Kevin from the Country posted a comment on the “What is Happening This Week” posting. Amongst other things he says, as a Dinning guy, he is putting Stelmach as #2. His take is that Stelmach is the compromise candidate and in uncertain times we need “strong champions” and that means a struggle between Dinning and Morton.
I wanted to respond to Kevin comment, including the impact of Dinning's MLA endorsements, in a posting so more people would see it.
So hey Kevin – the bench strength of 30+ of the current MLA Dinning endorsees will be there for Ed too. Stelmach will also benefit significantly from the depth of experience and the creative mind of a guy like Dave Hancock. I doubt if Hancock will see a cabinet post in a Dinning government given how old style power politics really works.
I have to say the Dinning “bench” has not shown much “strength” in this campaign, especially based on the first ballot results. My sense they have just been following through on the cruising-control culture of the Klein government and hoping to ride through on Dinning’s coat tails. Jim can deliver Calgary, and he did, but he needs help elsewhere, and many of his soldiers were missing in action.
Too many of our PC candidates have been able to coast to victory behind Klein for the past 14 years. I campaign for Edmonton candidates and go door knocking with Stelmach in Vegreville. PC candidates here or anywhere in the north, really have to earn their seats by hard work and the dedication of volunteers and themselves. Norris found that out in 2004. There are no coat tails to sit on for those candidates. There will not be any coat tails for PC candidates in the next election either…regardless of who wins the leadership.
The PC Party brand and politicians will have to regain the trust and respect of Albertans if we are to continue to be seen as worthy of governance. Coat tail cruisers and self-centred egoists are about to become an endangered political species in the PC party. This is not dependent on who is leader. It depends on the membership taking the control of the party back and away from the Premier’s office.
“Jim-ophobes” and “Ted-ophiles” of course will see Ed as a “compromise candidate” AND will all put him as #2 – just as they should. . I know there will be lots of Stelmach people putting Dinning as their #2 guy. Thanks to the Dinning voters for the Stelmach support. It is very much appreciated. We know you have the best interests of the province and the party at heart when you mark your ballot for Ed Stelmach.
The rest of us, the ordinary guys who are the “Ed-lightened” Progressives in the party, and the thousands of other ordinary Albertans who are buying up membership this week see Stelmach as a preferred first choice.
They want authentic change - not the same old – same old control from the centre, top-down politics of the past. Nor do they want a province that will become a fundamentalist theocracy. Ed Stelmach’s personal values and leadership style is not aligned with either of those governance models.
We “preferred first choice” Stelmach supporters also see Ed in very practical positive terms too. He is an experienced and capable guy who comes to politics as a personal calling based on public service - not as a professional power monger.
I know Ed Stelmach. He is a friend of mine. I know him to be honest, descent, warm, curious, caring, engaging, fun loving and hardworking. Look up integrity and sincerity in the dictionary and you should see Stelmach’s picture.
These are critically important character qualities for modern leadership. The back rooms and the political power players (of all stripes) see these qualities as weaknesses for effective leadership. Can you believe that? We should forgive them for such delusions. Foregiveness is fine but we should not elect old style pure power-based or politicians who are essentially patricians either - and for the same reasons - character. They are delusional and have lost touch with the public they purport to serve.
I gotta tell you Kevin – I believe Stelmach is going to win this based on the fear of the top two, the Mandel Syndrome and the good sense of ordinary Albertans who see a chance for some positive political change.
I smell some real democracy in the air, and I am not alone.
The only Stelmach supporters likely to put Dinning as their second choice are former Hancock supporter. Rural Alberta has rejected Dinning.
ReplyDeleteGosh, that's a little testy, don't you think? I feel like I've been called out at High Noon. I'm one of the ordinary guys, too, Ken. A little more ordinary than you, I'd say.
