Smith Wins Wildrose Leadership: Now What?

I had the opportunity to meet and talk with over 100 Wildrose Alliance Party members yesterday at their Leadership Convention in Edmonton. I was asked by the WAP Executive Director to do a presentation on social media, a subject that stirs my political passions. As an unrepentant Red Tory I wondered if the WAP (and I) knew what we were getting into but it was a very enjoyable event for me and the feedback on Twitter and face-to-face makes me believe the feeling was mutual.


The leadership campaign of Danielle Smith took over 75% of the membership support, a very conclusive result for sure. Congratulations are in order and I have to admire any citizen, regardless of stripe, who offers their time and talent as a political candidate in the service of the greater public good. The media was all over this party leadership, partly because of the strong showing in the Calgary Glenmore by election and the dismal third place shellacking the Stelmach PC’s endured.

The December 2008 Alberta Liberal leadership got minimal media coverage by comparison but the times were very different then. The melting Alberta economy was in full flight as the recession cum depression and commodity price collapse dominated the headlines. The WAP did not have the same media headline competition and in fact became the political story for a month or so before the leadership convention.

The leadership campaign voter and party membership numbers from both of these contests are underwhelming. In both the Liberal and WAP contest only about 71% of the members bothered to show up to vote. Does that mean 30% of those Albertans who paid for the party membership did so just to get the party membership seller off their back? Likely!

The Liberals only sold 6258 party membership for their leadership contest and 4599 of them bothered to vote. The WAP sold just over 11,600 party memberships and 8296 of them bothered to vote. The new leader of the WAP, Danielle Smith took over 75% of the voter turnout with 6295 ballots. One needs to put 6300 party supporters in perspective. Consider that in the 2008 Alberta election 37 winners in individual constituencies had more supporters than Smith did based on the entire province.

The WAP today is a long way from any reality as an alternative to the power of the Progressive Conservative support. The WAP knows that but the next election is 3 years away, coincidentally the same time Premier Stelmach recently predicted in his TV fireside speech that provincial surpluses would return.

One other very interesting implication from the WAP leadership was the party’s reluctance and tactical maneuvering to avoid disclosing the vote results. The pre-count concession by the very socially conservative candidate Mark Dyrholm was used as an excuse to avoid disclosing the vote results. They eventually unenthusiastically released the count. In fact as I write this, almost 24 hours later, the vote count is still not on the WAP website, just linked to the blog post of the Executive Director.

For the record, Smith got 6295 votes and Dyrholm got 1905 votes. This is a dramatic rejection of the anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, patriarchal, family-values political agenda of the far right base of the party mergers that became the Wildrose Alliance. Interestingly Dyrholm in a province-wide leadership campaign got fewer votes than Craig Chandler did in his third place finish the 2008 election in Calgary Egmont. OUCH!

This leadership rejection result will not sit well with the traditionalist base of the new WAP and I can’t see them going away quietly. Appeasement of socially conservative political agenda will be one of Smith’s first and toughest challenges as the WAP goes about the Province the hammer out a policy platform. There is already a WAP platform on their website that induced over 11000 Albertans to join up. What does Smith want to see changed, why and to what?

So now the WAP is a new party, with a new seat and a new leader. I think we need some hardnosed political perspective on the implications of this new party. I encourage every Albertan who is concerned about the future of this province to read the WAP policy platform and to reflect upon how it aligns with their values. If you agree, get on board with the WAP. If you disagree, you have a more complex set of political participation questions to consider. 

What if the PC's send Premier Stelmach a harsh political message at the November 7th party leadership review?  That will that trigger more dramatic consequences for Alberta than what happened at the WAP leadership tussle yesterday.  Time for Albertans to get ready for any one of a range of possible scenarios coming out of that crucial vote.  What the PC party says to Premier Stelmach then will promise to have a serious impact on all of us right now.  That political conversation will be happening mostly on Twitter at #PCAGM so sign up and tune in.

