04.18.2012 07:04 AM

Crap

How is saying that gays will burn in “a lake of fire” in Hell, or that whites make for better candidates, simply “politically incorrect”? That’s crap.

18 Comments

  1. Conservative Socialist says:

    Wildrose will win. It’s very hard to turn around a tide of voter resentment that is determined to throw the bums out. If the PCs somehow eke out a win, then I’ll eat my hat.

    Yes, what the pastor said probably disqualifies him from public office. But that’s for the voters to decide. As for the ‘white advantage’ candidate, he had given an inartful response to a question that asked him how as a white candidate can he win over voters in a riding that is largely multiracial. I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the latter considering the context. Either way, it’s very hard to pin this on Danielle Smith who has declared herself to be a social moderate. This is simply a case of improperly-vetted candidates in a party that is on the rise.

    As for Danielle Smith, I wasn’t aware she was a fan of Ayn Rand. If she actually tries to implement Randian beliefs when she is in charge, there will be an electoral rude awakening. The Canadian health care system is _quite popular_, even amongst right-leaning folks (this is good socialism). This is not a case of government union workers shrieking whenever government tries to cut some services as evidenced by a personal encounter with teachers I had where they begged and pleaded with me to vote for the PCs (I think they are more concerned about their jobs).

    I’m skeptical that Wildrose will cause the sky to fall once they’re elected, they will still have to govern the very same voters that voted loyally for the PCs. This is more of the same in previous Alberta wave elections when the current PCs booted out the SoCred dynasty. One group of plutocrat-friendly elected officials booting out a tired, corrupt old bunch beholden to the same plutocrats. Alberta is a center right province, and I’m tired of the one-party state of affairs.

    My hope is that the margin of seats between WRA and PCs is close enough that one of them becomes the de-facto opposition party. Alberta ‘progressives’ would probably prefer the NDs and the ALP to be the opposition, but as I stated in another post, there is no viable path of victory for either of them. Let the defeated PCs absorb them by moving their platform slightly to the left. Having change of government every ten years between Wildrose and the PCs would certainly be healthier for democracy in Alberta.

    • Pat says:

      Regarding your second sentence: what about Ontario? McG and the OLP have been the subject of “throw the bums out” calls for the last two elections and have won (albeit with only a “major minority” most recently). Hudak had been way in the lead, but by e-day the people of Ontario got their heads screwed on straight… The shift was pretty quick.

      Also, the Toronto municipal election and the most recent federal election has taught us to never rely on polls…

      • Conservative Socialist says:

        I’ve not lived in Ontario for 12 years, so I’m quite far removed of the political mood there. Perhaps the hatred for McGuinty wasn’t strong enough for voters to give Hudak a chance. But the seat count for the Ontario Libs had dropped anyhow. The electoral conditions for the next go-around will be a lot harder if McGuinty runs again.

        I know what people here feel, however. I might even be inclined to vote for the PCs, their platform is sensible enough considering the political climate of the province. While they have very right-wing elements in the caucus, their bark is worse than their bite (did Ralph Klein really invoke the notwithstanding clause to ban gay marriage? No–it was theater). Their governance tries not to rock the boat too much, when all is said and done. The one time they did–when Stelmach tried to claw back on royalties caused all sides to bash them (Libs/NDs saying it wasn’t enough, the WR saying it was too much). I actually thought that was a good thing that he tried to do.

        But with the no-show committee and outright graft, the PCs have to be thrown out. It’s not their policies that are offensive (certainly less offensive than Wildrose from my vantage point), it’s the rot that is set in that was probably inevitable after 41 years of governance. There is far too much baggage. Whenever corrupt incumbents are in trouble, they always point to the “inexperience” of the opposition that’s about to replace them. To me, that is an undemocratic attitude. The PCs should be asking WHY a bunch of “redneck crazies” are about to replace them.

        It’s best to mentally prepare for the eventuality of a Wildrose government. But political reality will limit their ability to do the more outrageous things that their opponents claim they will do. Even Stephen Harper hasn’t dared to touch the abortion issue with a hundred foot bargepole.

