Petro-investors prefer Manitoba over Alberta, Saskatchewan: survey

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Right now, as much as it pains me, I'd vote Liberal. The Wild Rose Alliance has too many of the wrong people and unpalatable social policies, despite appearing clearly superior economically speaking.

Specifics please...

However my big worry is that the Liberals seem about as economically ######ed as the PCs are. At least Dr. Swann knows that healthcare efficiency doesn't mean cutting beds and jobs.

I think Swann's solution involves simply throwing more money at a broken system.

The big plus in voting Liberal is that it might force Special Ed and his band of Rural-minded hicks out, and some intelligent PCs in.

Liberals may get elected in Calgary or Edmonton; it is not going to reduce rural PC MLA's. Besides it is a complete rot from within; they need a good cleansing to get them back on track.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by 4X4

But the PCs need a message sent to them. Bad.

Cool, our slogan is already gaining steam.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Specifics please...

While it might not be fair, when Hinman opened his mouth about social issues, he painted the WRA as religious, old school, and backward. Essentially, everything that the Stelmach government has done, really. However, people may overlook the current PCs because they still have fond memories of Klein and Lougheed (even Getty) being more in line with the ideal PC outlook. When people think of the Wildrose Alliance, they will think of Social Conservatives like Hinman and Thorsteinson, and their religious views. Politics isn't about accuracy, its about perception, and those two put you guys in a bad place optics wise. There's really nothing else for the average voter to go on, and it will take a lot of time and energy to change that. Good luck though, we really need a legitimate alternative.


I think Swann's solution involves simply throwing more money at a broken system.

And until people wake up and smell the coffee, that's about all one can responsibly do. The system is broken, but cutting it will only make a bad situation worse. What the government is doing is reckless and cowardly. The costs are spiralling out of control because of union issues, administration and bureaucracy. Consolidating the top means nothing if there's still thousands of bureaucrats. All they are doing is cutting at the easiest level, the front lines. For a union related example, rather than limit how many top end RNs can work overtime at upwards of $90/hr, they cut the positions outright, rather than force the younger $42/hr RNs into the positions. People need to be at the point where they realize a regulated private system, like Europe, is the necessary solution. Sadly, the political will simply isn't there... yet. Right now, the PCs are simply too inept to try.



Liberals may get elected in Calgary or Edmonton; it is not going to reduce rural PC MLA's. Besides it is a complete rot from within; they need a good cleansing to get them back on track.

Its true, the system is pretty pooched, but unless the cities make themselves heard and vote in a non-PC party en masse, nothing will provoke the necessary change.

[ken0042]

First Lady, if anything has scared me out of ever considering voting WRA is your posts here. They strike me as pure politics; mounds and mounds of rhetoric as opposed to listening to what the people want.

I consider myself to be quite right wing, but last election as an alternative to Ed's party I voted Liberal; trying not to throw up in my mouth a little as I marked that box.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

While it might not be fair, when Hinman opened his mouth about social issues, he painted the WRA as religious, old school, and backward. Essentially, everything that the Stelmach government has done, really. However, people may overlook the current PCs because they still have fond memories of Klein and Lougheed (even Getty) being more in line with the ideal PC outlook. When people think of the Wildrose Alliance, they will think of Social Conservatives like Hinman and Thorsteinson, and their religious views. Politics isn't about accuracy, its about perception, and those two put you guys in a bad place optics wise. There's really nothing else for the average voter to go on, and it will take a lot of time and energy to change that. Good luck though, we really need a legitimate alternative.

I have said it several times before any "one" person, is just one vote when it comes to policies. In fact the leader does not even have a vote on the provincial board.

Some have pointed to me and said it is bad for the party to have such a "liberal" woman in a high profile position. I was an unwed teenage mother, I am tatoo'ed, I am divorced, have absolutely no issue with gay people marrying and on, and on.

I think you would be very hard pressed to find religous quotes from Paul. You are far more likely to find Pastafarian ones from my husband. (who also has held several positions on the board)

[Homer_J]

.......

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by ken0042

First Lady, if anything has scared me out of ever considering voting WRA is your posts here. They strike me as pure politics; mounds and mounds of rhetoric as opposed to listening to what the people want.

Well, I don't see Jim Campbell posting here; so you can pretty sure they are not paying any attention to you.

As for not listening, well we just past a new policy set; bringing our bloated document down from 50 pages to approximately 10. This was accomplished by many individuals coming together to create not only leaner document; but one that focused on the concerns we were hearing from all Albertans.

Our policies are determined by our members, but it is the input and feedback that we get in the public (like here on CP) that help us formulate the direction we need to go.

[Bobblehead]

I personally don't like even the "Alberta vs Canada" rhetoric that seems to come from WRA supporters. I'm pretty patriotic and consider myself Canadian first and Albertan and/or Calgarian somewhere down the chain. Any party that even hints at something like a firewall won't get a vote from me, no matter how great the rest of their platform.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I personally don't like even the "Alberta vs Canada" rhetoric that seems to come from WRA supporters. I'm pretty patriotic and consider myself Canadian first and Albertan and/or Calgarian somewhere down the chain. Any party that even hints at something like a firewall won't get a vote from me, no matter how great the rest of their platform.

