There is a survey on our affiliated website Policy Channel. You are invited to participate. We are going to publish the results on Policy Channel and this Blog every Monday afternoon starting this Monday until after the second ballot on December 2, 2006.
This is not a scientific poll because it is not random or necessarily statistically reflective of the demographic, geographic or the socio-economic makeup of the province. Participants will self select but as regular readers of this Blog know “the world is run by those who show up.” We cannot make winner predictions out of this survey. It is not about that.
It is not intended to be predictive of outcomes but rather to serve as a public policy insight gathering activity. Because it takes about 5 minutes including some thinking time – we believe participants are more likely to be engaged and interested in following and influencing public policy and politics in Alberta.
We are asking for you opinion on how the government has been doing in some key policy areas and for what recommendations you would make to friends and family regarding each candidate.
Finally we ask if you are or intend to become a PC Party member, your intentions about participating in the voting and how active you have been in various political activities.
It takes about 5 minutes and is not a bunch of yes-no easy questions - it makes you think.
Thanks for taking the time to participate. Again the survey is at Policy Channel
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Good Morning Anonymous
I am presuming the last three postings by Anonymous in "Where is the Smear" posting of yesterday are from the same person but I may be mistaken. I suggest readers go to that posting and the comments for content and context before you continue on this entry. I also apologize for the length of this post. I think it was Socrates who said "If I had more time I could write a shorter letter."
Thanks Anonymous for the economic facts and details as well as the insights in the earlier postings (Where is the Smear) as well as the “supposition” comments regarding integrity. Let me assure you that yours and Dr. Stokes’ integrity is not at issue. My reasons behind this are at the bottom of this post.
At your invitation, I have some more questions.
First – please tell us who you are. You say you are “someone in the loop” and will reveal your identity soon. Will you also explain why you felt the need to keep your identity hidden now in a free and democratic society? In any event we look forward to knowing who you are and to making your acquaintance.
Second – please give the reference for locating the Gilbert Lauten Jung site you mentioned.
Third - can you clarify the first posting reference to crude, bitumen and SCO (Synthetic Crude Oil) price estimates “include the $30 price spread?" Are you talking the differential price between these forms of energy and are you saying that the oil sands industry price assumptions were used for bitumen and SCO in the model? I don’t understand the reference. I know energy commodity prices are somewhat seasonal as is the volume of use and presume that was all considered in the economic modeling for the next five years.
Fourth – does the reference you make to $9.5 B in tax cuts assume the average 1.2% increase in population growth over the 5 year review period? And were the Oberg net tax cut rates used in arriving at the $900 M cumulative simulative effect on tax revenues? What were the assumptions used in Alberta’s GDP over the next five years to reach the $900M cumulative figure?
Fifth – 1.2% per year seems a bit low as an assumption for Alberta’s average population growth over the next five years don’t you think?
The GOA stats at Alberta Finance show more recent economic and population growth significantly higher and a recent baby boom emerging with a 12.6 per 1000 population which will also have an impact. In 2003, 2004 and 2005 net migration population growth was 1.39, 1.43 and 1.62 per cent respectively. The actual numbers were 21,135, 22,475 and 56,084 in 2005 and 2006 appears to be larger still. This is not insignificant growth, I am sure you agree.
These new people coming to Alberta do not bring their homes, schools and hospital beds with them so we have to invest in public infrastructure to accommodate the growth – something Alberta has been ignoring for a decade or more. I note Dr. Oberg is on record saying he can overcome the multi-Billon public infrastructure deficit in 5 years and I presume those figures and the impact of growth issues are calculated in the model. Can you let us know what public infrastructure deficit numbers were used and the rationale for them?
Sixth - We are seeing enormous price increases in the current public infrastructure projects on the go of 40% and higher in the past year alone. What is the estimated cost premium tht was used for these projects over the five year period? We know the cost escalation is being caused by the over- heated economy, materials shortages, private sector project competition and the lack of skilled workers to complete projects in a timely fashion. Did the model project any economic slowdown due to project deferrals?
Plus what are the Canadian dollar and inflation assumptions around the remaining infrastructure deficit projects and what cost amounts was used for the additional projects like schools etc. we need right now, for the immediate future and over the five year review period to respond to the population growth throughout Alberta?
