The Next Alberta Premier

Congrats Eddie!! Thank-you Ted.

2006-12-06T16:55:00.000-08:00

I think Ed will make a fine Premier. I'll never be disappointed with an honest, intelligent farm boy running the show - its so very Albertan. He's conservative and thoughtful - and as with most farmers he won't be pushed around (he's already talking tough on Ottawa).

I also want to admit that I underestimated the effect of the media on this election. With a few exceptions (Tom Olsen for one), the media coverage of this campagin was a joke and those who covered it should be ashamed of themselves. They promoted stereotypes, dumbed the debate down to a lowest common denominator - namely name calling and labelling. There was almost no in-depth discussion of the issues - especially the more complicated ones espoused by Ted Morton. He was simply labelled and vilified.

I hope (and early indications are that Ed is moving in this direction) that Ted is involved in cabinet and particularly in a senior portfolio (international and intergovernmental affairs is an obvious choice).

Ted won this election for Ed - make no bones about it. Dinning would have won on ballot 1 or would have been so close that the other candidates would have thrown their support behind the inevitable, had Ted not had such a strong showing. Further, many of those Eddie votes came from persons concerned with the Liberal-like tactics and policies of Mr. Dinning (something that was not discussed until Ted started throwing punches) . Lastly, it was Ted's supporters that overwhelmingly went to Eddie on the second preference to deliver the Premier's chair.

Congrats Ed, you won and will be a very solid and uniting leader. Congrats Ted, you saved this province from undercover liberal rule for at least another 8 years - and you did it while the media and the Dinning-machine threw all the hate and propoganda they could muster at you. For that, you should be proud and we, proud conservatives everywhere, will always be grateful to you for it!

Morton the Clear Winner of 2nd PC Leadership Debate

2006-11-30T21:28:00.000-08:00

I know the media isn't allowed to state there was a clear winner, but man oh man there is no question that Ted Morton won the debate tonight; if you listened to QR77 post debate you’ll know that there was a general consensus on this for obvious reasons. Here were the key points as I saw them:

· Ted looked like a guy who has his foot on the accelerator and feels certain he’s going to win. His answers were unapologetic and strait to the point…I like this guy the more I see and hear him. Ed’s and Jim’s answers were vague with the exception of Ed’s pension plan idea (which is a good one)

· Those last 2 questions were unfair or untrue and Ted still handled them flawlessly. First off, I found out the deal with the question by Fletcher Kent who said Ted had stated that Stelmach would run the Party out of office if Ed became Premier. Turns out Ted did not say that at all. It was stated by Mike Nickel who endorsed Ted a couple of days ago. I guess Mr. Fletcher thinks that if he hears a supporter say something, that Ted must of said it. Now by that logic Ann McLellan just endorsed Jim Dinning at the Liberal leadership convention…so I guess that means…you get my point.

On the same sex marriage question, the woman reporter (I forget her name) is obviously out of touch with the views of 60% of Albertans that were against same sex marriage at least last time I saw polling on the subject about a year ago. Ted’s proposition doesn’t even purport to end same sex marriage. It just protects religious leaders who choose to speak out of belief, and teachers/marriage commissioners who refuse to perform or teach same sex marriage. Extreme, ummm, no. Ted hammered that one out of the park – Moderate social conservatives as well as the so called “religious right” were nodding their heads with Ted on that one

Tom Olsen’s post-deabte comment that Ted was feeling under the weather and was a bit cranky was silly. Tom was obviously trying to cover for his 2 colleagues given their last 2 biased and ill-researched questions. Ted was the most polite of the 3 tonight…even a bit more conciliatory than even Ed was. But, I do like a cranky leader from time to time. Makes me feel safer.

· Jim’s accusation about how Ted’s health plan would see seniors paying for health services with their credit cards was as slimy as a campground outhouse seat. It was intended to scare seniors into voting against Ted. It was a total mischaracterization of the health reforms being proposed, and shows more than ever, just how Paul Martin-like the Dinning campaign has become.

· Notice how Ted was doing all he could to compare himself, and rightfully so, to Stephen Harper and the federal Reform Conservative movement generally. Great strategy in this province. I see it paying big dividends on Saturday.

· Jim looked uncomfortable, especially when asked by Fletcher Kent concerning how he could run a big tent party when he derided the values of people like Ted whose views on social morals constitute an extremely large percentage of the population – especially within the PC Party. He didn’t answer the question and instead decided to go off on the firewall boogeyman. Its getting old Jim.

· Ed stayed on point (which was “I’m the choice if you don’t like either one of these guys”), but I’m just having trouble seeing this guy as Premier. He just doesn’t seem to represent any real substantial change – but a great guy nonetheless.

I’m more convinced than ever that Ted Morton is going to win this thing barring Eddie catching Jim on the 1st pref and then using Jim’s second prefs to catch Ted --- which I just can’t see happening.

Why Ted Morton will be Premier

2006-11-28T13:40:00.000-08:00

A lot has transpired since the vote on Saturday, and what was once a Dinning coronation has now become a 3 man dogfight with Ted in front, followed likely by Dinning but Ed closing in. Steady Eddie has managed to grow his support through the endorsements and organizational mergers of the Norris, Hancock, and Oberg campaigns. Not to be outdone, Ted Morton has at least 12 Federal Conservative MP's coming home to throw their support and organizations behind the Morton train.

The danger to Ted is no longer Jim Dinning. That balloon is sinking fast. The danger for Ted is that Ed Stelmach may (and it’s a big may) catch Jim on the 1st preference of the second ballot making Dinning supporters potential kingmakers if Ted hasn’t put enough distance between him and the other 2. Although this scenario may seem possible to some (and indeed its more likely than Dinning winning this thing now), I'll tell you why at the end of the day it will be Premier Ted Morton on Saturday.

1. Morton’s growth potential

If you haven't figured it out, Ted has become the candidate of Federal Conservatives. He has more federal MPs supporting him than anyone else by far including 12 flying out from Ottawa this week. There is no doubt that the federal party is much more respected and liked in Alberta than the provincial Tories are. As Albertans increasingly see Ted Morton in that light (that of a leader in the image of Preston Manning and Stephen Harper), conservatives will flock to him.

Some in the media speculate that Ted may have peaked on Saturday; there is just no way this is true. The fact is that Ted merely scratched the surface of the voter base he is targeting. It’s a base mix of old Preston Manning Reformers, moderate social conservatives, Stephen Harper Federalists, Alberta Alliance members and other disenchanted former Conservatives, and provincial-rights advocates willing to give federalism another chance if Harper and Morton can make federalism work fairer. This group, in Alberta at least, is absolutely massive - 25,000 votes was only a spit in the bucket.

2. Prairie Populist Wildfire

What is happening is simple. While guys with Jim, for the most part, work for money and connections, and volunteers for Eddie are working because they believe in the good man he is, the army of volunteers working for Ted believe in the cause Ted promotes. Ted doesn't wow people by his appearance or his rhetoric. Like Preston Manning and Stephen Harper, his appeal comes from the principles he stands for, namely, a rebalancing of federalism, family-friendly policies, democratic reform, small government, low taxes, and personal responsibility with just the right amount of compassion. These principles motivate a large portion of the Alberta electorate, and that explains Ted's exponential growth in support.What this emotional connection to the “cause” creates is a campaign machine built without official organization. Its self-creating and self perpetuating; it builds on itself without any centralized guidance or financial support. The last time we saw it, Preston Manning’s Reform party swept Alberta and most of the West unseating the entire Federal Progressive Conservative establishment.

For example, I just talked to a fellow Calgary professional about the race. He said his Mom had just given him a call, along with the rest of her kids, to convince he and his wife to vote for Ted. And he planned to do it. Now multiply this experience by 5000 or so and you have the current situation. Moms are calling kids. Uncles calling nephews. Grandsons calling grandparents. Neighbours calling neighbours. It’s grassroots populism, and its almost impossible to keep up with if you are Dinning or Stelmach.

