I have come to the conclusion that Jim Dinning has run the best campaign and is a shoe-in for the second ballot. He has the best organization; the most money, the most MLA support, a group of professional campaigners working for him and a network of volunteers throughout the province.
He has campaigned for years and has proven experience and capabilities. He is obviously going to be on the second ballot. That is no surprise. The question now is who are the best candidates to share the second ballot with Jim for the sake of the PC party and the province?
If we want a medieval morality play Morton and Oberg would be on the second ballot with Dinning. The social conservatives would press their boys – the “good Doctors” - to promote the “family values” agenda. That agenda is anti-gay, anti-abortion and a pro-God fearing culture that is tough on crime and big on punishment despite proven ineffectivness. It is a society where the government is the stern father figure that we fear and merely feign respect. It is an agenda that wants to make Albertans as close to being Bush Republicans as they can possibly get us.
I say that the 35% undecided Albertans and soft PC supporters who have joined or intend to join so they can vote in the leadership campaign can forget about voting Jim Dinning – he has the second ballot status in the bag.
I also say they should not forget about Oberg and Morton, especially if they love freedom and choice and respect, and inclusion and diversity. If they value and desire a nurturing caring society with leaders who see themselve, not as sources and forces of power, but as servants of the public good.
To defeat Oberg and Morton and keep them off the second ballot I say vote Stelmach or Hancock on November 25th as the best way to do that.
Imagine the synergy of the talent, experience and skills of Dinning, Hancock and Stelmach as Alberta's three key politicians working together. Imagine how they could help design the preferred future for the province and guide and govern us in ways that will get us there.
I have Hancock as my preference for Premier but at the end of the day I could see the Progressive Conservative party brand survive with any one of Hancock, Stelmach or Dinning as leader and Premier. I could see the province thrive with the combined skills, energy and experience of all three of them working together under the PC political brand, regardless of which one ends up in the Premier’s office.
People have to understand what is at stake here and be prepred to engage. They must show up to elect a Progressive Conservative slate to the second ballot, and not allow, by benign neglect, a fundamentalist republican opposition on to the second ballot.
I do not want a Premier that is a dictatorial bully. I know Dr. Oberg to be just that and have had my opinions confirmed dozens of times by people who also have first hand experiences with him.
Nor do I want a fundamentalist religious agenda as the lens through which Alberta sets its social, economic and environmental policy. I fear that perspective would be the point of view of Dr. Morton because, in the end, he “has to dance with those who brung him.” Prime Minister Mulroney knew that dynamic all too well.
Dining has done it. He is a given to be on the second ballot. Now, if you are concerned about the future of the province and the viability of the PC Party, if you want enlightened government and informed intelligent change then Hancock and Stelmach are the best choices to join Dinning on the second ballot.
I encourage Albertans who are social progressives and fiscal conservatives, and that is the vast majority of us, to show up November 25 and vote for Hancock or Stelmach to be sure they are both on the second ballot with Dinning.
That is the best was to make sure the best man wins. More importantly that makes sure that Alberta wins too. With a choice between Hancock, Stelmach and Dinning on December 2nd, Alberta wins no matter who ends up as Leader/Premier.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteMy three would be Dinning, Morton, and Hancock.
Leaving aside the fact that they are the only three candidates I considered supporting, a choice between these three would give voters distinct choices, which I think is important. Politics has become too much of a race to the middle, and we've seen it in this race, where everyone tends to agree with everyone else.
It's important to have debate about the big issues we face, and whittling the ballot down to these three candidates would be the best way to facilitate that happening.
I like the way you think. The point is what is the best outcome we can garner for the future of Alberta from the gaggle of candidates out there. The regular season ends on Nov 25 and the playoffs begin. Which candidates do you want to be part of the Preferential Ballot in the playoffs and what do you expect from them?
ReplyDeletethx for the feedback and your reasoning.
Wow - this post is like a liberal party of Canada attack ad on Harper. It's absolutely sickening and has no substance. You've basically insulted a large portion of the PC party. Well done.
ReplyDeleteThis is a pathetic attempt to create a rationale to vote for Hancock. Good luck with this.
I don't see Dinning or Hancock make these types of accusations - they are honourable and well-respected.
Hi - yet another anonymous comment!
ReplyDeleteWhat "accusations" are you talking about? All my comments are reflective of public record positions of the candidates?
Lets not divert the attention to Harper - he is not running for the PC leadership. Lets stick to the reality of what we want for the next Alberta.
I have commented on Dr. Calberta's post on Renewing the One Party State for more background on what I am suggesting about the second ballot if you are interested.
This is a funny strategy – maybe Dinning’s straight arm against Mrs. Hancock worked if Hancock’s supporters are now endorsing the purported swearing in of Dinning.
ReplyDeleteI particularly like your statement about "professional campaigners" and volunteers. What was so professional about their comments to Mrs. Hancock?
Hi Anonymous...on what basis do you conclude this blog posting is an endorsement of the "swearing in of Dinning?" I merely says it seems to me he is a shoe-in to be on the second ballot. I don't say he has the second ballot in the bag!
ReplyDeleteThe post-Nov 25th campaign stage is a brand new ball game kind of like the "playoffs" being a "new season" for those who make the cut.
What candidates do you want to see in the final round and why? Do you dispute my presumption about Dinning being in the second round?
I suggest accepting Dinning on the second ballot really allows the undecideds and soft supporters to make choices other than Dinning in the first round. That will make the second round more interesting and decisive about the next direction we want to see our new Premier take Alberta.
What is so odd about that?
You state that Dinning is "a shoe-in for the second ballot." I took this to mean that no other candidate has a chance of winning the race. You've corrected me - thanks. Of course no one would dispute your statement that Dinning will be in the top 3 - my real dispute was with your characterization and fear mongering of Morton and Oberg.
ReplyDelete"All my comments are reflective of public record positions of the candidates?"
Okay, so Morton and Oberg have stated they oppose freedom, choice, respect, inclusion and diversity. This is an absurd statement. Using your logic, anyone who supports Morton and Oberg opposes such things as well.
Stating they want to be like Bush Republicans is simply a unsubstantiated fear-inducing statement. Where is their public record on this? Do they want to go to Iraq? Are they against stem cell research? You're just making statements that aren't supported by the facts. It's like me saying Hancock hates kittens and then saying his public record supports this.
I am not religious but I do indeed respect religious freedom of express - this is also entrenched in our beloved Charter. After reading your blog, I thought you would respect others and their opinions (even if you disagree with them). I don't see Hancock walking around in public trashing various religions because they want protection from lawsuits when they express beliefs. I don't understand why you would do so on your blog.
You state that you want an inclusive society while expressly excluding certain members who you disagree with. You are trying to suck and blow at the same time.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. As a dedicated Dinning supporter and volunteer, I sincerely hope that he becomes our next Premier, but I whole-heartedly agree that Hancock and Stelmach would be my next choices. I especially appreciate the positive spirit that both of their campaigns represent (despite what the media reports).
All in all, the PC Party seems strong, and that;s what matters.
Hi Anonymous - Glad we are clearer in our understanding of each other now. I will expand on the new-republican characterization and the social conservative aspects shortly.
ReplyDeleteAs for protection for lawsuits because they express a religious belief...the churches are private organizations and were already exempted from performing same sex marriages in the federal legislation...the FEDERAL legislation. This is not an issue in this PROVINCIAL campaign. Religous freedom does not trump an individual Charter Right - at least not in the Canada I want to live in.
No one that I know who is a person of faith believes they have the right to discriminate against person's Charter rights in the name of religious freedom.
As for Provincially licensed civil ceremony Marriage Commissioners - they have to follow the law of the land. They should not be exempt.
Do you want a provincial police force being able to choose when, how and why they enforce the law and to be selective as to who it applies to?
"Religous freedom does not trump an individual Charter Right - at least not in the Canada I want to live in."
ReplyDeleteOf course not. Charter rights must naturally co-exist among themselves. No Charter right can be greater than another one. There must indeed be a balance.
"No one that I know who is a person of faith believes they have the right to discriminate against person's Charter rights in the name of religious freedom."
Wow. This argument is circular. Let me simply rephrase your statement: "No one that I know who is not a person of faith believes they have the right to discriminate against person's Charter rights in the name of freedom and choice."
Please inform yourself that criminal law is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. A province police force only deals with the enforcement of the federal criminal code. Are you stating that Ontario's own police force decides when to enforce the law? I didn't think so - ... or is that just another unsubstantiated accusation?
Like Dave C, I did enjoy reading your post. I personally am pro gay marriage. However, I do not belittle that large percentage of the Canadian population that opposes it (and indeed of the world - only a small handful of countries allow grant same-sex marriage).
I enjoy how you evade questions about Dinning's supporters trying to intimidate Mrs. Hancock. In fact, you call them "professional".
ReplyDeleteOn the Garth Turner announcement I agree re: fizzle - but it was not anything like the Oberg fiasco.
ReplyDeleteOberg refused to say ANYTHING at his urgently called "bloodbath" news conference until forced to by subsequent events and the media response. The substance of his "expose" media announcement was found to be trite at best and ended up damaging his credibility as a fair minded person who could legitimately aspire to leadership. Oberg now looks like his is just a player not substantial enough as a person to be a political party leader.
Turner should not be surprised his nomination is not welcome by the powers that be in the Conservative Party of Canada. A leader has to be able to veto a candidate they know they can't work with. Better that it happen now than at the time of an election call.
The local constituency and "candidate" can respond accordingly. That is what Turner and the Halton folks are doing...responding by being an independent voice. Pretty normal stuff to my mind and hardly a breath taking revelation of political shenanigans.
It does bring forth the larger question though of what is the role and purpose of political parties at the local level don't you think?
At the end of the day all we can say is the real political role at the local constituency level is "not much." That is the way it has been working in all the political parties that I know anything about.
The leader and his advisors are pretty much in control of anything that really matters. That has been true of the PC Party of Alberta too and that is why we need to be careful of who we choose as our leader.
Anyway you can put up a link to the PC leadership debate (for those who aren't in Alberta) and give your analysis?
ReplyDeletePlease post on how Hancock got destroyed by Dinning during the debates. Did you notice how Hancock shirked away in the face of Dinning? I guess he wants a cabinet position afterall.
ReplyDeleteHi YET another anonymous...I applaud Dave's presentation tonight. No shirking there.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the forum was on Global TV - are you sure you were on the right channel and not watching a Giligan's Island rerun?
The Forum was a farse - more infotainment televison than a serious political event.
I heard that as well - 30 second rebuttals - that's a joke. Too bad the main rivals didn't somehow organize a real debate.
ReplyDelete"He has the best organization; the most money, the most MLA support, a group of professional campaigners working for him and a network of volunteers throughout the province."
ReplyDeleteWhat a sad set of characteristics upon which to elect a party leader, let alone a Premier. No wonder so many young people do not vote.
What a sad set of characteristics upon which to elect a party leader, let alone a Premier. No wonder so many young people do not vote.
ReplyDelete**********************************
Oh my you said it Michael, you said it ... a totally sad sad basis on which to elect a leader, somewhat like at the televised forum, Jim Dandy won it because he looked into the camera? HUH?
you mean the bullies and good ole boys from the past, the same old same crowd were professional? HUH?
Ultimately, in the end, positioning oneself on the fence is the best place to jump off of whenst the final tally is made, I suppose hmmm??
