Ed Stelmach blames Climate Change denial on Wildrose loss.

[Hailey]

the fact of the matter is this .... a Wildrose victory was and is a direct threat to Harper and all political parties.


The staus quo would have changed. They tried the same thing with Reform and CSIS. It did not work in the long run.

The reform movement was destroyed when Harper when the leaderhsip of the Alliance and welcoming in the red try horde into positions of importance.

The corruption has only gotten worse with our political system since Harper has taken a prominent role

Now you can begin the bashing

Why then did many Harper MP's work for the wild rose?

[RedDog]

Thanks for the debt Ed. You're the best. Now F off and go away.

[Faramir]

I have a lot of respect and admiration for Danielle Smith, which is why I guess her loss seemed to affect me so much, even though I reside in another province.

I liked this from her after the election:

“I’ve always called myself a libertarian although most people don’t know what that means. To me it means that
I believe in liberty, I believe in freedom and I’ve spent three years talking about my commitment to free speech,
freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, economic freedom. And you don’t throw your
values overboard just because you have a couple of candidates who cause you political trouble. That’s
expedient. I’m not an expedient person. I’m a principled person and it seems to me that it would have been
wrong for me to all of the sudden become intolerant of the different viewpoints of some of my religious
candidates. And it would have been wrong for me to make a rash decision on a man who is a good man, who I
know does not hold racist views, who misspoke. I forgave him, I think his campaign forgave him, but obviously
Albertans in his ridings did not. I wouldn’t have done anything different.” -- Wildrose Party Leader Danielle
Smith on the pivotal moment in losing the Alberta election, National Post, April 25, 2012

[Peter O'Donnell]

This thread title has cause and effect backwards.

on = for

also,

blames = credits

[catonist]

“I’ve always called myself a libertarian although most people don’t know what that means. To me it means that
I believe in liberty, I believe in freedom and I’ve spent three years talking about my commitment to free speech,
freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, economic freedom. And you don’t throw your
values overboard just because you have a couple of candidates who cause you political trouble. That’s
expedient. I’m not an expedient person. I’m a principled person and it seems to me that it would have been
wrong for me to all of the sudden become intolerant of the different viewpoints of some of my religious
candidates.

I think Smith is confused about libertarian principles here. Libertarianism opposes GOVERNMENT restrictions on free-speech. That doesn't mean that a private organization like a political party has to remain neutral on every statement made by its members.

If Hunsperger had said "I think Danielle Smith is a twit who will ruin Alberta if elected", I'm sure Smith would have publically criticized that statement, even though, as a libertarian, she would still defend his right to make it without being harassed by the government.

Now, there is a legitimate argument to be made that Hunsperger's comments weren't about government policy, but about his own religious beliefs, and therefore a party leader has no business commenting on them. But that argument has nothing to do with libertarianism. Smith may have been right, as party leader, to refraining from condemning his statements, but even if she HAD condemned them, it would not have been a violation of his right to free speech.

[Faramir]

“I’ve always called myself a libertarian although most people don’t know what that means. To me it means that
I believe in liberty, I believe in freedom and I’ve spent three years talking about my commitment to free speech,
freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, economic freedom. And you don’t throw your
values overboard just because you have a couple of candidates who cause you political trouble. That’s
expedient. I’m not an expedient person. I’m a principled person and it seems to me that it would have been
wrong for me to all of the sudden become intolerant of the different viewpoints of some of my religious
candidates.

I think Smith is confused about libertarian principles here. Libertarianism opposes GOVERNMENT restrictions on free-speech. That doesn't mean that a private organization like a political party has to remain neutral on every statement made by its members.

If Hunsperger had said "I think Danielle Smith is a twit who will ruin Alberta if elected", I'm sure Smith would have publically criticized that statement, even though, as a libertarian, she would still defend his right to make it without being harassed by the government.

Now, there is a legitimate argument to be made that Hunsperger's comments weren't about government policy, but about his own religious beliefs, and therefore a party leader has no business commenting on them. But that argument has nothing to do with libertarianism. Smith may have been right, as party leader, to refraining from condemning his statements, but even if she HAD condemned them, it would not have been a violation of his right to free speech.

I think the point here is she is not scared of free speech and for members having politically incorrect opinions. She didn't throw them under the bus for having honest opinions, like most politicians would have done.

[catonist]

I think the point here is she is not scared of free speech and for members having politically incorrect opinions. She didn't throw them under the bus for having honest opinions, like most politicians would have done.

Yeah, I know, and she may have had a point about that. I just don't think it can be framed as a "libertarian" issue, because libertarianism relates to how the government treats its citizens, not how private groups treat their members.