17T16:21:00.003-07:00

The inaugural meeting of the Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville Wildrose Alliance Constituency Association has been scheduled.

Date: Saturday, November 21st

Location: 8905 - 92 avenue Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Time: 2:00pm

R.S.V.P.: (780) 850-3830 (if voicemail, leave message) or lss@shaw.ca

This meeting will be to elect the board of directors who will be responsible for the future development (membership & fundraising) of the constituency and later we will all have input as to who the candidate will be. It is important that we have a strong turnout in order to be successful in our goals.

We need a minimum 15 members of the constituency to make the association valid. Come out, and if you know other party members in the area, bring them with you!

Remember to bring your current Wildrose Alliance membership card with you.
If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me.

Top Ten Jobs for Premier Ed Stelmach After He's Fired

2009-11-15T12:06:00.000-07:00

10. Wal-mart greeter.

9. Promotional speaker.

8. (not available due to government cutbacks)

7. Professor of Economics – University of Havana.

6. “Yours is the pepperoni and mushroom...”

5. Insomnia Treatment Therapist.

4. Mannequin.

3. “…and I’m a PC.”

2. (not available – writer busy organizing local Wildrose Alliance Constituency Association)

1. Energy Minister, Province of Saskatchewan.

Regarding Separatism

2009-11-12T12:59:00.001-07:00

There have been some questions lately about whether or not the fact that I am a self-described ‘separatist’ would have any effect on my standing as a member of the Wildrose Alliance party of Alberta.

What I find particularly interesting is that most of these inquiries have come not from supporters of the leftwing parties in the province, but primarily from those who claim to be Progressive Conservatives. Given that there have always been a small number of pro-independence or outright separatist Albertans in the P.C. party, I believe their intent is fairly transparent.

I am a former life-long provincial Tory supporter who, like many others, performed the ultimate sin and jumped to the Wildrose Alliance which has become the newest and greatest threat to the ruling party.

(Also interesting is the double-standard for separatists in Canada. History shows Quebec separatists being pandered to at every turn, while Albertan / Western Canadian separatists are ridiculed. Hmm...)

As I am about to play a role in the Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville constituency – the one presently held by none other than the illustrious Premier Unsteady Eddie Stelmach – I thought that perhaps a little clarification was in order.

My separatist leanings were formed by the usual suspects: Eastern dominance over the West; unbalanced federal policies such as the Equalization program; federally-mandated social engineering programs such as bilingualism; the ghost of the NEP; etc.

And don’t get me started on the double-standard regarding the Wheat Board and the jailing of our farmers for daring to sell their own product.

During the long winter of federal Liberal government, the sentiment was strong. Tired of the two-pronged attack of a government that took advantage of my province and Eastern Canadians who mocked us for having the audacity to speak out against such treatment (one comment from an Ontarian in 2003: ‘…your province is just a backwater colony of the nation. Why don’t you people accept your role as provider for the East…?), I envisioned an Alberta free from Ottawa-based tyranny.

I can confidently say that when it came to that point of view, I certainly did not stand alone.

Today, we find ourselves with a Conservative government in Ottawa. While not a perfect solution to the list of issues, the Harper government is a step in the right direction, as shown by their move to eliminate such inane laws as the long-gun registry.

Not perfect, but I believe they have done a good job albeit with a minority.

Provincially, I found myself supporting a provincial government that has existed long past its ‘best before’ date; a political party in the Progressive Conservatives which has a history of talking tough to Ottawa in public, while kowtowing behind closed doors.

In the Wildrose Alliance I found a party that, while not a separatist party by any means and with no intent on becoming one, possesses a shared sense of Albertan patriotism. We are more than willing to continue being an important element in this thing we call Confederation, but not necessarily willing to remain status quo.

It is in this vein that I have made the conscious choice to set aside my personal separatist leanings in favor of a more realistic path.

The betterment of Alberta remains my ultimate goal. Whereas that seemed impossible in a Liberal-run Canada and a P.C.-run Alberta, the emergence of a federal Conservative government and, perhaps most importantly the emergence of the Wildrose Alliance under Danielle Smith, has given me (and many, many other Albertans) reason to believe that perhaps a strong Alberta can exist within Canada given the right circumstances.

Ghost of Ralph Helps Alliance

2009-11-09T14:46:00.001-07:00

Alberta Progressive Conservative party members did what they needed to do this past weekend and gave Unsteady Eddie Stelmach a 77% approval rating at their convention.

The number fits perfectly where the party needed it, especially after the ghost of King Ralph appeared from the political graveyard and suggested that Premier Ed had to get at least 70% to keep his job.

You have to wonder if ‘nice guy’ Eddie let fly with a string of expletives when Ralph’s statement broke.

Ralph still holds much influence with the P.C. rank-and-file, many of whom aren’t exactly Stelmach fanatics. The 70% bar was all but a directive for voters, a target to reach but by no means obliterate.

The party slid Stelmach a 77% vote. Whether or not one can finish that sentence with ‘…of confidence’ is debatable. In the realm of glass half full/glass half empty, while the MSM calls the result ‘strong’, I look at the fact that about one out of four party members did not vote to support Stelmach.

The party had a decision to make. They could have created even more instability for themselves by turfing their ineffective leader at a time when their greatest threat in decades has emerged in the form of the Wildrose Alliance party.

