FreeAlberta.com

[Less Ottawa]

Time for another edition of Alberta Independence Audio.

Today, we have the audio of Rob James (the new President of the Wildrose Party) being interviewed by Dave Rutherford on June 25, 2007.

The topics covered range from the fiscal recklessness of the PC's, to the mechanics of registering a new party.

There was one mention of the Drumheller-Stettler by-election, and how the separatists out there were, in the words of Rutherford, "churning things up".

Most noteworthy, however, is the fact that during 19:24 worth of audio, not a single mention of anything remotely close to a federal-provincial issue was made. In fact, I don't believe the word "Ottawa" was spoken. I may be wrong about that, and will listen to it again.

At about the 5:30 mark, Rutherford asks James if the Wildrosers are happy with the Harper government. James' answer was revealing. He states that he really could offer no opinion, and the Harper government was not something that the people at the Wildrose meetings discussed.

Mr. James, it is pretty hard to "stand up for Alberta" when you never discuss the people you need to stand up to. Your veil is slipping.

At first glance, this appears to be another right wing federalist exercise, along the same lines as the Alberta Alliance. Lots of rhetoric; little substance - just like the AAP. They want to replace the Tories with something more conservative - just like the AAP.

Why the Wildrosers are going to all the trouble of forming another party which looks to be little more than an AAP clone is beyond me. The AAP has a perfectly fine constitution with an emphasis on grassroots governance. The fact they did poorly in the by-elections is hardly a reason to write them off. The AAP is at 9% in the polls right now.

I guess there are simply too many personality conflicts amongst the right wing federalists, and they can't stand to be in the same room with each other.



PS. I was going to post this at Project Alberta, but they have decided to label me the "official forum troll", so I can't be bothered.

[Less Ottawa]

Nope, the word "Ottawa" is not there. Strange, given that one of the alleged missions of Wildrose is to increase provincial autonomy and "stand up for Alberta". No mention of any federal-provincial issues in their first high profile interview, and no opinion to offer on Harper or his government, due to the fact that the federal government has not been discussed during any of their meetings to date.

There wasn't even a token mention of the "firewall".

Could the Wildrosers really be Brown Nosers?

[Alan Clark]

Looking at the names of the people involved and knowing what they have all be up to for the past year or more, I can see that we are running a parallel track. James and Burns have been just as consumed with trying to capture a pre-registered party as we have been. Of course, Sharon's track is notably less parallel. She's the latest incarnation of Cory Morgoon. "I'm a separatist! I'm not a separatist!"

Whether Sharon is still a separatist or not is not much of an issue. The people she's cavorting with are definately not. James is spending his last remaining political capital and on what? A re-make of the AAP? Sounds remarkably like Len Melman and Ken Wallace and their "Reform-redux" called the Republic of Canada Party, now being marketed (so to speak) as the United West Republic.

I suppose we can only hope that Byfield, James, Burns et al have the same kind of epiphany as the Melman-Wallace "group" and finally come to embrace Alberta independence.

[Less Ottawa]

Well, Link has written a column in the recent past stating that he would support a push to independence if Ottawa refused to address Alberta's list of "final demands" for constitutional reform. I assume that will be part of the agenda here, and that represents some progress.

I have little doubt this group will be an organizational success. Link alone makes them instantly credible.

But, Reform was an organizational success too, and look what happened to them.