I am a federalist as well, a very pro-Alberta one, but a federalist none the less.

The PC's are already implementing firewall concepts; standing up for issues that are provinicial jurisdiction is a responsibility of each provincial government. (IMHO)

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I have said it several times before any "one" person, is just one vote when it comes to policies. In fact the leader does not even have a vote on the provincial board.

Some have pointed to me and said it is bad for the party to have such a "liberal" woman in a high profile position. I was an unwed teenage mother, I am tatoo'ed, I am divorced, have absolutely no issue with gay people marrying and on, and on.

I think you would be very hard pressed to find religous quotes from Paul. You are far more likely to find Pastafarian ones from my husband. (who also has held several positions on the board)

Be that as it may, the leader is the face of the party. When the only people who have ever been the face of the party are people who have done damage to the party, that's what people remember.

Sure, Hinman didn't come out and say anything clearly religious (which is wise), but when asked about child care in the televised debate, he replied essentially with the wife belongs in the home rhetoric. Idiotic stuff, ironically mirrored by Iris Evans (but I think she has a little more leeway to talk out of her ass in a sexist manner since she's a woman calling out women's progress). That's a pretty traditional (and often religious) view. Especially when you consider he was the candidate for Cardston-Taber-Warner, which is a fairly mormon riding, and people tend to put the pieces together themselves. It doesn't matter if that's correct. Politics aren't about being correct, unfortunately, its about presenting the best package.

The Alliance needs more people like you in their mix and up front. Minorities, gays, women, divorcees, blended families, interracial couples, all backgrounds. Would be tough to call you guys out for Hinman and Thorsteinson's reputations when the party is surrounded by demographics like that.

Its very unfortunate that Libertarians tend to throw their hats in the ring with, or perhaps more accurately, get grouped up with the religious right. The ideals really don't mesh.

Convert the WRA into a progressive libertarian party with sound fiscal policy, pro-business attitudes, a pulse on urban issues and no patience for the religious right, and watch the votes roll in. Some of that appears to already be in place.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I am a federalist as well, a very pro-Alberta one, but a federalist none the less.

The PC's are already implementing firewall concepts; standing up for issues that are provinicial jurisdiction is a responsibility of each provincial government. (IMHO)

Weren't you also a member on another political board that was very pro-Alberta separation?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Weren't you also a member on another political board that was very pro-Alberta separation?

No. The Alberta Alliance was the first board I have sat on; then the Wildrose Alliance.

I don't see what the issue would be if I had. We have members who have been involved in the PC's, GRN, SC, AP, SPA, even a couple of LIBs have migrated to us.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Be that as it may, the leader is the face of the party. When the only people who have ever been the face of the party are people who have done damage to the party, that's what people remember.

Sure, Hinman didn't come out and say anything clearly religious (which is wise), but when asked about child care in the televised debate, he replied essentially with the wife belongs in the home rhetoric. Idiotic stuff, ironically mirrored by Iris Evans (but I think she has a little more leeway to talk out of her ass in a sexist manner since she's a woman calling out women's progress). That's a pretty traditional (and often religious) view.

I agree the leader is the face of the party and we will have a new one by October. I don't feel Paul or Iris have caused any huge damage to either party. I think he has done a great deal to get us to this point and did the right thing by stepping aside for someone else to take us to the next level.

I agree Paul did not articulate our position well in that particular case. (and yes, we have discussed it) All in all though the feedback on the debate was very favorable.

Especially when you consider he was the candidate for Cardston-Taber-Warner, which is a fairly mormon riding, and people tend to put the pieces together themselves. It doesn't matter if that's correct. Politics aren't about being correct, unfortunately, its about presenting the best package.

They elected Broyce Jacobs; also a mormon. Other areas have elected Tony Abbott; a minister and one of the female Calgary MLA's (her name escapes me right now) is a Sunday School teacher. I don't see religious involvement as being a huge impediment to being electable.

The Alliance needs more people like you in their mix and up front. Minorities, gays, women, divorcees, blended families, interracial couples, all backgrounds. Would be tough to call you guys out for Hinman and Thorsteinson's reputations when the party is surrounded by demographics like that.

We do have a number of members that would fit into those groups. In fact Paul himself is divorced. We try not to parade our members around.

Its very unfortunate that Libertarians tend to throw their hats in the ring with, or perhaps more accurately, get grouped up with the religious right. The ideals really don't mesh.

Actually they mesh very well. Libertarians (and our party) generally believe in freedom and protection of rights. The majority of the religious right just want to be left alone to have the freedom for themselves, their church and family to practice their religion.

Unfortunately it is a very small group who want to ram their beliefs down societys' collective throat.

