Today a reader sent me a copy of an "Open Letter to Albertans" from Dr. Oberg. In it he tries to move the focus of his fiasco away from himself. He also expresses his desire to "...get back to an open, honest and accurate discussion of campaign of ideas."
SPARE ME!
ALL the other candidates never left that kind of open, honest and accurate campaign discussion. Only Dr. Oberg decided to wallow in innuendo and unfounded accusations while he consciously calculated to recklessly savage the reputations of ALL the other candidates.
Only Dr. Oberg needs to get back to being open, honest in his discussions. But frankly Doctor, it is an offer that is too little and too late in my books. This "Open Letter" is a fatuous missive that is nothing more that damage control and pure spin. It is him just continuing to be misleading and misrepresentative about the facts and enormity of his own misconduct.
He again creates "facts" like the "offense" was done by government employees on taxpayers time. But he offers no proof. You are entitled to your own opinions Dr. Oberg but not your own facts.
Consider the silliness of the fact that he received the fax containing the "offensive" materials, from the Legislature. Was it sent - pray tell - during office hours? If so, ought that government employee, who he is so nobly protecting, be seen as guilty of doing political work on taxpayer time? When you are in a hole the best thing thing to do is quit digging Dr. Oberg.
"The silver-tongued devil has nothing to lose and is just shifting his share of the blame."
Kris Kristofferson
Here, for the record is what I received as the Oberg "Open Letter." Read it and make up your own minds if you think this is indicative of a man who has the quality of judgment and strength of character to be our leader and our Premier.
"Open Letter to Albertans from Lyle Oberg October 27, 2006"
Recently I publicly released part of a document that was prepared by senior staff members of two Alberta government ministers that both support the Jim Dinning campaign. My comments around this were twofold.
First, it was a conflict of interest for these people to undertake this work using taxpayers resources and dollars. Second, the document contained some very insulting references to rural Alberta.
I am sure that you have by now read the offensive lines.
I would like all Albertans to know a few things about why I chose to bring this issue forward, and why it is important to not simply dismiss it as innocent political chatter, as some people in the media have suggested.
In the words of one of the authors, "we are kind of political hacks…this is the kind of stuff we do for kicks." I would like to set the record straight. The people involved are not junior level "political hacks" as they have suggested. They head up the offices of two of the most important Alberta Ministries, Intergovernmental Affairs and Energy, and their salaries are paid for by Alberta taxpayers.
Some of the media in major cities have dismissed these comments, as Mr. Dinning’s advisers have suggested, saying ‘don’t worry’, and that this is nothing unusual. That is exactly the type of attitude that worried me about this evidence in the first place. In an Oberg government that type of misconduct will never be business as usual.
Perhaps some see nothing wrong in what was done, but I do not agree. Moreover, I suspect nobody endorses the disrespect evident in these pages. I ask you to support my campaign to bring this type of unacceptable behavior to an end.
"Let’s get back to an open, honest and accurate discussion of campaign of ideas."
Warmest regards,
Lyle Oberg
PC Leadership Candidate
"I am sure that you have by now read the offensive lines."
ReplyDeleteWhat rubbish! The only thing I find offensive about this whole scenario is Dr. Oberg's horrendous lack of judgment, propriety and taste. Once again, the good doctor has dug himself into a hole and in the process of trying to get out of it, just keeps digging himself deeper and deeper.
However, I actually think Oberg's recent histrionics are quite fitting given the season that is upon us - i.e., Halloween. Maybe now, the doctor will finally be able to dig up some of those "skeletons" he went on about last spring and decorate his lawn with them. If he’s able to find them, they certainly won't scare away the competition, but maybe he'll have some success with the young trick-or-treaters who come to his door.
From my perspective, the only skeleton lying around is that of the desiccated corpse of Dr. Oberg's leadership ambitions, which are as good as (or damn well ought to be) dead.
- Sean
Gang:
ReplyDeleteOberg showed a major lack of judgment, we can all agree on that.
But the all-party candidate debates start on Monday, and unlike Mills and Shepard, I am a real policy wonk and a fiscal conservative to boot.
Let's get focused back on the issues.
