For the past while, I’ve been pretty open about my enthusiasm for Alison Redford.  I’ve also been pretty critical of her main opponent, Wildrose’s Danielle Smith.  I haven’t hidden it.

As such, I’ve gotten a few tweets sent my way, some of which I would like to share for your amusement.  I wanted to put them on this web site before they end up down the memory hole, like quite a few pundits’ prognostications.

Here’s a sampling from your garden variety Wildrose supporters.

 

Those were fun.  Now, I also heard from some well-known people.  Here’s what three conservative pundits (whom I like a great deal) told me when I suggested that Danielle Smith would pay a price for not condemning extremists in her midst:

 

Those were fun, too.  I also heard from pollsters, however.  Here’s what some of them had to say about my suggestion (in a column) that Smith would pay a price and (in a posting) that Redford would win:

 

“Pay attention”! Ha! I like that. Best of all, however, was National Post reporter Jen Gerson.  She was assigned to cover the Alberta election. I had thought Jen was pretty smart, but I’m not so sure about that anymore.  For instance, I suggested on Facebook, Twitter and on this web site, that Wildrose extremism – like the lunatic who called for David Suzuki to be assassinated – was newsworthy, and would hurt Wildrose.  Jen disagreed.  Jen, who knows better, had this to say:

 

Get that? “Actual stories.”  Like, saying gays will burn in Hell, or saying that whites are better, or calling for political adversaries to be murdered aren’t, you know, such a big deal.  But I’m a bit slow, so I pressed Jen on the issue.  I disagreed with her; I expressed puzzlement with her disinterest.  This is what she came back with:

 

Isn’t that nice? What a nice person.

Anyway, you get the point, I suspect.  Last night wasn’t just a big political deal. It was a big deal for four “Ps” – partisans, pundits, pollsters and press people.

Most of them were wrong, wrong, wrong. In politics, as in life, you should always ask this question: “What if I’m wrong?” I certainly am, often. In the past few days, however, so were quite a few other people.  And, thanks to the wonder that is Twitter, the proof is there for us all to behold.

Have a good one, tweeters!

Comments (70)

Sarah Palin North got beaten, badly.  The PC leader who impressed me so much, months ago, won big.  Quick takes:

• Rod Love has gone into hiding.
• A hole has been kicked in a wall at 24 Sussex.
• That viral vid urging youth to vote PC wasn’t so bad after all, eh?
• I guess gays won’t burn in Hell after all – and white candidates aren’t always better than non-white ones!
• My family weren’t the only Alberta Grits urging people to vote for Redford, looks like.
• Never, ever underestimate Stephen Carter.  Redford and Nenshi don’t.
• Tom Flanagan has now lived through Week Four Bozone Layer eruptions twice.  Ouch.
• Gord Tulk, kiss my ass!

Much to say about all this in the days ahead.  But the pundits and the pollsters don’t look terribly good, tonight!

Comments (57)

But that’s just politics. When Canadians are probed about their attitudes and identities — the deep-down, emotional stuff that doesn’t easily lend itself to words, but which drives political choices — conservatives increasingly dominate.

Following the lead of U.S. conservatives in the 1960s, the Canadian right has become far better at communicating (thus its near-total dominance of editorial voices), and it has become much better at promoting conservative values (thus its ability to convince average folks to vote against their economic interests).

Canadian conservatives don’t run everything — yet. But like their U.S. counterparts, Canadian right-wingers have methodically sought to dominate at the level of words and values. They know that if they can capture voters’ hearts and minds, winning elections will be a piece of cake.

What matters most isn’t party affiliation. What matters is an emotional connection — and, right now, it’s conservatives who’ve got it.

Not progressives.

Comments (8)

In the future, if you are to look up the dictionary definition of “idiotic,” this will be one of the examples offered up.

Comments (29)

Speaking for me, myself and I, a election would’ve been quite acceptable.  We would have won a majority, and the Ontario PCs would have been reduced to third-party status.

Also, I enjoy elections.  I think they’re fun.  The Premier, however, is more sensible than me. He did what people are always calling for: leaders who put principles before politics. And so we will all live to fight another day.

Sigh.

Comments (22)

Wildrose has been dropping sharply since the bozone layer eruptions began.  The PCs now own Edmonton, and the huge Wildrose lead in Calgary has vanished.  Rural Alberta is rural Alberta: WCC, blah blah blah.

Contrary to what Canada’s conservative-dominated media pundits may tell you, (a) the PCs have run a solid campaign under Stephen Carter (he of Nenshi fame) (b) the homophobic, racist stuff has hurt Wildrose and (c) there has been a lot of vote moving around in the past few days, just as Tom Flanagan wrote about, presciently, in respect of the 2004 federal vote.  It matters.

Seats?  Dunno; things are too, er, wild right now.  But I don’t see a Wildrose majority at all.  If Redford can make some kind of a deal with the few Liberals and New Democrats elected, she’ll be Premier at this time next week.

Thank the Lord, etc.

Comments (35)

I love it when conservatives give writing tips, and then misspell three key words in three sentences:

Hey Kinsella: You would make a great writer for the National Enquire. Have you ever consider that? Totally amazing what goes thru that little mind of yours. Howard Melnikel

Comments (12)

This story, about the loathsome Bev Oda’s willingness to blow the equivalent of most Canadians’ monthly pay on herself, reminded me of this unforgettable photo:

Isn’t that gross?  What a great role model she is for our kids!

Now, how about this gem, about her fellow conservative, Danielle Smith: in it, Smith argues that tobacco is good for you. Next thing you know, she’ll be claiming that gays are going to burn in Hell, whites are better than non-whites, and Jews have a secret “kosher tax.”

Oh, wait.

“And so it goes. Back on Dec. 2, 2002, Smith used her Herald column to argue against regulation of second-hand smoke. On May 25, 2003, she marked the death of anti-tobacco activist Barb Tarbox by quoting a tobacco-industry-funded researcher to argue that second-hand smoke poses no risk. She went on, and I’m not making this up, “the evidence shows moderate cigarette consumption can reduce traditional risks of disease by 75 per cent or more.”

And:

“Smith has worked for three well-known far-right organizations that have all shilled for the tobacco industry, helping their fight against legislation to control tobacco and smoking: the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and the Canadian Property Rights Research Institute. At least two of them, the Fraser Institute and the CPRRI, received direct funding from the tobacco industry.“

Comments (13)

The Ontario PCs are voting for one. The Ontario NDs keep issuing ransom note demands, and holding rallies to call for one.

Ontario doesn’t want or need an election. But if there is one, we’ll win it.

Comments (6)

Here, courtesy of GC.

Comments (3)