April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Makarov

From the Wildrose Alliance's website:



WTF? Who are they referring to here? The provincial Conservatives? Or some shadowing conspiracy? Very strange.

I also enjoyed the juxtaposition of "Wildrose has been campaigning positively" and "[t]hey want nothing more than to see the Redford PCs re-elected to impose their big government-knows-best, ivory tower views on all of us."

Yeah, looks like the "weekend shift" spin doctors were on that one. With the type of material given to them from Kinsella, and the liberties afforded by Ontario media attacking Alberta politicians, they definitely could have done a lot better than sounding like angry old men at the nursing home.

[edslunch]

"[t]hey want nothing more than to see the Redford PCs re-elected to impose their big government-knows-best, ivory tower views on all of us."

This is rich. Danielle Smith trained at the ivory tower of the UofC 'Calgary School' and has the ultimate ivory tower ideologue Tom Flanagan as here campaign manager and mentor. The WR platform is full of ivory tower theories.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I think the Wildrose is lucky this election is next week and not say a month from now. At some point in the next few days they are going to have to start talking more or I don't see (or at least hope) how people can vote from them. How can you trust someone you know very little about?

Originally Posted by First Lady

Again (I'm pretty sure I've stated this before) all candidates have had their bonds returned. Bonds are only being held on the unsuccessful nominee candidates, like my husband.

AND bonds have nothing to do with freedom of speech, but rather following the rules.

Huh? If the rules state you can't speak freely, then how does it have nothing to do with freedom of speech?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by edslunch

This is rich. Danielle Smith trained at the ivory tower of the UofC 'Calgary School' and has the ultimate ivory tower ideologue Tom Flanagan as here campaign manager and mentor. The WR platform is full of ivory tower theories.

You just don't get it, do you?

When university-affiliated politicos make left-wing policy suggestions, they're pointy-headed ivory tower intellectuals who think they're better than everyone else. When university-affiliated politicos make right-wing policy suggestions, they're common-sense conservatives standing up for the little guy and telling it like it is.

[Bunk]

^ Don't forget, if you live in some sort of hoity toity inner city community you're a latte lifting elitist too!

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Bunk

^ Don't forget, if you live in some sort of hoity toity inner city community you're a latte lifting elitist too!

That goes without saying!

[Lionel Steel]

Originally Posted by Makarov

From the Wildrose Alliance's website:



WTF? Who are they referring to here? The provincial Conservatives? Or some shadowing conspiracy? Very strange.

I also enjoyed the juxtaposition of "Wildrose has been campaigning positively" and "[t]hey want nothing more than to see the Redford PCs re-elected to impose their big government-knows-best, ivory tower views on all of us."

This is pathetic. They might as well bring up Pierre Trudeau and the NEP while they're at it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Yeah, looks like the "weekend shift" spin doctors were on that one. With the type of material given to them from Kinsella, and the liberties afforded by Ontario media attacking Alberta politicians, they definitely could have done a lot better than sounding like angry old men at the nursing home.

I'm afraid not:

Sincerely,

Cliff Fryers, Wildrose Campaign Chair

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You just don't get it, do you?

When university-affiliated politicos make left-wing policy suggestions, they're pointy-headed ivory tower intellectuals who think they're better than everyone else. When university-affiliated politicos make right-wing policy suggestions, they're common-sense conservatives standing up for the little guy and telling it like it is.

One of the great successes of the conservative movement over the last 20 years has been to change the way people and ideas are framed. For example intellectual = elite = liberal, common people = hard-working ordinary Canadians = conservative, liberal = socialist = tax and spend, conservative = common sense = financially responsible.

The fact that Tom Flanagan is nothing if not an intellectual; oil company executives are nothing if not elites; unionized workers are nothing if not hard-working ordinary Canadians; the Harper government is one of the more profligate in recent memory, etc. doesn't seem to come across as irony.

Another good one is the constant complaining about the 'liberal media'. Apart from the Toronto Star and at times the CBC it's pretty hard to find a major media outlert that isn't solidly behind a financially conservative corporate agenda. [edit] not that there's anything wrong with a financially conservative agenda, just spare me the complaints about the liberal lamestream media.

[Senator Clay Davis]

That's where you gotta give conservatives credit though. They're better at politcs than liberals are, they're better at convincing people of their argument, no matter how silly or wrong it is. They excel at getting people to vote against their own best interest (admitedly more in America)

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Yeah, looks like the "weekend shift" spin doctors were on that one. With the type of material given to them from Kinsella, and the liberties afforded by Ontario media attacking Alberta politicians, they definitely could have done a lot better than sounding like angry old men at the nursing home.