Here one for all of you to consider. When or will Jim Dinning ever release a detailed costing of his campaign platform of "ideas"?
I want to know how much all his promises are going to cost me as a taxpayer? He's says he's a fiscal conservative, so produce the goods Jim. Don't hold us in any more suspense.
You can even release it on the weekend when there are no senior media around. No problem with me.
Are there any people left in this province who care about balanced budgets or are they are seduced by the mirage of riches?
Just remember 1982 and 1986 my friends when you cast your ballot on November 25.
Character and capacity to govern and to be intelligent enough to understand and reflect Canadiand/Albertan values is the issue in leadership campaigns. the PC Alberta leadership is no different.
ReplyDeleteCalling for costing promises is the emptiness of a zero-sum mentality. That is not about governing. The world is not static...spreadsheets are not devoid of presumptions and assumptions and shit does happen.
Cost is important but the values we express and the value we hope to add to society through enlightened leadership is priceless.
Better to decided as a society as to what is important and what needs to be done and why. Define success and plan a way to get us there. THEN cost it out get political and public commitment to the goal and monitor its progress carefully. And always do it within our fiscal means. That means picking priorities and making difficult choices. That demands judgement and character.
I expect George W. Bush costed out Iraq for the benefit of Halliburton but not in terms of the cost of human life and other casulties - military and civilian in both the USA and in Iraq.
I bet he "paid" no mind or at least brushed over the real and whole cost of a barrel of Iraq oil as a cost of his hubris and lies to bringing "freedom" to Iraq.
Read my post on Be Careful Who You Elect for some context.
Don't try to deflect from character into a shalow call for cost analysis in this Oberg induced fiasco. We can calculate costs...that is easy. But if the character of the person driving the assumptions behind the cost calculations is flawed - or malevolent, then the entire exercise is moot.
Ken:
ReplyDeleteThis is your anonymous friend once again. I agree with what you have said. Very persecptive as always.
From my years of experience as a public policy researcher and policy wonk, what saddens me more than anything is what passes for public policy discourse these days, ten second sound bites and scripted key messages.
Most of our political leaders these days are devoid of the values,courage and character to lead our citizens in public policy discourse, because it is all about blind ambition.
Not one of the candidates in this leadership race has shown me that they are willing to think outside the box on important public policy issues such as health care, education, provincial/municipal relations, etc. It's all recycled and rehashed ideas.
And the media's compliance in all of this, the reporters and columnists who don't bother to take the time to do their homework, don't take the time to do the research, don't ask the substantive questions, and take the easy way out because it sells papers, rather than informing their readers and leading the public policy discourse.
Where are James (Scotty) Reston's, the David Brinkley's, the Chet Huntley's, the Walter Cronkite's, the Edward R. Murrow's, who showed the courage of their convictions and spoke their minds, facing down the powerful establishment, the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower identified in his 1961 farewell speech.
And most of our citizens are compliant in this charade that passes as public policy discourse as well. They fail to take the time to evaluate the policy platforms of the candidates and they fail to take their obligation to vote seriously. The rate of participation in the political process these days is abysmal.
In my mind, the right to vote is a privlege that our parents and grandparents fought so hard to preserve in two world wars.
Yet, today's voter is more interested in what politicans wear, their personal lives, and salicious gossip, tabloid journalism. That is how they evaluate political character, values and leadership.
I am sure you have read Joe Klein's latest book on the trivilization of politics.
Gone are the days, when Bobby Kennedy recruited the best public policy minds, the Peter Edelman's, Adam Walinksy's, the Jeff Greenfields, the Dick Goodwin's, who were not afraid to challenge the candidate when he was wrong.
Where are the days when Bobby Kennedy visited the poor in the South of the US, the Navajo Indians, or Caesar Chavez and the grapegrowers in California, not because there were votes to be gained, but because it was the right thing to do.
Where are the days where Bobby Kennedy risked his own life to speak to a black audience in Indianapolis on the night of Martin Luther King's death (March 4, 1968), refusing a police escort, and speaking extemporaneously from the heart, without any notes, concluding with the quote from Aesychlus: "Even in our sleep pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until in our own despair against our will comes wisdom from the awful grace of god."