I found this tidbit on another blog. This guy is obviously an active volunteer at Morton HQ (http://www.civitatensis.ca/archives/2006/11/27/1754). Here is what he noticed:

Start Quote

"I was at the Morton campaign headquarters this afternoon (Monday after the 1st vote). There was a small army of people there. Surely, the largest number of people I have seen there other than when they had special events. Volunteers at the tables were shoulder to shoulder, and if you got up to get a drink of water, you risked of losing your seat.
From my economics classes in university, I learned about diminishing returns. But these folks worked so well together: they proved Malthus wrong. The volunteers worked like a well-oiled machine. It was a sight to behold.
Just before I left, a group of guys hauled in 6 new tables. There is now room for twice the number of volunteers. It will make it more comfortable, perhaps. But there is something to be said about people working should to shoulder for what they believe. And that, we did.

One of the things that I did this afternoon was to help haul out a massive mail out. We put it in a van, and a few people took it to the post office. We found out later that they got there when the doors were just closing. “Sorry,” said the woman behind the door, “we’re closed.” But then she noticed the Morton stickers on the boxes. “Is that for Ted Morton?” she asked. And as soon as she heard the positive reply, she opened the door and said: “Come in. I’m supporting Morton!”
It’s bloody cold here in Calgary today. But you wouldn’t know it walking into the Morton campaign office. A big internal Chinook is propelling their sails."

End Quote

3. Dinning’s "Scary Card" will backfire in favour of Ted

Jim Dinning has completed his metamorphosis into Paul Martin. He has decided to portray Morton as a scary right winger hell bent on taking this province back to the dark ages.

Apparently Jim didn't watch the last federal election where his chum(p) Paul Martin tried that tactic on Stephen Harper (you know, the "Stephen Harper is conservative and conservatives have no place in our tolerant society" routine). Guess what, it became a joke and backfired on him --- and he went 0/28 in Alberta. Even the easterners didn't buy it! The Dinning brain trust has decided that this same strategy may work in Alberta....pause....because.....pause.....ummm.....any ideas anyone?.....anyone at all?

Its almost like Jim has come on board the Morton campaign team and has made it his mission to piss off all Albertans disillusioned with the current provincial-federal arrangement, all social conservatives, and anyone who believes in the same policies as Stephen Harper...meaning pretty much the entire Conservative base.

What Dinning should have done from the beginning was propose cutting edge ideas that would inspire voters to think of him as a man to champion the Conservative Alberta cause. Instead, they got a Seinfeld campaign based on political correctness and now fear mongering. Voters generally, especially Albertans, do not vote against someone, they vote because of some one. Paul, I mean, Jim just never seemed to figure this out.

Ted will gain from this blunder.

4. Stelmach’s Achilles Heel

Let me first say, that every Ted supporter should be voting for Ed on a second ballot. Dinning can’t touch this guy with regards to integrity and Conservatism generally, and Ed would probably run a reasonably effective government. However, despite Ed’s good points, he simply hasn’t proposed any real meaningful reforms. Some of his suggestions are solid but they are the ideas of a manager and cabinet minister (a tinker here, an improvement there, but nothing substantive).

So Ed has a problem. He has a host of people who believe in his integrity (and that will win votes and build his base), however, it is really he who has the growth potential problem. Aside from being the compromise candidate, what does Ed really stand for? What meaningful reforms and changes will he implement? If Ed doesn’t give us something to bite into, its hard for me to imagine him toppling Morton on Saturday.

The only chance he might have is if he somehow caught Dinning after 1st preferences are tallied, and then caught Ted with Jim’s second preferences. However, to make up 15,000 votes on Jim without any inspiring ideas is a lot to ask no matter how many endorsements Eddie secures. And even if he did catch Jim, he may be too far behind Ted to catch up fully. Dinning supporters will likely largely go to Ed, but any political analyst worth his salt will tell you that anything over 2/3 one-way migration on a second preference is overly optimistic to say the least

5. Senseless Dinning arguments

I’m sure there is more of this silliness to come, but when Jim says things like he did on Monday such as “Too many Canadians look at Alberta as greedy and mean-spirited because we don’t share enough of our wealth”, it seriously calls Jimbo’s judgment into question.

And his solution of “lets send even more cash to Ottawa to smooth things over?” Is he serious? First off, how could this statement possibly help his cause. Is Jim calling Albertans greedy or Canadians ungrateful? Is he saying he’s concerned with our image enough to send more money to Ottawa at the expense of our infrastructure and health care needs here? I just do not understand how this makes the average Albertan…Conservative Albertan…feel inclined to support the man.

Three words on Saturday night: Premier Ted Morton

Titanic 2 - The Jim Dinning Story

2006-11-26T14:38:00.000-08:00

Wow! I mean, what else is there to say? Wow...wow. Jim Dinning spends 7 years and close to $5 million dollars on a leadership campaign the media had proclaimed he was a shoe-in to win...he gets endorsements from every left wing and Party entity and individual that he could ever want...and guess what...he's a whole 3800 votes ahead of a guy who spent 10 times less cash, spent about 5 less years campaigning, and who the media until about a week and a half ago described as some kind of scary religious freak from the far right. Once more, the media and the establishment of the PC Party have shown themselves to be almost totally out of touch with both the average Albertan, and the average Conservative Albertan. Well , they ain't out of touch anymore...Saturday solved that.

Like a "freight train" as Tom Olson and Graham Thompson described, Ted Morton has come to crash the leadership coronation of one Prince Dinning, and has turned this race on its head. Kudos also go to Ed Stelmach who I personally like very much, and who I also underestimated (lets face it, everyone underestimated the guy).

Despite the wakeup call, some in the media still don't quite "get it". Graham Thompson (likely the most out of touch of all Alberta Political Commentators), opines that this race is comparable to the race of 1993, where fearing a Betkowski victory, Klein's minions were able to rally Albertan's and win easily on the second ballot. Graham goes on to say that a possibly effective Dinning strategy would be to scare Albertans with the prospect of a Premier Ted Morton government and therefore rally the province into an "Anything-but-Morton" panicked stampede to the polls next week (see Liberal strategy of the “Prime Minister Harper boogeyman”).

Well Graham, you have the right idea - but you have it all backwards.

History is indeed repeating itself. The reason why Betkowski lost was indeed because Alberta Conservatives stampeded to the polls on week 2 to ensure a Klein victory. But that was because Betkowski was even further to the left than Dinning is. Albertans on the right flank panicked...not the left. And frankly, that is precisely what is happening again.

Jim Dinning will do better than Betkowski did because, although clearly a Ultra-Red Status Quo Tory, he is not quite as liberal as Nancy was (but close). However, the end result will be the same. The more people hear Ted and see Ted, the more Albertans like him and come to the realization that the guy is as extreme as the current Prime Minister...meaning he's not. On the contrary, the more Albertans hear and see Jim Dinning, the more he reminds Albertans of Paul Martin.

Telling Alberta Alliance supporters they are just grumpy Conservatives that should grow up reminds me of Paul Martins "you're un-Canadian if you don't agree with me" strategy.

Painting Ted Morton, a Catholic guy who attends church a few times a year, as a religious social extremist because he doesn't want people to be forced to perform gay-marriages and wants parents to choose whether their kids are taught homosexuality in schools -- is a strategy that...how should we say this...is likely somewhat ineffective for wooing the average run-of-the mill moderate social Conservative (which constitutes about 60% of Albertans and 70% of Conservatives in this province).

And promising to pave beautiful touchy-feely bridges to Ottawa during a time when Quebec is beginning its "We want more, We want more" routine, isn't exactly a winning strategy when placed beside the Morton "steal our stuff anymore and I'll kick your teeth in" attitude.