That came out last Monday, in conjunction with the 5th and final Pledge.

http://www.wildrose.ca/feature/wildr...ntability-act/

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Huh? If the rules state you can't speak freely, then how does it have nothing to do with freedom of speech?

Can you show me where it says that in the rules? Page and point # would be helpful.

Thanks

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Again (I'm pretty sure I've stated this before) all candidates have had their bonds returned. Bonds are only being held on the unsuccessful nominee candidates, like my husband.

AND bonds have nothing to do with freedom of speech, but rather following the rules.

At a campaign stop in Calgary on Saturday, Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith confirmed the good conduct bonds of $1,000 paid by anyone who ran for a party nomination. If they behave, they get it back.



So far, only candidates who actually won the nominations have had the money paid back, Ms. Smith said, but they're also on a leash: They’re asked to clear any media requests with head office.

The quote is from the article in the Globe and Mail. I haven't read the "rules" but if there's a behavior clause in there, then while censoring free speech isn't in writing, its implied because of the broad nature of a behavior rule. Speaking out to the detriment of the party would no doubt be considered breaking the behavior rule.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by First Lady

That came out last Monday, in conjunction with the 5th and final Pledge.

http://www.wildrose.ca/feature/wildr...ntability-act/

Good to see there's nothing in there about assassinating whistlebowers - I guess Tom was involved in writing this section

Seriously, though, while I think the direct democracy ideas are misguided and likely to have unintended consequences, it's hard to argue against greater government accountability after the way the PCs have governed over the years. I don't doubt that once a new government opens the closet they will find many more skeletons.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The quote is from the article in the Globe and Mail. I haven't read the "rules" but if there's a behavior clause in there, then while censoring free speech isn't implicitly in writing, its implied because of the broad nature of a behavior rule. Speaking out to the detriment of the party would no doubt be considered breaking the behavior rule.

Here are the rules

Here is a more balanced article on the issue


Again I will point out two facts.

1) all candidates running have already been reimbursed their bonds.

2) there are 55 people who ran as nominee candidates, who haven't had bonds refunded. You can confirm that figure here. Listed under liabilities "performance bonds"


And for a real life example, my husband is subject to it.

See his blog or follow him on Twitter.

He's also done 3 or 4 interviews with Sun News


Doesn't seem too gagged to me.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I still don't like it at all, and while it doesn't really censor free speech I guess, the fact is in politics not everyone can win. And some people lose with dignity and bow out and say nothig or even support the other candidate. And some people lack these things and would prefer to slam the other candidate. I'm cool with either because thats what freedom of speech gives us. I know you've mentioned some people have still broken the rule for the $1,000, but there really shouldn't be a rule to begin with.

[kn]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

When university-affiliated politicos make left-wing policy suggestions, they're pointy-headed ivory tower intellectuals who think they're better than everyone else. When university-affiliated politicos make right-wing policy suggestions, they're common-sense conservatives standing up for the little guy and telling it like it is.

When university-affiliated politicos make left-wing policy suggestions, they're demonstrating a rational understanding of society, able to compassionately balance competing interests with policy. When university-affiliated politicos make right-wing policy suggestions, they're self-serving backed by corporate elite, with no intent on protecting the disadvantaged or the public interest.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare
When university-affiliated politicos make left-wing policy suggestions, they're pointy-headed ivory tower intellectuals who think they're better than everyone else. When university-affiliated politicos make right-wing policy suggestions, they're common-sense conservatives standing up for the little guy and telling it like it is.

Originally Posted by kn

When university-affiliated politicos make left-wing policy suggestions, they're demonstrating a rational understanding of society, able to compassionately balance competing interests with policy. When university-affiliated politicos make right-wing policy suggestions, they're self-serving backed by corporate elite, with no intent on protecting the disadvantaged or the public interest.

This is why the words Political and Science should never be used together. Political Scientists rarely meet the sort of objective standard that science requires, regardless of their political stripe.

[kn]

I don't know much about twitter and didn't realize you could just follow along without signing up. I've found the following (thread?) interesting:

http://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/%23abvote

It's on "fire" with the recent Hunsperger blog. If this is any indication, Wildrose isn't getting elected.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by edslunch

This is why the words Political and Science should never be used together. Political Scientists rarely meet the sort of objective standard that science requires, regardless of their political stripe.

That wasn't really the point though, was it? The WRP attacked the PCs on the basis that they would "impose their big government-knows-best, ivory tower views on all of us". No other parties have thrown around this "ivory tower" rhetoric, especially not against the WRP, despite the fact that many of its platform elements were forged in the same ivory towers.