The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Who will lead the Wildrose Alliance?
Western Standard readers have met Danielle Smith. Dr. Grant Brown and I introduced her in commentaries found here and here. And those readers lucky enough to be on the 2006 Western Standard Cruise would have heard her speak in person. Smith is expected to announce her campaign for the leadership of Alberta’s upstart Wildrose Alliance before the party’s June convention in Calgary. (I wrote incorrectly here that the leadership vote would take place during the party’s June 5-6th policy convention and AGM. I’m now told that the leadership convention and vote are scheduled for October 17th.)
Brown and I like Smith, and, unless someone very exceptional comes along, the Western Standard will likely endorse her candidacy. Smith is a moderate libertarian with a rock solid understanding of private property rights, the foundation of a free society. She’s a social moderate (you’re not allowed to use the term “social liberal” in Alberta conservative politics), but she’s rightly trusted by social conservatives not to ignore their legitimate concerns. She also has all the right qualities a good candidate in Alberta needs in addition to sound ideology – media savvy, good looks, charisma and more. At least that’s the case I’ll make to our editorial and management team when it comes time for an official endorsement. (We have a flat corporate structure and we try to do these things by consensus.)
But before I get a head of myself, is there anyone else who might challenge Smith for the leadership of the party? The media rumour mill and blogosphere has spat out some names:
The Lethbridge Herald suggested that Ted Morton might be interested in the job. Morton, MLA for Foothills-Rocky View and minister of sustainable resource development, lost the 2006 Alberta PC leadership race to now-Premier Ed Stelmach. It was a devastating loss for Alberta conservatives who have supported Morton since his Alberta Senate election nomination race in 1998 as a Reform candidate. While Morton can’t be happy with his government’s big spending and inaction on issues like free speech and religious freedoms, he may not have the appetite for another run for premier, especially a long shot run as leader of the Wildrose Alliance. My hope is that the fiercely independent, 60-year-old Morton crosses the floor to become a Wildrose Alliance MLA. Morton is on an extended leave of absence from the University of Calgary as a respected professor of political science. His academic work is a comfortable fall-back position that gives Morton options in political life that other conservative-minded MLAs hiding in Stelmach’s caucus may not feel they have. Most people in politics want to keep their jobs for the same reason the rest of us do – money.
David Yager has also been mentioned by insiders as a possible candidate for the Wildrose Alliance top political job. While Yager is not nearly as well known to average Albertans as Morton – or Smith for that matter -- he has an intimate understanding of Alberta’s energy sector as an oil executive and long time columnist for Oilweek and the Calgary Herald. Since the New Royalty Framework fiasco is the issue that could hurt the PCs the most, Yager is positioned to become a major intellectual force in the party should he chose to leave journalism for politics. In the Herald this month, Yager wrote:
Who speaks for the oilpatch in the legislature? What MLA is standing up and demanding help for the tens of thousands of unemployed oil workers and the economic carnage many smaller companies are experiencing? No MLA is even asking, let alone answering. This conspicuous silence is of enormous benefit to the Wildrose Alliance Party.
The Conservatives started this mess with the 2007 royalty review followed by the New Royalty Framework. Lease agreements upon which hundreds of billions of investment dollars were based were abrogated without compensation, destroying Alberta's credibility and reputation. Damage done, the royalty reduction and drilling credit Band-Aids that followed made the "simplified" royalty system excruciatingly complex. There is an undeniable anti-Calgary bias among senior Tories from northern Alberta.
Alberta’s energy sector is in crisis, even with $60 oil, and this time the province doesn’t have a Liberal Prime Minister and a National Energy Program to blame.
Yager is not likely to run for leader, despite early, short-lived speculation, but he would be a major asset to the party as an advisor on energy issues, and as a candidate for MLA.
Mark Dyrholm is another possible candidate for leader of the party. In fact, he may be the only person stepping up to challenge Smith. I believe Dyrholm is the candidate well-known Alberta conservative activist Craig Chandler is backing. I don’t know anything about Dyrholm and attempts to reach him through people associated with his campaign were unsuccessful. The best I could dig up was that a Mark A. Dyrholm donated $820.00 to the Reform Party in 1998, but I don’t know for sure that this is the same person. Sources tell me Dyrholm will be a Christian conservative candidate, if he runs.