ReplyDeleteAnd what you've written seems the eensiest bit condescending. So those Albertans who are supporters of Jim (I am) or Morton (I'm not) aren't engaged in real democratic action? Just pawns of the power mongers and the dark machine? I disagree vehemently with the Morton folks, but I'm willing to give them at least this much respect: they also truly believe in what they're doing.
I'd encourage people to read our back and forth under "What Is Happening" to see if you've spun my comments there exactly right.
In the meantime I'm being told that Morton was in touch with Ed and Ed's announced MLAs, urging them to stick together against Jim.
Fair enough - backroom deals and horse trading, right? But I know you have no truck with Morton and I don't either. How about Ed? I'm told that Ed considered endorsing Morton as #2, as some of his MLAs wished, but in the end has said they're all free to suggest to their own people who should be #2.
Is that principled leadership of the kind you said is described beside Ed's picture in the dictionary, at so momentous a time in the life of our province, or does Ed simply not want to offend Morton supporters and lose their second place vote?
Hardball politics in the kingdom of light? Pot, kettle?
You've been bold enough to publicly state your distaste for Morton's draconian vision for Alberta, and that you'll suppport Jim as your #2 as prudent insurance against it. I applaud you for doing both. You have the best interests of the province and the party at heart when you mark your ballot for Jim Dinning.
Will Dave do the same?
And, you say that Ed's personal values and leadership style don't align with Morton's desire for a fundamentalist theocracy.
Will Ed say so publicly?
Jim is.
Yes Kevin - maybe too testy but not condescending. I am just stating a personal belief because I fear any political leadership that would govern as a theocracy...regardless of denomination.
ReplyDeleteI am a firm believer that church and state must be separated and the church has privileges but as a private institution. That said, they must operate within the law but they should not have any authority to make the law or to impose their views on others inspite of the law.
Freedom to express their views is critically important too provided it does not amount to hate or defamation or libel. This is not about having to agree with any positions or preachings, but it is important to be free to disagree without "consequences." That is all too often the veiled threat behind the edicts any person or group with power or "authority."
For example, if SSM is contrary to the beliefs of a religious group but we have choices of other churches in our society I am OK with all that. I can see that as part of our social diversity and also acceptance and inclusion too. It is not a mere tolerance of difference.
We have churches who will not only tolerate SSM but celebrate it and embrace it as part of their sacrements. Neither position is right or wrong...just different.
Please do not presume I am being condescending. Just expressing a strongly held belief that I am stating unequivocally.
Regarding your point: "I'm told that Ed considered endorsing Morton as #2, as some of his MLAs wished, but in the end has said they're all free to suggest to their own people who should be #2."
I have no idea about any of that. I was in Hancock's camp and knew what I was doing for the second ballot as soon as Ed was third.
Were you told this by Ed or is it just gossip and innuendo? There is lots of mis-information perpetrated to gain "advantage" in political campaigns. Who was it that said "The truth is always the first victim of war?" Same is true in political campaigns.
This is a free and democratic society and citizens are free to support whomever they choose for what ever reasons make the most sense to them. So yes I think it is the kind of principled leadership I spoke about regarding Ed.
Why ask me what Dave and Ed will do. You should be asking them.
"Pot. Kettle?" Actually they are both black. It is what inside that matters in the end ;-}
Cheers!
from the grass root view...I see
ReplyDeleteTed Morten - Doug (I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't swear, I don't do anything bad, because I am so special and if you become like me, you too can be special. If you don't become like me, you are bad and OUT OUT OUT!)
never again!
Jim Dinning - Rod (consulting of course), and H A L (consulting of course) (and isn't it time to go for a BEER NOW?)
not again
When I grow up, I am going to be consultant too and make lots of money consulting.
Then I see
Ed and ?????????
