How did he not see that one coming! (or How to Stop Worrying and Move Past the NEP)
This one threw me for a loop, I must admit. I thought oil companies were supposed to be big bad evil organizations. Sure, I wouldn’t be surprised if Suncor, Shell, Petro-Canada, Devon Canada, ConocoPhillps and Husky were calling for a slow down in oilsands (pronounced “tarsands” if you are Brian Mason) just because they wanted less competition, but none-the-less I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt here and believe that it really is out of concern for the environment, the infrastructure of Wood Buffalo, or to give more clarity around the lands available etc. Besides, they actually seem to be very serious in their tone.
Given all this, here’s where I start to get confused: Are these evil oil companies really telling our government they aren’t doing enough in any of these areas? If so, what the hell is wrong with our government?! I thought Ed met with oil execs repeatedly during the royalty review. Didn’t the topic of oilsands development come up? I find that hard to believe. Did he really miss the boat that much on such an important issue?
I’m shocked, to say the least, that our own government appears to be the bad guy in all this. How did this happen?
Oh, I think I know now. Earlier today Ed Stelmach said, “Governments do not control the economy.” Well, Ed, um, actually they kinda do. That’s what the Bank of Canada is designed to do. And you know those budgets that you do every year? Those affect people and businesses and how they spend their money. Social programs and all that? Does this ring a bell? That’s pretty much “the economy” in a nutshell.
As if that wasn’t enough to prove our leader is out to lunch on this issue he followed up his answer to the question about these compaies requesting an oilsands development moratorium by bringing up the NEP. Again. *sigh* This pains me Ed. So for your benefit, I’ll try to make my position on bitching about the NEP very clear:
The NEP is old news! Get over it and please move on! The younger generation has. And it pisses us off every time a politician mentions it, or uses it as a crutch or excuse for sitting on their ass on any given issue.
This is important to know, Mr. Stlemach. This is the third time you have mentioned the NEP as an excuse for not doing something this election. So, here is fair warning: if you do it one more time I will not vote for you. And many others will probably feel similarly and follow suit.
Now, I think you should take a break from stumping to re-think your energy policies. It looks like they need some serious work…
Ed Stelmach is a paper bag
When I was in University a friend of mine was directing a short play and had his lead actor bail on him at the last second. He thought about what to do. He couldn’t find anyone to fill the role on such short notice (and with such a shortage of actors available to do the job). He thought it was a fairly easy role even though it was a lead. After mulling it over for a night he came up with a courageous solution to his dilemma. His solution: he replaced the lead actor with a paper bag.
It certainly was a bold choice. And a very interesting play on the turn of phrase “he couldn’t emote his way out of a paper bag.”
And you know what? The play went off as planned. And while some thought it was strange the male lead was played by a paper bag (with a stage manager reading in his lines from offstage, if I recall correctly) they got past it and thought the play was very good. The viewing public overcame the fact they were being lead on a wondrous personal journey by a paper bag.
Ed Stelmach is a paper bag.
There’s little emotion other than what we project onto him/read into him. He obviously struggles with his lines. But he is the leader of the PC Party and thus will continue to be Premier.
Unless someone points out the lead in this play is being played by a paper bag and the viewing public decide they don’t want that to be their lead actor.
(Love you Ed! Your performance in the debate was great. You made some very interesting choices and you should be very proud. Very well done! (Those in the theatre community know what I mean.))
Know your customers
Knowing your audience and being able to target your potential customers gives any business a major advantage. During my recent trip to Asia I couldn’t help but be struck by how well one airline apparently knows its customers.
From Mandarin Airlines‘ official in-flight magazine, in an article titled “Mandarin’s New Aspect”, we are presented with the following insightful tidbit of info about Mandarin’s customer base:
The highly conveient flight schedule makes Mandarin Airlines the best choice for businessmen and Vietnamese brides in southern & mid-Taiwan.
Now that is customer specifics.
I wonder if the businessmen and Vietnamese brides normally travel together. 
This debate suck-a
Wooooooowwaaaaa… was that fun or what? Everybody loves a good shouting match. Dontcha? (Speaking of which, when are we ever going to find a debate format that allows for rebuttal but doesn’t involve mics being shut off and people talking over one another?)
Last night was the one and only (something we should apparently be thankful for) leadership debate of the 2008 Alberta Provincial election. Yesterday I offered my predictions for what would happen; today I get to gloat in how wrong I was. Actually, I was pretty close in my description but there were a few things I didn’t see coming.
Seems how education was a major topic last night I’ll offer up my opinions report card style with associated letter grades for each leader. (An A+ being reserved for a Barak Obama-esque net laid out to woo potential voters and the hearts of women everywhere.)