I have also heard from reliable sources that Calgary-based Libertarian Party of Canada leader Dennis Young may want to direct his energy provincially and is testing the waters for support. Young is a principled libertarian with a tract record of reaching out to social conservatives on issues like abortion and religious freedom. His background as a former soldier and cop give him some credibility with traditional conservatives on issues like drug policy reform, even when they don’t agree. Young would attract libertarian supporters, but is this constituency large enough to carry the leadership vote?
Finally, Monte Solberg’s name has also been thrown around as a possible leadership candidate. The former Conservative cabinet minister from southern Alberta would be a great choice, but I don’t think he’s looking for the job. Solberg recently took the position of Senior Advisor to Fleishman-Hillard Canada, a public relations firm. The party would be wise to continue to court Solberg, but I wouldn’t expect to see him in the leadership race.
Did I miss anyone?
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by westernstandard on May 28, 2009 | Permalink
This leadership race is starting to create a buzz for the party. Personally, I think they should elect Danielle Smith:
"....not for her ideas or her position on important issues, but because she’s hot."
Posted by: Leigh Patrick Sullivan | 2009-05-28 2:11:20 PM
The most common word to describe Smith was moderate. The terms "moderate libertarian" and "social moderate" were used. No thanks, Alberta needs radical change and Ted Morton fits the bill. Previously, he was elected to the Senate from Alberta. So, he has pulled off provincial-wide victories. The others on the list are largely unknowns. Ted will provide the radical change that Alberta needs!
Posted by: Pat | 2009-05-28 3:34:43 PM
in my lollipop world where the unicorns live, Morton would be the guy. he respects property rights, free speech and gun rights like no other pragmatic "Conservative" Alberta parasite (sorry. "politician").
i voted for him in the leadership race. many of my fellow Albertans obviously didn't agree, prefering instead, either a Calgaryphile or a typical bovine prairie socialist with an agrarian (not "Calgarian") Eurocollectivist background.
anyway, rant done. :)
Posted by: shel | 2009-05-28 4:22:29 PM
The entire reason we did not return your emails or calls is precisely because you are endorsing Danielle and have already made up your mind I have sources as well.
However, I am disturbed that your tactics are to take pot shots at Mr. Dyrholm because he happens to be a Christian. Your Quote: "Sources tell me Dyrholm will be a Christian conservative candidate, if he runs".
Yes he is a Christian. Yes he is a conservative. However, there is no hidden or Christian agenda in his campaign platform.
Mark is a Socially Responsible and Fiscally Conservative and his focus will be on less government, lower taxes, democracy and accountability.
We have purposely stayed under the radar to raise money and to let your side define your campaign.
Thanks for the heads up on where you are going and that you are going extremely negative.
Craig B. Chandler
Strategy / Coalition Outreach
Mark Dyrholm Campaign
Posted by: Craig B. Chandler | 2009-05-28 4:50:56 PM
Pot shot? I'm told Mark will run as a Christian conservative. There is no pot shot in that statement, Craig. I added the only information I could find on your candidate, which was his sizable donation to the Reform Party, something that reflects very well on where he's coming from politically. (I'm assuming this is the same person.)
I also mention your name as a conservative activist to report that Mark has serious support on the ground. Nothing negative so far.
I defend Christian conservatives on the Western Standard regularly, Craig. Don't read anything negative into this post, buddy.
The Western Standard has given its support to candidates in the past, but that doesn't stop us from reporting fairly and even positively on other candidates.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-28 5:03:00 PM
I am a long term PC member who has reciently left that provincila party because I see it going the way of the Social Credit party. It appears to have lost its drive as well as direction. Wheb the party can't decide who they want to lead them, and when they do, they pick a person who appears to be two or three levels above his ability. the party is lost and probably should go the way of all dinasaurs, extinct.
Posted by: Jim | 2009-05-28 5:22:11 PM
Mark will run as a Socially Responsible, Fiscal Conservative and yes he happens to be a Christian. However, he also likes French Toast. I think you get my point.
I have known you for years, but, the decision to have Mark respond or not to the Western Standard was that of the Campaign Chair Mike Havery.
I will be talking with Mike and Mark tonight and will recommend that Mark does contact you for an interview.
I trust the interview will be fair even though you are openly supporting Danielle.
Craig B. Chandler
PS If Danielle does win she will have our full support and enthusiastically so.
