Saturday, March 17, 2007

The Calgary West Clusterschmuck

Nation, it looks like things are getting all whacky out here in whackyville... and when things get whacked, there's little doubt that Rob Anders is involved.

Rob Anders (M.P. - Calgary West), for those of you drawing a blank, is the gentleman who blocked the honourary Canadian citizenship that the House of Commons was going to bestow on Nelson Mandela, on the grounds that he believed Nelson Mandela (yes, THAT Nelson Mandela) was a terrorist. He is also the most reactionary member of the Conservative Caucus and, before that, the most reactionary member of the Reform Party Caucus (now THAT is saying something). Let's just say that the vast majority of Canadians would find Mr. Anders a bit out-of-step with the mainstream. He wins his riding, though, and keeps the social conservatives within the party happy, so Harper keeps him around. He's considered such a loose cannon by party brass that, when it began looking in the last election that the Tories might actually win, they [ALLEGEDLY] shipped him out of town, as far from media microphones as possible, and kept him there until the night the ballots were counted...

But this post isn't about Rob Anders - it's about the Calgary West nomination process for the Tories.

A Court of Queen's Bench judge decided that the nomination process in Calgary West was unfair, because of perceptions of conflicts of interest and a lack of due diligence. He has ordered a new nomination process take place. Anders had argued that, as in internal party matter, this was outside the judge's jurisdiction. Perhaps, perhaps not - I'm not a lawyer, I wouldn't know.

What I DO know, and have mentioned before, is this:

"...the National Candidate Selection Committee has authority to disallow...
candidacy on any grounds it sees fit..."
(CPC - Updated Candidate Nomination Rules & Procedures, Jan. 4, 2007 -
Sec.3.viii.1)

Now, of course this being politics, normally we'd be loathe to suggest anything approaching absolutism. That being said, though, either the above statement is TRUE, or it is FALSE. Clearly, the judge in the case of Calgary West believes it to be false, in which case the Party needs to re-write the rules.

Nation, between you, me, and the flies on the walls of whatever cubicles in which you're all reading this: I'd go so far as to suggest that IF a legitimate and respectable candidate came forward to oppose Rob Anders for the party nomination, they may just win it. Many people in Calgary West buy Tory memberships just to try and wrest their riding's mantle away from the guy who described Calgary West as "A Christian Constituency".

Let's call a spade a spade: Calgary West is going to vote Tory, and they're going to elect a Tory. So this nomination process is, in fact, the battle for an M.P. position. One that's pretty much guaranteed - remember: Anders did virtually no campaigning last election, the Party [allegedly] hid him in a B.C. motel for weeks, and yet he still handily won the riding, without having knocked on a single door. So, the Tory candidate WILL be the M.P. And if those inside the riding who DO share Anders' somewhat skewed social views are so enraged by losing "their guy" as a candidate that they decide NOT to vote Tory, they'll either have to run someone as an independent (they'll lose), vote for another party (they'll lose), or start a new party for social conservatives (they'll lose).

This decision has given the CPC, and its members in Calgary West (Not my riding, sadly) a chance to show the country that they are not, in fact, rednecks in sheep's clothing, and that they actually CAN move closer to that soft political centre that most Canadians number themselves among without selling out on their values of fiscal conservatism, small government, and democratic reform. THAT will have an impact on more than just the fortunes in Calgary West - it will send a message to the country that the Conservative Party practices what it preaches, and will no longer nominate M.P.'s to be ashamed of... after all, isn't openness, transparency, and showing the nation what you truly stand for all part of the blessed Accountability that we heard so much about in January of 2006?

I don't believe that the Tories of Calgary West all drink from Rob Anders' Kool-Aid pitcher. If Anders' people were so confident that he DID have the majority of support, they wouldn't have bent the rules to make sure he won the nomination by acclamation. Here's hoping the National party brass step in and make sure this is done RIGHT, so the members of the Party can choose, for better or worse, who they want their M.P. to be.

Who knows? Anders might still win... after all, it only took the Church a few centuries to realize that they owed Galileo an apology...

9 comments:

ken chapman said...

Great post ES...I have been checking the Courts website but the decision is not posted yet. I posted on Anders today too but really want to read the Court's decision and do more on this.

Political parties have to become democratic institutions by convention not legislation...now they are just shallow private clubs.

BlastFurnace said...

I'm just wondering ... is this Rob Anders any relation to a Rob Anders who was one of the six American hostages Canada helped smuggle out of Iran back in 1980?

Enlightened Savage said...

Ken: Thanks for the kind words, check your mail tomorrow for what we discussed.

Blast: No idea at all, but an interesting observation... perhaps there's something about this available on-line somwhere?

Anonymous said...

One point no one has touched on is how Rob Anders took the riding in the first place. He and many of his friends stormed the riding and took it away from the old encumbant. A sneak attack. That's probably why he did what he did to win his nomination process again because the old boys club has been hunting him ever since and he knew if he did it by the books that he would loose. What a chicken #@$%^.

Enlightened Savage said...

Far be it from me to come to Rob Anders' defence on ANYTHING, but... Wasn't Stephen Harper the MP for Calgary West immediately before Rob Anders?

Anonymous said...

No, because Stephen Harper was with the Reform party I believe. We'll have to check the records but I don't believe that was Stephen Harper's riding... I use to live there and I don't recall it being Stephen I recall some older dude... but can't recall his name. Ken Chapman should remember.

Anonymous said...

Yes, but at the nomination event - another individual was to win but Rob Ander's pulled a fast one on them all. Let me check with some other individuals. Perhaps, I am mistaken.

Enlightened Savage said...

Just to clear up any confusion, this is the riding's history since 1979...

1979-1993: James Hawkes - Progressive Conservative

1993-1997: Stephen Harper - Reform

1997-present: Rob Anders - Reform (1997-2000), Canadian Alliance (2000-2003), Conservative (2003-present)

So, Harper was the MP from 93 to 97, then he retired from politics. When he decided to come back, he had to win a seat, and a byelection was needed in the next-door seat of Calgary South-West (to replace the outgoing Preston Manning), so Harper ran there rather than ousting Anders to run in his old riding.

Which doesn't discount the possibility that there were shenanigans involved in Anders winning the nomination over Hawkes when Harper left politics...

Anonymous said...

EnSavage,

Timely post. Can anyone briefly summarize the requirements that a resident needs to be able to vote in a new nomination meeting... assuming one is put forth by the party (oh please, ph please).

I would like to vote, but don't currently have a [federal] Conservative Party membership. I like to think I am more politically aware than the average person, yet I can't even remember hearing of the last nomination meeting for Calgary West.

When the fundraising guys call (and they will continue to) I am going to tell them that they are not getting a dime from me unless there is a new nomination meeting. Sometimes you have to hit them in the breadbox to get their attention.