I'm voting for Ed now I guess
(Now I will wait for someone to come in here and dare to tell me my comments are NOT TRUE)
Ken, I am quite astounded by some of your comments. I can't believe that you, of all people, would worry about the notion that Dinning is too much old gaurd style elitist in his operation. This coming from a guy who support Annie M, who was invariably high up in a corrupt status quo federal government. I know what you will say, Ken. You will tell me that she was intelligent and visionary and could help change things (which she never did). You would say that I should have got to know her and listened to her and I would have seen what she wanted to achieve. You would say, judge the individual, not all the people around them. I would suggest the same with Jim. I believed all of the stuff that was said about him, until I talked to him and realized that he was NOT as people had made him out to be. He is brilliant, compassionate, and inclusive. he is a leader.
ReplyDeleteNow, I love Ed to death too. He is the first guy I would take fishing and golfing, but leader of this province. NO. Ed has a tough time making decisions and, for me, he does not understand the rural development strategy deep enough and has not expressed enough concern in implementing it. Sure he talks about biofuels and natural foods, but that is it! Nothing on education, healthcare, community infrastructure or small businesses on main street. Nothing on youth, seniors, or tourism. He may be the 'rural guy' but where is the rural understanding and the rural commitment?
I have to question something else that has recently happened too. Lyle joined Ed. Ed told me dozens of times that he would never go with Lyle, never work with Lyle, and never support Lyle because Lyle was . . . well, very very bad. So I have to ask, from a man of integrity, doesn't that deal stink. I know Ed said that it is different. He said he would never go with Lyle, but in this case, Lyle is going with him, and how can you turn away support? My grandpa always said, "Remember, it doesn't matter if you offer the devil a deal, or he offers it to you, it is still a deal with the devil." For a guy with a lot of integrity it seems to me that Ed has been caught up in 'anything to win' category.
Regardless, I degress. My point to this was to say that there should be an alliance between Stelmach and Dinning because their policies are closer to each other than to Morton's. By fighting Dinning at every turn and continuing to demonize him leaves people with the message the Morton is the best second choice for Ed supporters. I can't believe Ed and you would rather see BILLIONS spent on setting up our own policy force (uniforms, guns, computers, cars, jails, barracks - we have to buy it all because we don't own the RCMP stuff) and collecting our own taxes (we spend $3 million now, as aposed to Quebec that spends 30 times that much), rather than spending it on universities, schools, hospitals, rural development, roads, etc. Not forming an alliance . . . in fact announcing that he doesn't care where support goes does not show leadership! A guy that wants to be premier of this province is willing to just throw his hands up if he doesn't win and just say, 'oh well, do what you want!'. He has no concern for what happens after he is off the ballot?! Maybe Ed is the guy after power at all costs. Maybe Ed doesn't really care about anything but getting the top job.
Hi, Ken.
ReplyDeleteI’ve enjoyed our back and forth under the “Democracy” and “What Is Happening” posts on your blog.
Not sure how we got on to SSM and separation of church and state in this last go round, but I agree with everything you say, as I do on most things. My point was that you were suggesting the fresh winds of true democracy were breezing across the faces of only Ed’s supporters. I differed, although Ed is a fine man and has been #2 on my ballot from very early on and will be on Saturday.
My second point was that if the decision facing Albertans on the choice of Party Leader and Premier is as critical as you believe – and again, I agree – then the leadership candidates should be clear on where they stand on all things, including Ted Morton’s vision of Alberta.
That vision alarms me. Dr. Morton will isolate us within Canada. Alberta’s coming of age in taking THE leadership role in a 21st century Canada will be ashes in our mouth. Federal MPs are now trooping into Alberta to promote a provincial leadership candidate whose Reform Party agenda is one they couldn’t get elected on, or govern on, in Ottawa. Why do they hope to see it enacted in Alberta? And I’m speaking as someone whose MP, Kevin Sorenson, is a personal friend of both Dr. Morton and Dr. Oberg. (More on Dr. Oberg below.)
Dr. Morton will also fracture caucus and help put a Liberal majority in power in the next provincial election. That’s not my preference for the PC party or Alberta.