Wild Alliance Party Rejects Chandler as a Director

My sources tell me Mr. Chandler and his cohorts ran for directorships in the Wild Alliance Party at the Merger Meeting yesterday in Calgary. Rick Bell of the Calgary Sun confirms that it is true and they were all unsuccessful

Will Mr. Chandler now seek a Wild Alliance nomination for the soon to be announced election…or will he stick to his independent candidate guns?

I have checked both the Alliance and Wildrose sites this morning and see they have nothing about the merger meeting posted on the sites and the newspapers have spotty coverage. Does anyone out there know what is really going on with this new party that wants to perfect yesterday instead of planning for tomorrow?

I presume from earlier statements that Mr. Chandler no longer wishes to be associated with the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta. The feeling is mutual. However, I find it curious that he has allegedly been able to gain access to the PC Party Calgary Egmont nomination voting results which he posted as a comment on my Blog post yesterday.

I will presume Mr. Chandler's reporting of the results are accurate until an official reporting comes along. Once again I have to chastise the Calgary Egmont constituency organization, and any others in any political party who have followed the same path of not releasing the vote counts in nominations. Open and transparent democracy demands the release of all political party nomination results if the parties are to continue to deserve the confidence of the electorate on this and other more serious issues as well.

As for the reported Calgary Egmont "write-in" nomination of Craig Chandler for the PC Party, I wonder if that was done by Mr. Chandler himself. It matters not but it is an intriguing diversion from the weather and easier to figure out than the Sudako puzzle. I also wonder it Mr. Chandler followed up on his offer to buy the www.edstelmach.ca website from Daveberta too hoping to be the defendant in the earlier threats of legal action over the website.

I think the powers that be in the PC Party and the Premier's Office have learned a lesson and are quietly dropping the whole silly website thing. That means Daveberta is left like the pawnshop owner who actually knows he has stolen property in the store and now faces a dilemma. He doesn't really want to keep the site because it has served its purpose and can only cause more trouble if it gets misused. He can't really sell it, given what he knows about how it was acquired in the first place. What is the responsible thing for Daveberta to do under these circumstances?

Will the Alliance and Wildrose Parties Bring Down Ed Stelmach?

I see Grog commenting on this Blog and I found that he resides at The Cracked Crystal Ball II Blog. I recommend you visit him and daveberta for more updates on amazing political adventures of Craig Chandler.

I wonder if the polls referenced in the Chandler Fundraiser Letter at CTV Calgary and the Calgary Herald were those much abused and laughably unscientific web based “polls” that can be invaded by self-selecting and self-interested trolls. My guess it they were.

The line that I liked most from the Fundraising Letter was "Alliance, the Wildrose Party, Independents and many from the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party who are organizing to insure that Ed Stelmach is not supported in his next leadership review."

So Alliance and Wildrose members will get together with independents and some PCs, all under the Craig Chandler as martyr banner and conspire to take Ed Stelmach out as Progressive Conservative leader?

They obvously need a common enemy in order to have something they can agree on! Sweet!

Alberta Separatist David Crutcher Also Not Acceptable as a PC Candidate

Dec 11 - CORRECTION: there is a comment from Mr. Chandler correcting a factual error on this post. He says Mr. Crutcher was not his campaign manager in the recent Calgary Egmont PC nomination campaign. Harley Shouldice was the campaign manager, and according to the comment, still is Mr. Chandler's campaign manager. Thank you for bring that correction to our attention.

As for Mr. Crutcher's Alliance Leadership campaign platform where he outlined his conditions for Alberta separation, the links in this post to his position on this matter speaks for itself.

It was with some amusement that I found that Mr. David Crutcher is considering running for the PC Party nomination in Calgary Egmont. This gentleman was Craig Chandler’s campaign manager for his recent “successful” nomination in Calgary Egmont. Mr. Chandler was recently rejected as a candidate by the Progressive Conservative Party Executive Committee for “not being in the best interests of the Party.”

The quid pro quo irony is that Mr. Chandler was Mr. Crutcher’s campaign manager in his failed bid to leader the Alberta Alliance Party in 2005 where he came in third of four candidates.

Mr. Crutcher was very recently elected President by one vote of the Calgary Egmont PC Association and was removed from the Presidency for supporting Chandler and not remaining neutral in the nomination process.