Over and Over again, Jim continues to grasp defeat out of the jaws of victory every time he does and doesn't open his mouth. And its not like Ted has run a flawless campaign. There are things, as with all campaigns, that could have been done far more effectively. Its that his campaign is Stephen Harper like, and Jim's is Paul Martin like...and what’s even worse for Jim...he's trying to win over Conservative Albertans with this, what his people term, "strategy".

Expect Dinning to drum up about 5-10 thousand more votes next week.
Expect Ted to drum up about double Jim's new support (the Reform Party referral machine is now in high gear - and its a monster).
Expect Ted to win after second preferences are tallied (53-47)

Premier Ted Morton. Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Excuse me while I go change my pants.

Queue the Alberta Seismic Political Shift

2006-11-23T10:14:00.000-08:00

If you can't smell it in the air, blow your nose...Alberta is about to undergo what Preston Manning has said it would unavoidably soon undergo...a substantial political shift either within the Governing Tories or without it. It happened to the Liberals (yes Liberals did rule Alberta at one time...shudder). It happened to the United Farmers and So-Creds as well. And it almost certainly would have happened had not Ralph Klein won the nomination in the early nineties as he rescued the party from Peter Lougheed's sweetheart Liberal candidate, Don Getty.

Alas, Ralph's legacy is a two-edged sword. His government was so effective and so successful in its first 8 or so years, that it effectively quashed all meaningful opposition. The result was that the opposition decided in a typical Liberal defeatist attitude - "if you cant beat them, join them." Slowly but surely, this has drug the PC's so far left as to make them virtually indistinguishable from the BC Liberal Party and other middle-left provincial parties. Of course, the more Liberals, the more power-mongering, the more waste, the less of an emphasis on "old fashioned" things like values, low taxes, and family and child-friendly policies, etc. Not to anyone's surprise the Alliance has sprung up and with virtually no profile, attention or recognition, somehow grabbed 10% of the Conservative electorate. And make no bones about it, it will be 20 at least if Jim Dinning wins. And if that creates a minority government (Liberal or PC), there will be either a mad rush to the Alliance and some sanding of its rough edges, or a new party will spring up under another Conservative banner to make sure Liberals in this province remain in the wilderness.

So that brings us to today. The most recent poll by the Herald, polling party members as of early November (see link below) discloses what most educated political analysts and journalists suspected (kudos to Tom Olsen for being the Alberta journalist to notice this first in the MSM). Its a two-horse race between Dinning and Morton, with a battle for third between Norris, Stelmach and Oberg - with Oberg the most likely 3rd place guy.

Jim Dinning will not win on the first vote. In fact it wont even be close for him. His "insiders" are professing how some of their memberships didn't have phone numbers and thus were not polled; and that they had kept back thousands of memberships to hand out later so they didn’t have to share them with the party. This is code language for "Holy Crap, we're in trouble". The fact is that other campaigns don't mail out memberships to thousands of union members and random lists of employees working for Dinning supportive corporations. Hell, tactics like that may even result in net gains for guys like Norris, Morton, Oberg, etc. (I worked for a union at one time - wouldn’t vote for JD then, won't be doing it Saturday either - but I'd use that free membership to vote just the same).

The other seismic sensations I am feeling that lead me to believe a seminal shift is just days away is the "Anything But Dinning" campaign that is coalescing behind what is looking to be Ted Morton…and its not that Lyle, Eddie, or Mark aren’t capable of being this year’s version of a newly elected Ralph Klein, its just that Ted simply has the numbers, organization, and frankly the Klein-like edginess that Albertans like in a leader. If JD is unwilling to somehow stymie this trend - he doesn't stand a chance. What will he turn to, his Seinfeld platform?

Another weird thing. All of a sudden the media can't shut up about Morton. Its almost like make-up sex. They beat on each other for so long and now they're all over each other. Every day I see a new columnist endorsing Ted, and Ted joking playfully with journalist’s barbs. Its like some kind of understanding has been formed - the “you know what I’m about, and I know what you’re about so lets get along and work together” relationship that happened with Klein is similar to what is going on now. Good grief, even Tom Olsen seems to like him as much as big Jimbo - maybe he realizes he'll make a better quote than Jim would for the next 8 years.

Finally, the Quebec card. In an almost too-good-to-be-true break for Ted Morton, the Quebec nationhood question has been thrust onto the national political stage. And its not that recognizing some kind of societal nationhood for Quebec is a bad thing that pisses Albertans off. Its that it sows a seed of warning in the minds of Albertans that know all to well that if there are unity questions and negotiations to be played out nationally, the end result is more money and power going to Quebec from the pockets and rights of Albertans. And make no mistake about it, if this becomes a larger issue over the next week or so, I think it will be judged by Albertans en masse that Jim Dinning is not the guy to be leading the ship, and that that Ted Morton guy is.

I could obviously still be wrong on this but I suspect it will play out as follows. Expect Dinning to still be first on the first ballot with about 30% and Ted close behind at about 24% or so. Expect Lyle to be at 15%, Eddie barely behind Lyle and Norris at 10. Hancock will be lucky to get 5, and Victor and Gary will likely be below 2.

Then expect a massive sale of memberships and a very grassroots movement on the ground - and although Dinning has an edge in cash and organization - there is nothing that can withstand the prairie populism grassfires that are the hallmark of Alberta politics. Expect Ted Morton, despite some of his rougher edges (much like Klein’s rough edges - we just don’t trust polished, politically correct politicians in this province) to break out to a 40-35-25 lead on the second ballot and a 55-45 final count.

The smell is in the air. The province is about to renew itself for another 10 year run.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=501d7748-e6a6-46db-95fe-d0a1a0a95e6c&k=40766

I'm Supportin Morton...then Oberg.

2006-11-19T14:48:00.000-08:00

Well, it started out as a fight between 9 candidates. One soon left leaving 8. It wasn't too long before 5 candidates - Jim Dinning, Ted Morton, Lyle Oberg, Mark Norris, and Ed Stelmach showed themselves as the only 5 with any real chance of winning the leadership (but huge kudos to Dave and Victor - they should be applauded for their efforts and fire and are assets to the Conservative movement.)

Jim Dinning was next off my list. I have devoted most of this blog to attacking him because he's the most dangerous of the remaining 5 candidates. His policies are vague and directionless. His platitudes are self-righteous, and what little policy he has shared has been left leaning and weak. He doesn't see a need to implement meaningful health care reforms. He has shown no spine with regards to provincial rights. He sees tax cuts as "vote buying" schemes. Furthermore, as much as Rod Love and the outgoing establishment helped Alberta during their first 7 years in power, they have been harmful to the province for the last 7 years with their lack of vision and power centralizing policies and actions. Jim Dinning is their poster boy and great hope to a continued grasp on power. We need change in this province or we are going to squander opportunity that most countries and provinces could only dream of. Jim Dinning represents everything that’s wrong with the current Tory Government. The party needs renewal or it will fall.

Ed Stelmach and Mark Norris both brought depth and fantastic ideas to the campaign. I have particularly done a 180 on Norris. He showed great integrity by disclosing lists of his financial supporters, and his positive vision for this province is contagious. Steady Eddie is so likeable in demeanor and thoughtful in his policies that if he isn’t a high profile cabinet minister in the next Government – something is wrong. In the end, these two lost out basically on the fact I simply don’t feel they have the organization and support to defeat Jim Dinning. Also, they both are a little bit weak on areas such as tax cuts and provincial/federal relations. That said – they are incredible assets to this Party.

Lyle Oberg made some silly mistakes in this campaign – however, a few silly moves shouldn’t overshadow his truly thoughtful Conservative policies, his resume, and his willingness to stand up to the Feds and the establishment. This guy is a winner. He is also doctor - I trust him to implement the health reforms every rationale individual other than Dinning seems to understand we need. I would pick him as Health Minister and task him with designing and implementing the Health Reforms - He is the most qualified to do so. He goes on my second Dec 2 ballot as my second preference – and I hope all other true Conservatives supporting the other candidates do the same if their guy doesn’t’ make it into what I suspect will be the top 3.