While ridding themselves of the ever-growing anchor of a leader would sound appealing to insiders, in the public eye it would come across as practically an admission of a long list of mistakes.

Instead, the party decided not to admit fault and fell in with the PR spin sent out to a community of Albertans who are growing increasingly tired, frustrated, and intolerant of a stale and out of touch P.C. government.

They decided to stick with Ed Stelmach as their leader in what could turn out to be regarded in time as the exact point when the Progressive Conservative era in Alberta politics ‘jumped the shark’.

Not surprisingly, they decided to follow the words of Ralph Klein and give Ed just enough to get by, instead of choosing to dump their lame leader in favor of renewal.

The big winner is, of course, the fledgling Wildrose Alliance party.

Riding the wave of media and public attention due to Paul Hinman's stunning by-election victory in the traditional Tory heartland of the Calgary-Glenmore that amounted to their coming out party, as well as an exciting and well-fought leadership race that resulted in smart, vibrant new leader Danielle Smith taking the reins, the WAP doesn’t have to face a fresh new leader of the P.C.’s.

They get to battle against Ed Stelmach, a leader who people see as someone who backed into the job; a premier who is losing the trust and confidence of an increasing number of Albertans.

On a personal note, it means that I get to organize the Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville Wildrose Alliance Constituency Association with the opportunity to fire Ed Stelmach right in his own backyard.

Thanks, Ralph!

Getting a Head Start on the Gift List

2009-11-01T18:10:00.004-07:00

As the kids display symptoms of post-Halloween MSIH (Massive Sugar Intake High) on this first night of November, I thought I'd take the opportunity to get a head start on this years Christmas list.

It may seem a tad early, but I'd like to break with tradition and not wait until the last minute this year. After all, there's a nip in the air. Malls already have the tinsel hanging. There's no way to avoid it. It's coming.

Here's a first draft of special gifts for some very special, if not needy, folks:

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper: A majority government, a sudden and uncontrollable desire to stop trying to spend our way out of the economic mess, and a new sweater.

Calgary Flames G.M. Darryl Sutter: A time machine to go back and reverse one single decision. (Re-sign Mike Cammalleri and toss Olli Jokinen.)

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach: A convenient reason to leave, a clue, and a way to end those comparisons to that PC guy in those Mac commercials.

The Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta: A star candidate outside of Calgary, a strong coalition, and a comprehensive platform.

Prince Charles: A better P.R. guy in Canada.

The Republican Party: a thesaurus with the word 'conservative' highlighted.

The City of Vancouver: A safe, secure, and successful Olympic Games.

The people of Vancouver: That same amazing feeling of pride and excitement that Calgarians experienced in 1988. It was indescribable.

Americans: 'I got sucked in and voted Obama' 12 step recovery programs nationwide.

Jim Dinning: A Wildrose Alliance membership.

Israel: A defense shield.

The St. Jean-Baptiste Society of Quebec: a pill to stop whining. You are a minority. You have your Bill 101. Suck it up.

The United Nations: a purpose, or an eviction notice. Either one.

Canadian Troops: the support of all Canadians.

The voters of Calgary-Glenmore: a huge, wet, mistletoe kiss for each one of you.

...and a pair of tickets for next June's U2 concert at Commonwealth Stadium for yours truly.

Something Fawlty at the Legislature

2009-10-28T15:30:00.002-06:00

Standing with the air of arrogant authority while all he surveys falls apart around him. Bumbling, fumbling, never admitting fault. Smarminess and a frosty condescending attitude shot out against those who dare to question.

No, I’m not talking about Basil Fawlty.

The fiddling that has been performed by Alberta Health Minister Ron Liepert while he and his Progressive Conservative government’s reputation burns courtesy of the fire created by their aloof and irresponsible lack of preparedness for the H1N1 vaccine is matched only by Liepert’s bob-and-weave effort to avoid answering any questions.

As is now well-known, the first round of the vaccine was made available this week. In the city of Calgary, there was a grand total of four – four! – clinics that participated in giving the shots. That’s four places for a population of roughly 1 million.

It was a similar story in Edmonton, where there were a stated 5 or 6 places available for Albertan’s to go. By comparison, Winnipeg had 12 clinics prepared that were and running early. The longest wait time reported in that city was 90 minutes, while wait times extended to 4, 5, and even six hours in Alberta.

Under the dome in today’s Question Period, Liepert was again under attack by the opposition. For all of the questions, nowhere could an actual answer be found. In fact, when Liepert wasn’t insulting the entire Calgary-Glenmore constituency with his choice to ignore questions by Wildrose Alliance MLA Paul Hinman in favour of a mocking response, he was throwing out smart-aleck comebacks to valid inquiries.

It was a moment of true Fawlty-ness when Liberal MLA Kevin Taft stood and asked the Health Minister a question that included an estimation of Albertans expected to be hospitalized by the H1N1 flu, as well as an estimate on the number of deaths.

Liepert’s response was to suggest that Taft should refrain from throwing unsubstantiated numbers around in the Legislature. When Taft informed Liepert that the numbers came from Liepert’s own department…well, if backpedalling was an Olympic sport, Liepert would be the political worlds answer to Michael Phelps.