This trial balloon candidacy is being seen as a bit of mischievousness by some and sour grapes by others on the far right. I believe Mr. Chandler has moved on to the Alberta Alliance or the new Wildrose Party or some other manifestation of the far-right fringe element in Alberta’s political “culture.” Mr. Crutcher seems to want to keep the nomination pot boiling and so be it but lets give him a heads up first and tell him that he will not be the PC candidate under any circumstance.

Looking into some of Mr. Crutcher’s background and previous policy positions one can easily conclude his candidacy is also “not in the best interests of the party.” I think he should be told that now and well in advance of exercising any delusions he may have of running for nomination and hoping his candidacy will be accepted by the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party.

He, like Mr. Chandler, is also misaligned and likely maladaptive to the Statement of Principles of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party. When he was running for the leadership of the Alberta Alliance Party in 2005 he touted Alberta separation from Canada as part of his campaign policy. He couched his policy position saying that Alberta should not seek separation from Canada if the Harper Cons won the next federal election. That is sure reassuring (sic).

Such a policy position in his leadership bid of another political party shows that Mr. Crutcher will not be able to adhere to at least one of the very significant Statement of Principles of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party, namely:

“ALBERTA AS AN EQUAL PARTNER IN CONFEDERATION
We must strive to maintain sovereignty over provincial matters, believing that a strong and vibrant Alberta is a cornerstone of a strong and united Canada.”

The Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta is not a separatist party Mr. Crutcher. Mark Norris mused about this idea for a few moments in the recent leadership campaign and quickly changed his tune. He lost his leadership bid - badly!

The PC Party believes in a strong Alberta within a strong Canada and will not harbour any overt or closet separatists. Don’t waste your time and money Mr. Crutcher. It is time for you to move on too sir!

Wildrose Party Ready For Official Party Status

Congratulations to Link Byfield and Rob James and the Wildrose Party of Alberta in gathering over 6300 signatures in a petition to Elections Alberta for official party status.

My guess is we are into an election call in February. The three dates in my mind are Feb 5, right after the Throne Speech or February 12 or 13, just before the Budget or around February 28, after the debate on the Budget.

OK Link and Rob – next job is to get candidates nominated. Will Craig Chandler be one of them?

Paul Jackson, Calgary Sun Columnist, Flip Flops on Support for Chandler

Jim Brown, the host of the Calgary CBC Radio One morning show the “Calgary Eye Opener” does a professional job today in interviewing Paul Jackson of the Calgary Sun. It is all about Mr. Brown trying to get a rational explanation from Mr. Jackson over certain events and some clarity as to where he actually stands on supporting Mr. Chandler's political aspirations.

The interview topic is how Mr. Jackson was apparently the victim of a crank call from the office of the Premier of Alberta. Mr. Jackson, a seasoned journalist, says he received a phone call from some one who did not give him their name. Mr. Jackson says he did not recognize the voice as anyone he knew from the Premier's office. The anonymous caller claimed to be from the Premier's office was apparently calling Mr. Jackson asking him to support a candidate in the Calgary Egmont PC nomination. That candidate was not Mr. Chandler.

Mr. Jackson acknowledges writing a column supporting the "other" candidate but "as a courtesy" he sent an email to Mr. Chandler advising him of the "call" from the Premier's office. Mr. Chandler jumps on this "opportunity" and goes to the media claiming interference by the Premier's office in his nomination bid. It gets even sillier and there is more, but best you listen to the whole radio interview and form your own opinions.

Then go to the "Craig Chandler for Calgary Egmont" website and watch the video to see Mr. Jackson's comments endorsing Mr. Chandler when he announced he was seeking the PC nomination.

Putting the two events together and you are left wondering how a seasoned journalist like Jackson could become woven into such a tangled web of circumstances. Trying to square Mr. Jackson’s circle as he explains on the CBC what really happened and where he really stands on Mr. Chandler as a political candidate is a tad challenging to follow. Given the events, you can understand Mr. Chandler's astonishment at these events and what appears to be Mr. Jackson's inexplicable personal expression of cognitive dissonance. And these gentlemen share the same ideological base - way out there on the far right.