That leaves us with Ted. Plain and simple, he’s the right guy at the right time for leader of the Alberta PC Party and for Alberta as a province. Alberta is squandering its wealth in an alarming way – his plan for the Heritage fund and budget accountability and caps is bang on what is needed in a province which is spending like drunken sailors without any plan beyond to do what will shut people up for 5 minutes.

His vision for healthcare is exactly what is needed – and is virtually identical to Lyle’s.

Ted is without doubt the most qualified to reform our education system. His wife is a former school teacher, and he a former professor. He wants to ensure a sustainable funding mechanism coupled with accountability for teachers, and more choice for parents regarding both where and what their children are taught.

He has all kinds of credibility when he talks about democratic reform. Why? Because he has fought for it for his entire political life through his tireless efforts supporting the Reform Party and its democratic ideals.

He appeals to academics, health professionals and students as much as he does to religious persons tired of being politically ostracized. The fact that he is willing to openly talk and converse with those who have strong faiths, allowing them to temper and influence but not dominate the agenda and his policies is a feat almost entirely unique to Ted (and possibly Lyle) in this race – and needed in a province such as Alberta. Most politicians usually choose to ignore that community entirely or allow them to dominate their policies completely. Ted has found the vaunted middle ground – honestly, name one “religious extremist policy” the guy has…there is none that I know of – unless making sure people can legally disagree with moral-based legislation is extremist.

He has made it his life’s mission to hold accountable an overactive Liberally-appointed judiciary.

He has spoken out on ridiculously flawed Federal policies such as equalization and its devastating effect on our economy and on the economies of other provinces – and he did it before it was cool or acceptable to talk about it. Even more amazing is that he has fought for these issues in a pro-Canadian, non-separatist way which has allowed alienated Albertans to find peace with loving their country while fighting against its flawed course. When he gets pushed, he punches back – and when the East comes calling – and you are truly living in Oz if you can’t see that coming post or even during Harper’s term - I want Ted Morton at the table protecting our provincial interest, resources, and rights.

Premier Ted Morton
Health Minister Lyle Oberg
Education Minister Mark Norris
Environmental Minister Ed Stelmach
Finance Minister Victor Doerksen (Dinning won’t run if he doesn’t win)
Post-Secondary Education Minister Dave Hancock

Now that’s a Tory Government I could get behind!!!

On November 25th – I’m supportin’ Morton – I hope Conservative Albertans will all do the same!

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/11/19/2417706-cp.html

The Morton - Oberg Way; Calgary Debate Analysis

2006-11-15T21:56:00.000-08:00

I attended the Calgary debate for the leadership of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party in person tonight and got a first hand view of the candidates. If it wasn't clear to me before, it’s starkly clear now - Alberta Conservatives have a stark choice in this leadership election race.

It’s either the Ted Morton / Lyle Oberg way; or the Jim Dinning way.

First off, Jim Dinning did not come across well. Once again, he did nothing and said nothing all night. It was platitude after vague platitude. And when he ventured to share a firm opinion on something, it was like reading from the Liberal Red Book....spend, spend, spend...public health care, public health care...lets reach out with cash and love to the other provinces...etc, etc. I am now officially distressed over the prospect of this man running the province...the thought is starting to sicken me. The low point of the debate was while answering whether he would get rid of health premiums he said, and I paraphrase:

"I am not going to buy your vote by cutting health premiums". What does one say to a comment like that? UUUMMM - so you are a Conservative who believes tax cuts are akin to buying votes...how comforting! Gratefully, Ted and Lyle promised to cut the tax which of course hammers the middle class, while the rich have their companies pay the premiums and the poor have the government pay. Everyone understands this except for Dinning. Good grief, even Taft and Mason understand this. Very puzzling.

Now I don't want to ignore the other candidates (Eddy, Victor, Mark, and even ol' Dave were actually quite impressive and likeable); however there is little doubt that Oberg and Morton were the winners of the night - and although very similar in policy, they stood out for different reasons.

Ted Morton was strong all night. Frankly, he's been the only guy with enough balls to take a shot at Dinning (rather than comfy up to the guy in hopes of a cabinet position) - and that’s the sort of toughness we need in a leader. He belted Jim for his unwillingness to implement meaningful health care reform; he slammed him for being an elite establishment backroom boy; and he reminded viewers of Dinning's lack of commitment to provincial rights against federal incursion. He looked good, and frankly, his supporters were the loudest and largest in numbers -hell even Tom Olsen from the Herald was impressed with him at the end of the night. All in all, very solid night for Ted.

Lyle Oberg was no less impressive. His comparing of the current health system to that of Cuba and promise to implement needed European style health care reforms was very persuasive, as was his promise to introduce some private insurance and medicine into the system without going to a 2-tier system (meaning doctors could practice privately part time but would have to remain in the public system as well) - that’s solid stuff. He came across as a guy who would not be pushed around by Ottawa - and although Morton is probably stronger in this area given his history - Lyle showed he's Albertan first and foremost - in stark contrast to Dinning. Very impressive performance by Lyle. I think both he and Ted won a ton of second preference votes from each other this night.

Best line of the night, Dave Hancock speaking to his experience in cabinet, and I paraphrase, "If you haven't heard of me, it’s because I haven't screwed up"

This night was important to the campaign. Media pundits will likely draw it up as a Morton / Oberg tag team on Dinning, but really it was a night where Alberta Conservatives finally were able to see two clear choices placed before them...I sure hope voters steer it the Morton / Oberg way.

Jim Dinning is in Trouble

2006-11-13T08:38:00.000-08:00

Up until about 4 weeks ago I had become somewhat resigned to the proposition of Jim Dinning as our Premier. I didn't have a huge issue with that at first, and decided to take a hard look at he and the other candidates in the leadership race (aside from Hancock who I already had a strong opinion on) in order to determine who to vote for.

If you haven't already guessed it, I have decided not to vote for Jim Dinning in the leadership election (see the last 10 or so blog entries to understand why). For me, it’s coming down to Ted Morton, Lyle Oberg, Mark Norris and Ed Stelmach.

And you know what? I am no longer resigned to province led by Jim Dinning. Frankly, I think Jim's in big trouble, and I'll tell you why.

Reason #1 - Campaign Strategy Screw-ups

As Tom Olsen of the Calgary Herald astutely pointed out in his weekend column, the Dinning camp had planned from the start to win this thing on the first ballot...or be very close. It was thought by Dinning Inc. that should this go to a second ballot, unless Jim was well over 40%, an "Anyone but Dinning" movement might make it impossible for Jim to gain enough second ballot support.

Problem with this is idea is that it soon became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Jim's camp has proceeded to piss off every other candidate and their supporters by actions such as condescending remarks and presumptuous cabinet offers to Dave Hancock to Dinning backers allegedly using government time and resources to eviscerate Lyle Oberg's platform, to just plain Liberal and NDP type strategies of buying a membership for every ethnic minority and union member you can, and then bringing them in by the bus load to vote. Just to be clear, I do not for a minute think that union members nor ethnic/religious minorities shouldn't vote - I either currently fit into or did at one time fit into both categories in the past- however, I think its disingenuous and degrading when people manipulate such communities and their dependence on their leaders for political gain. I believe someone should vote individually based on real issues important to them and not because their Cleric, Priest, or Union Boss says they should or scares them into doing so.

Needless to say, this arrogance and strong-armed campaigning has alienated what might otherwise be second-ballot Dinning supporters, making it a very difficult challenge for Jim to win on a second ballot. And guess what, even the most positive reading of the ridiculous and misleading polls conducted during this campaign, do not have a first ballot victory or anything close to such in the cards for Jimbo.

