So it appears that none of the national party Leaders will be visiting Alberta soon.
Albertans frustrated by lack of attention. That's what happens when you are a Blue province, in a Red Country. If you pardon the American analogy.
It also reflects the cynicism of our national poltical party's over their chances of gaining a seat in the land of the democratic deficit. We have the only one party state in North America under King Ralph. And with the exception of two seats in Edmonton, fedrally we suffer the same indignity, being almost all Tory blue.
But is that any reason not to expect the national party leaders to visit here. There are some ridings in contention here, as I have mentioned before. But it appears that the Liberal strategy for Alberta is to sit this election out, except for Landslide Anne's Edmonton Centre riding, as I reported here the other day.
A Liberal spokesperson said leader Paul Martin is committed to travelling Canada as completely as possible and that he hopes to make Alberta part of that tour. Oh do. I hope you do plan to visit, perhaps by then you will have updated all your candidates pages on your web site so you know who you are visiting.
The NDP stands a good chance in a couple of Redmonton ridings that the Liberals have abandoned. Edmonton Strathcona and Edmonton East. While the Liberals are serious contenders in Mill Woods Beaumont.
An NDP spokesperson said Jack Layton's time is better spent in areas where the party holds some seats, but the leader hopes to make a stop in Alberta next week. Good that will be the first national leader to visit since the Green Party leader Jim Harris whistle stop last weekend.
But you know its bad when the National Party Leaders are more cynical about their chances here than the electorate. And abandoning Alberta is a dumb political move for the future.
Even the Harper is taking Alberta for granted. Sort of like he took his constiuency nomination, and later when he ran for the Alliance and refused to debate. His arrogance is showing now on the national stage. "Stephen Harper best serves the party by being in Ontario and Quebec because, at the end of the day, being in Alberta is not going to win us the government, and that's what this is about," said Stephen Carter, spokesperson for the Conservative party in Alberta. That is particualarly galling and a good reason to NOT vote Conservative. We Albertans are good at teaching lessons that way. We don't like to be taken for granted, specially by the one that brung ya to the dance.
Albertans frustrated by lack of attention. That's what happens when you are a Blue province, in a Red Country. If you pardon the American analogy.
It also reflects the cynicism of our national poltical party's over their chances of gaining a seat in the land of the democratic deficit. We have the only one party state in North America under King Ralph. And with the exception of two seats in Edmonton, fedrally we suffer the same indignity, being almost all Tory blue.
But is that any reason not to expect the national party leaders to visit here. There are some ridings in contention here, as I have mentioned before. But it appears that the Liberal strategy for Alberta is to sit this election out, except for Landslide Anne's Edmonton Centre riding, as I reported here the other day.
A Liberal spokesperson said leader Paul Martin is committed to travelling Canada as completely as possible and that he hopes to make Alberta part of that tour. Oh do. I hope you do plan to visit, perhaps by then you will have updated all your candidates pages on your web site so you know who you are visiting.
The NDP stands a good chance in a couple of Redmonton ridings that the Liberals have abandoned. Edmonton Strathcona and Edmonton East. While the Liberals are serious contenders in Mill Woods Beaumont.
An NDP spokesperson said Jack Layton's time is better spent in areas where the party holds some seats, but the leader hopes to make a stop in Alberta next week. Good that will be the first national leader to visit since the Green Party leader Jim Harris whistle stop last weekend.
But you know its bad when the National Party Leaders are more cynical about their chances here than the electorate. And abandoning Alberta is a dumb political move for the future.
Even the Harper is taking Alberta for granted. Sort of like he took his constiuency nomination, and later when he ran for the Alliance and refused to debate. His arrogance is showing now on the national stage. "Stephen Harper best serves the party by being in Ontario and Quebec because, at the end of the day, being in Alberta is not going to win us the government, and that's what this is about," said Stephen Carter, spokesperson for the Conservative party in Alberta. That is particualarly galling and a good reason to NOT vote Conservative. We Albertans are good at teaching lessons that way. We don't like to be taken for granted, specially by the one that brung ya to the dance.
So I take it you won't be comming to the big rally when Mr. Harper visits Edmonton on Saturday? I've collected a few friends up to attend in support.
ReplyDeleteOh by the way, I was a founding member of the Libertarian Party of Alberta in 1972. Thought you might find that interesting.
Did you know SEK3? If you founded the Libertarian Party of Alberta how come you abandoned the national Social Credit party for Harper? Hmmm
ReplyDeleteUm, sorry, Eugene, I don't understand. The documents we signed in '72 per the relevant statutes are in a box in the basement somewhere with my transcripts of Branden's colloquia, but I don't recall any SEK3. Indeed, I don't recall any of the two-dozen of us who used a digit to refer to themselves; seems anti-libertarian some how.
ReplyDeleteAlas, I am also at a loss as to the National Social Credit Party. I did note though that Jack Layton said, "I'd rather be called a socialist than a democratic socialist". Perhaps you could fill me in.
SEK3 is Samuel Edward Konkin the third, who was at the U of A 68-69 active libertarian, founder of New Libertarian Notes, a left libertarian, see the Left Libertarian ring under a little anarchy in the side bar.
ReplyDeleteThe Social Credit party/Creditiste, in Quebec had national political status in the 60's. I was being snarky. As to the Layton comment you may be confusing it with Ed Broadbents I am a social democrat not a socialist.
Understood. However, I am quite sure Samuel Edward Konkin was not a founding member of the Libertarian Party of Alberta, which was objectivist, not communist. Why would I join an organization associated with the worst idea in the history of the species?
ReplyDeleteAccording to my web log, on or about 2004-04-10 Mr. Layton said, "Socialist? I'm proud to call myself a socialist. I prefer it by far to democratic socialist," which I cut and pasted from the MSM. Unfortunately, the link is of course now stale.
Sam was a libertarian not an Objectivist. Which you should check my devils dictionary for a definition of, look under palagarism. Ayn Rands ideas appeal to engineering students who think she is a great philosopher and a great novelist, which shows why they need a liberal arts education.
ReplyDeleteThe worst idea in human history, gimme a break. You confuse state capitalism with communism and socialism, which show your complete lack of political maturity but being an old fart I forgive you your advanced political senility.
Glad Jack said he was a socialist, too bad he doesn't act like one.
The following is my response to the above comments and those at http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2005/12/free-market-in-children.html
ReplyDeleteDon't get the cart ahead of the horse here, Eugene. I said I was a founding member of the Libertarian Party of Alberta in 1972. I've said that it was objectivist.
I have not said, in any of my messages at this site, that I am a libertarian, or an objectivist, or indeed, that I am a capitalist. I have not said that I admire Ayn Rand. Your best guess so far would be in the direction of John Stuart Mill tempered by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. You might also consider me anti-ideological: the road to Utopia is paved with tombstones.
If your masthead said "Left Libertarian" or "Libertarian Socialist" or "Anarchist Communist" I probably would have just scrolled on, but Libertarian Communist caught my eye. Well now I know what it means, but based on this site it seems you mean anarcho-syndicalist, not platformist.
As to agreeing on terminology, speaking as a fellow old-fart perhaps we could agree to some of the standard definitions and interpretations discussed at, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism