Saturday, December 01, 2007

Adapt or Leave

No surprise - the saga of Craig Chandler has come to an end...or has it?

Knowing Mr. Chandler, I suspect this isn't the last he'll be heard of.



  • Drat! That would've been fun.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:17 p.m.  

  • So, Mr. Premier, now that you've excluded Mr. Chandler on the basis of his well-known intolerance towards homosexuals and gay rights, are you now prepared to do the same with other members of your Cabinet and caucus who are well known to have similar views on the subject? For instance, any and all members who participated in drafting or supporting the notorious Bill 208 last year?

    Are you prepared to engage in the same vetting of members of your caucus, members of your Cabinet, and all other nominated PC candidates to ensure they've never made any negative statements about homosexuals or any other minority group and, if found that any have, are you prepared to ask for their resignations from the PC Party and their seats, accordingly?

    My guess is that the answer to any of these questions would be the typical stammering and dithering we've come to expect.

    I'm pleased to see that Craig Chandler's nomination hasn't been endorsed. But let's not kid ourselves. When it comes to the PC party, Chandler certainly does not have a monopoly on these views. There are others as well, who have served and will undoutedly continue to serve as sitting MLAs and Cabinet Ministers.

    Chandler's biggest problem seems to be that he was publicly open and transparent about what his beliefs; voters in that nomination knew exactly what they were getting. Others in the party who share his views are just smart enough (or opaque enough) to not go public about their views, and instead confine them to private gatherings, legislative sessions and closed-door policy-making venues.

    I'm not sure which I'd dislike more -- Craig Chander as MLA, who everybody knows is intolerant and would be watched and monitored accordingly, or Joe Schmo as MLA who will hold himself out as a great guy but behind closed doors and in dark rooms will be not much better than Chandler.

    It's pretty clear the Tories would prefer Joe Schmo. (Just as long as he doesn't use the government credit card to embarass them too much.)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:43 p.m.  

  • Do you think AA or WildRose might want to let him run in Calgary, where they have no chance anyway, in hopes of him having coattails in ridings where they stand a chance?

    As for hearing the last of him, the only things left alive after a nuclear war are cockroaches, and this was far, far short of a nuclear war.

    By Blogger Reality Bites, at 8:43 p.m.  

  • "Political analyst Keith Brownsey said he was surprised by the move.

    "Mr. Chandler was elected fair and square by constituents," said Mr. Brownsey, a political science professor at Mount Royal College in Calgary."

    Another person who should be fired. How could you be suprised at this move?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:15 a.m.  

  • I've long since learned that when Brownsey says something, predict the opposite.

    By Blogger BR, at 4:25 a.m.  

  • I'm a Wildrose member and I can assure you we don't want him either. Although the Wildrose party is very much a grassroots party and the party executive would be extremely reluctant to over-ride the decision of a constituency if the nomination was fairly contested, our candidates are nonetheless bound to our party platform as voted on by the members and on that point, a motion saying the Wildrose party opposes SSM was introduced at the last policy meeting and it re-worded to simply support for family values. As a candidate Chandler would have to recognize the fact opposition to SSM was rejected in this way if it became a an issue.

    A variety of motions relating to abortion were also introduced and were all shot down except for a motion opposing the use of taxpayer dollars for abortions not necessitated by rape, incest, etc.

    Chandler would be far more at home in the AA than Wildrose given Randy Thorsteinson's continuing influence in the AA, an influence that is arguably the biggest reason why a lot of distinguished people have given up on the AA as a viable alternative to the PCs.

    By Blogger Brian Dell, at 9:14 a.m.  

  • Support for family values? You mean like Bill and Gord, the nice married couple down the street.

    You might fool the uninvolved voter by hiding your party's social conservative garbage behind weasel words, just like the CPC did, but you're not fooling the people who know your party (if it ever manages to become one) for what it really is. Social conservative is just the politically correct term for bigot. Doesn't matter how much you try to pretty it up.

    By Blogger Reality Bites, at 1:09 p.m.  

  • I don't see how Brownsey could be surprised. After Stelmach said "we don't tolerate intolerance", he didn't really have a choice, or else he'd be hounded for the whole campaign asking if he thought Chandler's views could be considered "intolerant". There was really no option given the media whirlwind around this.

    Chandler does have a point though - he should have been DQ'd before he spent $100,000 on the nomination meeting.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 2:16 p.m.  

  • "...A variety of motions relating to abortion were also introduced and were all shot down except for a motion opposing the use of taxpayer dollars for abortions not necessitated by rape, incest, etc..."

    I'm opposed to my tax dollars being used for the health care of Wildrose Party members. Let'em go to a back alley doctor.

    By Anonymous Holly Stick, at 4:01 p.m.  

  • "WildRose Party members" is an oxymoron, in that they don't have enough supporters to actually register as a party.

    By Blogger Reality Bites, at 8:09 p.m.  