Reason #2 - Policy...meaning the lack thereof

Really, enough said. Dinning has failed to define himself in any real way...and therefore is being defined as a establishment, very Red Tory, without ideas...Its like Ralph over these last 3 years without the humour and Alberta rights lip-service. It appears he really does admire Paul Martin; after all as he is emulating the campaign of Mr. Dithers to the utmost degree.

Reason #3 - Federal Liberal Tie-ins

Refer to the blog entry below on Mr. Jim Dinning and his donation to Paul Martin's campaign - and his non-donation to fellow Albertan and Calgarian, Stephen Harper. Three words Jim; Dumb, Dumb and Dumb.

Reason #4 - Lack of Lip Service to Provincial Rights

Again, such a weird move. Ralph Klein was no Blue Tory, but he sure sounded like one most of the time. He did little to strengthen Alberta's place in confederation, however to hear the man speak about federal-provincial relations you'd think he was one sentence short of declaring all out separation.

So what about Jim? Well he is now in favour of allowing Alberta resource revenue to be calculated into the equalization formula - this of course means the Feds would have access to even more net transfer monies from Alberta...even more than the 14 billion on its way out this year.

Again, it makes me shake my head. I just don't understand why Jim would say something so anti-Provincial Rights. You'd think he would have learned a bit from Ralph on this.

Reason #5 - Strong campaigns by Morton, Oberg, Norris and Stelmach

Simply stated, these 3 guys have run solid ideas-driven campaigns. Look at their platforms. Morton and Oberg have great ideas on health care and education - specifically in the area of choice. Morton is strong on provincial rights and has a plan to protect the treasury from further raids when the economy inevitably dips. All speak well and on point to moral issues and have strong organizations on the ground. Norris and Morton in particular have shown strong ideas for democratic reform.

Dinning simply underestimated these guys...he thought they would fold faster than the Liberals running against Paul Martin in last Liberal leadership race. Oops...I guess Conservatives really are different from Liberals Jim.

There are other problems with Jim's campaign as well, but such will do for now. I just hope Albertans wake up and see just how important it is to elect a real Conservative in this race.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=adaf1383-856b-4263-8386-d910998cc28c

Jim Dinning and his Liberal Bullying Tactics

2006-11-10T08:18:00.000-08:00

Where there is smoke there is fire - and I have been seeing smoke from the Dinning camp on too many issues during this campaign. This most recent one is the last straw! I'm no political fan of David Hancock - but the guy and his wife are very decent people. Furthermore, this is so Martin Liberal-like it makes me sick. I know Dinning apologists are going to claim this is how politics is done, but too bad - its dirty and Dinning should be ashamed of himself or those that did this. My favorite line: "But of course, this is a time sensitive offer (a cabinet position for coming over to Jim's camp). Dave would have to come over to Jim right away." Sound familiar? If it barks like a Liberal...

The following is a post from the blog of David Hancock's wife, Janet Hancock:

Janet Hancock’s Blog – Bullying November 7
As a school principal I know bullying. I know what it looks like. I can smell it and sense it. I work daily with my staff to fight it. It is under the surface, it is repeated over time and most really effective bullying is verbal. Sometimes no matter how hard you try to pretend it is not happening, to walk away, or just ignore it, it is hard to separate the bottom of your shoes from the muck.

Since this campaign began, I have had a steady stream of Jim Dinning supporters approach me and try to wear me down. The thinking is that if I quit, maybe David will too. Of course, they also target our volunteers and work on them. Whatever the public place, forum, it doesn't seem to matter. Usually the bullying starts with an overture of friendship. Something like, "Dave is a really great person and I have a lot of respect for Dave." At this point, it is usually followed up with some line like "Too bad, Jim has the race sown up and Dave won't win."

At the AUMA forum, the individual told me that if Dave immediately stepped down and supported Jim, he was in touch with someone in Edmonton who would personally see to it that Dave got a great Cabinet position. Well, Dave has had some really great Cabinet positions and been Government House Leader, and on Agenda and Priorities and Treasury Board. I will continue this in the next entry.

This week two things happened that only show me how much muck there really is out there. The first a few days ago began with the usual approach, "Dave is a really strong voice in government. Too bad he won't be premier." Then, it was followed with, "We have done some of our own polling and Dave will come in last." Anyone who has ever been involved in politics knows that you just can't poll this kind of a race - there are too many unknowns. And of course, the undecided section of the population continues to be very large in this race. However, the line continues with, "Since Dave will be at the very bottom of all candidates running, his career in politics will be over. He will never recover." And then the offer - "if Dave steps down now and comes over to Jim, we will see that he has a powerful cabinet position." What made the approach this time really interesting was the line, "But of course, this is a time sensitive offer. Dave would have to come over to Jim right away."

I can not begin to tell you how much this kind of talk disturbs me on a moral and ethical level...I was not surprised then to hear yesterday that the latest negative messaging from some in the Dinning camp was that we had stepped out of the race. Balderdash! That is not who we are or what we are about!...There is so much more to talk about - and so much more to do! too bad there is so much muck.

http://www.davehancock.ca/go/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=136&Itemid=53

Morton Takes the Gloves off....Its about Time!

2006-11-07T12:06:00.000-08:00

I think we are finally entering the fun part of the campaign. Last week, Lyle Oberg attempted to take a few jabs at the frontrunner, Jim Dinning, for the whole....Government employees working on the job for Dinning thingy...but needless to say it was just a tad weak.

But yesterday, Ted Morton was hitting Dinning where it hurts - on the one thing that Dinning may just be vulnerable on - that he is (allegedly of course) a status quo, old boys club, very Red Tory who won't stand up for Alberta's rights federally, and believes that social conservativism in any form is old fashioned. If Dinning falls, he will fall on these points - and frankly there may actually be some basis for these accusations as we have seen throughout the campagin.

To quote Dr. Morton:

"There are good reasons why he should not be the the next leader of our party," Morton's prepared notes said about Dinning."

"This is not a leader, but a manager. And it's not what Alberta needs to begin our second century."

"(He is) a "status quo" candidate who acts and spends like a Liberal."

"On democratic reform, Morton credited Dinning for proposing a lobbyist registry, but said: "He shouldn't have any trouble designing one, because he has many of the most powerful lobbyists in Alberta already working on his leadership campaign!"

"Morton said Dinning's plan to control soaring health costs solely through a publicly funded system is "irresponsible," and criticized him for passing the buck to Ottawa on same-sex marriage."

Jim Dinnning is still the favourite - but make no mistake, if Ted Morton and other leadership hopefuls on the right of the spectrum (Oberg, Norris, Stelmach) are able to make these accusations stick - Dinning will not be Premier. In this race, there are simply too many motivated Alberta Blue Conservatives, and simply not enough so-called "progressive" conservatives or Liberals to offset them. If these throngs of Blue Torys get even a whiff that Dinning is not a solid big-C Conservative - you will see one of the greatest melt-downs in Alberta political history - and a Premier named Ted, Lyle, or Ed

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=2dcccd1f-1765-420e-bb2e-95e3c1bc43cf

Liberals dressed as Conservatives

2006-11-03T10:29:00.000-08:00

It is becoming more and more apparent as this race limps along that some of the candidates are really Liberals dressed as Conservatives. In some cases its obvious; for others - its more suttle.

Dave Hancock by no means hides his pinkish tint. He supports virtually everything on the Liberal social agenda...same sex marriage, full abortion "rights", criminal "rehabilitation" - the whole bit. His economic platform can be summed up in 2 words..."spend more". Hancock is a Liberal and everyone knows he is. Jack Layton may as well run.

But how about Jim Dinning? I would not have asked this question in the not so recent past as I really thought Jim was a solid blue Tory as evidenced by his years as the finance minister who got the books balanced and helped lay the foundation for the ongoing Alberta boom.

However, the more I hear this guy talk, the more I read his platform, the more he reminds me of someone I am still trying to forget about...that being the Honorable Paul Martin. They were both finance ministers waiting in the wings for the top job while aimless governments floundered. Both had a reputation as tough business men who shrewedly balanced the books while during their stints as finance ministers. Both talked quite conservatively both on social issues (remember Paul Martins vote against same sex marriage in the late 90's). Both espoused a need to reform democracy.

