April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Rathji

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.

Redford made an issue out of Huntsbergers comments and Smith didn't. Smith also didn't mention Mortons comments in retaliation.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Dion

Redford made an issue out of Huntsbergers comments and Smith didn't.

I am confused. Smith didn't make an issue out of Hunsperger's comments and you are fine with that but you want Redford to call out Morton on his? I think I am missing what you are trying to say here.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Dion

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.

Yes, well, she is letting the voters decide alright. I hope that the voters respond accordingly to a party who's leader refused to condemn Hunsperger's and Leech's comments when clearly given the opportunity to do so. It may be that her handlers told her not to condemn them (because they thought that it would be politically damaging), but I think that her handlers were wrong. I think that this will really hurt her, and perhaps cost the WRP the government.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Makarov

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.

I have a feeling that this may come up in the online Leaders debate tomorrow at noon. The timing of the Liberal sponsored toryorwildrose.com site, will give Shermann an opening to attempt to pull people disappointed with the Wildrose Candidate List and "voting strategically" back to the Liberals.

To be honest, I don't know how someone would deal with that as newly elected leader. Morton is a long established PC and was vying for the leadership of the party, as a new leader you can't just start cleaning house on elected MLAs for something that Stelmach failed to properly deal with at the time. (That being said, there was objection in the PC ranks when Morton introduced his bill)

My problem with the Wildrose having canadiates such as Leech, Huntsberger and Byfield is that they had a clean slate as a party. It was a new party and it was decided that these guys were the best candidates for their riding, they had an opportunity to do some strong vetting on their slate of candidates with questionable backgrounds, but didn't.

Again, I think this pulls back to the whole split between the Conservative base in Alberta, with Red Tories (more socially progressive) staying with the PCs and Blue Tories (socially conservative) shifting towards the Wildrose.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Yes, well, she is letting the voters decide alright. I hope that the voters respond accordingly to a party who's leader refused to condemn Hunsperger's and Leech's comments when clearly given the opportunity to do so. It may be that her handlers told her not to condemn them (because they thought that it would be politically damaging), but I think that her handlers were wrong. I think that this will really hurt her, and perhaps cost the WRP the government.

If Redford hadn't run such a bad campain I'd agree with you. FWIW I think we'll see a minority govt on Monday night

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Dion

Redford made an issue out of Huntsbergers comments and Smith didn't.

Yes, that's the problem.

Originally Posted by Dion

Smith also didn't mention Mortons comments in retaliation.

Well, if she had condemned Hunsberger's comments, she could have. But she didn't, so I'm not sure how she could have possibly brought up Morton's comments in retaliation. I wish that she would have though. I would like to see Redford's reaction (when forced.) As I said, if Redford failed to condemn, at least to some extent (keeping in mind that Morton's comments seem less offensive than Hunsberger's), Morton's comments, that would cost the PCs my vote.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

I have a feeling that this may come up in the online Leaders debate tomorrow at noon. The timing of the Liberal sponsored toryorwildrose.com site, will give Shermann an opening to attempt to pull people disappointed with the Wildrose Candidate List and "voting strategically" back to the Liberals.

To be honest, I don't know how someone would deal with that as newly elected leader. Morton is a long established PC and was vying for the leadership of the party, as a new leader you can't just start cleaning house on elected MLAs for something that Stelmach failed to properly deal with at the time. (That being said, there was objection in the PC ranks when Morton introduced his bill)

My problem with the Wildrose having canadiates such as Leech, Huntsberger and Byfield is that they had a clean slate as a party. It was a new party and it was decided that these guys were the best candidates for their riding, they had an opportunity to do some strong vetting on their slate of candidates with questionable backgrounds, but didn't.

Again, I think this pulls back to the whole split between the Conservative base in Alberta, with Red Tories (more socially progressive) staying with the PCs and Blue Tories (socially conservative) shifting towards the Wildrose.

I agree. I think that most of the social conservative dinosaurs moved over to the WRP. I wish that Morton had as well. And I also agree that it will be difficult for Redford to criticize a politically powerful and connected member of her own party like Morton. But, in my view, if she is confronted with it, she simply has to say something. I don't think she has to be brutally honest (i.e., call Morton the homophobic bigot that he no doubt is), but she has to say that those views are not consistent with her views or with the policies and values of her party.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

[...] the Liberal sponsored toryorwildrose.com site [...]

I didn't realize it was Liberal-sponsored. The initial version, at least, had a decidedly amateur feel to it.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by SebC

I didn't realize it was Liberal-sponsored. The initial version, at least, had a decided amateur feel to it.

Yeah, the first version didn't have it. But once it caught on, the sponsored by the Liberal Party link appeared at the very bottom.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I agree. I think that most of the social conservative dinosaurs moved over to the WRP. I wish that Morton had as well. And I also agree that it will be difficult for Redford to criticize a politically powerful and connected member of her own party like Morton. But, in my view, if she is confronted with it, she simply has to if say something. I don't think she has to be brutally honest (i.e., call Morton the homophobic bigot that he no doubt is), but she has to say that those views are not consistent with her views or with the policies and values of her party.

