April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[pylon]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...-reaction.html

First Lady:

Take this to your party. My Family, and 6 other people I know, have all gone from supporting the Wildrose Party with sure vote, to refusing to vote for your party as long as you have gay bashing bigots as candidates, and a leader who refuses to demand such a spooky individual step down. 10 votes in my circle of influence lost, and I will be sure to spread this information to every person I know, and implore those people to vote against Wildrose in any way possible as long as this candidate remains on the Ballot, and a member of your Party.

I will vote for the crooked PC's any day of the week over a party that supports gay bashing bigots.

Use your heads people, vote anything but Wildrose in the memory of someone very dear to me. That is all I will say on this matter, as I am sure it has been discussed.

[Maccalus]

Originally Posted by pylon

I will vote for the crooked PC's any day of the week over a party that supports gay bashing bigots.

Use your heads people, vote anything but Wildrose in the memory of someone very dear to me. That is all I will say on this matter, as I am sure it has been discussed.

“The gay-feminist project has become a social engineering project - to use the coercive power of the state to undermine the existing family.”

Ted Morton, PC Energy MinisterEdmonton Journal, May 26, 2009

So you will vote for the party that made someone who had Anti-gay comments a cabinet minister over a party who has no record of the sort?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah, it is pretty vague. If it's just "you are a teacher, here's 500 bucks", that's something else, and I don't like it either.

It's $50. It lowers your taxable income $500, which at the marginal tax bracket that teachers are in (which is pretty simple to figure out in Alberta) means they pay $50 less in tax.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Maccalus

“The gay-feminist project has become a social engineering project - to use the coercive power of the state to undermine the existing family.”

Ted Morton, PC Energy MinisterEdmonton Journal, May 26, 2009

So you will vote for the party that made someone who had Anti-gay comments a cabinet minister over a party who has no record of the sort?

That is a far cry from suggesting that all gays should burn in a lake of fire. One is an opinion on social dynamics, one borders on hate speech you would expect from the Phelps family.

I am done in this thread, and primarily wanted to let Firstlady know how the decision of her great leader to not boot this buffoon has cost her party my vote.

[Dion]

Indeed, it does beg the question: Who does make up the government? What follows is a column by Conservative Ted Morton, the province’s Energy minister, writing a decade ago in the Herald. Morton, of course, went on to a stellar career with the Tories and repeatedly championed the failed Bill 208 that sought to amend the provincial Human Rights Act to protect people from being tried or sanctioned for “the expression or exercise” of beliefs opposed to same-sex marriage. It also permitted marriage commissioners and clergymen to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

Sound familiar? Redford, who beat Morton for the party leadership just a few months ago, apparently has never heard of him. Or maybe if you’re a Tory candidate in this election, your beliefs are beyond reproach. It’s a bit rich to be critical of a pastor while overlooking the efforts Morton has made over the years to denigrate the gay community as a member of the Tory caucus.

http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2012/...ic-of-society/

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Maccalus

“The gay-feminist project has become a social engineering project - to use the coercive power of the state to undermine the existing family.”

Ted Morton, PC Energy MinisterEdmonton Journal, May 26, 2009

So you will vote for the party that made someone who had Anti-gay comments a cabinet minister over a party who has no record of the sort?

It is definitely troubling that Morton is still a PC candidate. For me, there is no doubt a certain amount of holding my nose when I vote PC. However, I can take some comfort in knowing that Redford's human rights pedigree is among the strongest in the entire province (entire country perhaps.) And as far as I know, we haven't heard any homophobic comments from a PC MLA or candidate since Redford became leader (admittedly, its a small sample size.)

[kn]

The difference is that Morton is a skilled communicator with a PhD from an *accredited* university and knows when to keep his mouth shut. It's not like his personal views have changed since 2009. Well, maybe, but I'd be surprised.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by kn

The difference is that Morton is a skilled communicator with a PhD from an *accredited* university and knows when to keep his mouth shut. It's not like his personal views have changed since 2009. Well, maybe, but I'd be surprised.