Mr. Jackson notes he has been in the media business for 43 years. Based on these performances and his explanation of events the kindest comment one can come up with is to suggest at the very least Mr. Jackson needs some serious media training.

PC Party Should Learn From the Chandler Experience and Fix Its Nomination and Leadership Process

The right decision was made by the PC Party Executive Committee on Mr. Chandler’s suitability for candidacy in the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta. The matter is not over. Beyond Mr. Chandler’s indications he may sue the Party for his nomination costs which he says are $127,000.00, the PC Party needs to revisit its nomination and leadership selection processes.

The PC Party, and other political parties too I expect, need to review their nomination process in the light of expectations of accountability, transparency and fairness. Premier Stelmach promised the Party would review and fix the leadership process. Let’s kill two birds and deal with the nomination process at the same time.

Let’s learn from the Chandler experience and do some Constitutional updating. First fairness. If the Leader or the Party Executive has reservations about a candidate pursuing nomination perhaps we need to take a page from the federal CPCs and have a questionnaire and statutory declaration completed by each candidate before they are eligible to run. We can confidentially get a sense of their background and skeletons, if any, and judge their suitability up front. We should not have to rely on Dr. Oberg for this information on skeletons. A suitability test and a decision could be made without embarrassing anyone.

Second, we need full disclosure of donors and perhaps limits on nomination campaign spending to level the playing field and for transparency. If Mr. Chandler spent $127,000.00 for about 950 votes, how did he spend it? Did he buy every supporter dinner in a nice restaurant? For that money? He could have.

Who ponied up $127,000 in the first place? Spending that kind of money at this level of the political process shows that Mr. Chandler is clearly only a social conservative...he is no fiscal conservative, that is for sure. Can you imagine how he might spend of our tax money if he were in government? We need to clean this matter up in the leadership process too. We have been waiting about a year and still don't know who supported Do. Oberg's leadership despite his promise to disclose donors. Dr. Morton said he will not disclose his leadership campaign donors and under the current Party rules - he is entitled to that entitlement. Not good enough.

We have some fixin’ to do in the PC Party around our nomination and leadership processes. This is up to the Party not the leader to undertake this job. Let’s get at it.

Stelmach's First Year as Alberta's Premier

Premier Stelmach has had a busy first year as Premier. He had a shaky start. He seems to be getting his legs firmly underneath him now and is well on his way to delivering on most of his Leadership campaign initiatives. Some accuse him of being a ditherer but the events and actions over the last year and the recent accelerating pace of politics in Alberta proves otherwise.

Lots more in the hopper too as this session winds down and the new budget get finalized and the platform planks for the forthcoming election get framed. There are only 4 candidates yet to be nominated for the PC Party and that has gone well too…especially in terms of the recent rejection of Mr. Chandler.

It is nice to see the positive bounce for him in the recent poll in the post royalty review period. It is worth noting the Taft Liberals also got a positive bounce in the same poll.

Now Stelmach has to get Oberg to take speech lessons from Marcel Marceau and get him to stop talking and sabotaging the policy development and deployent process on royalties.

Any meetings with Energy and the industry better be in public or held off until the Lobbyists Act is proclaimed with the regulations so we can be assured there is no closed door dealings between government official, politicians and the energy sector.

Albertans as the Owners of the resource will want to know every thing that is being said and to understand the significance of all of the discussions and the implications.

Stelmach Refuses Chandler as a Candidate

The Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta Executive and Leader of the party has met in Red Deer and made up its mind about Mr. Chandler’s suitability as a PC Candidate in the upcoming election.

Mr. Chandler’s candidacy in Calgary Egmont is not acceptable and is deemed not to be in the best interests of the PC Party of Alberta.

The Premier announced that decision to the media at about 2:30 this afternoon in Red Deer.

Mr. Chandler is saying democracy is dead in the PC Party of Alberta. He was not kicked out of the party but he indicated to media in Red Deer after the decision that he will not stay in a party that doesn’t respect the decision of the local constituency.