Now we know that Paul Martin stood for in the end...which was nothing other than the champion of the tolerant Liberal Canada that all Canadians must accept and love on pain of being labeled a racist conservative extremeist akin to the Nazis; and I don't think Jim would ever quite sink to that level...but I'm getting worried. Here is why.

First off, Jim's platform tastes like white flour...meaning it doesn't have a taste at all. Its so vague, I can't tell if he's running for the Conservatives, NDP, Liberals...or frankly for secretary of the UN. The last platform I saw similar to his was...you guessed it....Mr. Dithers himself. You know, the "I will solve all problems, and our country will be great, and we can all hold hands in a circle and sing old John Lennon songs together." There are so few specifics other than the elustrious "more funding" promise, that one is left wondering whether the man has a plan at all.

Second (and it relates to the first), are the "more funding" promises I keep hearing from him and read in his platform. The latest being at the Fort Mac debate last night. He wants to double funding for the arts to 40 mil (Hancock loathe to be outdone then promised 60 mil). Funding for the arts? Funding for the arts for the sake of funding the arts? Get me a pail quick! Thankfully, Ted Morton piped up and stated the key line of the debate and I quote:

"You remember what I said about Liberals who dress like Conservatives" - gotta love that. He then went on to give all Conservatives in the room a warm fuzzy feeling with a promise to give tax incentives for making private donations to the arts and other charities, but that public funding for the arts was seen by him as social engineering. Again, I pause to express a warm fuzzy feeling.

Back to Dinning. Third, his participation in the Trans Alta 20G donation to the Martin leadership campaign and then $0 donation to the Harper leadership campaign. This move seriously gives me a pit in my stomach.

Dinning has some work to do on me. He used to impress me and I used to feel that he deserved consideration for my vote; however, I am starting to see and sense things about this guy that are making me take a hard look at Morton, Oberg, Stelmach and maybe even Norris. I will only vote for a Conservative after all. I wouldnt doubt it if hundreds of other Alberta Conservatives dont feel the same way as I do.

The real "landscape" of this Race

2006-11-02T12:16:00.000-08:00

While I have been known to disagree with Mr. Tom Olsen on many of his viewpoints (a little to left for my liking), he does seem to understand current landscape of the leadership race - which is more than I can say for the media in general and Leger Marketing.

As you will have noticed from my last blog, I was none to happy with Leger Marketing and the Calgary Herald/Edmonton Journal for their ridiculous poll from yesterday and its accompanying analysis. I am still waiting for the poll that asks first "Have you purchased or plan to purchase a PC Alberta Party membership for the purpose of voting in the leadership election in late November?" If no, "thanks for your time"...click; if yes, "who do you plan to vote for out of the following canadidates...?"

Now really, is that to hard to ask? This would give us a much closer picture as to the actual landscape of this race instead of the flawed "meet the deadline and budget" polling garbage that is currently being practiced. Anyway...I digress

Tom Olsen, like myself and others, have seen through this media fog and recognize what is a far more likely picture of the current election landscape (see the link below).

Of particular note is the following observations:

"Polling done for the Herald showed 27 per cent of Tory party supporters plan to vote in the upcoming leadership. The PCs have about 53 per cent support across the province, so extrapolate the percentage who actually plan to cast a ballot and the number is frighteningly small....

...But take it as fact, leadership races rely way more on selling memberships than appealing to the public at large.

This is no general election, and the turnout will be small.

It will come down to who can woo the most people to take out memberships, then get those folks to the polls.

That's where organization comes in, and every camp boasts there's is most capable. They're not equally competent, of course. I believe Dinning is in front, with Ted Morton somewhere in the top three.

At this point, the race for third place will come down to Oberg and Ed Stelmach. He with the best system on the ground wins to fight again, a week later."

Tom Olsen is dead right...this will come down to organization and the level and size of devoted followers. Its still early, but I (like Tom) think its going to be Dinning, Morton, and flip a coin between Stelmach and Oberg. And I dont see more than 10% between 1 and 2, and 2 and 3.

Dinning has buckets of cash and can pay for organization.

Morton is the candidate of the grassroots federal Reform/Alliance/Conservative base and wont need to pay for too much organization.

Oberg has solid profile but a questionably small devoted base.

Stelmach has a solid and devoted base, but how will he do outside of it?

Its going to be very interesting. I have this feeling that there are still some major fireworks in the making before this thing is put to bed. Stay Tuned.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=d3f8f92c-e35c-4d86-baa2-e582074dbb63&p=1

New Poll, same bloody mistakes!

2006-11-01T12:49:00.000-08:00

Well, I'm sure Dinning will be happy with the new poll results, however, the devil is in the details - and I am getting sick of these polls stopping their analysis just when things get interesting. I understand its an economic decision - but it sure makes for an unreliable and border-line negligent product. Let me explain.

First off the hard numbers among those who identify themselves as PC supporters. I am still in wondering awe at why these polling firms continue to ask Albertans generally who they support, and also stone-walled as to why they won't limit the results to just those persons who actually plan to vote in the election - but I'll get to that later.

Here are the self-identified PC supporter numbers

Undecided - 35%
Dinning - 23%
Oberg - 18%
Morton - 6%
Stelmach - 4%
Hancock - 4%
Norris - 3%

*Note: over 70% of those polled as self-identified Tories do not plan to vote - which basically makes this poll slightly better than worthless

Now problems with the poll are as follows:

First, as mentioned, this only represents self-identified Tories. It doesnt represent those who plan to vote. The same poll found that over 70% of these self-identified Tories don't even plan to vote --- how much you wanna bet that most of those that dont plan to vote, yet still had an opinion for the polsters on who they wanted to win would pick the name they recognized most in the papers - aka. Jim Dinning and Lyle Oberg (the media's favourite dualing duo)

Secondly, and affirming the above point, is the little paragraph in the poll that states that Morton, Oberg, and Stelmach are in a statistical dead heat for second amongst those who plan to vote, still behind Dinning - although it didnt say by how much. Now the polster says that the sample size was too small to be credible on this (meaning they are too lazy and want to save money so we didn't get a large enough sample size to find out the most important question of who those who intend to vote will vote for for). Needless to say, the question must be posed as to how does Morton (6%) and Stelmach (4%) get up to the level of Oberg (18%) when the "plan to vote people" are asked. Good question - no answer as Leger failed to do its job properly.

Third, and this is a wild card, but I have to wonder about the Alberta Alliance factor here. There are a ton of these guys who voted last election. They are very political and not happy with the status quo - but also very Conservative. This of course begs the question - did these guys say they were PC supporters? Probably not. And who do they plan to vote for?...not Jim Dinning I can guarantee you that - and very likely Ted Morton given the party's unofficial endorsement of him. Now someone is gonna say, yea, but what about self identified Liberal and NDP voters - doesn't the same thing apply and therefore the more hughed Dinning will make up for it on these voters. Maybe it does but I doubt it. Liberals and NDP'ers will not likely be as enthusiastic to get involved in this thing when compared with a group of former Tory supporters that bled off to the right leaning Alliance. Again, I don't know - and the reason I dont know is because Leger's poll failed to see this as important enough to figure out by simply asking those who plan to vote in the leadership, who they support.

Why did they fail to do this, simple...they could get an official poll out to their clients without having to call 4x the amount of persons to figure all this stuff out...period

I still think there are going to be some real surprises on election day...not saying the guy in the lead won't win...but I sure think it will be very close in the end, and will likely make these polsters look even more useless than they appear to be at this point.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=caa5cfb7-4b1e-438b-88e5-f71a9d73badc

Debate 1 - Morton v. Dinning...Winner: Morton

2006-10-31T12:57:00.000-08:00

Very interesting hearing the buzz from debate #1 in Medicine Hat last night. I've read many articles from many sources on the debate and there is one recurring theme -- it was Ted Morton versus Jim Dinning - and Morton looked good.