Morton was also soundly rejected by PC members (add air quotes if you like) in the PC leadership vote. Redford has a mandate to lay a smackdown on him, if required.

[Dion]

From Calgary CTV....

What do you think should be done about Wildrose candidate Allan Hunsperger's comments on homosexuality?

He should resign - (11 %)
He should be dropped by the party - (25 %)
Let the voter decide - (64 %)

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTe...hub=VoteResult

[Bunk]

Mayor Mandel also entered the fray today. Both Mayors very concerned about how these things are affecting the reputation of their respective cities.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2407085/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2407232/

Will Smith finally say something of substance about this?

[pylon]

I have been hard on Nenshi in the past, and had harsh opinions of him. But I admire his stance, and willingness to speak up against these morons. I respect his convictions on this issue.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Mayor Mandel also entered the fray today. Both Mayors very concerned about how these things are affecting the reputation of their respective cities.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2407085/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2407232/

Will Smith finally say something of substance about this?

Its really nice to see the mayors of both Edmonton and Calgary taking a stand on these issues. I wonder if the narrative arc of this election is going to suddenly become urban Alberta v. rural Alberta?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Again, I think this pulls back to the whole split between the Conservative base in Alberta, with Red Tories (more socially progressive) staying with the PCs and Blue Tories (socially conservative) shifting towards the Wildrose.

To a degree, you also have the Conservative voters who have been waiting for another option for years. I could care less about religion, abortion or gay marriage but support the WR. The Redford PC's are more like Liberals these days.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by pylon

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.

... Except that's not the quote. The word should does not appear in the quote. Total difference in meaning. If you can find a quote from Huntsburger saying that he wishes all homosexuals to burn in a lake of fire, then everything changes. Until then, he's just tactless and uncaring, but not bigoted.

Now, I don't want to support Huntsburger, because I know that some level of bigotry often accompanies people who say that message in that way. It's unloving, and uncaring, and Christians in the past have, through word and action, elevated homosexuality as some kind of greater sin than other sins. I probably thought that way previously in my life. And it is discrimination, and frankly, I hate that it has happened.


But, simply saying that something is a sin, isn't bigotry. It can be said without hate, malice, or discrimination. Personally, I wouldn't say that message like that at all. Also, the quote as said by Huntsburger isn't in agreement with the Bible. If one type of sin keeps people out of heaven, than all types of sin would, and thus, no one would get to heaven. Also, it is an important distinction to note that "being gay" is nowhere condemned in the Bible (except in some outdated translations/versions that should not be relied on), only homosexual acts are warned against. Essentially, homosexuals are only held to the same standard as unmarked heterosexuals. Anyways, this isnt the place to get too much deeper with this discussion. It just bugs me when Christians are called bigots simply for stating what the Bible says. There is some bigotry and the like within our ranks, unfortunately, and it needs to change. I do see that some change is happening, as many Christians realize that the old way of thinking was leading to the church becoming increasingly irrelevant to the outside society, in part due to the hypocrisy in the way the Church has treated homosexuals, treating them differently than anyone else.

[Makarov]

I note this passage from the globeandmail:

So, there you have it. Not only are the mayors of the two biggest cities condemning a Wildrose candidate, they’re calling on Ms. Smith to do more to respond. If she doesn’t, they might speak up once more; if she does, it keeps these stories (the types of which she’d previously called “bozo eruptions”) in the news cycle.

Instead, she continues to praise her slate of candidates as second to none, saying they’re human and prone to mistakes. She hopes to move on. But Mr. Mandel and Mr. Nenshi are waiting, each representing cities that, together, hold 44 of the province’s 87 seats – or, a majority.

It doesn't seem right that Edmonton and Calgary constitute nearly 2/3 of the population of this province but only 1/2 of its MLA seats. That has to change.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Mayor Mandel also entered the fray today. Both Mayors very concerned about how these things are affecting the reputation of their respective cities.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2407085/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2407232/

Will Smith finally say something of substance about this?

lol, Will Smith.

[kn]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

But, simply saying that something is a sin, isn't bigotry. It can be said without hate, malice, or discrimination.

Not according to everyone in an uproar. It's akin to hate speech from what I'm reading.

I don't pretend to have a grasp on this issue. I'm still struggling to fit this within the context of tolerance/acceptrance vs. freedom of speech/religion.

It just bugs me when Christians are called bigots simply for stating what the Bible says.

And that is what bothers me too and I'm not even a Christian. I highly doubt anyone would have the guts to raise such a stink over passages in the Koran or Torah.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by kn

Not according to everyone in an uproar. It's akin to hate speech from what I'm reading.

I don't pretend to have a grasp on this issue. I'm still struggling to fit this within the context of tolerance/acceptrance vs. freedom of speech/religion.

I'd rather that the term "hate speech" refer to speech that is actually spoken with hatred.