Standing with the air of arrogant authority while all he surveys falls apart around him. Bumbling, fumbling, never admitting fault. Smarminess and a frosty condescending attitude shot out against those who dare to question.

No, I’m not talking about Basil Fawlty.

The fiddling that has been performed by Alberta Health Minister Ron Liepert while he and his Progressive Conservative government’s reputation burns courtesy of the fire created by their aloof and irresponsible lack of preparedness for the H1N1 vaccine is matched only by Liepert’s bob-and-weave effort to avoid answering any questions.

As is now well-known, the first round of the vaccine was made available this week. In the city of Calgary, there was a grand total of four – four! – clinics that participated in giving the shots. That’s four places for a population of roughly 1 million.

It was a similar story in Edmonton, where there were a stated 5 or 6 places available for Albertan’s to go. By comparison, Winnipeg had 12 clinics prepared that were and running early. The longest wait time reported in that city was 90 minutes, while wait times extended to 4, 5, and even six hours in Alberta.

Under the dome in today’s Question Period, Liepert was again under attack by the opposition. For all of the questions, nowhere could an actual answer be found. In fact, when Liepert wasn’t insulting the entire Calgary-Glenmore constituency with his choice to ignore questions by Wildrose Alliance MLA Paul Hinman in favour of a mocking response, he was throwing out smart-aleck comebacks to valid inquiries.

It was a moment of true Fawlty-ness when Liberal MLA Kevin Taft stood and asked the Health Minister a question that included an estimation of Albertans expected to be hospitalized by the H1N1 flu, as well as an estimate on the number of deaths.

Liepert’s response was to suggest that Taft should refrain from throwing unsubstantiated numbers around in the Legislature. When Taft informed Liepert that the numbers came from Liepert’s own department…well, if backpedalling was an Olympic sport, Liepert would be the political worlds answer to Michael Phelps.

The problem is, of course, that this isn’t a comedy show, and Ron Liepert isn’t in charge of a bumbling, stumbling hotel in Torquay. He’s the man in charge of our provincial health care system. He’s the man who decided to delist coverage of many of the medications our Seniors need – the same Seniors he is forcing to wait in long line ups for a flu shot.

To say that he was caught unprepared or that he was ‘surprised’ by the availability of the vaccine is not a valid excuse, given that the top dogs with Canadian health agencies were saying as far back as early September that the first round of shots would be available ‘the third week of October’.

If Liepert was taken off guard, he was the only one. It would indicate that Liepert is but a small representation of the ruling P.C. government itself: arrogant, out of touch, pompously stale.

In a time of a spreading pandemic, the last thing Alberta needs is Basil Fawlty in charge.

One of the most contentious national issues has long been the province of Quebec’s Bill 101. Essentially a provincial French-only language law, it has been called racist by those opposed and a law that ‘paved the way for peace’ by supporters.

Outside of Quebec (especially in the West) angry reactions appear at the mere mention of Bill 101. When added to the exercise in national social engineering known as the Official Bilingualism policy, the perception is created that an abnormal degree of concession is being made by the majority of Canadian citizens for the benefit of those who themselves as ‘French’ (roughly between 26%-28% of the general population).

If that isn’t bad enough, we are supposed to accept this law as necessary in order to protect the French language and culture. This suggests that French is the only unique culture contained in Canada. Anyone who has traveled the nation knows this is not accurate.

If Alberta or British Columbia or Newfoundland (unquestionably a distinct society) moved to pass a similar law the protests would become front page news for weeks. The politically correct left would be in a tizzy – the same p-c left who defends Quebec’s right to have a discriminatory law on its books.

Perhaps that is the answer. For those of us who have been to the four corners of the nation, we recognize the many separate and vibrant cultures which hold our sometimes-wavering Confederation together. Alberta is no different. We are proud of our history, our people and our unique, distinct culture.

To preserve our way of life, maybe we should walk through the opening that Quebec has created. Perhaps we should use the precedent set by Bill 101 and vow to see the implementation of our own version that would enshrine English as Alberta’s one and only official language.

It certainly would help to prevent attacks on Albertan society such as the one launched by a publicity-seeking maladroit who determined it to be a good opportunity for attention by turning a traffic ticket into a provincial language battle.

It might be difficult and may not rid Alberta of French altogether. Maybe even some negotiation would be needed. In good faith, I’ll extend the first olive branch:

We promise to keep French on our cereal boxes if we don’t have to subject our children to the joys of ‘French immersion’ programs in our schools.

And no Celine Dion.  Ever.

It may be a couple of years away, but the unofficial campaign for the next Alberta provincial election is well underway.