It is ironic that this decision about his suitability for candidacy in the PC Party of Alberta is the same city where The Concerned Christian Coalition, to which Mr. Chandler was associated, was found, by the Alberta Human Rights Commission to:

“…have contravened s.3 of the Act (Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act) by causing to be published in the Red Deer Advocate, before the public, a publication which is likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt because of their sexual preferences.”

Well done Ed and congratulations to the rest of the PC Party Executive Committee too. It is the right decision and done in the right way and for the right reasons. The decision is also consistent with the Statement of Principles of the Party, especially as we say we are a party that is open and accessible to all.

We state in those Principles that we are “…a Party for all Albertans. We welcome their thoughts, their efforts, and support the principles of progressive conservativism.”

That means homosexuals too Mr. Chandler.

This is a good day for the PC Party of Alberta. This decision speaks well of the PC Party. It also shows Alberta to be an inclusive and welcoming province. It shows that Alberta PCs are prepared to stand up to hatred and contemptuous behaviour.

This decision to reject Mr. Chandler’s nomination shows the Premier Stelmach as going on record to assure all citizens that their fundamental freedoms and equality rights under the Charter will be honoured in Alberta by a Progressive Conservative party and his government.

You are wrong again Mr. Chandler. This is a great day for democracy in Alberta.

Free Speech and Political Candidates

There is an anonymous comment on my posting of yesterday aimed at clarifying the resolution of the Canadian Human Rights complaint against Mr. Chandler. I thought a response to parts of the comment was worthy of a separate posting.

The Anonymous commenter says (in part) "There was no human rights decision, there was an agreement. Craig was not forced to do anything. He could have fought it but chose not to as he is a consensus builder."

Thank you Anon at 8:47 for the clarification on the Canadian Human Rights complaint against Mr. Chandler. I have chaired a human rights inquiry for the Alberta Human Rights Commission and presume the Canadian Human Rights Commission follows a similar approach and procedure.

The preferred remedy in these kind of human rights matters is to have a mediated and negotiated mutually agreeable resolution before calling a formal inquiry. That approach seeks a more enduring and effective solution that satisfies both parties without having to impose a decision by the Commission.

From the Anonymous comment that mutually agreeable resolution is what apparently happened in the complaint against Mr. Chandler. That being the case, I complement Mr. Chandler for apologizing and agreeing to such a respectful resolution of the issue.

Finding "guilt" in matters of human rights is not usually a very effective resolution because it does not likely change anything about the underlying problems and attitudes of the people involved.

A genuine and authentic public apology is a much better solution for the parties. Such a resolution of a complaint will hopefully also add to the social cohesion and mutual respect within a diverse community. Instead of finding a person guilty of a human rights offence and being fined or facing some other penalty versus that same person admitting a mistake and taking steps to rectify the damage they caused is a significant difference.

However, if the apology is not genuine or authentic and does not truly indicate a change in attitude and beliefs it is not effective. If it is used merely a tactical means to avoid a hearing on the issues and the problem, beliefs and attitudes persists, then there is no effective negotiated resolution.

Anonymous indicates Mr. Chandler has hired legal counsel to review newspaper and blogs presumably looking for opportunities to pursue litigation. I noted in an earlier blog posting that that looking for potentials to use litigation by people who are being judged and commented on in public would not be a surprise.

However, Mr. Chandler is a public figure, especially since he has put himself and his beliefs into the public sphere, politically and otherwise. He has done this in many ways and for many years. He is reported to have offered himself up before as a candidate for political office including as a leadership candidate for a federal political party.

Mr. Chandler is a strong advocate for free speech and he has a right to correct errors of fact to preserve his reputation. That said, under the circumstances of offering himself up again for elected public office, the public has a right to know about Mr. Chandler. He is a public political figure and clearly subject to fair comment and to expressions of opinions about his suitability for political candidacy and to hold elected public office.

After all, that is what elections are all about. The public goes through the election process to form opinions and to make choices about the suitability of candidates who offer themselves to govern us. We give politicians a great deal of power and discretion over our lives when we elect them. We citizens need to be informed and able to make careful and considered decisions about who we will vote for and to whom we will grant our consent to govern.