I know you agree on Morton, and asked you if Ed agreed and was willing to say so. As I said, I was privately informed that Ed had considered but passed on endorsing Ted Morton as #2 on the December 2 ballot and directing his MLAs to do the same, which some MLAs were asking him to do. Instead, he said each MLA and individual supporter could decide for themselves.
I asked YOU to check with Ed because you’re a personal friend of both Ed and Dave, served as a key policy advisor for Dave through his leadership campaign, and Dave was the first candidate to endorse Ed after the first round. The dots connect pretty well. I thought Ed might be happy to tell you for you to pass along - you haven’t made any bones about your support for Ed on your blog and you’ve been advocating for him very effectively. Good on you.
Besides, I hoped you’d be interested to confirm Ed’s leadership qualities as you described them for Larry Johnsrude:
“Stelmach is a more modern network model leader. It is not top down everybody serves the centre. It is gather the best information ideas and opinions and advice as a group who are encouraged to share different perspectives and approaches. We can pool the wisdom but then ultimately the leader has to take the final decision and be personally responsible for it and see to its execution. Stelmach is that kind of leader.”
Ducking this decision by allowing his announced MLAs do what they please on endorsing Ted Morton as their #2 choice next Saturday didn’t strike me as strong leadership, just run-of-the-mill politicking – especially when the stakes are so high. Granted it’s easier for Jim to be drawing attention to Dr. Morton’s deficiencies, but he’s made some other tough calls. Ed can make them too, right?
You called me on whether I was simply spreading gossip. Fair enough. I spoke with my source who has agreed to speak with you if you wish. Please email me and I’ll send you the contact info.
You also called me on asking Ed myself about Dr. Morton. I’ll email Ed about making a public declaration on whether he subscribes to Ted Morton’s idea of Alberta, and copy it to you.
I’ll also ask Ed to confirm what you said in a posting right after the 25th: “BTW - I do not expect Oberg to be seen or heard from much in the Playoffs this week nor in an Ed Stelmach government. Too much baggage and too few attributes.”
Along with Ed’s statement on Dr. Morton, knowing that he would sequester Dr. Oberg would reassure me, too. I share your dim view of Dr. Oberg, as you’ve outlined it in your various postings, and hope Ed does also.
Cheers, Ken!
Ted Morton doesn't drink or swear? That's just a silly lie. I know some people don't want to believe it, but Ted Morton is just a normal Albertan who wants to bring about some real change. Stop trying to make him out to be an extremist boogeyman, you sound like Paul Martin.
ReplyDeleteHi Kevin - I am a volunteer blogger and not an Ed Stelmach spoksperson - just a supporter.
ReplyDeleteI made that same position clear early in my blog when asked is I was a proxy blog for Hancock.
My comments on Oberg are my own and not Ed Stelmach's. I am a personal blogger not a spokesperson for Stelmach. Anything I say on this Blog are my personal comments only.
Re: second position support on the second ballot I made some enquiries as you asked and had an email from Joan Forge, Ed's Communications Chair. I also spoke directly with Dave Hancock.
Hancock is recommending to his supporters that they vote Stelmach #1 and Dinning #2 and emails are going out from him to his membership sales and volunteers to that effect. He is also on the phone telling people why Stelmach 1 and Dinning 2.
Ed is saying people are free to select their #2 choice and he is not "directing" anyone on how to vote the #2 position. What he is doing is showing respect for a person's personal franchise and the right to vote according to their own conscious. How does not to presume that you can or should direct a citizen on how to vote, being you are a mere candidate, be seen as not showing strong leadership? It shows repsect to my mind.
I think this is a perfect example that reflects my comments published in Larry Johnsrude's Blog on how Ed would lead.
This is a party process not a government activity. You need to earn and deserve the respect of your caucus and Cabinet continuously. Sometimes you have to spend some political capital to achieve a goal as Premier/Leader. That means, on occasion, you may have to dictate to your government the vote on a critical or controversial government policy or piece of legislation.
