It isn’t unusual for a leadership race to cause invigoration within a political party. The last Progressive Conservative race for the Big Chair had its share of interesting moments from an insider’s point of view, exposing divisions that led to an unexpected Ed Stelmach victory – divisions that exist to this today.

There was little to capture the attention of the average Albertan, however, until the very end of the race and the announcement of the surprise victor.

Even when the federal Liberals were deep in the Chretien vs. Martin soap opera, it was looked at by the gen-pop as just that: tabloid-flavored amusement, a temporary break from our daily reality. The follow-up leadership race, won by a walking sleeping pill known as Stephane Dion, couldn’t keep the attention of even the Liberal party’s own members let alone Canadians in general.

That’s where it usually ends.

But once in a long while a candidacy becomes more than just a race for the leadership of a party. Sometimes it raises the credibility of the party itself in the minds of the voting public.

In Danielle Smith’s case, her run for the leadership of the Wildrose Alliance is grabbing the attention of more than party members and the casual political observer.

It has drawn the spotlight from near and far, with media and political pundits of all stripes taking an interest in Alberta’s political scene. While there are various logical reasons why this is happening – the mistakes of the ruling P.C. party, the growing feeling among Albertans that it’s time for a change, the failed Royalty program, the rampant epidemic of Foot-in-Mouth disease that seems to be sweeping through the Stelmach cabinet, etc. – there is one single most-stated and agreed upon reason for this sudden rise in credibility for the Wildrose Alliance and the belief that they just might become the first real threat to the P.C.s in almost 40 years: Danielle Smith.

I told you so.

Just the addition of someone such as Smith to the Wildrose Alliance would cause a boost in credibility. The fact that she is a libertarian vying for the leadership of the party redefines the party image itself in the minds of many voters. Albertans are skeptical by nature, and tough to convince otherwise once our minds are made up.

Smith’s candidacy is doing just that, and the fact that Smith seems to be appearing on every television, radio station, and newspaper lately speaks to the legitimacy Smith is delivering to the party.

What the media and the average Albertan are picking up on is that a Danielle Smith-led, fiscally conservative / socially responsible Wildrose Alliance party would represent a real alternative to the stale Stelmach government for all Albertans, especially the growing number of disenfranchised longtime Tory voters.

You can bet Alberta’s Progressive Conservatives are picking up on that as well.

Great to see that one of my all-time favorite blogs is back up and running.

The site is still in the relaunch process and Manganic is considering the finishing touches, but its back up - finally! Do yourself a favour and check it out here.

Trust me: you'll want to bookmark it.

Welcome back to the insanity, Mang!

Thanks to The Shotgun Blog

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2009/07/lindy-performs-shakedown-the-profreedom-of-expression-song-at-the-liberty-summer-seminar.html

Anytime a fresh political movement begins to gain momentum and begins to enjoy a higher level of credibility in the critical eye of the media, not to mention the public, there grows a danger of attracting the more controversial members of society.

Radicals and single-issue fringe groups tend to seek out fertile opportunities such as joining forming political parties or leadership races with the hopes of using the occasion as a public platform by which to push their not-so-hidden agendas and ideologies.

Recent history shows this tends to occur more often on the conservative side of the spectrum. This is one area that the political left is ahead of the right. They gather their more outlandish and potentially embarrassing nutjobs in one convenient location. In Canada, this place is known as ‘The New Democratic Party’.

Alberta’s fledgling Wildrose Alliance party, in the midst of unprecedented exposure caused by a perfect storm of factors (an exciting leadership race, a governing Progressive Conservative party fumbling the economy, an aloof and mistake prone leader in Premier Ed Stelmach, etc.) should be reminded of the curse of the federal Reform party.

It only took a few kooks early in its tenure to tarnish its public image, causing damage that forever dogged that party and only came to an end after drastic measures including a name change and a re-merging with the federal Progressive Conservatives.