The problem is, of course, that this isn’t a comedy show, and Ron Liepert isn’t in charge of a bumbling, stumbling hotel in Torquay. He’s the man in charge of our provincial health care system. He’s the man who decided to delist coverage of many of the medications our Seniors need – the same Seniors he is forcing to wait in long line ups for a flu shot.

To say that he was caught unprepared or that he was ‘surprised’ by the availability of the vaccine is not a valid excuse, given that the top dogs with Canadian health agencies were saying as far back as early September that the first round of shots would be available ‘the third week of October’.

If Liepert was taken off guard, he was the only one. It would indicate that Liepert is but a small representation of the ruling P.C. government itself: arrogant, out of touch, pompously stale.

In a time of a spreading pandemic, the last thing Alberta needs is Basil Fawlty in charge.

Time for Alberta's Bill 101?

2009-10-27T14:45:00.001-06:00

One of the most contentious national issues has long been the province of Quebec’s Bill 101. Essentially a provincial French-only language law, it has been called racist by those opposed and a law that ‘paved the way for peace’ by supporters.

Outside of Quebec (especially in the West) angry reactions appear at the mere mention of Bill 101. When added to the exercise in national social engineering known as the Official Bilingualism policy, the perception is created that an abnormal degree of concession is being made by the majority of Canadian citizens for the benefit of those who themselves as ‘French’ (roughly between 26%-28% of the general population).

If that isn’t bad enough, we are supposed to accept this law as necessary in order to protect the French language and culture. This suggests that French is the only unique culture contained in Canada. Anyone who has traveled the nation knows this is not accurate.

If Alberta or British Columbia or Newfoundland (unquestionably a distinct society) moved to pass a similar law the protests would become front page news for weeks. The politically correct left would be in a tizzy – the same p-c left who defends Quebec’s right to have a discriminatory law on its books.

Perhaps that is the answer. For those of us who have been to the four corners of the nation, we recognize the many separate and vibrant cultures which hold our sometimes-wavering Confederation together. Alberta is no different. We are proud of our history, our people and our unique, distinct culture.

To preserve our way of life, maybe we should walk through the opening that Quebec has created. Perhaps we should use the precedent set by Bill 101 and vow to see the implementation of our own version that would enshrine English as Alberta’s one and only official language.

It certainly would help to prevent attacks on Albertan society such as the one launched by a publicity-seeking maladroit who determined it to be a good opportunity for attention by turning a traffic ticket into a provincial language battle.

It might be difficult and may not rid Alberta of French altogether. Maybe even some negotiation would be needed. In good faith, I’ll extend the first olive branch:

We promise to keep French on our cereal boxes if we don’t have to subject our children to the joys of ‘French immersion’ programs in our schools.

And no Celine Dion. Ever.

New Paradigm Confuses Party Leaders

2009-10-24T12:01:00.000-06:00

It may be a couple of years away, but the unofficial campaign for the next Alberta provincial election is well underway.

Wildrose Alliance supporters knew it when Paul Hinman won the Calgary-Glenmore by-election. The media knew it when Danielle Smith was chosen as new party leader. And when the two competing parts of the WAP came together soon thereafter, thus solidifying the coalition and the party overall, the rest of Alberta knew it.

Evidence of what to expect when the real race begins came early. The New Democrats were congratulatory, with a ‘the more the merrier’ response. The ne’er do-well Liberal opposition (think of an old beater with several coats of paint stuck in quicksand, perpetually spinning its wheels in futility - Lot’s of impressive noise, but sinking…) played the ‘scary’ card right away, saying that many Albertan’s would find Wildrose Alliance values ‘extreme’.

Swann tries spinning the ‘evil, far-right’ web by bringing up issues such as abortion. Keeping in mind that by electing Swann as their leader the Liberals have effectively moved so far to the left that they are now directly competing against the socialist ND’s for votes, his early tactic of seeing this as a right vs. left issue isn’t just old and tired, but misguided.

The fact is, the other party leaders haven’t figured out how to deal with Danielle Smith and her Wildrose Alliance party. Perhaps most telling is the response, or more accurately the lack of response, by Progressive Conservative leader and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach on Smith’s victory.

It comes across as everything from ignorance to aloofness. Some see it as Stelmach and the ruling empire not taking the WAP seriously.

The truth is the PCs are between a rock and a hard place. They can’t really use the same ‘scary’ card as Swann’s Liberals without making themselves look too far left. That would all but justify the main reason given for many P.C. defectors who have found a home with the Alliance.

Given Stelmach’s superior public speaking skills, one can easily imagine a tragically comical sound bite from the campaign trail:

“…sure, we’re right. But we’re not THAT right. I mean, we are to the right of the Liberals, but the Alliance is really right. We’re kinda right, right? They are really right. Not overly right, but too right. We’re to the left of that. But right. Not too right, more left than that right, but still right. Definitely not really right, but right enough…”

As well, it would insult the intelligence of the average Albertan who knows better. Calling a party whose policies are based on traditional Albertan values and directly on their opinions and views as ‘scary’ would be akin to a self-inflicted wound.

Besides, Smith being well-known for her libertarian stance on issues defuses that. She isn’t afraid to face that issue head on however, as shown by a line in her acceptance speech:

“Perhaps understandably, we've been doing a lot of cringing and ducking to avoid being labeled "extremist." We should now stop. It's undignified. Our grassroots party is about common sense ideas, timeless ideas that reflect the mainstream values of average Albertans.”