This leadership campaign is not a situation like that. Where does a candidate get off thinking they can or should dictate a personal vote on a party process? This is not a government issue and vote. It is an individual citizenship choice for whom and how to vote as a party member for a new leader.
I hope I understood your concern and that this answer addresses it.
BTW - We know Norris is saying to his supporters Stelmach #1 and Morton #2 - he put out a news release to that effect yesterday. I am informed by a media person today that Oberg is saying Stelmach #1 and Morton #2.
Oberg's star MLA, Hung Pham, is reported to be telling his people to go directly to Morton - he is not following Oberg to Stelmach.
There are 4 days left for Oberg to prove me wrong and I hope he does by working hard on delivering the rest of his supporters to Stelmach. I know Hancock is on this mission or Stelmach full time.
As for the Stelmach position on Morton's vision I really can't say. I have not been involved in the Stelmach campaign until Monday and only started doing stuff today. My suggestion is Stelmach's opinion on the Morton vision will likely come clear to everyone at the debate on Thursday.
I know where Hancock stands on Morton's vision becasue he has been clear in the debates and in questions on it. He shares some ideas on the need for party renewal but I expect they would differ on means. As for the Firewall, the RCMP, relations with Canada and parallel private health care SSM and most other social issues they differ completely.
Hope this helps. I got to get ready for tomorrow I am on the road all day doing some paid work for a client. Cheers!
Ken,
ReplyDeleteSeeing as you are basically an Anne McLellan Liberal, will you be bolting the party to join Taft's crew when those of us who are real conservatives succeed in electing Ted Morton on Saturday?
Ken, it's extremely funny how you have all of a sudden flip flopped on who you were supporting. Your earlier blogs clearly stated that you would support Dinning if Hancock was out. Now, you're supporting Stelmach.
ReplyDelete"I am a firm believer that church and state must be separated and the church has privileges but as a private institution. That said, they must operate within the law but they should not have any authority to make the law or to impose their views on others inspite of the law. "
ReplyDeleteHowever gets elected has the right to make any law that it wants (common Ken, I know you went to law school awhile back, but Parliamentary Soverneighty is an unwritten constitutional principle).
Isn't saying "I smell Democracy in the Air" like saying "Democracy is somewhere in the vacinity"???
ReplyDeleteIt's not here, but somewhere... maybe in a real election?
Anonymous - You sound like my volunterring or Anne McLellan was a bad thing. Actually I am worse than an Anne McLellan Liberal - I am a Joe Clark Progressive Conservative.
ReplyDeleteI have been an Alberta PC member since 1971 or so. I don't see myself bolting any where but I will work to have the next PC Leader declare that he will preserve and honour the PC Party of Alberta Statement of Principles.
They were as passed and accepted by the entire PC Party of Alberta membership after extensive consultation and by resolution at a Convention. I presume you "real" conservatives will abide by them as loyal PC Alberta Party members too.
As for the "real" conservatives taking over the PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF ALBERTA, we shall see.
I have to say that I see Ted Morton as being more like a "real" Republican than a "real" Canadian conservative. He sure is not a "real" Progressive Conservative so he is running for the wrong party. The Alberta Alliance supports him and that is where he should be running for a leadership position.
So if Dr. Morton does not win on Saturday will he bolt to the Alberta Alliance Party and leave the PC Party of Alberta to the real Progressive Conservatives?
He also wants to build a Firewall around us to isolate Alberta from Canada. That policy approach shows he does not understand the most basic aspects of the values set that Albertans hold most dear...being Canadian.
Would he go further on the isolation agenda for the province and attempt to invoke the Clarity Act to separate Alberta even further from Canada?
He would have two full years to do almost anything he pleases to the province if he were to become the next Premier on Saturday.