Seventh - Real GDP growth in 2001 at 2.0% and 2002 at 2.4% uses what fiscal year as the base for the calculations? Again the GOA stats at Alberta Finance for more current growth rates, which may be more reflective of the next five years than 2001 and 2002, show considerably higher numbers. In current terms the GDP growth in Alberta for 2003, 2004 and 2005 was respectively 13.5%, 9.3% and 15.3%. “Real” GDP using 1997 as the base for those years was 3.1, 4.3 and 4.5 per cent. In actual numbers GDP was $171,175M in 2003, $187,152M in 2004 and $215,858M in 2005. Pretty impressive numbers for a population of 3.2 million don’t you think?
I noted in the 4:40 am Anonymous Comment (insomnia or what”) the writer said “He (Dr. Stokes) was presented with a detailed costing of each of the policy elements contained in Blueprint for Prosperity and was given absolute free rein to apply the program within the context of his base case scenario of the Alberta economy.”
Who is it that prepared the “detailed costing” of the Oberg Blueprint for Prosperity that was supplied to Dr. Stokes? Did the detailed costing that was used come from the Oberg campaign and if so, did anyone confirm the “detailed costing” assumptions and calculations to give them independent veracity? I presume the detailed costing details and the identity of any independent third party verification will also be released in the near future. That seems to me to a critical element in all of this. Don’t you agree?
Finally – Please do not interpret these questions or comments as anything more than seeking clarification and understanding. Economic analysis and forecasting – like public opinion polling - is as much an art as it is a science as it has to make assumptions and has to be adaptive as circumstances change. That does not detract from it usefulness but it has to have a context and is subject to interpretation. The assumptions behind the economic model as well as what all is included and excluded and how the various elements are weighed all have a huge impact on the conclusions.
The current context is a hotly contested political campaign so people will tend to be skeptical. That should not in any way to be interpreted as disrespectful or of questioning the integrity of the Anonymous Commenter or the professional judgment or skills or integrity of Dr. Stokes, the economist who undertook the work. In fact I, as a citizen, appreciate and applaud Dr. Stokes for doing this professional task under these circumstances. Many others would simply shy away and avoid the challenge altogether.
Open, accountable and transparent democracy depends on citizens asking questions as much as government giving answers. The campaign process is abetted and democracy is better because professional people like Dr. Stokes provide their expertise to assist citizens decide on who we will entrust with our consent to govern us.
So thank you Dr. Stokes. Now let’s keep the dialogue going in an open, respectful and responsible manner.
Thanks Anonymous for the economic facts and details as well as the insights in the earlier postings (Where is the Smear) as well as the “supposition” comments regarding integrity. Let me assure you that yours and Dr. Stokes’ integrity is not at issue. My reasons behind this are at the bottom of this post.
At your invitation, I have some more questions.
First – please tell us who you are. You say you are “someone in the loop” and will reveal your identity soon. Will you also explain why you felt the need to keep your identity hidden now in a free and democratic society? In any event we look forward to knowing who you are and to making your acquaintance.
Second – please give the reference for locating the Gilbert Lauten Jung site you mentioned.
Third - can you clarify the first posting reference to crude, bitumen and SCO (Synthetic Crude Oil) price estimates “include the $30 price spread?" Are you talking the differential price between these forms of energy and are you saying that the oil sands industry price assumptions were used for bitumen and SCO in the model? I don’t understand the reference. I know energy commodity prices are somewhat seasonal as is the volume of use and presume that was all considered in the economic modeling for the next five years.
Fourth – does the reference you make to $9.5 B in tax cuts assume the average 1.2% increase in population growth over the 5 year review period? And were the Oberg net tax cut rates used in arriving at the $900 M cumulative simulative effect on tax revenues? What were the assumptions used in Alberta’s GDP over the next five years to reach the $900M cumulative figure?
Fifth – 1.2% per year seems a bit low as an assumption for Alberta’s average population growth over the next five years don’t you think?
The GOA stats at Alberta Finance show more recent economic and population growth significantly higher and a recent baby boom emerging with a 12.6 per 1000 population which will also have an impact. In 2003, 2004 and 2005 net migration population growth was 1.39, 1.43 and 1.62 per cent respectively. The actual numbers were 21,135, 22,475 and 56,084 in 2005 and 2006 appears to be larger still. This is not insignificant growth, I am sure you agree.