I attended both forums and Dave was the winner in both forums, no dithering, no recycling the same old same old, no propaganda from the past. Clear cut answers to every question with a mind on the future.
But what would I know? I'm waaaay down here on the ground, and not up there sitting on the fence.
Becky, Dave did an adequate job. However, no one in the crowd really stood out for me. There were good points here and there but they were all pre-manufactured comments.
ReplyDeleteBecky, who is your second choice if Hancock does not end up winning the race?
I think that the Edmonton Forum should have been televised. It was comfortable to attend, lively and not boring at all. The voters got a better perspective of the candidates than the Calgary "thing".
ReplyDeleteSecond Choice - I have no idea.
Will I even vote is the question?
Other than Dave Hancock, I am very disillusioned I can tell you that at the moment
:-(
I know one thing, if I hear one comment from the "same old same old boys from the past" or see one more wink wink, ha ha or one more WELL FOLKS I think I shall scream!
Becky,
ReplyDeleteLove your enthusiasm. And I can sympathize with your "if I hear one more...". I feel the same way with respect to people saying that Ed Stelmach is "too nice" to be premier. Since when did honesty and integrity cease to be a virtue?
oh no I promised myself that never again would I start up again about Ed!! He's a nice man believe me, but he needs Christopher Leadership Courses in Public Speaking to be more effective and dynamic!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous you "sound" like Ken
But then again if you were Ken, I could oh so gently "slap you on your wrist" for this oh so "Liberal puh puh" post this time
:-)
My impression of the debate - The candidates I noticed (in my simplistic way):
ReplyDeleteOberg – Whao, the guy has some guts, and he is not relenting. I salute his forthrightness, but will he be able to get anything done in the mist of combating his foes? Too many issues will leave him with little time for constructive leadership in my own opinion.
Dinning – He seemed overconfident. Personally, I just don’t seem to trust him. May be too many IOUs too.
Hancock – Well prepared, articulate, concise, good points and knowledgeable. He won me over most with his environmental plan and his response to the relationship with the federal government question. Obviously he did his 'homework'. He also has good experience too. Even if he doesn’t end up the eventual winner, the party has a great resource in that man.
Morton – He did not seem comfortable up there. I think he needs to convince his constituency first.
Conclusion – No one really stood out for me in a charismatic way. I hope to give my vote to someone who I am sure knows what he is doing.
Please get out and vote. Your vote will count towards electing the right person. A lot of people are working hard to vote for the ‘wrong’ candidates, so please don’t stay away. Your vote can make a difference. Vote your conscience please. We (the ordinary people) have the power to turn things around in this information age, let us test our power. So vote!
One of the issues I am listening to as an ordinary Albertan is, who is going to remove the Alberta Health Care "Premiums" and find a better way?
ReplyDeleteI want those gone.
I stand in solidarity with the Lethbridgonians who booed the "Calgary Candidate"
Question:
How come when he was heckled and booed in Edmonton, NO ONE reported THIS?
(Where is the oh so cute Tom Olson when a boo needs to be reported!)
;-)
RE: My impression of the debate - The candidates ... I mean NORRIS not Morton.
ReplyDeleteSorry about that.
Becky - Olson has trashed every candidate in this race. He certainly has not singled out Hancock. If anything, the media is biased towards the hard left leaning views of Hancock.
ReplyDeleteThere's "Elevator Ed."
ReplyDeleteDave H is "Ms Piggy on Steroids."
Oberg is "Shemp."
Dinning is "Jimrod"
Norris is "Bluto"
Morton is "Donald Duck"
My prediction:
1st Ballot:
1. Jimrod
2. Donald Duck
3. Shemp
4. Elevator Ed
5. Bluto
6. Ms Piggy
Okay, help me out on this. Ms Piggy goes to Jimrod.
Bluto goes to Jimrod.
Elevator Ed goes to Jimrod.
Gee, I guess ITS JIMROD by a Country Mile!!!