Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« My brush with conservatism | Main | The Summer's Best Album? (Reprise) »

Thursday, July 16, 2009

The Hot Room: Danielle Smith and the Wildrose Alliance leadership

Tonight, in the Hot Room, none other than Wildrose Alliance leadership race contestant Danielle Smith joins us (Mike Brock and Peter Jaworski) for an interview.

Clearly, we'll spend a lot of time talking about the policies she's revealed recently, and discuss the possibility of a stronger fusion between the social conservatives and the libertarians.

Tune in right here on the Shotgun at 6 p.m. Alberta time, 8 p.m. Eastern time.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on July 16, 2009 in WS Radio | Permalink

Comments

I made the last half of the show, but missed the interview with Danielle. Glad I tuned it, because I'll be watching the show regularly now - but when will the archives be up?

Posted by: RL | 2009-07-16 8:45:16 PM


Social conservatives are the natural enemies of the libertarians. Politics may sometimes make for strange bedfellows: but in this case the libertarians can only lose more than if they stayed at home. If she has some libertarian tendancies, and I understand she has some although I don't follow this all that closely, she should use them and provide a real option.
Look at Harper for an excellant example of how the libertarians silly enough to have joined the Conservatives have gotten to support a massive increase in the size and power of government; one of the worse ever governments in Canadian history from a libertarian view.
The libertarians, and I have talked to a few libertarians who made the mistake of joining the federal Conservatives, have gotten less than nothing. The social conservatives have had no trouble with getting their bill C-15 and a dozen other silly intrusions of thier personal morality forced onto others. The social conservatives in that party will never give an inch to any libertarian idea in the area of social issues, but they are willing to spend any amount of other people's money to cynically retain personal power. Their current deficit is expected to be the worst ever in history, exceeding the previous worst ever which was also the Conservative party (Mulroney).
This is a lose lose scenario for the libertarians.

Posted by: V.M. Smith | 2009-07-18 10:17:25 AM


I'm not sure I agree with you, VM. The Socons want to be left alone by government so they can raise their kids in an environment they approve of. And, most socons are fiscal libertarians.

We need to make them understand that if they want their freedom, they're going to have to accept the freedom of others ie MJ smokers. If they don't respect the freedom of others, they can't complain when the gov't drops the hammer on them.

We either achieve freedom together or we all get "Stelmached" together.

Posted by: Dennis Young | 2009-07-18 10:41:00 AM


I would be great if socons could be convinced to live and let live, but all the evidence is against it to this point in Canada and in so many other countries too.
As for them being fiscal conservatives: how does that correspond with thier Conservative Parties, which they dominate in influence, all being the worst of the big government spenders...
I say there is a lot of talk from them about fiscal conservatism, but when grab the power time comes their actions are almost always to spend all of other people's money it takes to get personal power and then advance thier social agenda.

Posted by: V. M. Smith | 2009-07-19 10:27:58 AM


I say there is a lot of talk from them about fiscal conservatism, but when grab the power time comes their actions are almost always to spend all of other people's money it takes to get personal power and then advance thier social agenda.
Posted by: V. M. Smith | 2009-07-19 10:27:58 AM

An excellent observation. This goes to "crazy ol JC's" theory that it does not matter which of the mainstream parties you vote for, you get socialist encroachment into private life and industry. The Libertarians and other independents are in fact "stand alone" parties. If they aren't then just what makes them any different from whet we're already getting? The independents need to stand on their principles...alone if need be.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-19 10:41:04 AM



Conservatives, be it 'big C' or this Wildrose Alliance are dangerous and both politically and socially irresponsible from my point of view.

From religious nut jobs, to creationists and anti-abortion wing nuts they should have very little to do with spearheading an arguable common direction for entirely too many ill-informed scores of people.

I will concede that Danielle Smith is hot. That doesn't condone her principles however.

Posted by: paul | 2010-01-06 10:56:34 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.