These new people coming to Alberta do not bring their homes, schools and hospital beds with them so we have to invest in public infrastructure to accommodate the growth – something Alberta has been ignoring for a decade or more. I note Dr. Oberg is on record saying he can overcome the multi-Billon public infrastructure deficit in 5 years and I presume those figures and the impact of growth issues are calculated in the model. Can you let us know what public infrastructure deficit numbers were used and the rationale for them?
Sixth - We are seeing enormous price increases in the current public infrastructure projects on the go of 40% and higher in the past year alone. What is the estimated cost premium tht was used for these projects over the five year period? We know the cost escalation is being caused by the over- heated economy, materials shortages, private sector project competition and the lack of skilled workers to complete projects in a timely fashion. Did the model project any economic slowdown due to project deferrals?
Plus what are the Canadian dollar and inflation assumptions around the remaining infrastructure deficit projects and what cost amounts was used for the additional projects like schools etc. we need right now, for the immediate future and over the five year review period to respond to the population growth throughout Alberta?
Seventh - Real GDP growth in 2001 at 2.0% and 2002 at 2.4% uses what fiscal year as the base for the calculations? Again the GOA stats at Alberta Finance for more current growth rates, which may be more reflective of the next five years than 2001 and 2002, show considerably higher numbers. In current terms the GDP growth in Alberta for 2003, 2004 and 2005 was respectively 13.5%, 9.3% and 15.3%. “Real” GDP using 1997 as the base for those years was 3.1, 4.3 and 4.5 per cent. In actual numbers GDP was $171,175M in 2003, $187,152M in 2004 and $215,858M in 2005. Pretty impressive numbers for a population of 3.2 million don’t you think?
I noted in the 4:40 am Anonymous Comment (insomnia or what”) the writer said “He (Dr. Stokes) was presented with a detailed costing of each of the policy elements contained in Blueprint for Prosperity and was given absolute free rein to apply the program within the context of his base case scenario of the Alberta economy.”
Who is it that prepared the “detailed costing” of the Oberg Blueprint for Prosperity that was supplied to Dr. Stokes? Did the detailed costing that was used come from the Oberg campaign and if so, did anyone confirm the “detailed costing” assumptions and calculations to give them independent veracity? I presume the detailed costing details and the identity of any independent third party verification will also be released in the near future. That seems to me to a critical element in all of this. Don’t you agree?
Finally – Please do not interpret these questions or comments as anything more than seeking clarification and understanding. Economic analysis and forecasting – like public opinion polling - is as much an art as it is a science as it has to make assumptions and has to be adaptive as circumstances change. That does not detract from it usefulness but it has to have a context and is subject to interpretation. The assumptions behind the economic model as well as what all is included and excluded and how the various elements are weighed all have a huge impact on the conclusions.
The current context is a hotly contested political campaign so people will tend to be skeptical. That should not in any way to be interpreted as disrespectful or of questioning the integrity of the Anonymous Commenter or the professional judgment or skills or integrity of Dr. Stokes, the economist who undertook the work. In fact I, as a citizen, appreciate and applaud Dr. Stokes for doing this professional task under these circumstances. Many others would simply shy away and avoid the challenge altogether.
Open, accountable and transparent democracy depends on citizens asking questions as much as government giving answers. The campaign process is abetted and democracy is better because professional people like Dr. Stokes provide their expertise to assist citizens decide on who we will entrust with our consent to govern us.
So thank you Dr. Stokes. Now let’s keep the dialogue going in an open, respectful and responsible manner.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Where is the Smear?
There are anonymous calls on this Blog for an apology by “Allie” in comments she made in the previous posting. I have read the comments and am at a loss to find where Allie “smears” Mr. Stokes, the economist who did the Oberg platform review.
No one is questioning the reviewer’s qualifications, credibility or integrity that I can see. Mr. Stokes qualifications are not in doubt. I think he is eminently qualified to do the work he did for the Oberg campaign. He also clearly knows he is offering an opinion as a professional economist in the context of a political campaign.
Surely then an ordinary citizen can state a personal reservation about the political context of a candidate who seeks a professional opinion that costs out their political campaign promises without it being characterized as a smear on the profesional who undertook the work. Over the years I have written legal opinions that others have disagreed with but that can hardly be construed as a smear on me as a lawyer. It is merely another opinion.
What Allie said was: “I 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?”
Let’s look for a minute at the factual content of Mr. Stokes’ a one page evaluation letter which is posted on Dr. Oberg’s website. He outlines two scenarios in evaluating the Oberg platform and he says he is measuring the Oberg platform for “sustainability” over a 5 year time frame only.