The big ticket item in the debate was private versus public health care. Mr. Morton (and to be fair Mr. Oberg as well) favour allowing doctors to have the option to practice private medicine in addition to their work in the public sphere (meaning there won't be a two-tier system where the best doctors go strictly to the private sector) - thus alleviating some of the burden on the public system through the accompanying private insurance options which would no doubt start popping up in addition to the public insurance everyone gets. Thus, as the reasoning goes, more money would be freed up to spend on new health care infrastructure and most importantly, hire and attract more doctors to shrink waiting lines . This has been good mainstream Conservative thinking for years now.

Liberals, as usual, decry this as a radical US-style two-tier reform...blah blah blah blah (the usual rantings and US bashing that we have come to know and love our red counterparts for advancing). Any rational individual who has actually read up on the subject knows that most industrialized 1st world nations (primarily European nations) use a similar approach to what Morton and Olberg are proposing - and their waiting lists are not near what ours are - especially for elective procedures such as back surgery.

Mr. Dinning, on the other hand, stated that we need to keep the system public. Now he also said he would review the issue if he became Premier, which seems to be his response to more and more questions these days - and is therefore starting to annoy the crap out of people like myself who just want a plan from this guy so we can evaluate it against the other guys and make a rational voting decision in November...but I digress.

I must pause now to say what is likely becoming obvious as this blog has continued. I am starting to really have a problem with the Dinning campaign. Every policy I hear from this guy is vague and really doesn't mean anything. He says he wants to keep health care public but will review these other ideas down the road...what does he mean...he's been running for Premier for the better part of 8 years - how can he not have an informed opinion on this. Morton and Oberg (although it was Morton who stole the spotlight last night) gave specifics on what they would do to help improve our healthcare...Dinning talks in vaugue meaningless phrases. I just don't get it - who is running that campaign?!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2006/10/31/forum-leadership.html

Good Idea Ted

2006-10-30T12:31:00.000-08:00

I was getting tired of the Oberg - Dinning soap opera and decided to comment on a good idea proposed by Ted Morton.

To encourage more contributions to universities and colleges Morton wants to give donors tax breaks akin to that of making a political donation; so basically (and this is a summary as there are different formulas for different contribution amounts) if a corporation or individual donates $100 to a campaign, it gets to reduce its taxable income by $75 - so it would be with donations to universities and colleges. Combine that with the potential good advertising a corporation gets from having a university building named after it, it might be more worth it now for companies to donate on a larger scale to universities, take the good advertising, and contribute to the future of our post-secondary institutions.

I think this is a great CONSERVATIVE idea - much better than the "we need to spend more on ______" promises I've heard thus far from most candidates. I'm not saying we don't need to increase spending on certain infrastructure needs in light of our province's rapid growth, but can we get some more longer term Conservative solutions guys?

Good Idea Mr. Morton!

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2006/10/27/2144967-sun.html

What the Hell is Jim Thinking...Part 2

2006-10-26T07:31:00.000-07:00

Bad two consecutive posts for Jim...sorry, news is news

I must say up front that the accusations flying around the Dinning campagin's alleged use of taxpayer money to fund campaign activites conducted by on-the-job government employees have not yet been proven and have in fact been denied...that said, it still has a foul stench to it -almost Liberalesque.

If you haven't heard (and that's possible given Lyle Oberg's "I'm calling this press conference to tell you nothing" press conference yesterday), it appears that at least 2 independent sources have been on the phones spilling the beans that Mr. Jim Dinning has been using government employees, while on the job, to conduct several campaign activities - mainly tearing apart Mr. Oberg's campaign platform (ironic as it is - since Mr. Dinning doesn't seem to be running on any kind of substantive platform or new ideas...yet).

Now, you would think that Jim, on hearing these accusations, would give a good 'ol "If this is true, I'm mad as hell and I'm going to put a stop to this right away" speach, thus showing fiscal conservatives that in a big campagin things can happen without the boss knowing, but when the "Premier-in-Waiting" finds out its game over bacause Dinning doesn't do Liberal-like politics. That would seem the best course of action. However, thats not what Jim said. He says and I quote:

"If he's got some serious concerns, raise them with party officials," Dinning said. "Don't raise them at a press conference."

Excuse me, are you serious? That's your damage control Jim?

This is the stuff that makes Liberal supporters nod their heads in agreement and makes Conservatives want to puke. Making excuses for a clear misappropriation of tax dollars and then proceeding to blame the whistleblower would make even Paul Martin blush.

Further, Jim is taking great pains to paint himself as anti-establishment, not the status quo - the reason being that although Alberta is doing quite well, conservative voters are staying home and going to vote elsewhere becuase they started to see and smell the rot of a provincial government believing it had some sort of divine authority to rule as they wished without accountability or fresh direction. Albertan's can't stand that attitude...never have, and hopefully never will. They may keep a party in power for 100 years - but it better do some serious housecleaning when this odour creeps in - or else we simply create a new party that doesn't include the word Liberal in it, and have electoral purging.

So, if this is the attitude that Jim Dinning will bring as leader, I think the Tory's days as a governing party may be numbered. I hope I'm wrong and either Jim has a distinct attitude adjustment, or Alberta conservatives elect a Premier Morton, Oberg, Stelmach or whoever - with a much more idealistic view of government accountability.

Links for this story:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2006/10/25/tory-mystery.html

Post script: it appears Jim read my thoughts. His attitude has seemingly changed:

"No one's brought it to my attention. If there's a problem, if I can help solve it, I will," Dinning said of Oberg's accusations.

"First and foremost, they're citizens. If they're doing it on government time, they shouldn't. But if they're doing it on their own personal time, they're citizens who are allowed to make choices."

Much better Jim! The whole thing still has a terrible waft - but much better

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=1b29e7fa-b3f4-4c39-8b6d-8bb4b694222b&k=44983

Did Jim Dinning support Paul Martin?

2006-10-25T08:39:00.000-07:00

I must confess, I missed this little tidbit by Paul Wells a few months ago...and my first impression is "Jim, what the hell were you thinking", followed by significant surprise as to why the Alberta media has not picked up on this story. I don't think its because they are in Dinning's back pocket (Jim has received good, neutral and bad coverage), however, I do think the media underestimates the disgusting taste Albertan's get in their throats when they think of, hear the name of, or remember the shrill voice of one Paul Martin - the guy got no seats here...none...nada...as in Jean Chretien had more success here.

It would seem to therefore be newsworthy that if the man the media have pegged as the Tory leadership race's "front runner" is shown to have supported Paul Martin in his leadership race (in contradiction of what Mr. Dinning had first implied), and gave no support to any federal Tory leadership candidate (including the guy who won who hails from Jim's own city and province), that such information would be somewhat of a BIG STORY! But alas, the media wants instead to cover the debate over photo radar.

In any event, here is the story with a corresponding link to Paul Wells, the liberal Macleans magazine writer who broke the story:

Paper trail

I have here a document I was given for use in my book. I couldn't make it fit the narrative thread of the book, but it's not uninteresting, so here 'tis for you now.

Remember in February of 2002 when a Calgary lawyer named Jim Palmer forwarded a $25,000 cheque, intended for the Paul Martin leadership campaign, to the Liberal Party of Canada — still, inconveniently, led by Jean Chrétien — by mistake? The mistake was promptly leaked to Joan Bryden at Southam News.

This caused some uproar at the time, because Palmer was (a) supposed to be lead Alberta fundraiser for the Liberal party; (b) apparently rather more interested in moonlighting as lead Alberta fundraiser for the Martin campaign; (c) had been a paid consultant, and continued to consult pro bono, with the federal Department of Finance while he was wearing his twin fundraising hats. The Martin crowd believed at the time, and probably still believes, that the real outrage was not what Palmer was doing, but that his little faux pas was leaked to a reporter.