Wildrose Alliance supporters knew it when Paul Hinman won the Calgary-Glenmore by-election. The media knew it when Danielle Smith was chosen as new party leader. And when the two competing parts of the WAP came together soon thereafter, thus solidifying the coalition and the party overall, the rest of Alberta knew it.

Evidence of what to expect when the real race begins came early. The New Democrats were congratulatory, with a ‘the more the merrier’ response. The ne’er do-well Liberal opposition (think of an old beater with several coats of paint stuck in quicksand, perpetually spinning its wheels in futility - Lot’s of impressive noise, but sinking…) played the ‘scary’ card right away, saying that many Albertan’s would find Wildrose Alliance values ‘extreme’.

Swann tries spinning the ‘evil, far-right’ web by bringing up issues such as abortion. Keeping in mind that by electing Swann as their leader the Liberals have effectively moved so far to the left that they are now directly competing against the socialist ND’s for votes, his early tactic of seeing this as a right vs. left issue isn’t just old and tired, but misguided.

The fact is, the other party leaders haven’t figured out how to deal with Danielle Smith and her Wildrose Alliance party. Perhaps most telling is the response, or more accurately the lack of response, by Progressive Conservative leader and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach on Smith’s victory.

It comes across as everything from ignorance to aloofness. Some see it as Stelmach and the ruling empire not taking the WAP seriously.

The truth is the PCs are between a rock and a hard place. They can’t really use the same ‘scary’ card as Swann’s Liberals without making themselves look too far left. That would all but justify the main reason given for many P.C. defectors who have found a home with the Alliance.

Given Stelmach’s superior public speaking skills, one can easily imagine a tragically comical sound bite from the campaign trail:

“…sure, we’re right. But we’re not THAT right. I mean, we are to the right of the Liberals, but the Alliance is really right. We’re kinda right, right? They are really right. Not overly right, but too right. We’re to the left of that. But right. Not too right, more left than that right, but still right. Definitely not really right, but right enough…”

As well, it would insult the intelligence of the average Albertan who knows better. Calling a party whose policies are based on traditional Albertan values and directly on their opinions and views as ‘scary’ would be akin to a self-inflicted wound.

Besides, Smith being well-known for her libertarian stance on issues defuses that. She isn’t afraid to face that issue head on however, as shown by a line in her acceptance speech:

“Perhaps understandably, we've been doing a lot of cringing and ducking to avoid being labeled "extremist." We should now stop. It's undignified. Our grassroots party is about common sense ideas, timeless ideas that reflect the mainstream values of average Albertans.”

What Swann, ND leader Brian Mason, and Unsteady Eddie are about to realize if they haven’t already is that the foundation for the next provincial battle will not be primarily left vs. right or liberal vs. conservative.

It will be a choice of Big Government vs. Small Government, Government control and restriction vs. Libertarianism/social conservatism, out of control spending vs. fiscal responsibility.

The collection of libertarian and social conservatives who make up the Wildrose Alliance share many traditional Albertan beliefs and values, perhaps none so much as their faith in small government.

With Smith as leader along with a true grassroots system in the party, and policies which promote the end of big spending and out of control bureaucracy, the fastest growing party in Alberta is changing the paradigm of the political scene.

The socialist NDs, socialist Liberals, and the out of control, fumbling, old and stale P.C.s all represent Big government, which is in direct contrast to what Albertans believe in.

The Wildrose Alliance, with its fiscally conservative and socially responsible small government polices, give Albertans a fresh, new alternative.

To the other party leaders, that is scary indeed.

Leigh,

I just wanted to drop you a line to say thank you.

I really appreciated our phone call today and it is good to know that we can work together to get Danielle Smith elected.

There is so much that we have in common and now that the battle is over for leader, it is time that all of us focus on the real enemy and we know that is Ed Stelmach and his Progressives.

Our support for Danielle Smith is genuine and I know that her willingness to work with us is also very real. Her willingness to work together is very evident in her News Conference today that can be seen at http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/Danielle+Smith+Presser/2120939/story.html

I am sincerely looking forward to working together in a party that balances and respects the social conservative, fiscal conservative and Libertarian. I believe together we can make a dramatic difference and become the government of Alberta.

Craig B. Chandler



____________________________________________________________________________


Craig,

Our chat was most enjoyable. After such an intense campaign it was good to have a no-pressure, relaxing conversation away from the front lines.

I’m sure you’ll agree that the shear intensity of the just-completed battle for the leadership of the Wildrose Alliance made for some memorable clashes in the New Media between members of the contending camps and supporters of each candidate.

Much was vibrant, intelligent debate about policy between party members.

However as you are aware, as the campaign grew bigger and moved closer to the deadline there was a marked increase in negativity. A ‘the gloves are off’ mentality seemed to afflict individuals on both sides of the fence, each comment inching a little closer to the gone-too-far line than the last.