One scenario is characterized as a low energy prices and low economic growth and the other scenario is a high energy price and high economic growth. The assumptions he uses are interesting. In the Low Energy Scenario we have oil prices assumed at $42/bbl, gas at $6.25/gigajoule and economic growth in Alberta at only 2%. In the High energy Scenario we have oil prices assumed at $65/bbl, gas at $7.10/gigajoule and economic growth in Alberta at only 3%.
When was the last time Alberta’s economic growth was only 2 or 3 percent and is it reasonable to presume that rate of economic growth for the next five years given $42 or $65 oil and about $100Billion of oil sands project investment alone in process? Also what are the assumptions that were used for our population growth and the calculations for the impact of the Oberg tax cuts on the government’s revenues for the next five years? No doubt these were considered in evaluating the Oberg platform sustainability. Have I missed them?
I know when the oil sands industry is doing a project feasibility analysis for investment purposes they use $25 and sometime $30 oil prices. Mr. Stokes’ letter emphasizes the point that energy prices are volatile. In fact oil prices have dropped about 23% since July 2006. Mr. Stokes is obviously free to use what ever assumptions he wishes but I wonder on what basis $42 or $65 per barrel was used for the Oberg platform validation. I also wonder what the sustainability of the Oberg platform would look like if the more prudent industry standard oil price assumption of $25 to $30 oil price was used.
I wonder further if Dr. Oberg is inclined to revisit his costing calculations and give us a bit more disclosure and detail as to the assumptions and the workings of the economic model that was used. It could go a long way to rehabilitating the public’s confidence in his candidacy.
No one is questioning the reviewer’s qualifications, credibility or integrity that I can see. Mr. Stokes qualifications are not in doubt. I think he is eminently qualified to do the work he did for the Oberg campaign. He also clearly knows he is offering an opinion as a professional economist in the context of a political campaign.
Surely then an ordinary citizen can state a personal reservation about the political context of a candidate who seeks a professional opinion that costs out their political campaign promises without it being characterized as a smear on the profesional who undertook the work. Over the years I have written legal opinions that others have disagreed with but that can hardly be construed as a smear on me as a lawyer. It is merely another opinion.
What Allie said was: “I 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?”
Let’s look for a minute at the factual content of Mr. Stokes’ a one page evaluation letter which is posted on Dr. Oberg’s website. He outlines two scenarios in evaluating the Oberg platform and he says he is measuring the Oberg platform for “sustainability” over a 5 year time frame only.
One scenario is characterized as a low energy prices and low economic growth and the other scenario is a high energy price and high economic growth. The assumptions he uses are interesting. In the Low Energy Scenario we have oil prices assumed at $42/bbl, gas at $6.25/gigajoule and economic growth in Alberta at only 2%. In the High energy Scenario we have oil prices assumed at $65/bbl, gas at $7.10/gigajoule and economic growth in Alberta at only 3%.
When was the last time Alberta’s economic growth was only 2 or 3 percent and is it reasonable to presume that rate of economic growth for the next five years given $42 or $65 oil and about $100Billion of oil sands project investment alone in process? Also what are the assumptions that were used for our population growth and the calculations for the impact of the Oberg tax cuts on the government’s revenues for the next five years? No doubt these were considered in evaluating the Oberg platform sustainability. Have I missed them?
I know when the oil sands industry is doing a project feasibility analysis for investment purposes they use $25 and sometime $30 oil prices. Mr. Stokes’ letter emphasizes the point that energy prices are volatile. In fact oil prices have dropped about 23% since July 2006. Mr. Stokes is obviously free to use what ever assumptions he wishes but I wonder on what basis $42 or $65 per barrel was used for the Oberg platform validation. I also wonder what the sustainability of the Oberg platform would look like if the more prudent industry standard oil price assumption of $25 to $30 oil price was used.
I wonder further if Dr. Oberg is inclined to revisit his costing calculations and give us a bit more disclosure and detail as to the assumptions and the workings of the economic model that was used. It could go a long way to rehabilitating the public’s confidence in his candidacy.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Dr. Oberg Says The Campaign Must Get Back to Being "Open, Honest and Accurate."
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
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
Thursday, October 26, 2006
A Wanton and Wanting Dr. Oberg.
Dr. Lyle Oberg has traded in his manufactured positioning of maverick candidate into a new more fitting role, that of a reckless and feckless plain old political hack.
