The Wildrose in the last two weeks have pointed out two things:

• That the Wildrose caucus in Edmonton should be allowed to print whatever they wish and quote whomever they wish at any amount they wish on the tax payers’ dime. To go counter to this is censorship. [1] [2]
• That the documentary on the Alberta oil sands called Dirty Oil should not receive tax payer money because it evaluates and points out the issues in the oil extraction industry. In essence, we should censor publicly funded works if we don’t like them, at least according to the Wildrose Alliance. [1] [2]

Way to stick to your principles Wildrose Alliance, Ms. Smith, and et al. While trumpeting the rage against censorship you make a full hundred-and-eighty degree turn to demand the squashing of such liberties you yourself demand. Freedom of speech is not a switch that you can flick on or off when you’re in or out of the room. The light of freedom and of justice must always be on, even if the bill is big and painful. The freedoms enshrined from time immemorial cannot be destroyed and undermined so as to benefit and protect the few when the greater interests of society are at play.

I hope my fellow Albertans are noticing this abandonment of principle by the Wildrose. I hope that people are realizing that they’re frightening and scary in their double talk, their speaking from both sides of their mouths, and the intellectual haberdashery of their political spin.

Alberta Liberal Caucus Communications just posted a new video featuring Laurie Blakeman.  In the video she’s encouraging Albertans to speak up about how they want to see the land used in the Lower Athabasca region.  Its’ a direct response to the recommendations about the Lower Athabasca Land Use framework.

Ms. Smith earlier on Tuesday wrote a letter to the Calgary Herald extolling the benefits of saving the Health Resource Centre.

Two doctors wrote letters to the editor calling her out on her twisted viewpoint and twisting of the truth. They are posted below with links to their original pages on www.CalgaryHerald.com.

Letter #1

Ask the experts

Re: “Province must intervene to save HRC,” Danielle Smith, Opinion, Aug. 24.

I think Steve Miller and his orthopedic and anesthesia colleagues do a very good job of the hip and knee arthroplasties they perform at the HRC. So I agree with that sentiment in Danielle Smith’s piece. What she did not state, however, is that arthroplasty at the HRC is confined to the healthiest patients. The higher-risk patients are all done at the AHS hospital sites. It is typical for private facilities to provide care only to the healthiest patients who have the fewest complications and the lowest hospital costs. If Smith wishes to use superlatives to describe care in private facilities, she needs to compare similar populations of patients. Perhaps if Steve had limited the size of his new facility, and done a better job of managing his investors, without biting off more than he could chew, then AHS would not have had to intervene legally to protect the patients who were committed to HRC. Smith might start to educate herself on this topic by reading the account by Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of

Medicine (Google: Marcia Angell, Privatizing health care is not the answer: lessons from the United States. Canadian Medical Association Journal, Oct. 21, 2008.) What Angell may have forgotten about this topic is more than Smith will ever know. I encourage Albertans to listen to people who know what they are talking about.

Charles MacAdams, MD, Calgary

Read more

And letter #2:

One Sided

Re: “Province must intervene to save HRC,” Danielle Smith, Opinion, Aug. 24.

I have not made up my mind whether private surgical clinics such as the HRC are good for Albertans or not. However, I find Danielle Smith’s column interesting. To me, it is most telling that Smith seems to throw her support completely behind the HRC while condemning the Alberta government when she states: “The facts of this case are yet to be determined in court, however, HRC’s version of events is as follows . . . . ” So it seems like she has made up her mind after only hearing one side of the story. One must ask if Albertans would want the leader of a political party, much less someone who aspires to be the leader of the province, to lack such basic skills as fact gathering and the patience to hear both sides of the story before making up her mind on an issue.

Ken Cheung, MD, Calgary

Read more

The “Door is closing,” eh?

Of course it is, Ms. Smith. Nobody wants to cross the floor to a party that has, in the last two polls, sunk to only 20% (or alternatively known as “Alberta Liberal territory”).

And the last PC to join the Wildrose? Boutilier, the Fort McMurray independent who has been swooned to the Wildrose side, has supposedly joined the Wildrose, too, if only in name. Actually, Boutilier hasn’t joined in name. He’s still an independent, supposedly because of financial issues with getting funding for research.