I sincerely doubt his views have changed. The test for Redford will be when (a) Morton makes new offensive remarks; or (b) someone in the media asks her about Redford's historic remarks. I strongly suspect that, when faced with that test, she will condemn those remarks. If she doesn't, she will have failed the test as spectacularly as Smith failed her test.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by kn

The difference is that Morton is a skilled communicator with a PhD from an *accredited* university and knows when to keep his mouth shut. It's not like his personal views have changed since 2009. Well, maybe, but I'd be surprised.

I think this really is it. It would be naive to think that the PC party, which up until this election was the only real right wing option for Albertans, did not have any socially conservative people running as candidates.

I do think the emergence of the WRP would have 'drafted' many/most of those people, especially those at the far end of the spectrum, so if I was a betting man I would say that the concentration would be higher there, but clearly some remain within the PC party.

Even if it boils down to someone not being smart enough to understand what things are appropriate to say during an election campaign, you can still take something away from it.

[Sr. Mints]

During the 2010 municipal election, it was clear from the start who I would not be voting for, but it was unclear who I would vote for.

In the weeks leading up to the election, I decided I liked Nenshi. I may not have agreed with everything he had to say, I did not understand all of his numbers. But as someone who puts a lot of stock in his instinct and 'gut feeling,' my instinct told me Nenshi was the most open, honest, and progressive candidate running.

I'm not a partisan voter--except when it comes to NOT voting for the NDP--and during this provincial campaign, I honestly hoped someone would jump out in front; someone my instinct told me was a solid choice, someone whose ideas mostly aligned with my own. I've met both the Wildrose and PC candidate in my riding, and they both seemed friendly enough, but it's as though not a day goes by when a leader from one of the four parties doesn't say or do something eyebrow-raising from out of left field.

I dare say, Brian Mason strikes me as the coolest cat of the bunch.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I sincerely doubt his views have changed. The test for Redford will be when (a) Morton makes new offensive remarks; or (b) someone in the media asks her about Redford's historic remarks. I strongly suspect that, when faced with that test, she will condemn those remarks. If she doesn't, she will have failed the test as spectacularly as Smith failed her test.

Redford is a hypocrite. Why doesn't she condem those remarks now? Or is she hoping that no one will bring it up so she doesn't have to deal with it?

Sounds familiar to the no pay committee where voter outrage forced her to deal with something she originaly was going to do nothing about. Frankly, if there wasn't an election she would have stuck to her guns and PC MLA's would have paid back nothing..

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by pylon

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...-reaction.html

First Lady:

Take this to your party. My Family, and 6 other people I know, have all gone from supporting the Wildrose Party with sure vote, to refusing to vote for your party as long as you have gay bashing bigots as candidates, and a leader who refuses to demand such a spooky individual step down. 10 votes in my circle of influence lost, and I will be sure to spread this information to every person I know, and implore those people to vote against Wildrose in any way possible as long as this candidate remains on the Ballot, and a member of your Party.

I will vote for the crooked PC's any day of the week over a party that supports gay bashing bigots.

Use your heads people, vote anything but Wildrose in the memory of someone very dear to me. That is all I will say on this matter, as I am sure it has been discussed.

I will relay your words verbatim

I'm not a spokesperson for the party, but anything I say would still be construed as such.

So I will leave it at this (my own personal words, not party) ...

... I am very fortunate I live in a constituency where we have an amazing Wildrose candidate (Jeremy Nixon). My choice is easy, even if I wasn't affiliated with a party he would be my choice. I hope everyone considers all the candidates in their own area and please choose wisely; that will be what gets us the best government.

[Maccalus]

I just threw out that quote looking to stimulate discussion and see if people's logic was sound. I am not a big fan of the crazy candidates (every party has them), but the beauty of the parliamentary system is these candidates get pushed to the backbenches and their views are tempered by the party, its policy document and the party whip.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Dion

Redford is a hypocrite. Why doesn't she condem those remarks now? Or is she hoping that no one will bring it up so she doesn't have to deal with it?