- Ed Stelmach didn’t suck. That was probably the biggest news story of the night coming out Edmonton. He was well poised and took his licks fairly well. And there were a lot of licks to take too. True, he was a little ridged and didn’t go off script at all – or seem to want to go off script really judging by his smartly staying out of arguments between Taft and Mason. He didn’t win it for the PC Party but he didn’t lose the election either. He offered some details of new plans but played it as the seasoned veteran. Based on expectations going in he probably deserves an A but the voting public doesn’t give out trophies for most improved player. Instead he gets a C+.
- Kevin Taft had a lot to lose in this debate and a lot to gain. He probably lost more than he gained. While we know Taft can be articulate last night he was off his game. He appeared more scattered in his thoughts than Stelmach and he surprisingly didn’t offer any details on any plan. This is not the way to poise yourself as the anti-Stelmach, boys and girls. While it looked like Stelmach spent a day and a half prepping for the debate to get things just right, it looked as though Taft didn’t do much prepping other than to get his suit dry-cleaned. The debate was there for Taft’s taking, he could have knocked Stelmach on his butt and become a front runner if he really, really tried. Instead he bickered too much and earns himself a C and another four years as leader of the opposition (if the Liberals will keep him as leader that long).
- Brian Mason pretty much behaved exactly as I predicted and was the most put together and articulate of the group. He attacked Stelmach and Taft just as I thought. What choice did he have I suppose? Still I would have rather seen him ignore Taft and offer solutions to each issue the Premier fuddled around. While it wasn’t enough to earn his party too many more seats, in my book he still earned a B for his performance in the debate.
- Paul Hinman’s performance could be considered a success right after the first question was asked to “Mr. Hinman” rather than to “that guy over there”. None the less he did a very good job staying on message (perhaps too good a job – I get it, I get it, you’ll bring “innovation”). While he was extremely short on details of what his party would do he did earn his right to be on the stage by holding his own and showing that if your politics swing to the right his party is a viable alternative. I suspect he managed to sway a number of voters, especially in rural areas, to change their vote. For that he earns a B+.
But who won the debate? That’s what everyone wants to know. Well, despite the fact I give Hinman the highest grade I don’t think anyone will argue he “won” the debate. Mason might come the closest to being the winner but I don’t think you gave give it to him either.
Well, who lost then? Certainly Stelmach could have, but the poor showing of Taft (is this a case of the tortoise and the hare?) has to take this title. It was his chance to show the province he is a better leader than Stelmach but he just didn’t do it.
More summaries of the debate are available via Alberta Election 2008, CBC’s Reporters Notebook, Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying, albertatory, daveberta, Ken Chapman, Calgary Herald’s Pundits Corner, and The Enlightened Savage.
Debate this suckas!
Guess what tonight is? No really, guess. Ya, you probably haven’t heard but I’ll let the beans spill on this inexplicable secret: tonight is the Leaders Debate. (You know, for the Alberta provincial election?) I’m not sure why it hasn’t been advertised more, but there you go; it’s tonight. Now you know.
Starting at 6:30 tonight you’ll be able to watch the leaders of four of the provinces nine official parties battle to put you to sleep first. The debate will be seen live on CTV, CBC, and Global. CityTV is showing back to back Friends reruns if that’s more your speed. (BTW, I thought CityTV was supposed to be the most community centred of all our TV stations? If so, why are they sitting this one out? Aside from the fact they probably think, are are probably right, that the majority of Albertans sadly just don’t care.)
I’ll post my thoughts after this stunning snooze fest comes to an end but what good are post-debate thoughts without pre-debate predictions. So here they are:
- Ed Stelmach will struggle with his command of the English language let alone details on his ridiculously over-hyped “plan” for Alberta’s future.
- Kevin Taft will slam the Premier on every issue he can possibly conceive a PC has done wrong on in the past decade. And he’ll end up looking like an uppity prick for doing it.
- Brian Mason will wisely attack Stelmach and be articulate doing it. He’ll then get off track and also attack Taft, for lord knows what – because the Alberta Liberals don’t have much in the way of accomplishments to attack.
- Paul Hinman will badger everyone (except possibly Brian Mason other than to call him a ‘tree hugger’) and at the end of it all he’ll be lucky if anyone remembers his name. No one will even bother to attack his policies – the greatest shame of all.
So there you have it. The debate in a nutshell. Now you don’t have to watch. Although if you haven’t made up your mind who you’re voting for or – heaven forbid – you are thinking of not even bothering to vote, I suggest you weather the storm with me and tune in at 6:30pm.
PS – I heard on the radio the other day that during commercial breaks while CTV and Global are trying to make a buck by shilling useless items like Ford trucks, Tide-to-Go sticks and political party policies, CBC will instead go to their analysts for, well… analysis. On the go.
Subscribe
-
Like Minded