At this moment Boutilier is sitting as an independent so that he can reap in the money dolled out to him from the PC government’s budget for MLA staff and researchers, which would be quite quickly dropped to 100k/year from an estimated 140k/year due to the fact that the Wildrose do not have their party leader sitting in the legislature. I think there’s something else afoot. In all seriousness, why aren’t the other MLAs with the Wildrose declaring themselves independents to reign in more cash? It’d increase their operating budgets several fold and, of course, be an act of rebellion against Conservative rules being “unfair” to them.

But they haven’t. And Boutilier isn’t willing to give up his security as a “independent” in the legislature. I think he’s playing a game of wait and see to see if the Wildrose doesn’t just collapse as fast as it rose without endangering his own electoral chances in the next election.

With Morton, a PC leadership candidate that a substantial amount of WAPers supported earlier in 2006, being placed in the leadership role of Finance it seems the spillage of PCs to the Wildrose has both fallen and, quite possibly, reversed. It’d be a smart decision for Boutillier to wait and see if this stoppage will starve out the Wildrose Alliance. He has an excuse and its to his tactical benefit not to jump wholeheartedly into a now wilting Wildrose Alliance.

The door is closing, Ms. Smith, but maybe it’s closing on you?

This is the best political ad. Ever.

I present to you Pat Murray, Alberta Liberal candidate for Calgary North-Hill in the provincial election of 2008, in his Ad called “Patman.”

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:

If anyone had read the ads and watched them (see their website here for details) they’d know that the hullabaloo created by Californian politician and a randomly called environmentalist and anti-corporation group by the name of Corporation Ethics International (CEI) spouted lies. Big lies.

Not only big lies, but giant whoppers of lies.

First up:

Travis Davies, a spokesman with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the country’s largest industry lobby group, said the [Rethink Alberta] ads distort basic perceptions of the oilsands industry by claiming that an area twice the size of the United Kingdom is being strip mined when in fact mining is limited to an area smaller than most American cities.

And it piles on, and on, and on. The CEI has had their credibility seriously undercut by their rampant abuse of the facts.

Still, as a guy who has friends working in Fort McMurray and in the oil patch, as an ardent environmentalist, and someone who has a balanced perspective between these two sometimes aligned but sometimes opposed ‘sides’, I’m more than pissed with the CEI. Probably more pissed than the regular blogger and media commentators out there because I know that the CEI is engaging in self-sabotage for the environmental cause in North America. There is nothing that undermines the improving of the oil sands than rampant, non=factual propaganda that smears rather than educates. The CEI has undercut any actual attempts at improving the environment for the next few years, harms the people who are behind the greening of the oil sands in Alberta, and sets back the environmentalist agenda for years. I’m pissed because it draws attention away from the almost awe-inspiring reclamation work that Syncrude is doing now (some of the best work in the world, by the way), hurts local environmentalists because of the blowback that’ll be felt against any legitimate criticism from the oil sands, and the entire fiasco oozes with an American-styled political attack job.

It’s combative American politics. One that the Wildrose tried to get Alberta firing back with, war-room style. This would have been a doozy if Ms. Smith jumped onto a podium and began denouncing CEI and likely spilling over with her criticism to other environmentalist groups. And that would have created an emotionally charged situation that’d kill off the chance of the facts being pre-eminent–the point that Mr. Davies pointed out at the beginning of this post–in favour of a good guy vs bad guy media feud where Alberta, in the end, only loses. We’d all be painted as big-government, big-corporation, anti-environmentalist, and the cascading effect of the CEI’s allegations repeated ad nauseum every. single. time. someone writes a story above the ‘big bad Albertans’ versus a green group of California, the ill-informed message would only spread.

Ed Stelmach was right to play it easy and calmly. An emotional reaction would have garnered the group more attention than it was worth and, in the end, the facts have spoken for themselves–with both the CEI and environmentalists taking a gargantuan hit to their credibility over the CEI’s abuse of facts and the truth. If Ed Stelmach followed the Wildrose’s advice the facts would have been rail-roaded in favour of the combative storm that would have arisen between “big bad Bush-like gov’t” vs “environmental good guys”. It was a good move.

A good move like when David Swann headed down to the city of Bellingham to hash things out person-to-person when that city boycotted Canadian oil from Alberta. (The Bellingham city council’s resolution can be found here.) It’s straight to the people, diffusing the situation coolly and quickly, and avoiding the fist pumping, chest pumping, fact dumping, and political campaign-esque creature that would likely have been birthed by the Wildrose.