Earning the privilege of public office is based on the collective judgements of citizens about the abilities, capacities, character, values, opinions, beliefs, and yes even the past activities of the candidates. Consequently political parties and their leaders must have an over-riding discretion to accept or reject nominees for candidacy.

In the case of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta, this over-arching discretion is applied to all nominees from every constituency so Mr. Chandler is not and should not be seen as a special case. Prime Minister Harper, for example, has recently reject three nominees for candidacy in the Conservative Party of Canada. It happens.

For full disclosure I am a member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta and I have been clear in this Blog that I do not think Mr. Chandler is a suitable candidate for the PC Party of Alberta. While members and other individuals are entitled to express opinions freely and openly about the suitability (or not) of any candidate or potential candidate, it is not our decision.

In my political party that over-arching discretion is vested in the Executive Committee and the Leader through the PC Party of Alberta Constitution. It is up to them to accept or reject a nominee based on what they decide is in "the best interests of the Party." These matters are being dealt with tomorrow at a meeting of the PC Party Executive Committee and the Leader. That is a good thing and I look forward to their decision.

Mr. Premier - Just Say No to Mr. Chandler!

The PC Party Executive and its leader, Ed Stelmach, is coming together in Red Deer this Saturday to consider if Mr. Craig Chandler’s nomination in Calgary Egmont is in the best interests of the party. I am unequivocal in saying that it is not.

Mr. Chandler’s record speaks for itself and is being well exploited by Liberal Bloggers and well documented and commented on in the main stream media in Alberta and now nationally in the Globe and Mail editorial pages. These commentaries are focused on Mr. Chandler’s attitudes and beliefs and issues with matters decided by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The record of Mr. Chandler speaks for itself and is well documented. I also think this matter has some purely crass political elements that need to be considered as well. The Stelmach government has some serious challenges in retaining and recruiting electoral support in Calgary.

The Calgary response to the Stelmach Cabinet appointments was shock and awe as they felt frozen out of their usual place of power and influence. The loss of former Premier Klein’s seat to the Liberals in the by-election in Calgary Elbow earlier this year was a very clear shot across the Stelmach bow. The recent full court press on the royalty review emanating from the energy towers in downtown Calgary is another unsettling example.

The PC party appears to be at least organizationally inert in Calgary and that ennui allowed the Alliance Party to take over the Egmont PC constituency and to be very effective in nominating Mr. Chandler as their “favourite son.”

To accept Mr. Chandler’s nomination means the citizens as voters in Calgary Egmont will see the Candler candidacy as nothing more than the Alliance party in a Progressive Conservative wrapper. That means the PC Party will effectively forfeit this seat to the Liberals if they accept Mr. Chandler’s nomination. How can forfeiting a seat to another party be in the best interests of the party?

Chandler’s candidacy will be the election story in Calgary and may be seen by Calgarians as yet another slight to that city by the PC party offering a candidate who has a proven record that does not respect the human rights of homosexuals. Calgary is a modern, inclusive and cosmopolitan city. It is hard to see a circumstance where Calgarians will embrace a candidate with these values and attitudes of Mr. Chandler. They are so out of alignment with how that great Canadian city sees itself.

There is not a single compelling reason to accept Mr. Chandler’s nomination on merit, principle or even based on pure politics. I can’t imagine how the Ed Stelmach that I know could see any way that he would welcome Mr. Chandler to his team as a Progressive Conservative candidate in Calgary. But politics is a strange business so we will have to wait and see how this all unfolds (or unravels) on Saturday.

Review of the Chandler Candidacy is Not a Special Case - in the PC Party of Alberta All Candidates Are Reviewed.

I think it is important to point out some other relevant facts around the nomination process for determining candidates in the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, especially for the vast majority of readers who are citizens and voters but not involved in political parties.

The Progressive Conservative Party Executive Committee and Party Leader’s review of Mr. Chandler’s nomination and determination of his suitability for candidacy is not unique to him. In the PC Party Constitution, all nominees for candidacy for the PC Party will go through the same review process that Mr. Chandler is going through.

