CalgaryLiberal

Archive for July, 2010

The Edmonton Journal sounds off on discontent and Wildrosers hiding away their true ambitions.

Mike Cummings of Edmonton writes to the Edmonton Journal…

Wildrose’s True Colours

The Wildrose Alliance has shown itself to be nothing but a group of flip-floppers who pretend to be on the cutting edge, but in reality are nothing more than talk.

I’m speaking, of course, about the nearly 180-degree spin the Wildrose has taken toward firearms owners. Very recently, the party promised a resolution that grants every Albertan the right to bear arms. This initiative was quickly re-thought and now it seems they are neutral on the subject of firearms. This is a clear sign that any firearms owner cannot count on the Wildrose Alliance for help when the anti-gun lobby starts pressuring them to enact tighter gun-control laws and confiscations.

The Wildrose Alliance proposed the holy grail of firearms rights — the right to bear arms — then they swoop in and take it away in a week for fear of the media. If they chose to keep their promise, they would have surely secured the vote of every firearms owner in Alberta, but instead felt they could win more votes if they took a more “central approach” on the issue.

The Wildrose Alliance has shown their true colours — they act tough, but when the chips are on the table, they will take the most politically correct approach to everything they do and that can only end in hurting Alberta.

They’ve lost my vote and I know I’m not the only one.

Mike Cummings, Edmonton

Wildroser and blogger thatcrazycannuck writes “How long will it be before a Wildrose government simply ends up as another PC lite?” Said blogger also writes of substantial dissatisfaction with the Wildrose in an earlier post about their AGM earlier this year, which exemplifies the seeds of unhappiness that came to fruition in the PC-lite post.

The Social Credit party leader, a person who I’d think be happy about the Wildrose’s mimicking them, have showcased their unhappiness with the Wildrose flop at their AGM by virtue of a sternly worded letter to numerous editors.

The perennially open minded Climenhaga sums up the possible discontent quite aptly by the flips and murkiness of the Wildrose Alliance.

Oh, this ad was just darling. It’s an attack ad mimicking the anti-Ipod fanaticism ad from a while back turned into a new, more political form against the Wildrose Alliance. A bit of caution, though, before watching it: there’s a bit of swearing in the original and, true to form, it has been carried on to the adaption.

The original, anti-fanboy ad:

The Wildrose Ad:

Case and point: Ezra Levant and Stephen Taylor frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of bad apples in Calgary’s police force. Calgary West Liberal Party of Canada candidate Jennifer Pollock tweeted a comment a few days ago about acknowledging problems with Calgary’s police force. The offending tweet is at the bottom of the linked image.

Stephen Taylor, the typical go-to man for the typical Tory spin, fed words into Pollock’s mouth like the good little Conservative he is. Note that Jennifer never called the police force racist.

Ezra Levant, over the last two days, has entered an anti-Liberal fit over Pollock’s tweet.

And now the Toronto Sun has carried the story. By the time this is posted (wrote this on Sunday) there’ll likely be more.

So here are the facts:

• Did Pollock call the Calgary police racist? No.
• Can the Tory tall tale telling twitterers spin a non-story into a good story? Yes.
• The federal team has already stated, entirely, un-equivocally, and completely without a single possibility for Tory spin-doctoring, that the federal Liberals do not believe Calgary’s police force is racist. Ms. Pollock agrees with this viewpoint.

This is why, folks, politicians are scared of talking about issues and with people. Words can be quickly twisted, fed, and blurred by partisan hacks (of all types). It’s just plain dangerous in a political world of rapid-response media and bloodthirsty partisans.

Pollock is a brave woman for tossing herself right into that terrible mix with her twitter feed–she actually talks about stuff, talks with people (not to), and interacts. She actively answers and contributes to conversations. She also does her own twittering, unlike Harper and friends who hire consultants and interns to do their work.

(As an aside, I have dealt with the police in Calgary on numerous occasions through my family’s business (countering petty-theft, rentals, etcetera).

At every instance the men and women I have dealt with have been honorable, forthright, and honest.

However, I have had the experience of witnessing disparaging and crude comments about aboriginal thieves and native drunks from a select few of these men and women. As with any and all organizations, there are those who hold negative views–and these few apples, who sometimes are bad apples when certain topics or crises arise, create a bad name for the 99.9% of others in the service. No organization is perfect but even so these men and women go out of their way daily to make us safe, fighting everything from forced-prostitution (vice squad) to terrorism (RCMP), in spite of our shared human failings. The police forces of every city should be heralded as paragons of virtue but this understanding should be tempered with an understanding that, at the end of the day, we are all human, with the accompanying frailties and weaknesses.)

Recently a website has come to my attention called Chandlerlist.info (Twitter). The author of that website writes of a conspiracy being committed by a Craig Chandler (Twitter, organization), specifically in that Mr. Chandler is trying to influence politics by creating “proxy candidates” to run for him because, in theory, he himself cannot run because of past public relations issues.

Three quick points for the anonymous writer:

1. The legal problems you just created for yourself are legion. You made a good choice by getting your domain name done by proxy and hiding your private details, but eventually you’ll be found out. You’ll definitely be found out if you continue to write about Mr. Chandler seeing that (a) he’s a smart guy and (b) he has smart people with him in his posse. I suggest you consult a lawyer and be prepared for the legal eventuality.
2. Understand that calling Mr. Chandler a “snake,” a “fiend,” leader of a “cult,” or a possessor of “fringe” beliefs does not help you or your argument. Rather, show how he’s a fringe person, show how he’s a fiendish law-suit junky, and show how he is duplicitous. Most people do not know who Mr. Chandler is or how active he has been in Albertan politics, and you’ll likely be the first contrarian voice to him that they will find. If they find a mean-spirited rant they’ll skip your opinion. If they find logical, cited, and informative content they’ll continue reading. Make your presentation count.
3. Please, oh please, understand that Chandler has different politics than you but he does have body of people with him that shares his beliefs. To downgrade and insult him is to insult a great many Albertans, albeit they’re in the minority. But being in the minority does not matter since all Albertans and all individuals should command respect and dignity from people. Respect is key here.

Finally, while you might just find that Craig Chandler is evil incarnate or what-have-you… he does want a better Alberta. It might not be like the better Alberta in your vision, or in many others, but he sees something on the horizon and he’s reaching for it. He is training people, getting people together, and trying to achieve something here. He is leading.

He has also been one of the only political guys in Alberta–nay, in the country–that have actively sought out young Canadians to teach them the campaign craft and inclusion into politics. As an example, for his Leadership Institute event on political campaigning that he had a two months ago (I wrote about it, actually, here) he posted numerous times to the University of Calgary’s Wildrose and Conservative campus club facebook groups, contacted dozens of young politicos, bugged professors and teachers to plug his event, and even gave me–an ‘evil’ Liberal–a $65 discount so that a young, curious politically-minded young man could attend the two-day training seminar.

Personally, I find a lot of his ideas illogical and based on false assumptions. At the end of the day I can recognize he’s invigorating people and getting people involved, though. And that there, of engaging people, is worth quite a bit and should be noted in anyone’s appraisal of Mr. Chandler.