What Swann, ND leader Brian Mason, and Unsteady Eddie are about to realize if they haven’t already is that the foundation for the next provincial battle will not be primarily left vs. right or liberal vs. conservative.

It will be a choice of Big Government vs. Small Government, Government control and restriction vs. Libertarianism/social conservatism, out of control spending vs. fiscal responsibility.

The collection of libertarian and social conservatives who make up the Wildrose Alliance share many traditional Albertan beliefs and values, perhaps none so much as their faith in small government.

With Smith as leader along with a true grassroots system in the party, and policies which promote the end of big spending and out of control bureaucracy, the fastest growing party in Alberta is changing the paradigm of the political scene.

The socialist NDs, socialist Liberals, and the out of control, fumbling, old and stale P.C.s all represent Big government, which is in direct contrast to what Albertans believe in.

The Wildrose Alliance, with its fiscally conservative and socially responsible small government polices, give Albertans a fresh, new alternative.

To the other party leaders, that is scary indeed.

Chandler/Sullivan: Time to Complete the Coalition

2009-10-19T23:48:00.005-06:00

Leigh,

I just wanted to drop you a line to say thank you.

I really appreciated our phone call today and it is good to know that we can work together to get Danielle Smith elected.

There is so much that we have in common and now that the battle is over for leader, it is time that all of us focus on the real enemy and we know that is Ed Stelmach and his Progressives.

Our support for Danielle Smith is genuine and I know that her willingness to work with us is also very real. Her willingness to work together is very evident in her News Conference today that can be seen at http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/Danielle+Smith+Presser/2120939/story.html

I am sincerely looking forward to working together in a party that balances and respects the social conservative, fiscal conservative and Libertarian. I believe together we can make a dramatic difference and become the government of Alberta.

Craig B. Chandler

____________________________________________________________________________

Craig,

Our chat was most enjoyable. After such an intense campaign it was good to have a no-pressure, relaxing conversation away from the front lines.

I’m sure you’ll agree that the shear intensity of the just-completed battle for the leadership of the Wildrose Alliance made for some memorable clashes in the New Media between members of the contending camps and supporters of each candidate.

Much was vibrant, intelligent debate about policy between party members.

However as you are aware, as the campaign grew bigger and moved closer to the deadline there was a marked increase in negativity. A ‘the gloves are off’ mentality seemed to afflict individuals on both sides of the fence, each comment inching a little closer to the gone-too-far line than the last.

Rumour has it that even you and I had our moments…

In some circles this continues to occur. Comments posted online that make some wonder if they have a place in the party work to benefit no one. Just as with the race itself, the time for division has now past.

Craig, in the spirit of our conversation and subsequent letter, I’d like to fulfill a pledge I made to you at the beginning of the campaign and extend my hand in solidarity.

I know we both share the belief that a blend of social conservative and libertarian ideologies, while requiring a healthy amount of negotiation, discussion, and compromise, will ultimately result in the creation of traditional Albertan policies which follow traditional Albertan values.

This is just one of many issues that bind our coalition together.

When Mark Dyrholm won the Class Act of the Year award with his concession to Danielle Smith, a real feeling of unity and rejuvenation filled the room.

Now is the time to ‘complete the coalition’ by unifying behind our new leader and, in the spirit of our shared Albertan values, work side-by-side to save Alberta from the Stelmach Progressive Conservatives.

I hope that all party members, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum, follow our lead and close ranks.

We have a unique opportunity before us. I believe we both recognize this, and I look forward to working with you and all members of the Wildrose Alliance as we end 40 years of P.C. rule in Alberta.

Leigh Patrick Sullivan
http://www.themoderateseparatist.com/

Decision '09: The Post-Mortem

2009-10-17T20:17:00.002-06:00

Today was the culmination of five months of a leadership campaign, thousands of hours devoted by hundreds, interest in a non-P.C. race like never before. It was the finish line for two tireless candidates and their teams.

Now, I’d like to add my congratulations to Danielle Smith. I had the feeling from the start of this race that I was witnessing the rise of the next serious player in Alberta’s political scene, each coffee or phone chat reinforcing that belief.

Her victory signals the arrival of both Danielle and the Wildrose Alliance. Fringe no more (a label I never really accepted), the party has justified its surprising position in recent polls. It has erased any thoughts of the Calgary-Glenmore by-election as being a ‘fluke’ or strictly a protest vote.

The dynamic new party now has a dynamic new leader. The surge of the Wildrose Alliance continues.

Regarding Mark Dyrholm…

He may be the ‘non-winner’, but I would suggest that Mark did, in fact, score a victory. The effort he and his team put into this race was almost surreal. I doubt that I have ever been witness to such an example of effort and commitment than what I saw here.

Mark never backed down from his assertions, never waivered from a position no matter the potential controversy. He proved what I had always suspected: while Mark was my second choice in this race, I still rank him above any of the other provincial party leaders.

One of my primary questions from the beginning has not been who would win. The issue was what would happen post-vote.

Would the coalition that makes us the party we are – proud libertarian and social conservative all – come through the hard-fought battle enough intact to repair and renew?