  • Although Calgarygrit's forum probably isn't the appropriate forum to debate this, and I accordingly have no objections to his shutting this thread down at any point, I'd note that a lot of libertarian-minded types find it unnecessarily antagonistic to use coercively obtained public resources to support pregnancy terminations where there was at least some element of choice in becoming pregnant in the first place, given how strongly some citizens feel about the issue. It's as if a de facto victory which lives and lets live isn't enough: the other side must be completely run out of town, and for, with no loss of irony, for not being accepting enough.

    Even re gay marriage, I don't think I, or the state, has any business in another person's bedroom; however, gay marriage is about what occurs in public not private, and on that count why is it insufficient for a couple to celebrate with friends and family? Why must a state official provide an additional stamp of approval? Because, of course, the issue is not the right to deviate from the norm but the right to demand that one's choices be normalized; i.e. not a negative right to non-interference but a positive "right" to require the general public to drop its objections. Call it what you will, but it is not libertarianism. If one wants the general public to approve of something, one can advocate through free elections as opposed to the courts. I once heard a gay man say that he was never interested in the medieval institution of marriage until it became apparent that the institution could be "destabilized" if the institution's gatekeepers had to let others in, just as any norm will lose all of its normative power if its inclusivity is stretched to include everyone. Bottom line is that it seemed more like an agenda to get-the-goat of the so-cons as opposed to taking those issues off the agenda and getting back to the economy. Indeed, in domestic politics it is generally the more "left wing" parties that seem to be most interested in calling attention to people like Chandler.

    By Blogger Brian Dell, at 12:15 a.m.  

  • So some pimply faced males want to judge women's choices and deprive us of our rights to our own bodies. How sexist to refuse to pay for women's health care. How non-libertarian to tell women someone else gets to give them orders about their own bodies. What a hypocrite you are. I gues there are no women in the Wildrose party.

    Since you have chosen to join this sexist, bigotted party, you deserve to die of a coathanger-induced hemorrhage because you couold not afford decent health care.

    By Anonymous Holly Stick, at 1:08 p.m.  

  • I guess we now know what Brian meant. Craig Chandler isn't ENOUGH of a bigot to fit in with Wild Rose "Party"

    Brian, if and when you can convince heterosexuals to voluntarily give up the right to state-sanctioned marriage and all the rights and responsibilities that come with it, then I'll tell you what - we'll let you experiment with that a few decades, and if we like what we see, we'll give up our right to state-sanctioned marriage too.

    Same-sex marriage has probably been the most debated politcal issue in the last decade. Every poll going back to the mid-90s has shown majority approval. It was endorsed TWICE by our elected legistlors. And if that's not enough for you, Brian, well you can shove it right up your bigoted ass.

    And to what Holly said, ditto.

    By Blogger Reality Bites, at 1:19 p.m.  

  • Same-sex marriage has probably been the most debated politcal issue in the last decade. Every poll going back to the mid-90s has shown majority approval.

    Wow, that's not even close to being accurate. Polls mostly showed a majority against SSM (or a three-way split between marriage/civil union/nothing), right up until SSM passed in June 2005. They took a dramatic swing in favour once C-38 was finally enacted, however.

    By Blogger The Invisible Hand, at 10:27 p.m.  

  • For what it is worth, I voted against including any opposition to abortion OR SSM in the party platform. But what's left, which is a general statement about family values and the use of taxpayer resources, is not indefensible. Surely it should be possible to establish foundations or otherwise find private (voluntary) financing if funding abortion is such a worthy cause. No one is going to be in 100% agreement with every plank in the platform of the party they support. A political party is a vehicle for bringing together people whose views are diverse in the particular but similiar with respect to a general theme, which in this case - and in my opinion - is our current premier's lack of expertise and direction and the govt's spendthrift ways. I had an opportunity to express myself with respect to what the party stood for and to vote on the party platform. The party platform then actually means something. You don't find that in the PC or Liberal parties.

    If Link Byfield becomes party leader, I may have to reconsider my membership, given the assumptions moderates and libertarians would make about that. But that hasn't happened yet.

    By Blogger Brian Dell, at 11:10 p.m.  

  • And if I didn't make it clear, my primary concern about the SSM debate was not the particular outcome there but the abstract precedent set by crossing the line from negative rights to positive "rights" with so little appreciation of the distinction. Can the Charter ever be used to support norms? No. So decisions on it only move society in one direction, the only question is how much. Eventually we won't be able to, say, have any immigration policy at all because failing to universalize a grant of entry will deemed discrimination contrary to humanity's right of mobility, or some such thing. These issues should be a matter for elected Parliaments and not just the courts.

    By Blogger Brian Dell, at 11:37 p.m.  

  • "... Surely it should be possible to establish foundations or otherwise find private (voluntary) financing if funding abortion is such a worthy cause..." Look, stupid; every Canadian has a right to public health. Your party wants to deprive women of their right to health care. Your party clearly wants to impose narrow sexist and homophobic religious views on all of society.

    The fact that Link Byfield is a member should be enough to sink your rotten ship.

    By Anonymous Holly Stick, at 11:24 a.m.  

  • By Blogger raybanoutlet001, at 3:42 a.m.  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home