As for me, my Alberta includes Canada and it includes Stephen Harper's Quebecois Nation too. I don't think Ted Morton can say the same thing and really mean it.
Good point anonymous and I agree with you on the Principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. That is why we have to be very careful as to who we elect!
ReplyDeleteWe cast an election ballot and in doing so we grant to someone our consent to be governed. We give up some individuality for a common cause or the common good. That is not something to be taken lightly.
Be careful who you elect! We always get the government we deserve in a democracy, whether we voted or not.
Sorry, Ken. Can't agree with your take on Ed's failure to show leadership in stating his clear position on Ted Morton.
ReplyDeleteCertainly he shouldn't presume to direct regular party members. But, he should absolutely state publicly his opposition to Morton's isolationist and retrograde views, and at the very least recommend opposing them to the leadership candidates who say they have signed on to his principal leadership role.
You say there are critical situations where a leader must get everyone lined up on key issues, headed in the same direction, and make it stick. This is one of those times and this is one of those issues. Is this how Ed will handle cabinet and caucus? No coherent government agenda? Every MLA for himself or herself?
Jim looked a whole province in the face and said, "It's time for the deficit and the debt to go. It's going to hurt." Then he did it.
Maybe Ed is a nice guy who isn't much of a catherder. Or is it still just about not offending those key second preference votes from Morton supporters, that will make him Premier? As I asked before, hardball politics in the kingdom of light?
Ed has prospered in this campaign by his stealthiness. Time to step up and be recognized on whether Morton's Alberta is his Alberta. That's leadership.
kevin from the country,
ReplyDeleteThe arrogance from the Dinning camp is entertaining. Why does Ed have to tell his supporters their second preference? It is a personal choice, and as the middle candidate, he will have supporters that will lean to Dinning and some that will lean to Morton. Ed is just respecting his supporters' individual choices.
If Jim is so dead-set against a Morton government, he would show true leadership and sacrifice and drop out, throwing his support to Ed now before the ballot. But of course he won't. Jim is in it for Jim and will play second fiddle to no one. If he doesn't win, it is back to the private sector - he has left the door open as he has not resigned from any of his corporate boards.
Forgot to commend you on your excellent response to one of the anonymice, re the PROGESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY, Morton's firewall and Harper's Quebecois nation.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it bugs me tremendously that Harper's MPs are storming the beach for Morton. I was a member of Reform and the Alliance, but that was last decade. Alberta and Canada have moved on. You can't drive the road looking in the rearview.
Besides, the federal Conservatives couldn't get elected or govern in Ottawa on Morton's platform. Why impose it here? Are we Jason Kenney's petrie dish?
I want a Premier who will stand up for Alberta as a strong leader in a united Canada. Morton can't deliver on either point, as a firewall expert, or as Stephen Harper's branch manager.
Kevin from the country: You attempt to tear apart Stelmach is indicative of Dinning's overall strategy. It will not work against Ed. If you've early met the man, you'd notice that he is indeed honest and has much integrity.
ReplyDeleteIf Ted doesn't win, I'm votin for Eddy.
The race is really between Ed and Ted. Dinning is toast - many of his bandwagon supporters know this and are flocking to Ed and Ted's camp.
"Although it bugs me tremendously that Harper's MPs are storming the beach for Morton. I was a member of Reform and the Alliance, but that was last decade. Alberta and Canada have moved on."
ReplyDeleteAh, the Reform and Alliance members of that last decade are currently governing the country.
"You can't drive the road looking in the rearview."
The Ted and Ed freight trains is speedily passing Dinning - are you telling them that they should not look back as they zip by?
"it bugs me tremendously that Harper's MPs are storming the beach for Morton."
ReplyDeleteIt'd bug me too if I was a Dinning supporter. Thankfully, I'm not.
This is going to be a great race. For everyone in one of the 3 camps, have a great weekend!!!
ReplyDelete...and go Morton!