To this day in many corners of the country (outside of Alberta) the word ‘Reform’ is met with descriptive misnomers such as ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’ and ‘redneck’ and ‘Christian activists’.

To be sure, it will be a balancing act for the party – continuing to emit a positive image as a truly ‘big-tent’ alternative to the old and stale P.C.s while having the fortitude to turn away those who would only damage the party from within, at the risk of being portrayed as ‘elitist’ or, worse yet, ‘liberal’.

Making it more difficult is hearing of a leadership candidate who, not so long ago, became involved in a street-scuffle with gays at a Calgary Pride parade. While his supporters yell ‘free speech!’ and ‘they came at him!’ (what did he think was going to happen when he went there in the first place? Please – don’t insult our intelligence), the fact remains that this can only result in the perpetuation of damaging stereotypes in the minds of mainstream Albertans – the very voters the Wildrose Alliance must win over if there is to be any chance of shutting down the long-running P.C. machine.

When I learn of local religious activist Bill Whatcott (famous for such classy moves as distributing flyers showing aborted fetus’s, anti-gay propaganda, and other various examples of bastardizing the Word of God into garbage for his own purposes) publicly supporting a specific candidate for leadership, it makes me fearful for a party I have come to be a part of.

I certainly wouldn’t assume to tell anyone how to run a campaign, but for the sake of the well-being of the party overall perhaps a little ‘public-distancing’ is in order, no?

While I have every confidence in the membership of the Wildrose Alliance to do what is best for the party, we should keep the Reform example in mind. We must turn away the clowns at the door.

The reputation of the party – and therefore our chances of success – is at stake.

Following up on an anonymous tip, confirmed by numerous government sources, I have learned a memo has been released from Brian Manning, Deputy Minister of Executive Council to the Alberta Public Service in which he directs government departments to begin a spending overhaul in order to make what is referred to as a “…a $2 billion fiscal correction for next fiscal year…”.

The memo includes a four-point plan attributed to Premier Ed Stelmach:

1. Control spending
2. Draw from the Sustainability Fund as required to protect programs that Albertans value most
3. Continue to invest in public infrastructure necessary to support our long-term growth
4. Promote Alberta as a great place to invest – and work to reduce the costs of doing business in Alberta

The memo then announces a hiring freeze in the public service, as well as an emphasis on discretionary spending.

This is yet another glaring indictment of the mismanagement of the Stelmach government. It is also no coincidence that this scrambling directive by the habitually big spending Stelmach Tories comes right when the media spotlight and the water-cooler buzz is focused on a real Albertan fiscal conservative party, the Wildrose Alliance.

If the most difficult aspect of democracy is finding yourself having to make a choice from a group of sub-par and undeserving candidates, then deciding who to vote for between two exceptional candidates has to be considered a very close second.

That is what I have faced for the past few days while coming to a decision regarding the current Wildrose Alliance leadership race. With two outstanding candidates (there are rumours of a possible third, however that would not impact on my choice), not to mention the potential impact this race could have on the future of the province, I knew I had to learn more about each one before making a commitment.

I decided to take a slightly unorthodox method as opposed to the usual media, forgoing the horribly inaccurate and often-revised Q&A sheet. Being a veteran of campaigns myself, I know that written responses are red-inked by ‘the team’ before being released. Heck, I used to be the guy with the red pen. Instead, I used an age-old method that I have found to be incredibly effective in determining who someone is and what they really stand for: conversation. I wanted to have a chat.

I didn’t want to spend too much time with each candidate on general issues, nor did I want to fall into the trap of hearing the usual rhetoric and spin. There were a few specific topics I wanted addressed such as Health care, Alberta’s place in Confailuration - er, Confederation, the fight against the horrible and misguided Human Rights Commission by striking Section 3, etc. – but for the most part those answers and policies can be found on the WAP website.