Posted by: Craig B. Chandler | 2009-05-28 5:28:58 PM
please define "socially responsible". specifics please.
i'm not trying to assume your thoughts, but Premier Stelmach is proving to be mediocre and platitudinous with his "social responsibility" crap (eliminate poverty by such and such a time? lazy, feelgood nonsense. up oil royalties in the name of "fairness" and drive business elsewhere? typical red Tory socialism).
why not just forget this vapid "socially responsible" stuff and push to protect my property rights, free speech and gun rights, in a binding constitution.
i don't want a government to assume social responsibility in my name. i want my liberty constitutionally protected FROM the government.
maybe start there.
Posted by: shel | 2009-05-28 5:33:48 PM
I voted for Ted Morton in his bid to become Tory leader. I think we have to consider electability.
Danielle is smart, attractive, media savvy and easily more electable than the hammer and sickle we call premier. I would love to see Morton run Alberta, but it would never happen. The left would paint him as they did Goldwater in '64 with the daisy countdown. Busloads of determined and desperate teary eyed buffoons would fill the polling stations to save Alberta from Morton.
With apologies to Mr Chandler, his guy is unknown and will be spun as the Reverend Falwell whether he is or isn't. The lefties would give him Morton's paint job and it's all over.
Mr Solberg is a libertarian without the courage to speak out for political reasons. No courage - no value.
Danielle Smith either wins the nomination or we can all sit at home and collect Stelmach's handout as he makes industry and jobs an impossible dream.
I'm going to do everything I can to help the Danielle Smith campaign.
Libertarian Party of Canada
Posted by: Libertarian Leader | 2009-05-28 8:18:00 PM
I'm going to do everything I can to help the Danielle Smith campaign.
Libertarian Party of Canada
Posted by: Libertarian Leader| 2009-05-28 8:18:00 PM
Do libertarians ever support the Libertarian Party? Do you actually vote Libertarian, Dennis?
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-05-28 9:11:11 PM
Why, yes I do Stig. I figure I risked my butt over seas for freedom, I should enjoy that fruit of my labor.
Posted by: Dennis Young | 2009-05-28 10:04:54 PM
Merle: Your examples cement my support for Danielle. Personal and economic freedom are hot buttons for people who believe in a free country.
Posted by: Dennis Young | 2009-05-28 10:56:30 PM
Thanks for helping us define things further.
At least all of you have your talking points and are reading from the get Mark because he happens to be a Christian script. He likes French toast as well.
Mark has sat on Ron Lieperts board and was heavily involved in the Alberta PC Party and his Christianity was never an issue with them and I know it is not with Danielle either.
Do Danielle a favour and stay away. She is much too classy of a person to be dragged into this type of attack. Comparing Mark to Falwell? Danielle would cringe to see that comparison.
Mark and Danielle will both present their issues and sell memberships and the one that sells the most and GOTV wins.
Craig B. Chandler
Posted by: Craig B. Chandler | 2009-05-29 2:04:21 AM
As an avowed Christian and proud Albertan, I cringe at the thought that Craig Chandler is once again rearing his ugly head in yet another political campaign.
For a guy who is not even Albertan and who once vilified immigrants to this province, he has become a laughing stock.
He discredits the Christian community by constantly claiming to represent us.
I for one would be happy to see Danielle Smith or Ted Morton lead Wildrose.
Anybody associated with Craig Chandler has already lost my vote.
Any candidate backed by Craig Chandler is already DOA -- Chandler is the kiss of death for any campaign, not least his own multiple failed efforts, and he is bad news for the Wildrose Alliance.
We do not need Craig Chandler grandstanding and dividing this new party with his inane and nonsensical posturing.
Chandler is toxic -- I will vote for the Anybody But Chandler Ticket.
Finally, if Chandler had any integrity he would run himself and suffer the crushing defeat he so richly deserves. Yet again.
Posted by: Fish 4 Christ | 2009-05-29 6:20:47 AM
Craig: If you re-read my comment a little more carefully, you'll see that I wasn't attacking Mark. I was simply stating what his detractor's message will be. I'd work on the french toast response. No one is afraid of french toast.
Posted by: Dennis Young | 2009-05-29 7:49:30 AM
"At least all of you have your talking points and are reading from the get Mark because he happens to be a Christian script. He likes French toast as well."
Craig, what are you talking about? i don't read that on this thread. the Christianity of your guy is the furthest thing from my mind. who taught you that people who aren't particularily fond of the state are decadent libertines (and not Christian)?
y'know... stereotypes? ;)
at any rate, i guess my earlier question to you was viewed with contempt. the fact that you don't recognise the idea of a government cutting the strings and not controlling the moral and economic agenda so much, shows me that your vision is that of yet another Canadian welfare state power broker.
that's why i won't vote for your guy. it's not because he's a Christian.