It was clear who had won when Mark Dyrholm was the first to step up to the podium. Tradition dictates that the concession speech precedes the acceptance speech. It was the words and the commitment Mark expressed that answered those questions.

In fact, Dyrholm made me wonder, because of the intensity of the battle, if the party had come out the other side actually strengthened. The fact that he accepted defeat with style and professionalism isn’t surprising. It’s was his public declaration that “…Danielle Smith is my leader!” that signaled the solidarity of this brash new party.

Mr. Dyrholm, I tip my hat to you.

I believe that moment, combined with Danielle’s victory, also signaled the beginning of the end of almost four full decades of Progressive Conservative rule in Alberta. All indications are that the Wildrose Alliance is one solid, unified party, which could mean a very bumpy future for Steady Eddie Stelmach.

Decision '09: Off to Hear the Announcement

2009-10-17T13:13:00.000-06:00

I was at the Wildrose Alliance leadership convention bright and early this morning, and I must confess that I was inspired by the large and enthusiastic crowd that turned out to hear the outstanding opening speeches by WAP president Jeff Callaway and candidates Danielle Smith and Mark Dyrholm.

I had to miss the middle seminars and lunch, but I'm just headed back now to hear the result and catch the after-speeches.

From what I've witnessed today thus far, I suggest to you that no matter who wins this race, it is the Wildrose Alliance itself that has scored a victory.

Leadership Convention/Vote post-mortem to follow.

Leadership Race Checklist

2009-10-16T10:05:00.002-06:00

Found on parking lot of the Holiday Inn Convention Centre...

LEADERSHIP RACE CHECKLIST

- Take worthy candidate and turn him into figurehead: check!

- In case of defeat, begin exit strategy by floating the 'purge' line: check!

- Claim the party doesn't want us to win: check!

- Label independent writers who don't support us 'part of Danielle's team': check!

- Use the 'we're clarifying points' line when accused of being negative (careful, as overuse can insult the intelligence of party members): check!

- Make outrageous statements i.e.: 'the media is Danielle Smith's campaign team': check!

- Throw unsubstantiated allegations at the opponent while claiming she is doing the same: check!

- Play the 'they don't like us because we're Christian' card: check!

- Play the 'libertarian = liberal' card: double-check!

- Claim we don't believe the other candidate's statements i.e. defunding of abortion (but don't actually call her a liar): check!

- Claim to be a proponent of party unity while our actions threaten to divide: check!

- Claim to be the victim of a massive media conspiracy: check!

- Use that same media to offend many intelligent party members (people will vote for her because she's hot): check!

- Attempt to discredit writers who are too close to the truth: check!

- Shave before appearing on camera: missed.

- Write a conciliatory post-vote speech that blames the media/members/party/bloggers/al Qaeda/Satan/etc. for our defeat: to be done.

- Use exit strategy: to be done.

- Find a new figurehead and a new campaign to run: to be done.

Purge Defined

2009-10-13T23:01:00.001-06:00

purge (pʉrj)transitive verb purged, purging, purg′·ingc.

1290, from O.Fr. purgier (12c.), from L. purgare "cleanse, purify,"

1. to cleanse or rid of impurities, foreign matter, or undesirable elements

2. to cleanse of guilt, sin, or ceremonial defilement

3. a fictional reason used by the losing side of a political leadership campaign as an excuse to leave the party soon after defeat. The foundation of a future exit strategy

see also: transparent, obvious, pre-emptive

The Sound of Inevitability

2009-10-10T10:56:00.001-06:00

The call I answered last night was a bit of a shock. After previously sharing a couple long and informative chats via the phone, there had only been one similar discussion after publicly announcing my endorsement for Danielle Smith in the race to lead the Wildrose Alliance.

Since then our contact has mostly been on various political threads and comments sections of online newspaper columns; a kind of repetitive game where I would find and correct an example of ‘purposeful misinformation’ (read: counter an attack) aimed at Smith.

How odd it was to hear Craig Chandler’s voice on my phone, albeit recorded.

I should clarify: it wasn’t at all strange to receive a call from the Mark Dyrholm campaign. I’ve lost count of how many have been made on my line in just the past week alone. They are a committed group, I’ll give them that. Any cult would be proud to have that kind of loyalty and determination, never mind a political campaign.

No, it wasn’t the fact that it was Craig’s voice that was the odd part. It was the content of his message.

I had warned Craig Chandler and the Dyrholm campaign team as a whole that the Wildrose Alliance members do not believe in playing ‘gutter’ politics. I told them that choosing the strategy of sliming the other candidate instead of promoting their own candidate’s strengths and abilities would work against them.

I warned them that they could go too far over the line, and that the backlash would hit more than just their own team but the party overall.

They didn’t listen, and to paraphrase Agent Smith: ‘that is the sound of inevitability’.

The Mark Dyrholm campaign was forced to make a round of apologetic calls to defuse a mistake on their part. Their habit of playing the victim – ‘the Party doesn’t want us to win’, ‘the media is Smith’s campaign team’, etc – was a foolish gambit to say the least. It bordered on the unprofessional in my own opinion.

Even a novice in the campaign game could see the danger.

It has come back to bite them this time. The incident in question is described at http://www.news-cruncher.com/:

“Dyrholm has been writing letters and op-ed articles to newspapers as well as circulars to party members. In his communications, he has attacked both the Calgary Herald for its alleged bias, a paper for which Smith used to write columns, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, where Smith served as director of provincial affairs for Alberta.