Thank heavens cooler heads prevailed and that the Wildrose were shunted off into a corner both in that case and in the current Rethink Alberta case. Hopefully this smear campaign will be over and done with soon.

Last week David Swann (leader of the Alberta Liberal Party) and Tony Sansotta (president of the Alberta Liberal Party) made an open call to any and all in Alberta to talk. In reaction this 35-year stalwart of the NDP, and past NDP candidate, did more than just talk. Phil Elder has in a letter to the Calgary Herald publicly put his chips behind the Alberta Liberals as his choice for change in Alberta.

Turning Liberal

BY PHIL ELDER, CALGARY HERALD JULY 9, 2010

Having publicly called for David Swann to directly challenge other progressive parties to discuss electoral co-operation, now that he’s done it, I’ve decided I have to put my money where my mouth is. I’ve just joined the Liberal Party and made a donation as well. This was hard for me, as a New Democrat of 35 years’ standing, and a proud NDP candidate in 1982, with Grant Notley. But I’m distressed by this party’s refusal to consider working together with other progressives for a better Alberta. I’m not sure what more we could have expected from the Liberals. It’s a coup for Dr. Swann to have persuaded his party president to co-sign the advertisement.

NDP Leader Brian Mason’s immediate knee-jerk statement against this initiative is beyond disappointing. Perhaps this will cause the party to reassess his leadership. Recent public opinion polls show that the combined support for the Alberta Liberals and NDs equals, or slightly exceeds, that for either the PCs or Wildrose Alliance. Does working together not make sense?

Phil Elder, Calgary

If you too are interested in joining the Alberta Liberal Party go to this link here and join today!

While Phil Elder might be coming at this whole thing from a left-leaning angle, there’s little doubt there is loads of room for Red Tories, peeved Progressive Conservatives, and regular Albertans. So it’s not only a lefty thing that Swann is doing–everyone can join in. Join today.

Rick Bell, likely starving for news, wrote a piece about a week ago about Ms. Smith’s Wildrose being prepared for an election.

They’re not.

I know this because (a) I have friends who I have conversations with who are inside the party as the ground and upper levels, and (b) I attended numerous sessions where they spoke about their strategic problems.

One of the sessions was almost two weeks ago at a Leadership Institute seminar that was brought up by heavyset political heavyweight, and excommunicated Progressive Conservative, Craig Chandler to teach conservative politicians and political operatives the ropes in Calgary. (As a side note: I attended because, well, it was partially advertised as a municipal-level training seminar and I was quite surprised to find it filled with WAP and PC folks. I was probably the most lefty person in the room. Oops.) At more than four points during two day course the Wildrose constituency presidents in the room asked for advice for their one man ridings, how to grow a political machine from nothing, and even at one point one gentleman pointed out that he was in charge of a riding as the sole organizer.

Also, the Wildrose is dominated by Calgary folks–there’s no province-wide network being created. It’s a Calgary-first strategy, ditching Edmonton and northern Alberta to the Liberals and the Tories. That’s not minority or majority territory that the WAP is aiming for. It’s an ineffectual base of support that’s completely harming any ability of theirs to form government.

And two weeks later.. he’s up there, on stage, with 82 of his fellow CA presidents and with Wildrose Queen Smith, who is declaring that the party is strong and growing in strength.

Seriously.

The level of hubris coming out of the Wildrose camp is nauseating. Personally, I wasn’t even going to comment on the Leadership Institute event (heck, I happen to adore my Republican friends of whom have oozed their love of that institute’s training seminars, which further propelled me not to talk). But this article by Rick Bell, the stench of pride and hubris is just too much.

It’s just too much.

The WAP need to go a long way before it can even talk about being prepared to wage a campaign against the Tories. Their infrastructure, their information network, their war chest are not there, and blindly flaunting that they’re prepared for an election call at any time is absolutely idiotic.

As a guy who wants to see change in Alberta and to have a competitive democracy I want the Wildrose to have a modicum of success (while the Liberals form government, of course). But at the lackluster pace they’re going, the limited outreach they’re doing, and areas they’re not covering, I’m worried about them. The Wildrose simply isn’t tough enough, and it needs to be tougher.