        • Pat says:

          People in Ontario really seemed to hate McG… the green energy policy (removing control from local authorities), some high-profile bungling of policy and money (the ehealth scandal comes to mind), and numerous other mis-steps that ANY government would make had the OLP on the edge. I can’t remember the number off the top of my head (perhaps some helpful person can provide this info), but Hudak was WAY ahead of McG in the polls. Like, as long as he didn’t screw up everything they would be elected… but then stuff about racism and intolerance started seeping out…

          Ontario was ready to boot McG and replace him with Hudak until they realized what they might be getting (and credit should go to Warren for that).

          COULD happen in Alberta.

          • Cameron Prymak says:

            Off the top of my head I think, during the July time frame anyway, Mr. Hudak’s lead in the polls was in the low double digits over the Libs. It eroded thereafter.

    • G. Babbitt says:

      I do not give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Leech. No matter how you parse it, he believes that people who are white Christians are the only people capable of discussing policy and representing other points of views. Sikhs and Muslims who are involved in politics are only capable of representing their ethnic communities is the core of his message even if you remove the “white advantage” line. It is a vile point of view that has great currency among blog commentators in Sun papers which marginalizes people from ethnic communities, by saying that if you have support in your community, it cannot possibly be congruent with “Canadian” values because “Canadian” values are definitionally white and Christian. The fact that Smith has no problem with this indicates a willingness to pander to bigots.

      • Elisabeth Lindsay says:

        No…..she is leaving it to his constituents (Edmonton) to deal with him…….and they will.

        • Philip says:

          It also means that Smith feels she doesn’t have to publicly admonish the lard ass. Which might hurt in rural ridings where that message plays very and everyone knows exactly what you mean when you talk about “real Canadians”.

  2. smelter rat says:

    It’s a Sun paper. I’m surprised that you’re surprised.

  3. Ted B says:

    On a more upbeat election note, have you seen this ad/song from Alberta Liberal Dave Anderson?

    The politics doesn’t matter to me – ok, it almost doesn’t matter to me – when you have this kind of creativity in an ad. Nice ring to the slogan though!

    And it may just have made this this over-played song always-on-the-kids’-radio somewhat bearable for me.

  4. Matt Ellis says:

    yeah. It’s not politically incorrect. It’s full out incorrect.

  5. Kre8tv says:

    I’d rather live by a lake of fire than eat at the table of poison and hate. What the hell is wrong with these people?

  6. RDS says:

    If we define “politically incorrect” as “failing to couch expressions of intolerance in doublespeak and innuendo in order to give the speaker plausible deniability” then I’d say they just about nailed it.

  7. GPAlta says:

    It is crap, also because the author’s proof that there is no reason to fear Wildrose is that the federal Conservative Party “has seen a steady erosion of principles in the service of pragmatism.” Very hard to believe, since slashing corporate taxes to some of the lowest in the developed world, thus creating a completely artificial structural deficit that can not be solved without 10s of 1000s of job losses every year while at the same time funneling money into the prisons, firearms, and defense industries that they owe their power to while hiding all of the reasons and costs for that graft from parliament does not seem at all pragmatic, and only serves to demonstrate most clearly what their actual “principles” are. Of course their “principles” have nothing to do with the Senate, or accountability, that’s just what they told us. That is exactly why we should fear the Wildrose party, because we don’t want to see what their real “principles” will involve.

    As for Smith’s love of Ayn Rand, and how that should reflect upon her: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/im-ellsworth-toohey/

  8. Olmanhall says:

    So have any of these boneheads had to pay $1000.00 yet for embarasing the Wild Rose Party or are their rants considered policy statements?

  9. KP says:

    Sooner or later, hopefully people figure out creating political policy from the pages of Atlas Shrugged isn’t pragmatic if you actually care about human beings. Most of us do. It’s time to stop electing people who don’t.

Leave a Reply to KP Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*