It is one example about one issue. But no matter what one’s position on gay marriage is, it’s typically indicative of a general attitude in Jim Dinning’s dithering politics:
Jim Dinning said he would go along with whatever the federal government decided.
Whatever? Does any province need a premier who would simply do anything the federal government says? Does Alberta need a premier who will consider Alberta’s interests? Doing “whatever” others decide is deciding to relinquish one’s own decision.
The attitude of a provincial premier does not have to be confrontational for its own sake. An Alberta premier has to be able to work with his counterparts and the folks in Ottawa to get things done for Albertans. Would a Quebec premier say that he’s prepared to do whatever Ottawa says?
How about choosing an Alberta premier who will evaluate what the federal or any provincial government says and weigh it against the wishes and interests of Albertans? The job requires a far more careful but steadfast approach, judging the merits of issues to see if they are acceptable, than simply doing whatever someone else (whoever the someone else may be) does or decides.
Alberta Conservatives are clear on what they seek: They need a leader who can lead and a premier who can make decisions for Albertans, not someone who will openly surrender to whatever.
Crossposted from civitatensis.ca
JackB wrote:
A recent circulation from Jim Dinning to Calgary area retired teachers also promises to fix the teachers pension fund unfunded liability (a billion or so with your money of course) in return for their support. This, in spite of the fact that the teachers refused to accept a deal offered last year by the government to fix it in return for ten years of labour peace.
You are all correct - Dinning is prepared to sell all of us out in exchange for a few more votes to get him the job he has craved for so long. The more I see - the more I am reminded of Paul martin.
Posted on 04-Nov-06 at 12:22 pm | Permalink
Leigh Patrick Sullivan wrote:
You are stretching here. It was Dave Hancock who correctly mentioned that this issue falls into federal territory. Dinning’s statement alludes to that. Attempting to use the ssm issue to justify a claim that Dinning won’t ’stand up for Alberta’ falls way short. Nice try, but it doesn’t fly.
Posted on 04-Nov-06 at 1:00 pm | Permalink
kaqchikel wrote:
LPS:
You may be confusing territory with jurisdictions. The federal government can paint the Peace Tower pink; its territory and its jurisdiction. I might go along with that.
If honest Albertans in Alberta are sued, fired, intimidated, or silenced because of their views on something (ssm or otherwise), and Dinning as a premier goes along with whatever, that would be a problem for me and I suspect for most Albertans.
It may not be a problem for you, and it obviously would not be a problem for Jim Dinning. That’s why Tories and Albertans need to choose a non-dithering man: one who would not simply go along with whatever people outside of Alberta say.
Posted on 04-Nov-06 at 1:33 pm | Permalink
Hunter wrote:
Albertans are noted for their independence, we need a strong leader who can show leadership, and that is not Dinning, in my opinion.
Posted on 04-Nov-06 at 4:52 pm | Permalink
AB Con wrote:
Great post. A Dinning win spells disaster for the PC party. He simply cannot make a decision. Everytime he is asked a direct question he states that he will obtain a general consenus after the leadership campaign. Why won’t he just give us his opinion? Heck, they might even be good.
Why won’t he also explain why he donated $25,000 to Paul Martin’s campaign? I mean, this is the guy who wants to run the PC Party. If he wins, I, along with many other rural Albertans, will be tearing up my PC membership.
Posted on 05-Nov-06 at 12:10 pm | Permalink