I expand more on this here: http://janemorgan.blogspot.com/2009/...t-another.html

Convert the WRA into a progressive libertarian party with sound fiscal policy, pro-business attitudes, a pulse on urban issues and no patience for the religious right, and watch the votes roll in. Some of that appears to already be in place.

I would agree nearly all of it is in place, except the "no patience for the religious right". I really don't know what you mean by that.

If you mean the Bill Whatcotts of the world; I don't think I (personally) ever had any patience for them....
But I do support their right to spew the garbage they do.

[Bobblehead]

Your party can't have moved very from from these statements, made last winter:

Cory Morgan, the Wildrose Alliance's vice-president of policy, said that typically, Albertan desire for separation from the rest of Canada tends to rise and fall, frequently and sporadically.
"People are hot and bothered now, and you know, we've had a spike in the people calling in and saying “I've had it, I want out . . . but then typically, when the issue cools down, people tend to draw back a little from their desire for separation."
Morgan said that what the alliance needs to do now is redirect the rage away from a big step like complete separation from the country, and instead, focus on smaller incremental steps. This would include setting up legal mechanisms in the Alberta legislature that would allow for a future referendum on separation.
"We want to get more Albertans to not be afraid of talking about secession, and events like this can help push the dialogue forwards," said Morgan.

http://rmh-mountaineer.awna.com/news...sternrage.html

Less than a year ago, and that sounds like separation was your direction at that point in time.

Edit: Sorry - it appears those statements were made in 2007, so a couple years ago. I'm not sure that changes anything, but I do stand corrected.

[Azure]

Well, if the majority of Albertans want to separate....

Either way, I doubt it will happen....and the statements at that time were made by what I saw as a party trying to find its way.

Give them time. I didn't like what I saw last go around either, but they were becoming better and better with their policies and outlook, IMO.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, if the majority of Albertans want to separate....

Either way, I doubt it will happen....and the statements at that time were made by what I saw as a party trying to find its way.

Give them time. I didn't like what I saw last go around either, but they were becoming better and better with their policies and outlook, IMO.

I'm just explaining why this party won't get my vote. I can love their other policies but this one, or even the shadow of this one, is a show stopper for me.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Your party can't have moved very from from these statements, made last winter:http://rmh-mountaineer.awna.com/news...sternrage.html

Less than a year ago, and that sounds like separation was your direction at that point in time.

Let's remember the context.

A quotes from a newspaper during a time when there was a possible federal NDP/LIB/BLOC coalition.
And really what did he say; he supports referendum. Yes, we still support referenda; we have never supported separation.


Cory Morgan, June 7, 2009

Another reality of grassroots policy development is that some members will submit some let’s say less than rational proposals at times. Opponents try to paint the party as radical when they get wind of such things at times. What really counts is how well those oddball policy proposals are received when presented to the membership at an AGM. The policy calling for an immediate referendum on separation from Canada was dropped by it’s proponent after the membership resoundingly rejected her other proposal to have the party principle speaking to working within a unified Canada dropped. This should put to rest those trying to paint the Wildrose Alliance as being a separatist party. Somebody tried to move the party into that direction of political suicide and the attempt was rejected en-masse by the gathered members. Those who want to pursue a separatist mandate should join the Separation Party of Alberta and share in the 1% showing that they had in the one constituency that they contested in the last general election.

Source: http://www.corymorgan.com/

You should read this book if you really want a clear picture on my husband's position on separation.

http://www.freedompress.ca/collectio...m-then-and-now

Editted to add: Link to review of above noted book.
http://westernstandard.ca/website/ar...d=2979&start=0

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Edit: Sorry - it appears those statements were made in 2007, so a couple years ago. I'm not sure that changes anything, but I do stand corrected.

You were right the first time; it was Dec 2008.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I'm just explaining why this party won't get my vote. I can love their other policies but this one, or even the shadow of this one, is a show stopper for me.

We don't have a policy on separation and never have.

[Bobblehead]

Yeah, I read that on his blog even before I posted. I just didn't want to wade into the whole, "have his views changed or is this a ploy to make the party more palatable to the general public" quagmire. And yes, I knew he is your husband but didn't want to make the discussion appear like I was getting personal. I was looking at him as the VP of the WRA.

Politics has become a field where I find myself looking for the least evil. I'm not sure where my idealism has gone but there doesn't seem to be any "good" parties.

In federal politics I'm dismayed by the back room antics of the Liberals; Disgusted by the dirty smear campaign of the PCs; NDP I don't trust to run the economy into the ground; even the Greens who in previous campaigns were out there with their environmental policies used to have decent fiscal ideas, but even those are gone.

Provincially Ed has proven himself a poor leader, the Liberals had an opportunity but picked a new leader that shifted them even further away from power and the WRA I've outlined some of my issues.

And one vote seems pretty impotent, especially when it seems like any promise a party makes will be broken once the reality of governance sets in.