Ralph's Dad Changes Parties

[mariners_fever]

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ub=CalgaryHome

[albertGQ]

Good. Hopefully this wakes the PCs up. I might even vote the WRA too to send a message

[redforever]

Contacted by press, he denied buying the membership?

[FireFly]

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/albe...14701-sun.html

Here's a better article. They spoke with him even. Me thinks he might not want to be irritated by the press is why he denied it.

We've had a few notables change parties lately...

[REDVAN]

Who cares?

(If he's a "real" conservative, I don't blame him either)

[Temporary_User]

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FireFly

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/albe...14701-sun.html

Here's a better article. They spoke with him even. Me thinks he might not want to be irritated by the press is why he denied it.

We've had a few notables change parties lately...

One notable being me. Go Dyrholm!!!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

One notable being me. Go Dyrholm!!!

You're serious?

[bcb]

The mere fact the Dyrkholm and Willerton are even in this race demonstrates to me that the WRA is nothing but a receptacle for fringe views.

Fiscal conservatism, like Danielle Smith is proposing is needed, but what the other two hopefuls don't get, is that most Albertans don't care for morality laws or 'family values'. We just want to be left alone.

[mariners_fever]

couldn't agree more. If Smith wins, the fringe element is no more. But until she does, those fringers still have a platform, unfortunately.

I refuse to even refer to him as Dyrholm, he's nothing more than Craig Chandler's latest puppet willing to do as he says.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by bcb

The mere fact the Dyrkholm and Willerton are even in this race demonstrates to me that the WRA is nothing but a receptacle for fringe views.

Fiscal conservatism, like Danielle Smith is proposing is needed, but what the other two hopefuls don't get, is that most Albertans don't care for morality laws or 'family values'. We just want to be left alone.

When I became part of the team, this was something that was discussed. The response went something like this:

We are a grassroots party dependant on the voice of the people for support. If someone is willing to run, the people of the party need to decide whether or not they should win... It is not up to the leadership committee to 'elect' a leader... that's not democracy.

As a side note, if you want to listen to the candidates speak, and potentially hear via crowd noise who gets the support, I might suggest heading down to the Blackfoot Inn at 7:30 on Wednesday for the leadership forum. The one in Edmonton last night was quite a success... estimates are anywhere between 200 and 275 attendees.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by FireFly

When I became part of the team, this was something that was discussed. The response went something like this:

We are a grassroots party dependant on the voice of the people for support. If someone is willing to run, the people of the party need to decide whether or not they should win... It is not up to the leadership committee to 'elect' a leader... that's not democracy.

A political party is a private organization. Your party has every right to vet its candidates.

Think about the federal Reform Party. Their goal was to be 100% grassroots. They soon learned that if they harbored extremists, it would turn others off.

So while your party's goal is idealistic and noble, plow ahead at your own risk.

[bcb]

BTW, would it have been so hard to tell Jeff Willerton (the man who's resume includes protesting gay pride parades) that running for leadership would only hinder the party?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by bcb

BTW, would it have been so hard to tell Jeff Willerton (the man who's resume includes protesting gay pride parades) that running for leadership would only hinder the party?

What I was told was this:

If the leadership committee says no, then he always thinks that if they had let him run, he would've won, and so he'll keep trying. If the membership votes and he loses, he'll understand that it's not the leadership committee, it's the party as a whole that doesn't want him to lead.

What it comes to though is that whomever we elect as leader will have veto power over who runs as candidates. So what you'd end up with is if Danielle wins, she vetos Jeff as being too right wing, and if Jeff wins, he vetos Danielle as being too moderate. In theory anyway. I don't know for certain either of those scenarios will play out, but the point is that the leader will direct the party for the future... And almost as important as who we choose as a new leader is who we can get to run in each riding. It's looking like we'll get some very strong candidates for the next election.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by FireFly

What I was told was this:

If the leadership committee says no, then he always thinks that if they had let him run, he would've won, and so he'll keep trying. If the membership votes and he loses, he'll understand that it's not the leadership committee, it's the party as a whole that doesn't want him to lead.

What it comes to though is that whomever we elect as leader will have veto power over who runs as candidates. So what you'd end up with is if Danielle wins, she vetos Jeff as being too right wing, and if Jeff wins, he vetos Danielle as being too moderate. In theory anyway. I don't know for certain either of those scenarios will play out, but the point is that the leader will direct the party for the future... And almost as important as who we choose as a new leader is who we can get to run in each riding. It's looking like we'll get some very strong candidates for the next election.

When you explain it like that, it makes sense, but I'm not sure your average elector will go through the same steps to arrive at your logic.

[TurnedTheCorner]

The burning debate in Alberta politics - are we as far right as we should be?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FireFly

What I was told was this:

If the leadership committee says no, then he always thinks that if they had let him run, he would've won, and so he'll keep trying. If the membership votes and he loses, he'll understand that it's not the leadership committee, it's the party as a whole that doesn't want him to lead.

What it comes to though is that whomever we elect as leader will have veto power over who runs as candidates. So what you'd end up with is if Danielle wins, she vetos Jeff as being too right wing, and if Jeff wins, he vetos Danielle as being too moderate. In theory anyway. I don't know for certain either of those scenarios will play out, but the point is that the leader will direct the party for the future... And almost as important as who we choose as a new leader is who we can get to run in each riding. It's looking like we'll get some very strong candidates for the next election.

The part here about the moderates being "vetoed" is exactly why people who are truly social moderates ought to pay the $10 and support Dyrholm. The only people who seem convinced that this party is anywhere near moderate socially seem to be the paid staff! Nothing in the media suggests this, the only candidates with a position on these issues in the leadership race certainly aren't moderates either.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Slava

The part here about the moderates being "vetoed" is exactly why people who are truly social moderates ought to pay the $10 and support Dyrholm. The only people who seem convinced that this party is anywhere near moderate socially seem to be the paid staff! Nothing in the media suggests this, the only candidates with a position on these issues in the leadership race certainly aren't moderates either.

? The same can be said in reverse too... The question was about Jeff so that's how I answered it. Swap out Jeff's name and swap in Danielle's and you get the same explaination... I'm not really sure Dyrholm counts as socially moderate though.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by Slava

The part here about the moderates being "vetoed" is exactly why people who are truly social moderates ought to pay the $10 and support Dyrholm. The only people who seem convinced that this party is anywhere near moderate socially seem to be the paid staff! Nothing in the media suggests this, the only candidates with a position on these issues in the leadership race certainly aren't moderates either.

What's with all this 'social moderate' business? What's wrong with being an old fashioned Libertarian?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

In all the years of the Simpsons, did we ever see Ralph's Mom?