But this isn't about Jim Palmer. It's about the cover letter. Here's the text of the letter, on TransAlta letterhead, in full.

-------February 7, 2002

Mr. Jim Palmer
[Address]

Dear Jim,

Further to your conversation with Steve Snyder, I am pleased to provide you TransAlta's support for Project 2000.

On a personal note, I worry that our governments across the country have become a 'hotbed of rest' and I can only hope that Mr. Martin and others might be able to re-inject a sense of urgency, passion and priority into the affairs of our nation. Soon.

Kind personal regards,

[Signature]
Jim Dinning
Executive Vice President
Sustainable Development and External Relations
-----------

Note the name of the guy who signed the letter.

Now, the fact that Dinning wrote the letter is not news. The Globe and Mail reported it at the time. But the Globe and other reporters do not seem, at the time, to have seen the text of Dinning's message. Which means they can't have known, at the time, how disingenuous Dinning's reaction was when the matter was put to him.

Here's how CP reported it at the time:

"Dinning confirmed that [he wrote the cover letter] Tuesday, but suggested that it is TransAlta that wants Martin to replace Chretien.

"'Remember, it is TransAlta Corp. that you're talking about, and I am an officer of TransAlta Corp.,' he said. 'By the very definition of TransAlta making a contribution to the Paul Martin campaign, and chose to do so.'"

So Dinning signs a letter forking over 25 large to the Martin leadership campaign (operating, in 2002, under the title "Project 2000" — how piquant), and when he's busted, he claims he was merely the agent of a corporate decision.

That claim is impossible to square with the "personal note" he adds, his use of the pronoun "I," and the "personal regards" he offers Martin's man.

Seems a bit weaselly, no?

http://weblogs.macleans.ca/paulwells/archives/week_2006_07_23-2006_07_29.asp#002492

Big Week on the Campaign Trail!

2006-10-23T12:47:00.000-07:00

Well, the past week or so had several interesting highlights. The theme, if there indeed was one, is the emergence of Ted Morton and Lyle Oberg as real players in this race. Jim Dinning had a pretty solid lead, but watch out for the Alberta grass roots (particularly in Morton's case); I am becoming more convinced that Morton and Oberg are stronger than Dinning in this very critical area. We shall see.

The biggest news had to be the official endorsement of Ted Morton by the Alberta Alliance's leader, Paul Hinman, followed by a bit of a backtrack when Alliance brass stated that the endorsement would stay unofficial and no official letter of endorsement to party members would in fact be sent. All that said, how Morton can not benefit from this official-unofficial endorsement from a rather significant Conservative voting block is hard to comprehend.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=b1ffce25-2074-4fad-beeb-567d68847ac5&k=71776

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2006/10/18/2059202-sun.html

Morton was really riding a hot-streak this week. If the right-wing Alliance endorsement wasn't good enough, how about an endorsement from the liberal mayor of Calgary, Dave Bronconnier. The Calgary Sun reported a dispute between the 3 front-running candidates as to how and what should be done about Alberta's $10-billion infrastructure debt. Dinning has a 10-year (1 billion a year) provincial plan to address the issue. Olberg is promising to cut the time down to 5 years. Morton's policy would see municipalities and the province enter into funding arrangements, and let the municipalities go ahead and decide where the infrastructure needs are, rather than the province making all such decisions. Mr. Bronconnier said he hoped that Morton, or whoever wins, adopts the latter policy in dealing with the problem. Who knew that conservatives and liberals can agree that decentralization is a good thing after all!

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/10/22/2104209.html

In a somewhat humourous turn, NDP leader Perry Mason....I mean Brian Mason called for all Leadership contenders to disclose their campaign contributors - just like Mark Norris has. I'm sure thats exactly what Norris wants - the endorsement of the Alberta NDP leader. In fairness though, it was a good thing of Norris to do it, and hopefully the rest of the group will follow suit (although, there do seem to be more pressing issues.)

So far, two candidates have endorsed Private/Public Health Care reforms - surprise suprise, they are Lyle Oberg and Ted Morton. If I were Jim Dinning, I would start rolling out substantive platform planks quickly...Lyle and Ted seem to be really rolling out substantive stuff on key conservative issues - I'm sure the Dinning camp must have something coming...soon I hope - the election is just a few weeks away. Here are the health care articles:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2006/10/21/2087252-sun.html

https://www.lyleoberg.ca/my_vision_healthcare.php

What's this? A story on Ted Morton that actually portrays him as one of the most likeable guys in the race. What is this world coming to? What has happened to the left-wing media to make them write such things about such a well known and anti-Liberal conservative? Here is the story:

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=b93f4442-6713-40a0-9acd-6ee0c26e2114

Meanwhile, Jim Dinning just can't seem to get his side of the story out there. Jim, we know your a good guy...but please give us something to talk about other than why we should love our dogs and be nice to everyone. Paul Martin tried this - it doesn't work! Substance man, please....substance!!

http://www.570news.com/news/national/article.jsp?content=n101766A

New Poll shows 3 Horse Race

2006-10-14T09:55:00.000-07:00

Taken from the Calgary QR 77 website seen by clicking here

New Poll Shows Three-Horse Race For Tory Leadership

Oct, 10 2006 - 11:40 AM

CALGARY/AM770CHQR - A Calgary-based business and taxpayer group has released results of a survey showing a virtual three way tie for the lead in the Alberta Tory leadership race.The Progressive Group for Independent Business shows Lyle Oberg and Ted Morton each with 17 percent support among Tory party members who plan to vote in the election. Jim Dinning is close behind at 16 per cent.The PGIB says it did its own survey out of frustration that other surveys polled Albertans who were not tory party members or even planning to vote in the leadership race.

End of News Clipping

Lyle Olberg - 17%
Ted Morton - 17%
Jim Dinning - 16%

It ticks me off that the other candidates results are not posted, but oh well.

Polls are just polls of course (an imperfect snapshot in time of voter feelings), however this poll did indeed catch my eye for several reasons. First off, having some background in polling, I was a little disappointed with the media's irresponsibility in publishing several cross Alberta name recognition polls which severely skew results, but can influence voter behaviour. The Alberta Tory Leadership election is voted in primarily by active run-of-the-mill Alberta Tories - so asking the average Albertan who may, but likely will not be voting in the leadership election who they are going to vote for out of a list of canadidates (most of which the majority or substantial minority of the populace have never heard of) allows for extremely innacurate results. The only thing these past polls were good for is determining which candidate has the best name recognition at present.

This new poll actually only polled those Tory members who plan to vote in the upcoming Tory leadership race. Granted, this does not guarantee super-accurate results either for 3 reasons. First, they should have polled all individuals who are very likely to buy the $5.00 membership and vote in the upcoming Tory leadership race. Second (and they may have done so, but I doubt it) they should ask simply 'Who do you plan to vote for' without listing candidates names (if someone hasn't a clue - then simply conducting a name recognition exercise is useless) . Lastly, this isn't an exact science anyway. Leadership races are truly membership selling and "Get Out The Vote" trench warfare in its most pure and unpredictable form...anything can and does happen.

I would suggest this kind of poll is far more accurate than its cross-partisan counterparts. I hope the media will conduct and cover more polls like this in the future.

The Race is On!

2006-10-14T09:53:00.000-07:00

The race for Alberta's top job is on, and the future of Canada's most prosperous province at stake.

The decision Albertans make in November, 2006 will affect their province, our country, and even to some extent, the world, as Alberta's emergance as a world energy superpower continues to unfold.

This blog is dedicated to frank and open discussion about the 2006 Alb1erta Progressive Conservative Leadership Race. The dialogue will primarily centre on the policies and leadership qualities of the candidates, and I will do all I can to limit personal attacks and unfounded rumours.

So read, get mad, get excited, and chime in; the future of our great province and its people is worth our full participation and energy!