On a night when there was rioting and looting in virtually every American city in the U.S, there was no rioting and looting in Indianapolis.
I have all these momentous moments captured on video, Eugene McCarthy's electrifying speech to the 1960 Democratic Convention in support of Adlai Stevenson, "Do not reject this man", Nelson Rockfeller facing down the Goldwater mob during the 1964 Republican Conventon in San Francisco, and Senator Abe Ribicoff staring down Mayor Richard Daley at the 1968 Democratic Convention in 1968.
After this campaign, when I am able to reveal myself, perhaps we can sit down and talk about the days when politicans had character, courage, values and leadership qualities to move voters in a common purpose, not by reading the latest public opinion poll, but by following their hearts and their convictions. That's the mark of leadership that I'm looking for in a PC candidate.
Ken, I believe you come from a generation that remembers this, when politicans had the courage of their convictions and the values of leadership.
Your comments would be much appreciated.
Your anonymous friend.
Lyle Oberg is turning out to be just another bully. Thankfully his true colours are showing now, before the Leadership election.
ReplyDeleteI am personally not too impressed with the costing of Oberg's promises (nor would I be with anyone else's for that matter). While I find it an interesting tactic - and aimed at the general Albertan who never really cares to understand politics too deeply - I also do not necessarily have any reason to trust a report that a candidate has paid people to produce that is so favourable of his own campaign structure.
Further to this... what are the real chances that even if the costings in the report are close to being accurate that those will be the way the costs unfold in an Oberg Government? Who is to say that Dr Oberg will even make those same choices he has outlined once he is presented with other priorities?
After all of Dr. Oberg's antics to date I don't know that I have a lot of trust left for him, or his campaign team for that matter (what manner of communications people are working for that guy?).
While I agree with you that Oberg's announcement was clearly an amateur move and he has consequently took a hit to his credibility, Dinning's response has again demonstrated to me his inability to take a hardline stance. He should have found out whether these comments were made on government time and, if so, condemned their actions.
ReplyDeleteDinning is trying to please everybody to no ends - another example is where he donoted to the Liberal Party of Canada - to Landslide Anne's campaign! This is the guy that is supposed to be the conservative voice in Alberta?
Allie:
ReplyDeleteLet me get this straight. You are questioning the credibility and integrity of one of Canada's foremost economists, who has nearly thirty years of experience, working for provincial and federal governments, including the Government of Alberta.
That's a pretty serious allegation, maybe the same type of smear tactics you are accussing Dr. Oberg of engaging in.
As an informed voter, I suggest you go to the web site of the Centre for Spatial Economics and read some of the work that Mr. Stokes conducts. Please don't speak without doing your reseach.
As an economist by learning, who has worked on numerous public policy issues over the years (do NovAtel, Swan Hills, ATB-West Edmonton Mall, Al-Pac, etc. ring a bell with you), I suggest you withdraw your comments.
I know Mr. Stokes as a collegue and a friend and I am sure he would very interested in what you have to say about his reputation.
Allie,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you re: costing out of promises. By detailing every little thing you presume to do as leader, you kind of make the budgeting process - and cabinet - irrelevant.
I prefer to listen to a candidate that outlines what they would like to do, not pretending that they know all of the exact solutions, but communicating a path or a process they would like to take to get there. And backed up with a deep knowledge gained from prior ministerial duties. Someone like Stelmach. I heard him speak recently. Some people say he is not the smoothest speaker (and that refrain is getting a little old by the way), but if you have the opportunity to hear him out, he really knows his stuff. Hancock may be the same, but I haven't heard him outside of the forums, where answers are limited in time.
.........
And now, for something completely different:
Can we suspend the use of the term "policy wonk" for the remainder of the leadership race? This is not to be taken as a jab at prior posters. But to me, you cannot self-identify as a policy wonk, same as you can't self-identify as a political pundit or as a philosopher. I doubt Socrates went around calling himself a philosopher. The only recent example of someone self-identifying as a philosopher was the prior Governal General's concubine, er... husband, Mr. Raulston-Saul.