In one of its missives, the Dyrholm campaign tried to sling mud at Smith by saying that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had once endorsed former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin. This was yet another attempt to portray Smith as a liberal, rather than the libertarian and fiscal conservative that she is.

Earlier today, the Dyrholm campaign was forced to eat humble pie. In a recorded phone message, they had to apologize and set the record straight: the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, being a non-partisan organization, has never endorsed any politicians or candidates.”

I still maintain that Mark Dyrholm is a quality individual and possesses the tools to be an effective politician for our party. However, if this is the kind of stunt, method, or tactic we can expect from him or his advisors as party leader, we would soon witness the crash of our credibility.

Apology accepted, Mr. Chandler. And I told you so.

Tell It to Dutch

2009-10-02T19:52:00.002-06:00

One of the hot issues this week in the ongoing saga called the Wildrose Alliance leadership race is the phone calls some party members have been receiving from members of the Mark Dyrholm campaign, in which campaign team members continue their attempt to portray Danielle Smith as not just the self-admitted libertarian she is, but that she’s so libertarian – why, she’s practically a liberal!

I’ve already spoken out about this kind of divisive tactic freely and willingly being used by the Dyrholm/Chandler campaign and how it could lower our image as a party in the eyes of the general public. It is on the record for all to see, and doesn’t need repeating here.

This is meant to remind the Dyrholm campaign, busy in their zeal to cast doubt on the fact that libertarianism is real conservatism (and by extension, intimating that Danielle Smith and her supporters are not ‘conservative enough’), of the words of someone who is held in such high regard by conservatives that I doubt even the most stubborn Dyrholm team member would be able to refute them:

"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

- Ronald Reagan

I wonder if this can be considered an endorsement...

Manganic Deconstructs the Dyrholm Campaign

2009-09-30T08:25:00.000-06:00

I have just read one of the better takes on the Wildrose Alliance leadership race over on Manganic's blog.

In it, my buddy Mang presents some important information that could be very useful for those WAP members who are still unsure where to park their vote.

It should be considered required reading for all party members before October 17th.

* Great lead-in, btw: "I received a phone call from the Mark Dyrholm campaign today. I didn't waste much time, I just politely told the caller I was firmly behind Danielle Smith. He said, "oh, so you're supporting the libertarian then?" I simply said, "yes," and left it at that.

At least they aren't calling her a Liberal any more..."

Check it out here: http://blog.manganic.com/2009/09/deconstructing-dyrholm-campaign.html

Canada Grows a Pair

2009-09-25T10:39:00.003-06:00

It boils down to a case of the unexpected followed by the expected.

When Canada made international headlines by walking out of the auditorium just prior to a speech by Iran’s loony leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, many of my fellow Canucks were surprised.

The fact that we were informed of this decision ahead of time didn’t detract from the experience. If anything, it added a certain ‘are they really going to do it?’ angle.

Sure enough, during the all-important first day of the U.N. General Assembly’s annual debate, right before Crazy A-Jad launched the latest in a troubling list of Gong Show speeches which have become something of a habit in recent years, the Canadian delegation led by Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon got up from their seats and, in a very obvious and public statement of protest, walked out.

A handful of other nations followed the lead and joined Canada in our symbolic protest by making their exit, but it was Canada that led the way.

It caused a weird and unfamiliar feeling – pride. That was the sensation of standing up for what is right. It was the touch of fortitude and courage to stand against what is most definitely wrong on the international stage. It was the feeling of growing a pair.

Naturally, the mini-backlash by the Canadian left is the expected. The attacks against Prime Minister Stephen Harper from our resident pseudo-intellectual latte sippers are the usual laundry list of the tired and the old.

“He’s grandstanding.”

“Harper is too pro-Israel.”

“Harper is too pro-American.”

“It will destroy our reputation of being ‘nice’ and ‘peace-keepers’”

“It’s disrespectful to the United Nations.” (apparently a speech about human rights given by a murderous dictator is completely respectful to the U.N.)

“Harper is against diplomacy.”

Years of embarrassing episodes on the world stage included everything from the comical like sending our troops into a desert war with green fatigues (after having to hitchhike a ride over on U.S. aircraft) to the downright inexcusable action – or inaction, actually - by former Prime Minister Jean Chretien after 9/11.

The milquetoast, Spock-like speech did nothing to take the focus away from the fact it took so long for the P.M. to finally make a statement.

But now we have a P.M. in Stephen Harper, who is the leader of a minority Conservative government. One wonders if his confidence is growing, being in the position where the constant threat of a non-confidence vote is becoming less and less of a threat, not because of an unwilling opposition but because of rising poll numbers.

Many believe that an election now would hand Harper the majority he has been looking for. Moves such as the one at the U.N. are the actions of a leader in control and knows it.

He is showing his intentions of using some of that positive Canadian image everyone talks about and giving it a voice. Cash in some of that politeness for some influence.

The left will continue to complain, if for no other reason than he’s Stephen Harper. My question to them is this: if they really believe in human rights and equality, why are they not protesting against one of the world’s biggest offenders – Iran?