Posted by: shel | 2009-05-29 9:36:35 AM
don't write Morton off yet. i don't see too many activist hippies in Alberta, we still have a political rural base who have moved mountains in the past when pissed off, and the wave of people who have recently moved into the cities from other parts of Canada aren't exactly, uhh, political (to put it politely).
i can dream, can't i? (heh)
Posted by: shel | 2009-05-29 9:48:31 AM
shel, I don't think Morton will run. But I agree that he would be an excellent premier -- and that he could win.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-29 10:12:29 AM
Hey Shel: I'll dream with you.
I don't think Morton would survive the same fear campaign he faced during the Tory leadership.
Could he beat Stelmach? Maybe, but Danielle Smith has a much better (best) chance.
Posted by: Dennis | 2009-05-29 12:35:24 PM
Of all people Mark Dyrholm supports freedom and he is also an individual that has signed the front of a cheque not just the back of one. Mark believes in freedom and that also includes in the marketplace.
I am looking forward to a debate on the platforms of both Danielle and Mark.
Whoever wins will have my support and I will be proud to serve our new leader.
Posted by: Craig B. Chandler | 2009-05-29 1:47:09 PM
~Matthew and Dennis
you guys might be right. but still...
thanks Craig. i'm looking forward to the debate(s) too. i'll put my cynicism on hold.
Posted by: shel | 2009-05-29 2:57:46 PM
Craig Chandler is an abusive, divisive, corrosive influence on any political party.
I hope he does not damage the Wildrose Alliance.
Mark Deerholm is an unknown. The only thing he is known for now is an unfortunate affiliation with Craig Chandler.
I agree that Chandler should put up or shut up: either run, or walk away. Nobody wants this buffoon wrecking WRA.
Even the decrepit Tories were smart enough to send Chandler packing.
We do not need Chandler undermining the integrity and reputation of the party through his actions or by running a lap dog candidate on his behalf.
The Tories will have an easy time convincing Albertans to stay away from Wildrose Alliance if the party can be tied to Chandler.
Craig Chandler, stay away!
Posted by: Real Conservative | 2009-05-29 3:16:33 PM
wow folks at least Chandler has principles that dont sway with the wind. The prov Tories were a disgrace in the way they treated Craig and any Christian should see that.
I dont agree on everything with Craig, but he is a man of principle.
Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2009-05-29 8:47:28 PM
I ask once again can anyone tell me if in fact Danielle is both pro-choice and also in favor of same sex marriage.
This is indeed an important question no???
Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2009-05-29 8:49:43 PM
I think Paul Hinman said it best in a recent conversation when he said that "those that need to hide behind emails or fake names on blogs and can't reveal themselves are not worthy of a response".
Unfortunate that those Paul is refering to are hiding out here.
Posted by: Craig B. Chandler | 2009-05-29 11:13:25 PM
Mr. Chandler: Does EVERY political forum or discussion have to be about YOU?
I would suggest not. Would it be possible for you to keep your PERSONAL megalomania out of it?
Mr. Terlesky: Must you bring abortion and gays into everything? Danielle Smith is ON THE RECORD opposing funding for abortion. Anything else is a police state.
Why would anybody, Mr. Terlesky, want government to own or operate marriage in this province? Hasn't government already done enough damage to marriage?
I would rather churches deal with marriage. If gays or lesbians want to invite the government into their lives, into their personal relationship contracts, why not?
If gays want a piece of paper from the government to make them feel equal or special, what do you care if they indulge in such a stupid delusion?
People can call their relationships whatever they want. It has no affect whatsoever on your life.
To introduce gay marriage and abortion as issues beyond getting government's destructive influence OUT of them, is to turn WRA into a talking shop for impotent hicks.
Craig Chandler and you, Mr. Terlesky, may want to re-unite church and state, but most Albertans do not.
You two may be fine excluding atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists, Taoists, New Agers, Presbyterians, B'hais, Ismailis, Druze, Mormons, Scientologists, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehova's Witnesses, etc, etc., from your Evangelical political scene, but I am certain Danielle Smith would rather include all the above in a common pursuit of peace, cooperation and prosperity.
Posted by: Greg Candler | 2009-05-30 5:33:35 PM
Mr Terlesky: why not support Danielle Smith to create a province of opportunity and economic progress, where you can promote your beliefs for a better society in peace?