Rumour has it that even you and I had our moments…

In some circles this continues to occur. Comments posted online that make some wonder if they have a place in the party work to benefit no one. Just as with the race itself, the time for division has now past.

Craig, in the spirit of our conversation and subsequent letter, I’d like to fulfill a pledge I made to you at the beginning of the campaign and extend my hand in solidarity.

I know we both share the belief that a blend of social conservative and libertarian ideologies, while requiring a healthy amount of negotiation, discussion, and compromise, will ultimately result in the creation of traditional Albertan policies which follow traditional Albertan values.

This is just one of many issues that bind our coalition together.

When Mark Dyrholm won the Class Act of the Year award with his concession to Danielle Smith, a real feeling of unity and rejuvenation filled the room.

Now is the time to ‘complete the coalition’ by unifying behind our new leader and, in the spirit of our shared Albertan values, work side-by-side to save Alberta from the Stelmach Progressive Conservatives.

I hope that all party members, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum, follow our lead and close ranks.

We have a unique opportunity before us. I believe we both recognize this, and I look forward to working with you and all members of the Wildrose Alliance as we end 40 years of P.C. rule in Alberta.

Leigh Patrick Sullivan
http://www.themoderateseparatist.com/

Today was the culmination of five months of a leadership campaign, thousands of hours devoted by hundreds, interest in a non-P.C. race like never before. It was the finish line for two tireless candidates and their teams.

Now, I’d like to add my congratulations to Danielle Smith. I had the feeling from the start of this race that I was witnessing the rise of the next serious player in Alberta’s political scene, each coffee or phone chat reinforcing that belief.

Her victory signals the arrival of both Danielle and the Wildrose Alliance. Fringe no more (a label I never really accepted), the party has justified its surprising position in recent polls. It has erased any thoughts of the Calgary-Glenmore by-election as being a ‘fluke’ or strictly a protest vote.

The dynamic new party now has a dynamic new leader. The surge of the Wildrose Alliance continues.

Regarding Mark Dyrholm…

He may be the ‘non-winner’, but I would suggest that Mark did, in fact, score a victory. The effort he and his team put into this race was almost surreal. I doubt that I have ever been witness to such an example of effort and commitment than what I saw here.

Mark never backed down from his assertions, never waivered from a position no matter the potential controversy. He proved what I had always suspected: while Mark was my second choice in this race, I still rank him above any of the other provincial party leaders.

One of my primary questions from the beginning has not been who would win. The issue was what would happen post-vote.

Would the coalition that makes us the party we are – proud libertarian and social conservative all – come through the hard-fought battle enough intact to repair and renew?

It was clear who had won when Mark Dyrholm was the first to step up to the podium. Tradition dictates that the concession speech precedes the acceptance speech. It was the words and the commitment Mark expressed that answered those questions.

In fact, Dyrholm made me wonder, because of the intensity of the battle, if the party had come out the other side actually strengthened. The fact that he accepted defeat with style and professionalism isn’t surprising. It’s was his public declaration that “…Danielle Smith is my leader!” that signaled the solidarity of this brash new party.

Mr. Dyrholm, I tip my hat to you.

I believe that moment, combined with Danielle’s victory, also signaled the beginning of the end of almost four full decades of Progressive Conservative rule in Alberta. All indications are that the Wildrose Alliance is one solid, unified party, which could mean a very bumpy future for Steady Eddie Stelmach.

I was at the Wildrose Alliance leadership convention bright and early this morning, and I must confess that I was inspired by the large and enthusiastic crowd that turned out to hear the outstanding opening speeches by WAP president Jeff Callaway and candidates Danielle Smith and Mark Dyrholm.

I had to miss the middle seminars and lunch, but I'm just headed back now to hear the result and catch the after-speeches.

From what I've witnessed today thus far, I suggest to you that no matter who wins this race, it is the Wildrose Alliance itself that has scored a victory. 

Leadership Convention/Vote post-mortem to follow.

Found on parking lot of the Holiday Inn Convention Centre...


LEADERSHIP RACE CHECKLIST

- Take worthy candidate and turn him into figurehead: check!

- In case of defeat, begin exit strategy by floating the 'purge' line: check!

- Claim the party doesn't want us to win: check!

- Label independent writers who don't support us 'part of Danielle's team': check!

- Use the 'we're clarifying points' line when accused of being negative (careful, as overuse can insult the intelligence of party members): check!

- Make outrageous statements i.e.: 'the media is Danielle Smith's campaign team': check!

- Throw unsubstantiated allegations at the opponent while claiming she is doing the same: check!

- Play the 'they don't like us because we're Christian' card: check!

- Play the 'libertarian = liberal' card: double-check!