There are lots of blogger and traditional media “show reviews” of his political theatre of the absurd. Oberg promotes a news conference with advanced billing to the media about “juicy stuff” “bloodletting” advising reporters to “bring a smock.” The orchestrated actual “event” turns out to be Oberg self-immolating in a gaudy display of crassness and character flaw.
He promises proof of misconduct in another candidate’s campaign using “sensitive information” from “anonymous sources.” Sadly as it turns out, his sources are not actually anonymous but people he knows, who work in the Legislature and are reported to be related to individuals in his campaign. In one day he transforms himself from a serious possibility for Premier of Alberta into a weapon of muted self destruction.
It seems he was not yet finished as he goes over-the-top with an Orwellian characterization of his actions saying “I chose principle, I chose protection of the individual…” One presumes he is referring to his so-called ‘anonymous sources’ as he states his personal concerned “for their jobs, their future and families.” This is the principled rationale of a man who would be Premier of us all? This is the justification he uses to wantonly cast irresponsible, unsubstantiated – and as it turns out, unfounded personal character aspersions toward every other candidate? Shame on you Dr. Oberg!
We are told there is a long shadow of suspicion and concern by colleagues about Dr. Oberg’s past portfolio performance and his “skeletons” comments merely brought things to a head. The first unsubstantiated “skeletons in closets” accusations towards his Caucus colleagues finally got him kicked out of Caucus. A Caucus to whom he now eagerly offers his "skills and talents" to be their leader. One hardly knows whether to laugh or cry!
Based on the Oberg hapless histrionics of yesterday we are at least assured the Oberg personal “skeleton” has a “bonehead.” We have seen first hand that he can be pithy without being substantial. Based on his “performance” one can’t tell if the good Doctor’s irreconcilable behaviour is preposterously post-modern or just plain bipolar! But now we know one thing for sure. He has shown that he lacks the mental and moral “stuff” to be leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta. That means he also lacks character and judgement to ever become Premier of Alberta.
Albertans must consider carefully our individual and collective futures. We must be especially particular of who we select to be PC Leader and, as a result, our provincial Premier. With potentials like Dr. Oberg "in play" participation in this leadership selection process is not an option. Be careful who you elect...every time!
There are lots of blogger and traditional media “show reviews” of his political theatre of the absurd. Oberg promotes a news conference with advanced billing to the media about “juicy stuff” “bloodletting” advising reporters to “bring a smock.” The orchestrated actual “event” turns out to be Oberg self-immolating in a gaudy display of crassness and character flaw.
He promises proof of misconduct in another candidate’s campaign using “sensitive information” from “anonymous sources.” Sadly as it turns out, his sources are not actually anonymous but people he knows, who work in the Legislature and are reported to be related to individuals in his campaign. In one day he transforms himself from a serious possibility for Premier of Alberta into a weapon of muted self destruction.
It seems he was not yet finished as he goes over-the-top with an Orwellian characterization of his actions saying “I chose principle, I chose protection of the individual…” One presumes he is referring to his so-called ‘anonymous sources’ as he states his personal concerned “for their jobs, their future and families.” This is the principled rationale of a man who would be Premier of us all? This is the justification he uses to wantonly cast irresponsible, unsubstantiated – and as it turns out, unfounded personal character aspersions toward every other candidate? Shame on you Dr. Oberg!
We are told there is a long shadow of suspicion and concern by colleagues about Dr. Oberg’s past portfolio performance and his “skeletons” comments merely brought things to a head. The first unsubstantiated “skeletons in closets” accusations towards his Caucus colleagues finally got him kicked out of Caucus. A Caucus to whom he now eagerly offers his "skills and talents" to be their leader. One hardly knows whether to laugh or cry!
Based on the Oberg hapless histrionics of yesterday we are at least assured the Oberg personal “skeleton” has a “bonehead.” We have seen first hand that he can be pithy without being substantial. Based on his “performance” one can’t tell if the good Doctor’s irreconcilable behaviour is preposterously post-modern or just plain bipolar! But now we know one thing for sure. He has shown that he lacks the mental and moral “stuff” to be leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta. That means he also lacks character and judgement to ever become Premier of Alberta.
Albertans must consider carefully our individual and collective futures. We must be especially particular of who we select to be PC Leader and, as a result, our provincial Premier. With potentials like Dr. Oberg "in play" participation in this leadership selection process is not an option. Be careful who you elect...every time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)