My intent was to get a ‘feel’ for the candidate. Would this person make a good party leader? Do they have the whole package of intelligence, charisma, and true leadership qualities? Given that the party is really a coalition of social conservatives (I despise that leftwing-created term) and libertarians, who as leader could pull the team together in order to successfully the focus on the real foe?

And ultimately, who would give the Wildrose Alliance the best shot at uprooting the Stelmach regime in the minds of Alberta voters?

I sent identical interview requests via email to the campaign teams of Mark Dyrholm and Danielle Smith. To my pleasant surprise, the responses came extremely fast.

First I spoke with the Mark Dyrholm camp. My impression of him was already taking shape before I had even spoken with the man. Conversations with Campaign Manager Mike Havery and Strategy/Coalition Outreach point man Craig Chandler filled in many of the blanks regarding Dyrholm, from his position on issues ranging from abortion to the ‘firewall’ policy. Definite points for Dyrholm for attempting to bring ‘Reform’-style ideas to the provincial level.


Mark Dyrholm

When I did chat with Dyrholm, I found his thoughts on the current economic crisis from an Alberta standpoint impressive, especially his idea to renegotiate current contracts in the area of infrastructure and his belief that we should be focusing more on cuts and reorganization of programs and provincial spending as opposed to the often-mused new and higher taxes being discussed by the current government.

Kudos to Dyrholm for having the fortitude to speak his belief that "global warming is junk science". Not too many politicians of any stripe would dare say that statement publicly these days. Even Conservative Prime Minister Harper has bought into the spin on that one.

When we began on the topic of health care, Dyrholm stated that an official policy from his camp would be released soon, but he intimated that it would be a ‘hybrid system’ which would be made of the ‘best of other systems’ from around the world. Essentially, the mix of private and public which I have been calling for.

The labeled ‘socon’ of the race, our conversation ended with a feeling of confidence in Mark Dyrholm’s ability to lead the Wildrose Alliance.

Not long after my chat with Dyrholm I found myself once again on the phone, this time with candidate Danielle Smith, and to my surprise it was her that threw me a curveball. She asked if she could interview me first, to which my first thought was ‘oh,oh – the jig is up.’ After explaining exactly what a ‘moderate separatist’ was (social moderate, fiscally-conservative pro-Albertan), she seemed satisfied and the rest of the conversation seemed to flow. A veteran of the media world herself, I was sure Smith would be hesitant to the unusual style by which I was interviewing. I couldn’t have been more wrong, as she was most definitely at ease.


Danielle Smith

Proving my theory that ‘social conservatives’ and ‘libertarians’ have much more in common than first believed, Smith’s position on certain issues closely matched those of Dyrholm and the party itself. Calling herself a ‘re-federationist’, Smith stated her support for the ‘firewall’ concept as well, saying that ‘the deck is stacked against us federally’.

Points to Smith for her support of the concept of charter hospitals where the money would follow the patient to the facility. “We’ve seen it work with success in education, why not in health care?”

It was when the topic of Stelmach’s flawed royalty scheme came up that Smith seemed to be at her most passionate and knowledgeable, and the place where her fiscally conservative slant really came to light. It was obvious that Smith had spent her share of time on this matter, pointing out that the current governments take is way too much at a low price and suggesting an overhaul that would not see a government grab until natural gas prices rose higher. As an added example of the severity of Stelmach’s bungle of the issue, Smith claimed that she knew of engineers who were actively trying to slow production in order to drop to a lower royalty rate. No wonder Alberta has lost so much standing as a destination for international investment.

Impressive was the fact that instead of trying to throw me some overused spin or obvious fake ‘outs’ of a topic, the rare time an issue came up that she wasn’t fully up to speed on she admitted it and claimed that she was going to have to investigate further. Honesty gets me every time.

Unfortunately, there isn’t enough space or time to go into more detail of each conversation. Suffice to say there were many more issues discussed, many other topics chewed over.

The time has come to make my call.