If we are as well-respected on the global scene by all nations as the left suggests, then those nations should respect our decision not to encourage or give legitimacy to a dangerous rogue state and its unstable, anti-Semitic leader.

Canada Diplomat Who Walked Out On Ahmadinejad UN Speech On "Greta"

2009-09-24T15:06:00.001-06:00

Dyrholm: Media Smith's 'campaign team'

2009-09-24T10:33:00.001-06:00

Interesting editorial in today’s Calgary Herald by Wildrose Alliance leadership candidate Mark Dyrholm. It is a response to a September 22nd article about fellow candidate Danielle Smith.

Apparently, Dyrholm felt that the article contained misinformation regarding his experience. So he did what he should have, and contacted the Herald.

Now, there are ways of doing things such as this. I’m not sure Dyrholm’s approach of rattling off his entire resume was the most effective method.

The fact that Dyrholm played the victim in his allegation that the media was Danielle Smith’s ‘…campaign team…’, and further that it isn’t the first time for his campaign to act in such a manner, tends to strip away some of the qualities that lend themselves to a good leader, in my opinion.

It just felt kind of…whiney.

Click here to read Dyrholm’s editorial.

Why Danielle Smith Must Win

2009-09-23T09:37:00.002-06:00

We’re getting down to the end of the race. Both the Danielle Smith and Mark Dyrholm camps are hard at it, each in their own way doing all they can to get out their candidate’s message.

There have been shots taken by supporters of both campaigns. The Dyrholm camp, for example, is trying hard to paint Smith as ‘too far left’ (isn’t that the same scary, purposely misleading smear the P.C.’s used on Jim Dinning? How’d that strategy work out for that party?).

Smith supporters on the other hand are finding it difficult to attack Dyrholm simply due to the lack of sound bites. They seem to be mostly of his Don’t-call-him-the-real-campaign-manager Craig Chandler. (Fine, maybe it’s not so difficult after all.)

The point that follows is not intended to be one of those ‘shots’. It is, however, one of my top reasons why I believe Danielle Smith must become the next leader of the Wildrose Alliance.

Simply put, if she does not win, the momentum created by both the recent by-election victory and increased media attention Smith’s candidacy has brought to the party could very well fizzle out.

Vastly superior public speaking abilities, her political leanings which are far more in line with the majority of Albertans, her devotion to fiscal conservatism, her belief in small government – even the staunchest Mark Dyrholm supporter (perhaps under the influence of truth serum) must admit that Danielle Smith would put the WAP in the best starting position in a battle with Stelmach.

Mark Dyrholm campaigns to bring ‘Reform’ to the Alberta political landscape. That in itself makes me wonder if he is incapable of developing his own ideas and policies, but that issue is for another day.

In an ironic way, a Dyrholm-led Wildrose Alliance would share one similarity to the old federal Reformers. (I’m not suggesting that they would end up having to join the P.C.s in order to form a government like the real Reform party did.)

As unfortunate as it is, the party would be dogged with the ‘far-right’ label from day one of his leadership. Mainstream, everyday Albertans – the very ones who would find Danielle Smith appealing enough (I am referring to her policies and personality. I’ll leave the comments about her appearance to others) to possibly give the Wildrose their vote – will see Dyrholm, and by extension the WAP as a whole, as ‘too religious’.

The attempt to paint Smith as 'liberal' by bringing up social issues such as abortion has only resulted in Dyrholm running the risk of making himself look too far 'right' in the minds of the average Albertan, most of whom do not consider that to be an issue of priority.

As more than a few Albertans have told me, “If we wanted the Socreds back, we’d vote for them.”

The Wildrose Alliance would be considered a ‘fringe’ party in the minds of too many non-partisan Alberta voters. We would lose the growing momentum we are experiencing, even our golden opportunity to another opposition party, and could be forced to endure another term of Stelmach rule.

The Ego Has Landed

2009-09-21T20:13:00.001-06:00

As those who are following the leadership battle for the Wildrose Alliance are aware, the race is now down to two. What is not so clear, however, is exactly who those two are.

One candidate is certain: Danielle Smith. Many in the know are already referring to her as the ‘leader-in-waiting’ for the obvious reason that she is the most electable due primarily for her policies and broad appeal to a cross-section of Albertans.

As for the other candidate, that is not so clear.

Mark Dyrholm is by all accounts an honest and worthy candidate. There is no doubt about his passion for politics, and after watching first-hand his performance at the Edmonton debate last week, the impression I was left with is that he truly does hold the courage of his convictions.

As I stated in a previous article, even thought I do not share his overly social conservative views, he would make a valuable MLA, but certainly not as leader. I stand by that statement.

But something quite telling has emerged, a pattern that could be cause for alarm for those who consider themselves Mark Dyrholm supporters.

When it comes to public and media appearances, a glaring difference between the two camps becomes obvious. While the Danielle Smith campaign spokesperson tends to be Danielle herself, the Dyrholm camp is increasingly represented by someone other than Mark Dyrholm.

In fact, it is becoming quite difficult to discern who the candidate competing against Smith is: Mark Dyrholm or his campaign’s so-called ‘Strategy-Coalition Outreach’ representative Craig Chandler.

Be it a radio interview or a newspaper article, those who aren’t following the leadership race closely would be forgiven if they assumed that Chandler himself was running.