The PC Party of Alberta is a membership driven organization, just like all other political parties and the various other non-profit voluntary sector organizations that exist in the province. The objectives of the PC Party are firstly “To promote and assist the interests and principles of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta.” Also “To promote and assist in nominating and supporting in an Provincial Election, official Progressive Conservative candidates, consistent always with the autonomy of the Constituency Associations.”

Clause 14(b) (vi) of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta says:
“A candidate who has been duly nominated shall be approved by the Leader and the Executive Committee and officially endorsed as a candidate of the Association if such approval is in the best interests of the Association.”

There is a dispute resolution process for resolving a range of issues surrounding candidate nominations, including a candidate’s qualification or disqualification before or after nomination.

In terms of fairness, Mr. Chandler is not a special case. The process for a nominee to be reviewed is clear and and I am sure the provisions of the Constitution will be followed for him and all other potential and aspiring candidates for the PC Party.

Stelmach Is Reviewing the Chandler Nomination...YES!!!

I am delighted to hear Premier Stelmach is reviewing the Craig Chandler nomination as a candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta – and that the criteria he is using is the Statement of Principles of the party. Media reports say Premier Stelmach will meet with the PC Party executive committee to discuss this matter very soon.

Good move Mr. Premier. Being leader of a political party and Premier of a province has overlapping elements but they are fundamentally two different things. Mr. Chandler's nomination is a constituency and party matter but it is up to the leader to accept him as a candidate.

The leader’s final decision on candidates reflects to citizens/voters what the PC party will accept as "tolerable" and that should not include intolerance. This decision by Ed Stelmach is sending a message to voters about the character of our political party and our fitness to govern.

I believe Mr. Chandler is inappropriate as a PC candidate and as an elected representative from the PC party given our pluralistic, secular, inclusive and diverse province. He has often expressed views that are very inconsistent with those Alberta values as well as the Statement of Principles of the PC Party of Alberta.

He seems to be more closely aligned with the new Wild Rose Party. They look like they could use his organizational talents as they chase enough signatures to qualify as a new provincial political party before the next election.

Mr. Chandler will undoubtedly respond and make arguments about respect for democracy and freedom of speech. But many of his past actions have been anything but respectful of those values. He has even been forced to publicly apologize for Human Rights abuses in the past.

Premier Stelmach is right. We Progressive Conservatives can’t tolerate intolerance – especially in our political representation. While the democratic process duly nominated Mr. Chandler in Calgary Egmont. A nomination decision is only a recommendation from a constituency to the party. It is not a final decision.

That final decision on the acceptability of a candidate is, and ought to be, with the leader who, after all, has to work with a group that becomes his team at the end of the day. The PC Party selects it leader on a one person one vote basis so we are assured the winner is the real choice of the party membership. Those votes are very personal and individual decisions – not based on some phoney delegated authority of special interests. Given that leadership selection process, Ed Stelmach, as our party leader, should be able to exercise his discretion in accepting or rejecting candidate nomination recommendations from constituency organizations.

By personally consulting with the party executive, Premier Stelmach has shown once again that he brings ability and wisdom to his position as party leader. Legally speaking, seeking advice from the party executive need not be done at all. There is a legislation that gives him a right, a party leader, to override the local nomination process. He can, by law, refuse to sign the papers that turns a nominee into a candidate.

I hope and expect the PC party executive will conclude that Mr. Chandler is not an acceptable candidate and they will support a move to reject his nomination in Calgary Egmont. Do not expect Mr. Chandler and his followers to go away quietly. It is not their style. I would not be surprised if legal actions were at least threatened by Mr. Chandler and his acolytes. But adherence to values of respect, inclusiveness and diversity should not be diminished by any such threats or intimidation tactics.

Stelmach Should Reject Craig Chandler's Nomination

I am not happy with the Progressive Conservative Party nomination of Craig Chandler in Calgary Egmont. If you are Ed Stelmach, you only need to go to the Craig Chandler website and watch the video to see what kind of "candidate" you are dealing with.

Really listen to him and you have to be concerned about his intentions and attitudes and look at the record of what he says and what he has done.