- Claim we don't believe the other candidate's statements i.e. defunding of abortion (but don't actually call her a liar): check!

- Claim to be a proponent of party unity while our actions threaten to divide: check!

- Claim to be the victim of a massive media conspiracy: check!

- Use that same media to offend many intelligent party members (people will vote for her because she's hot): check!

- Attempt to discredit writers who are too close to the truth: check!

- Shave before appearing on camera: missed.

- Write a conciliatory post-vote speech that blames the media/members/party/bloggers/al Qaeda/Satan/etc. for our defeat: to be done.

- Use exit strategy: to be done.

- Find a new figurehead and a new campaign to run: to be done.

purge (pʉrj)transitive verb  purged, purging, purg′·ingc.

1290, from O.Fr. purgier (12c.), from L. purgare "cleanse, purify,"

1. to cleanse or rid of impurities, foreign matter, or undesirable elements

2. to cleanse of guilt, sin, or ceremonial defilement

3. a fictional reason used by the losing side of a political leadership campaign as an excuse to leave the party soon after defeat.  The foundation of a future exit strategy

see also: transparent, obvious, pre-emptive

The call I answered last night was a bit of a shock. After previously sharing a couple long and informative chats via the phone, there had only been one similar discussion after publicly announcing my endorsement for Danielle Smith in the race to lead the Wildrose Alliance.

Since then our contact has mostly been on various political threads and comments sections of online newspaper columns; a kind of repetitive game where I would find and correct an example of ‘purposeful misinformation’ (read: counter an attack) aimed at Smith.

How odd it was to hear Craig Chandler’s voice on my phone, albeit recorded.

I should clarify: it wasn’t at all strange to receive a call from the Mark Dyrholm campaign. I’ve lost count of how many have been made on my line in just the past week alone. They are a committed group, I’ll give them that. Any cult would be proud to have that kind of loyalty and determination, never mind a political campaign.

No, it wasn’t the fact that it was Craig’s voice that was the odd part. It was the content of his message.

I had warned Craig Chandler and the Dyrholm campaign team as a whole that the Wildrose Alliance members do not believe in playing ‘gutter’ politics. I told them that choosing the strategy of sliming the other candidate instead of promoting their own candidate’s strengths and abilities would work against them.

I warned them that they could go too far over the line, and that the backlash would hit more than just their own team but the party overall.

They didn’t listen, and to paraphrase Agent Smith: ‘that is the sound of inevitability’.

The Mark Dyrholm campaign was forced to make a round of apologetic calls to defuse a mistake on their part. Their habit of playing the victim – ‘the Party doesn’t want us to win’, ‘the media is Smith’s campaign team’, etc – was a foolish gambit to say the least. It bordered on the unprofessional in my own opinion.

Even a novice in the campaign game could see the danger.

It has come back to bite them this time. The incident in question is described at http://www.news-cruncher.com/:

“Dyrholm has been writing letters and op-ed articles to newspapers as well as circulars to party members. In his communications, he has attacked both the Calgary Herald for its alleged bias, a paper for which Smith used to write columns, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, where Smith served as director of provincial affairs for Alberta.

In one of its missives, the Dyrholm campaign tried to sling mud at Smith by saying that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had once endorsed former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin. This was yet another attempt to portray Smith as a liberal, rather than the libertarian and fiscal conservative that she is.

Earlier today, the Dyrholm campaign was forced to eat humble pie. In a recorded phone message, they had to apologize and set the record straight: the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, being a non-partisan organization, has never endorsed any politicians or candidates.”

I still maintain that Mark Dyrholm is a quality individual and possesses the tools to be an effective politician for our party. However, if this is the kind of stunt, method, or tactic we can expect from him or his advisors as party leader, we would soon witness the crash of our credibility.

Apology accepted, Mr. Chandler. And I told you so.

One of the hot issues this week in the ongoing saga called the Wildrose Alliance leadership race is the phone calls some party members have been receiving from members of the Mark Dyrholm campaign, in which campaign team members continue their attempt to portray Danielle Smith as not just the self-admitted libertarian she is, but that she’s so libertarian – why, she’s practically a liberal!

I’ve already spoken out about this kind of divisive tactic freely and willingly being used by the Dyrholm/Chandler campaign and how it could lower our image as a party in the eyes of the general public. It is on the record for all to see, and doesn’t need repeating here.

This is meant to remind the Dyrholm campaign, busy in their zeal to cast doubt on the fact that libertarianism is real conservatism (and by extension, intimating that Danielle Smith and her supporters are not ‘conservative enough’), of the words of someone who is held in such high regard by conservatives that I doubt even the most stubborn Dyrholm team member would be able to refute them:

"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

           

                                                    - Ronald Reagan

I wonder if this can be considered an endorsement...