Of course she's hoping that no one will bring it up so that she doesn't have to deal with it. This is an election campaign. It would be awfully risky to voluntarily start bringing up scandals among your candidates just so that you can publicly condemn them. I think you're holding her to too high a standard. As I said, in my opinion, the test will be if the media brings it up to her (which may well happen.)

[Dion]

Huntsberger isn't going to win his riding anyway. Voters will see him for the bigot he is and vote in another candidate.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Of course she's hoping that no one will bring it up so that she doesn't have to deal with it. This is an election campaign. It would be awfully risky to voluntarily start bringing up scandals among your candidates just so that you can publicly condemn them. I think you're holding her to too high a standard. As I said, in my opinion, the test will be if the media brings it up to her (which may well happen.)

I'm holding her to a standard in which she judged Huntsberger. Thankfully Huntsberger will not be elected as WR and Morton should be kicked out of the PC party. How can you trust a leader who isn't consistant in her views? I know I can't.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Dion

I'm holding her to a standard in which she judged Huntsberger. Thankfully Huntsberger will not be elected as WR and Morton should be kicked out of the PC party. How can you trust a leader who isn't consistant in her views? I know I can't.

I understand what you're saying. I just don't think that any politician (or very few anyway) would voluntarily bring up scandalous statements of their own candidates in the middle of an election campaign just to condemn them. I wish she would. I just think that it is asking too much.

Anyway, if the media does make Morton an issue, and does put his comments to Redford, and Redford fails to condemn them, then Redford will have lost all credibility in my eyes, and I won't be able to vote PC.

Just out of curiosity, do you intend to vote for the WRP? If so, I'm not sure I understand your position. How can you support Smith who, when actually confronted, failed to condemn even more hateful comments than Morton's?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Sr. Mints

I dare say, Brian Mason strikes me as the coolest cat of the bunch.

Much like with Jack Layton (RIP), that's not enough for me. You can be the nicest guy in the world with the best intentions, but if you have economy-destroying policies, that's kind of a deal breaker.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I understand what you're saying. I just don't think that any politician (or very few anyway) would voluntarily bring up scandalous statements of their own candidates in the middle of an election campaign just to condemn them. I wish she would. I just think that it is asking too much.

Anyway, if the media does make Morton an issue, and does put his comments to Redford, and Redford fails to condemn them, then Redford will have lost all credibility in my eyes, and I won't be able to vote PC.

Just out of curiosity, do you intend to vote for the WRP? If so, I'm not sure I understand your position. How can you support Smith who, when actually confronted, failed to condemn even more hateful comments than Morton's?

If Huntsburger was in my riding i'd be voting for someone else. As for Smith I feel she's letting the voters decide and that is my view also. In fact not removing him hurts the WR as they will lose a riding.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Dion

I'm holding her to a standard in which she judged Huntsberger. Thankfully Huntsberger will not be elected as WR and Morton should be kicked out of the PC party. How can you trust a leader who isn't consistant in her views? I know I can't.

Well to be fair, you wouldn't trust her regardless of what was happening, you have been very clear of that throughout this thread.

As has been mentioned, of course you don't pull the skeletons out of your own closet during an election. You didn't see Danielle Smith mentioning that she had racists and bigots in her party before this broke so why would you expect someone else to do it?

I suspect that people, including the media, made a big deal out of Hunsperger and Leech while essentially leaving Morton alone for 2 main reasons:

1) The comments, while indicating a similarity in the core belief structure of the individuals involved, are not of the same magnitude in terms of hatred expressed.

2) People know who Morton is. He has ran for the leadership of the party and I know that issue was brought up then. People won't necessarily know who Leech and Hunsperger are, I know I didn't before this blew up. By its very nature, the media will focus on things that are new and sensational. You don't often see news reports that say: "Nothing to see here, everything is the same today as yesterday" because that isn't news.