I am glad the Premier is meeting with Mr. Chandler to discuss his intentions and to assess his ability to be a team player. The results of that meeting should be a foregone conclusion based on the Chandler website video. The Premier should refuse to sign this person’s nomination papers as an Alberta Progressive Conservative candidate.

In the website video Mr. Chandler says, “Do you think in a Caucus meeting I’m going to roll over?” He and columnist Paul Jackson of the Calgary Sun say Mr. Chandler will not “toe the party line.” Mr. Chandler himself makes the point that he believes he must represent “his constituents” and he…”won’t toe the party line and any of you think I will don’t know me very well.”

I admire an independent streak and have one myself, and that does not preclude one from being a team player. You don’t have to "toe the party line" in Caucus during what is often a rigorous debate. But you have to accept the ultimate and final decision of Caucus. That is when the MLAs in any government must "toe the party line" or else nothing will get done or even be finally decided.

If you disagree with a Caucus decision Mr. Chandler you have a few options. Suck it up and shut up. Quit or cross the floor. Speaking out against the party line or the party principles will likely see you quickly kicked out of Caucus. Don’t fool yourself, sir it happens. Just ask Dr. Oberg

The problem I have with Mr. Chandler is not that he is independent. He is also oppressive and dogmatic. He strikes me as a person who chooses not to see nuances on issues. Kind of like George Bush. If you are not for us, you are deemed to be against us. Can Mr. Chandler accept and reconcile differences of opinion in ways that seek effective solutions to complex governance problems?

He comes across as the kind of person who is often wrong but never in doubt. He has expectations that everyone else should adapt to his version of “reality and truth” because he sure isn’t going to “toe any party line.”

He doesn’t come across as being able to accept that he has blind spots. We all have blind spots and that is why we get better judgments and wiser decisions when our politicians listen and learn from a wide rage of perspectives. Does he have the right stuff to be effective in a representative democracy that is based on principles of being inclusive and valuing diversity? Those are core qualities of modern democratic political representation.

He makes a strong point of saying he represents his constituents before he owes any party or Caucus allegiances. That may be true but it is going to be interesting to see if he can be representative of all of his constituents, especially if they disagree with him. Given he has such a dogmatic attitude, ask yourself how well he will represent the concerns of his Gay constituent? I think it is a pretty sure bet Calgary Egmont has gay residents and they would be Mr. Chandler's "constituents" should he be a PC candidate and win in the next election.

Premier Stelmach, take a minute and read the Statement of Principles of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta. Then make a personal leadership statement based on those principles and refuse to sign this gentleman’s nomination papers.

Mr. Harper has taken this leadership step on more than one occasion recently. You will get some heat but refusing this candidate is the proper thing to do under the circumstances.

More "Veiled Threats" From the Far Right.

As an update on a couple of past posts I want to refer you to some MSM columnists who have writing pieces that I think are worthy of attention and praise.

Further to my post of September 11 on the Prime Minister and Cons veiled threats (yes bullying) of the Elections Canada CEO over him doing his job you will want to read the Edmonton Journal’s Paula Simons today. She does a terrific job of putting some more perspective on this shabby bit of politics.

Next, an update of my post of September 10 we have a very revealing column by the Edmonton Journal's Graham Thomson on the efforts of the far right candidate Craig Candler’s and his tactics to win the PROGRESSIVE Conservative nomination in Calgary Egmont.

This gentleman needs to visit the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta website and read the Party's Statement of Principles. Then he needs to think about if his values and beliefs align sufficiently with those principles for him to be an appropriate PC candidate.

Scary stuff and it is important that we citizens become more aware of and involved in. Cynicism and indifference to politics is a luxury we citizens can not longer afford.

Does Chandler Have Opposition in Calgary Egmont Nomination?

Some efforts are starting to emerge to take on the Craig Chandler campaign in Calgary Egmont. I expect Mr. Chandler would be more comfortable in Link Byfield’s Wildrose Party not the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta.

I smell something between political opportunism (a la Chandler) and real democracy (a la the August 29th posting by The Enlightened Savage) in the air.

If the Enlightened Savage is seriously into running for the Calgary Egmont PC nomination – I am behind him all the way.