I don't disagree, Knalus--but I'm not convinced that Wild Rose represents the right kind of change--or even that they represent "change" at all.
They seem to be the same party with green lawn signs and somewhat less-qualified (and, let's face it, dumber--though apparently pointing that out makes you an elitist. I prefer to think of myself as someone who would prefer that my elected officials have something between the ears) than their PC predecessors. Their braintrust is transplanted from the 1990s PCs (Rod Love, Tom Flanagan, eg)--and I remind you that it was the 1990s PCs under Klein that gave us the legacy of the no-meet committee.
I'm in a tough spot in this election, because I completely agree that the PCs deserve the boot. But the Wild Rose just aren't credible. I'm sorry, but they're not. Who is going to make up the cabinet? Is Ron Leech going to be a minister? Will Hunsberger get the education portfolio?
The fact is, Wild Rose has tapped into a widespread disaffection with the tories, but they've forgotten to tell us how they'll be different. Perhaps that's because they won't be--but they will be less experienced, and they will on average be less qualified. That's not supposed to be alarming? Governance is not easy.
On the other hand, I have an equally hard time justifying a vote for the Liberals right now (though that's probably what I'll wind up doing), because they've become so irrelevant.
|