Then again, identifying yourself as 'someone with a deep interest in public policy' does sound like a bit of a mouthful. Maybe for the sake of space, 'wonk' could stay.
Allie:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you absolutely on Stelmach, he's an honest and decent man, with the courage of his convictions and he has the experience,foresight ideas and vision to be Premier. That's why he's got my support on first and second ballot.
But by personally insulting me by calling me a "wonk", however, you have just proven to me conslusively how the level of political discourse has fallen over the past thirty years.
I've lived and breathed the business of politics in Alberta for nearly twenty years. I am invigorated by the debate and clash over ideas, because it is enunication of ideas, whether popular or not, that are the mark of true leadership.
That's what I am looking for in the next Premier, someone who is not afraid to debate ideas, someone who doesn't govern by opinion polls, but has the courage of their convictions and is not afraid to stand up for their principles, even if they are not popular with Albertans.
Maybe you are too young to know anything about Bobby Kennedy. I saw Bobby Kennedy in 1966 when I was seven years old, and he was head marshal of the Calgary Stampede Parade. The memory of seeing my political hero is something I'll remember and cherish for the rest of my life.
Bobby Kennedy lived and breathed policies, ideas and vision. He was not scared to hire some of the best policy people in the business as advisors: Adam Walinsky, Jeff Greenfield, Peter Edleman, and Dick Goodwin, because he was a man who was not afraid to be told he was wrong and was invigorated by the clash of ideas and policy.
I fear that my breed is dying off, there are very few of us left now.
Now what voters are interested in is what a candidate wears, how he or she speaks, their personal lives, ten second sound bites, thirty second ad spots.
All of this is reinforced by the tabloid press. The Walter Cronkite's, Chet Huntley's, the David Brinkley's, the Edward R. Murrow's are all gone now, replaced by tabloid anchors and reporters.
Just how often have we seen a complete analysis by the media in this leadership campaign of the impact of the candidates' ideas and policies and what it means for the future of this province. Never....
Do me on favour, go out and get a book on Bobby Kennedy, read the speech he gave in Capetown, South Africa on June 6, 1966. Better yet order a CD copy of all his speeches from the Kennedy Library in Boston.
And by the way, please withdraw your smear of Ernie Stokes.
For the record - I donated and volunteered for Landslide Annie too. But as a pure voice of reason I do not presume to be a voice for fundamental conservativism.
ReplyDeleteI speak for me only and as a Red Tory I can often support a Blue Liberal like McLellan. I will encourage and support good people in politics period.
I support Stephane Dion and Jim Prentice and even find myself liking some things about the Greens these days.
"But the all-party candidate debates start on Monday, and unlike Mills and Shepard, I am a real policy wonk and a fiscal conservative to boot."
ReplyDeleteAh Anonymous:
A real policy wonk and a real fiscal conservative?
You must think that you are very important?
You must think that you are so much more superior and intelligent than the rest of us ... don't you?
And look ... all of those influencial and intelligent friends?
Y'all are going to save us?
Right?
And and .. you are so important that you cannot even identify yourself until after the election, when we will be blessed and honoured with your "intelligensia discussions, observations and pontifications"!!
You might take time to notice the little people. The ones applauding the yes crass, yes blunt, but oh so true comments on the "Pukegate" Papers.
At this point in time, I have more respect for Mr. Mills and Mr. Shepherd for saying it, how it is, than for very important non-fake policy wonks and fiscal conservatives like you, blubbering on about your important friends.
You just appear to me to be a stiff, stuffed shirt, arrogant, self-serving, self-important political hack.
:-)
But then ... what do I know?
Becky, Becky, Becky.
ReplyDeleteRemember what Bambi's mother said to Thumper "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."
I know I know I know ....GREAT SIGH!
ReplyDeleteWhen I keep reading the same tired old statements of "billowing, bellowing, puffunerous, hot-aired, self-proclaimed" policy experts, over and over again .... it just makes me LONG for real substance even more.
but but but, I just could NOT resist it.
FORGIVE ME KEN
;-)
Let's have Mr. Mills and Mr. Shepherd run in the next election. It would be one of those very welcome breaths of fresh air! People who say it ... like it is ... for a change.