Perhaps it could be argued that a campaign manager sometimes takes up the slack and fills in as the public voice for the candidate on occasion, but not in this case as Chandler is not listed in that capacity.

One could even question the title he does have, given his recent public statements and tactics. While his methods certainly are known in the provincial political world, I find it quite ironic that someone who holds the title of ‘Coalition Outreach’ would make what some could consider borderline sexist remarks about Danielle Smith on The Michael Coren Show, intimating that some Wildrose Alliance members are shallow enough to actually vote for Smith because she is ‘attractive.’

Not only is that disrespectful to Smith, it amounts to questioning the integrity of a large number of party members. Maybe it’s just me, but alienating hundreds of fellow party members is not exactly my idea of effective ‘outreach’.

The leadership race so far has seen the Danielle Smith camp focusing on the issues. She has stayed on message, expressing not only her policies but those of the party. The only attacks from her camp have been directed at the true opposition for the party – the Progressive Conservatives.

Conversely, the Dyrholm camp has continually placed Danielle Smith in the crosshairs, never failing to lower the bar with each swipe. As one email I received stated: how unpopular are Dyrholm's policies that they need to try to deflect attention away from them and onto Smith?

This leads to a few important questions:

What will the lasting effects of this kind of mudslinging do to party unity?
Will Chandler and his people stay committed to the Wildrose Alliance under Smith’s leadership?
In a Dyrholm-led WAP, can we expect more of this bottom-feeding electoral strategy in a provincial election?
And perhaps most importantly, if Mark Dyrholm does win, exactly how much influence will Craig Chandler have in the party overall?

Given what we’ve seen so far, party members have a right to know the answers.

Danielle Smith Winning Battle of New Media

2009-09-18T11:25:00.001-06:00

When I announced my public endorsement of Danielle Smith for leader of the Wildrose Alliance way back in July, more than one person questioned the brevity in which I made my decision.
Even Danielle herself mentioned this over a coffee one afternoon: “…I was kind of surprised because it was so quick, so early in the race…”

What can I say? Smith is a fiscally-conservative moderate who is, in my mind, the best choice and best chance for leader, by a country mile. For me, the choice was clear from the beginning and, never being one to hesitate when it comes to saying what’s on my mind, the endorsement was out there.

It has been very interesting to read the opinions of other pundits since that occurred. What has become apparent is the importance and influence of the battlefront in election campaigns called New Media. Blog articles, online magazines, online political forums, Facebook, Twitter, hub sites dedicated to specific candidates or issues, etc. - they’re all part of it.

What is even more apparent is the fact that, in the case of this leadership race, Danielle Smith is winning the battle. Spend time on some of the party member’s favorite online haunts like nohippos.com or projectalberta.com, and you’ll get a distinct sense that the tide is in Smith’s favor.

Yet another blogger pundit, Manganic (http://manganic.blogspot.com/), has made public his support for Danielle Smith.

The reasons for his decision were very similar to my own. Mang, a self-professed social conservative, explained his choice of Smith over social conservative candidate Mark Dyrholm:

“What I find I like about Danielle is her pro-business, pro-freedom approach to policy. She may or may not be a socon, but by and large that doesn't matter to me. On the other hand, Dyrholm seems to wear being a socon on his sleeve. (He’s) very in-your-face about it.”

One of the main points I have made both in previous articles and in forum discussions is my belief that Smith gives the Wildrose Alliance the best shot at success against the formidable Progressive Conservative monolith. It is a point of view Mang shares:

“…For me, it boils down to elect-ability. Who do I believe mainstream Albertans are more likely to relate to and vote for - Mark Dyrholm, or Danielle Smith? The answer is obvious - Danielle Smith.”

Manganic’s endorsement represents but one of a growing number of party members well-versed in New Media, who are voicing their support for Danielle Smith. One believes he won’t be the last.

Willerton Drops Out. Yawn.

2009-09-16T23:27:00.000-06:00

At the end of the Calgary debate, candidate Jeff Willerton announced that his run at the leadership of the Wildrose Alliance had come to an end, and that he was throwing his miniscule support behind social conservative candidate Mark Dyrholm.

While another blog makes a good case that this has the appearance of a set-up, if turns out to be part of a staged stategy, then it would have no other option than to be considered a flop. Willerton never did get his campaign off the ground, cemented in the third place position from the beginning.

(For the life of me, I again can't help but recognize the handwriting that is all over this...)

Point blank, Willerton was comic relief at the debates, but never a serious contender.

No matter the real reason for Willerton's decision to quit, the result will be disappointing to the Dyrholm campaign, who will not see a significant rise in supporters - Jeff Willerton simply didn't have many to give.

Whether a planned gimmick or a genuine decision by Willerton, the media attention being given to Danielle Smith and the kudos she is already receiving for another fine debate performance has quickly reduced the Willerton move to a campaign news afterthought.

Leadership Debate Liveblog

2009-09-16T21:55:00.002-06:00

A big thank you to Manganic for posting his live blog updates from tonights Wildrose Alliance leadership debate from Calgary on The Moderate Separatist.

Check out his blog here: http://manganic.blogspot.com/

cheering section.jpg

2009-09-16T20:35:00.000-06:00

The Mark Dyrholm cheering section

Mark is very in-your-face.

Dianne is much lower key.

One will be successful.