Mark Dyrholm has a strong team, strong connections, experience, and an unquestioned desire and ability to lead the Wildrose Alliance and indeed the province to a better place.

Danielle Smith shares my libertarian values, my fiscal conservative leanings, my Alberta-first mindset, and possesses a certain charisma that is essential for a leader, especially in Alberta.

With no place in politics for emotion (therefore no ‘heart’ in the decision making process) I relied on my head. I read and re-read my notes, replayed each conversation repeatedly in my mind, searching for a decision.

Sometimes you need more than that. Sometimes you need to go with your gut.

I publicly endorse Danielle Smith in her run to become the next leader of the Wildrose Alliance party.



* Many thanks to all the party insiders, campaign workers, volunteers, and confidants of whom I have bended many an ear. Best of luck to each candidate, and a last comment to the Wildrose Alliance members: when this battle is over, may we set aside our differences, rally behind our new leader, bond together with our common love of Alberta, and lead this province to its rightful and glorious future.





Danielle Smith website: http://www.daniellesmith.ca/
Mark Dyrholm website: http://www.markdyrholm.ca/home

The unrest in China’s Xinjiang province has wound down to the odd sporadic event now, but the tension continues to simmer just under the surface, threatening to erupt at any moment.

Clashes between the minority Uighur and the communist government-backed majority Han Chinese has seen some 1700 wounded and at least 74 dead since they began on July 5th.

All this you probably already know. It’s what our newspapers and our massive news media complex is choosing to omit that is the most vital aspect of the entire issue.

What is missing from most media reports is the slightly important fact that this isn’t some small, isolated internal conflict in a far-off land. This is not ‘China’s problem’, an issue that we should do the politically-correct thing and turn our faces away.

In spite of the MSM’s best efforts to sell us an ‘it’s ethnic unrest’ Bill of Goods, the truth is this: Uighurs are Muslim, and the actions of the Chinese Uighurs – with their demand of autonomy within China, among other religious-based demands – follow a recent historical pattern concerning Islam around the world.

Riots in France, protests in the U.K., and other European and Scandinavian hotspots attest to the intentions. Once a large enough number of Islamic believers become citizens of a country, they begin their demand for special religious and ‘ethnic’ rights apart from that of the majority.

Failure produces everything from ‘unrest’ to outright terrorism. The 9/11 horror itself was a statement by radical Islamic followers announcing their arrival on an international scale.

Some nations, for lack of a better term, are ‘getting it’. Dutch political leader and filmmaker Geert Wilders and his call to end what he calls ‘the Islamification of the Netherlands’ would have at one time made him look like a whacko fascist whose beliefs would have been widely discredited as leftover racism from the Nazi era.

Not now, however. Of course, Wilders and his party supporters are not racists at all, and openly accept the idea of citizens from around the world. It is the not-so-hidden underbelly of radical Islam, with its residual and direct effects from demanding special status for followers, to the potential loss of the host nations own culture, to the potential violence that could occur should they be refused (even democratically) that they reject.

It is also the shrill of silence from the world’s so-called ‘moderate Muslims’, a majority if we are to believe the lectures from CNN and various other leftwing soapboxes that they reject.

It is the loss of their own security, culture, and their way of life that they see vanishing before their eyes in exchange for the threat of living under Sharia law, and they are choosing to say no more.

* In Canada, we have been shamed for generations into not questioning our open-door policy of multiculturalism for fear of being ‘anti-Canadian’. While this further erodes any semblance of a national identity we may have developed, apparently the pseudo-intellectuals in charge believe that the likelihood of ‘ethnic’ street violence in Toronto or homicide bombers blowing up busses in Calgary is greatly reduced if we just walk the path of preemptive appeasement. Give in to the demand before it’s even made. What could possibly go wrong?

It is real, and it is happening. In the Netherlands, in England, in America. It happened in the Balkans and now it is taking place in China.

But you wouldn’t know it by reading the papers.