Oh, this should be good:
EDMONTON - Premier Ed Stelmach hasn't committed to signing the nomination papers of outspoken Conservative candidate Craig Chandler and won't do so until he sits down with the Calgary Tory hopeful and ensures he's a "committed team player."
Chandler has raised eyebrows over the past few years for his strong, right-wing political bent, including suggesting in August that new Albertans "must adapt to our rules and our (conservative) voting patterns or leave."
Stelmach said at the time those sorts of comments wouldn't be tolerated.
Comments? What comments? Oh ... those comments:
Just because I probably won't have the opportunity to take shots at the nominated PC candidate in my home riding past Saturday, I thought I'd toss out a few gems from the best of Craig Chandler courtesy of today's Globe & Mail:
Earlier this year, a settlement arranged by the Canadian Human Rights Commission forced [Chandler] to publish an apology for comments made on a radio program that he co-hosts - among them, reportedly, that "God sees murder as equal to homosexuality." As part of the settlement, he agreed to "cease and desist" from posting information on the Internet claiming that "homosexuals are conspiring against society" and that they are "sick, diseased or mentally ill."
His homophobia appears to know few bounds. On the website of Concerned Christians, he approvingly pointed to a letter by Calgary pastor Stephen Boisson charging that "[w]here homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds." When Belinda Stronach ran for the Conservative leadership, he suggested the presence of gay activists on her campaign team meant "a takeover from the militant homosexual movement" was at hand.
Oh, man ... it really is true what they say: You can take the boy out of the white sheet, but ... well, you know how that ends, I'm sure. Stay tuned -- we're not done here.
AFTERTHOUGHT ONE: It should be entertaining to see how gingerly the Blogging Tories step around this little IED. Here's Civitatensis, parsing those words about as carefully as words can be parsed:
I am a conservative of the social kind, for example, and I find myself in agreement with Chandler on a significant deal of issues. But I am yet to agree with the way in which he sets out to do or say things. The difference is not ideological but prudential. The leader of the party and the executive (not to mention the press) need to weigh that aspect of things more than they need to scrutinise his beliefs.
Then he tiptoed delicately away. Alberta Tory was also all about the non-commitment:
Much like my friend Mr. Denis, I will take the high road and congratulate Mr. Chandler on his victory. Speculation of what his candidacy will mean for our party is something that I will stay away from for the time being.
Good job, guys -- way to take a stand on principle. This really is going to be too much fun for words, isn't it?
6 comments:
The CBC news this morning is saying that Chandler's associate David Crutcher has been pushed out as president of the Calgary Egmont PC constituency organization.
Chandler's grip on the riding association appears to be rather endangered.
Aw, crap ... I was so looking forward to the unfolding of that train wreck, while simultaneously listening to the Blogging Tories screeching on about the Intolerant Left.
Bummer.
I love his remark about new Albertans adapting to their rules and voting patterns. Does that include Muslims?
If yer white and Conservative, they're open for business!!
Civitatensis: "The difference is not ideological but prudential."
In other words, he believes homosexuals are evil and about to take over society (so that evil further abounds) and they are the same as murderers.
Charming.
Civatensis: I find myself in agreement with Chandler on a significant deal of issues. But I am yet to agree with the way in which he sets out to do or say things.
Yes, I agree. The problem for a CPC candidate isn't what they believe, it's how they deceive ordinary Canadians about what they believe.
In other news, the idea that the CPC has a hidden agenda is complete nonsense. Just ask David Sweet. Or Harold Albrect, if you can find him (check in the kitchen).
Anyhow, the point is: transparency. Accountability.
Applying the rationale that because you chided Raphael Alexander about his sudden “discovery” that U.S. combat veterans are being given a raw deal by the Bush administration, even though this has been regularly decried by countless lib/Dem pundits and “progressive” bloggers over the past four years, it seems Doughy Patrick Rosshole has worked himself into a tizzy of smug self-satisfaction because he supposedly “addressed” the Chandler issue back in September. “If one accepts Cynic's recent stand at face value, apparently he isn't allowed to address the Craig Chandler controversy once someone else has,” he snorts.
Well, back in September, Rosshole did write about Chandler’s “intemperate remarks” that he felt “are cause for concern.” (Hmmm. “intemperate remarks”... where have I heard that expression before?). Incredibly, he compared Chandler’s “head-shakingly stupid” statement — to use Edmonton Journal columnist Graham Thompson’s expression — about newcomers to the province having to “adapt to our rules and our voting patterns, or leave” to those of some Liberals who presume to equate the values of the “natural governing party” with those of the country as a whole. Well, that’s a bit of a ridiculous stretch, but whatever.
The gist of his post took issue with Chandler’s assertion that “Conservatism is our culture.” Rosshole contended that this wasn’t actually the case for a number of reasons, such as the fact that implementation of “a proper Social Credit program” requires a large amount of “government intervention.” He also pointed to past instances where once-dominant ruling parties have been swept out of office in “prairie fire storms” and concluded it would therefore be wrong to assume another victory is guaranteed, also pointing out the stupefyingly obvious fact that nobody is “obligated to vote for the Tories, no matter how long they have lived in Alberta, or how recently they’ve moved here.” Duh.
However, it’s important to note that Rosshole wasn’t addressing the hateful remarks Chandler made on a radio program equating homosexuality to murder and so on, that were disclosed by the Globe & Mail the other day. His post dealt only with the “indiscretion” about the purported “Conservative values” of Alberta that were made back in September. So in other words, the “issues” in question are two quite entirely different things, notwithstanding that the comments in both instances were made by Conservative candidate Craig Chandler.
Doughy Patrick Rosshole… wrong yet again and still batting zero for infinity.
Post a Comment