Posted by: Greg Candler | 2009-05-30 5:36:39 PM
Mr Chandler, in re-reading all the posts, I second the motion that you run, or else back off.
Mr Terlesky, can you not use persuasion, or the example of your own life, to promote your views on abortion or same-sex marriage, or must people like you and Craig Chandler always seek government power to coerce people into doing what you both think is right?
Posted by: Greg Candler | 2009-05-30 5:42:17 PM
Well no Ukrainians are running so Johnston ought to be peeing his short pants.
Posted by: baba o'reilly | 2009-05-30 7:19:17 PM
Danielle Smith is half Ukrainian.
M. Johnston can save his Depends.
Danielle should do well in Edmonchuck...
Posted by: In Case It Matters | 2009-05-30 10:30:05 PM
I really can't take a guy seriously if he only runs for political office based on his belief that gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to get married.
Posted by: Alberta Libertarian | 2009-05-31 12:22:52 PM
The problem with government is that governments have been legislating morality and this must stop.
For example on the issue of gay marriage. No one I know is opposed to it happening. If the United church or others wish to marry homosexuals they should be permitted to do so. If my church wishes to refuse them, they should also be allowed. The whole point was about governments restricting freedom.
I am looking forward to the candidates debates and looking at the policy platforms of each candidate.
I know Mark Dyrholm will be focusing on less government, lower taxes and political accountability and I am sure Danielle will have a great focus as well.
Regardless of who wins there is a real opportunity to bring freedom back to Alberta.
Craig B. Chandler
Posted by: Craig B. Chandler | 2009-06-01 5:06:09 PM
Well put, Craig. I'm sure Western Standard readers are looking forward to getting to know Mark Dyrholm better.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-06-01 5:18:19 PM
Actually sorry I disagree Craig and as a Christian you should too. If they want to have a civil union ok, but dont call it marriage.
Marriage is an ordination sanctified by God.
The Bible clearly outlines that marriage is for a man and woman. This is not mincing words. I will never accept marriage as being a union of 2 men or 2 woman. It is exclusionary indeed and it need to be kept that way.
Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2009-06-02 12:10:17 AM
Speaking as a staunch unwavering Christian, I am moving toward the notion expressed by the libertarians on this site that government in no way be involved in defining, affirming, regulating or in any other way involving itself in marriage.
That said, while I agree with the definition of marriage as you describe it, it is for G-d alone to enforce His laws, not you, Mr. Terlesky.
G-d has not asketh you to intervene in this matter.
We must exclude godless government from our most sacred institutions.
Indeed, are you married, Mr. Terlesky? How does Mrs. Terlesky feel about the subject?
Posted by: Kelvin | 2009-06-02 2:56:28 AM
There is one and only one way for WRAP to come out of the leadership race with a chance to win in future elections.
Expunge itself of the lunatic christian right. If Danielle wins, she must immediately announce that the Chandlers, Terleskys, Dyrholms (poor guy don't even know who he is - but guilt by association) etc etc - don't have a place in the party. No one can trust that these guys will keep their mouths shut during a campaign. The moment they decide to use it as a soapbox to witness their faiths ... POOOFF! WRAP loses 10 points in the polls. And, you don't want to see what happens to parties that poll at less than 10% in elections.
Notice how I said "lunatic christian right". There are some very devout christians who serve in the political realm that don't drag their religion around. Its the aforementioned that you should worry about - they are scary! If one of them wins - just turn out the lights and go home folks!
You know - why don't they just start their own party?
Posted by: Myheadhurts | 2009-06-02 6:02:25 AM
So Be It!
THE LAW IS THE LAW
So if the Canadian government determines that it is against the law for the words 'under God' to be on our money, then, so be it.
And if that same government decides that the
'Ten Commandments'are not to be used in or on
a government installation, then, so be it.
I say, 'so be it,' because I would like to be a law abiding CDN citizen.
I say, 'so be it,' because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.
I would like to think that those people have the Canadian public's best interests at heart.
BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?
Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings,I don't believe the Government and its employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that
our government is eliminating from many facets of Canadian life.
I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving, & Easter. After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the ' CND Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays.' After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the Senate and the House of Commons to not have to worry about getting home for the Christmas Break'. After all it's just another day.
I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter. It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be 'politically correct.'
I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God...) because, after all, our government says that it should be just another day....
What do you all think????
If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the 'minority opinions' and begin, once again,
to represent the 'MAJORITY' of ALL of the Canadian people.
SO BE IT...........
Posted by: Myheadhurtsaswell | 2009-06-02 2:36:29 PM
Kelvin my private life is none of your business!! Shows you have no class to make this personal.
As for laws, we are obliged to follow Gods laws and as much as mans as we can.
How about abortion do we need to say ok to that as well?
Save your liberal nonsense for some other guy.
I doubt kelvin is your real name either.
If I am married or not married has nothing to do with this matter?
maybe you are a homosexual kelvin eh? since we are asking questions that are not relevant??
Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2009-06-02 10:06:56 PM
I will vote for nobody who claims God is anything but love.
Anybody who claims God is a dispenser of punishment should not call himself a Christian.
Anybody who believes Christ came to make the world better for human beings is a politician.
Christ came to save humanity from the world.
Death to the world!
Posted by: set you free | 2009-06-02 11:09:24 PM
Mr. Merle Terlesky -
You say to not make it "personal".
But you want Big Brother to scrutinize peoples' sex lives and love lives in order to bureaucratically sanction a relationship.
You don't seem to understand that the State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. Nor do you seem to grasp that government and society are two different things.
Your anger is misdirected.
Our enemy is the State, not homosexuals.
Posted by: Super Ray | 2009-06-03 6:21:40 PM
I like your style, Super Ray.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-06-03 7:23:28 PM
Super ray my point was that the original post asked if I was married? Who cares either way. What adults do in their bedrooms with consent is fine. That is not my concern. I am talking about the sanctity of marriage.
I agree the state can withdrwal from conducting marriages,let it be the church.
However dont call 2 homosexuals coming together a marriage.
Its not. Marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.
I am not a libertarian as they could care less about God ordained marriage.
I know very well having worked alongside Libertarians about their views on Christ and his teachings.
So again I restate the reality of what marriage is and that wont change.
Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2009-06-04 12:18:27 AM
"I am not a libertarian as they could care less about God ordained marriage."
Not true, Merle. Many libertarians care a great deal about God-ordained marriage. It's state-ordained marriage that troubles libertarians.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-06-04 12:29:00 AM
yep, made my point ...
Posted by: Myheadhurts | 2009-06-06 8:34:34 AM
Put me down as another who has been turned off by Mark Dyrholm simply because of his association with Craig Chandler.
Don't get me wrong, I respect a lot of what Chandler stands for and I respect his passion. But the whole "angry at the world, everyone is against me" bit has to stop. Chandler needs to learn how to work in the system rather than point fingers and bully those around him.
Again, Chandler, I get that you have morals and passion. But you have to learn to express them in another way.
Also, I sat in front of you recently for a Calgary Hitmen game. Your lack of knowledge regarding the NHL, AHL and hockey in general was very disappointing. I didn't mean to eavesdrop in your conversations but you are quite loud and even then you had trouble admitting that you are wrong sometimes. It is a shame.
Posted by: Craig D | 2009-06-14 11:12:13 PM
Interesting choice of superheros for Danille and Mark. Danielle chose Wonder Woman and that does make sense.
I wonder why there are no policies on her website.
I wonder why she does not reveal he campaign team.
She has no transparency now, she will not in the future.
I wonder whom I will be voting for?
Posted by: Kelvin | 2009-06-19 10:17:50 AM
I WOULD LIKE TO BE CONTACTED BY SOMEONE
FROM WILDROSE ALLIANCE SO I COULD POSSIBLY
BECOME INVOLVED. LARRY A. WARAWA
EDMONTON AREA PLEASE  406--5216
Posted by: WARAWA LARRY A. | 2009-07-09 9:53:34 AM
Marriage is not a Christian invention. It has been performed for thousands and thousands of years, varying wildly from culture to culture. Unless you want to turn Canada into some Christian Theocracy, which some of you must I think, you must recognize ALL marriage, including gay, straight, non-christian, or even conpletely secular and non-religious.
Posted by: James | 2009-09-17 6:55:04 PM
as bad as stelmach has done, i believe albertans dodged a bullet when they didn't elect morton as leader of the party. i have no trust or respect for morton in his capacity as sustainable resource minister. he is a typical politician which rewards his cronies and ignores the rest. if wildrose alliance courts him to join their party in any way, shape, or form, i will have to conclude that they aren't wise enough to run a province.
which would be a shame, i was looking forward to a more libertarian type political party which would fit my beliefs.
Posted by: maghiz | 2009-09-29 10:07:01 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.