Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

So what's a blogger to do?

I've heard it's not good to post late at night when you're tired, but we'll see what happens with this one...

I'm having a problem in regards to the Ontario Leadership race. I've picked the guy who I want to be the leader, but from what I'm hearing, many of the folks around him are the same buffoons who had been around John Tory. I've heard from loads of people who are just plain shocked at the lackluster campaign that's been run by the Hudakites. I've even been hearing from mid-level Hudak organizers that they're getting concerned.

Bottom line... should Tim win, he CAN'T continue with the current team that's around him. I've said it before, and I have no reservation in saying so, he should be surrounding himself with the folks who have run the Elliott campaign. With just a week left to go, I think it's pretty clear that Christine has the best team around her.

So here's my big problem... how can I stick with the guy who's the best option we have for Premier, when I want someone else's team to be running the show? Unfortunately, I can't mix and match, so I've got to pick one or the other.

So here's how my ballot stands, in reverse order... Hillier, Klees (though I thought he had lots of good things to say last night), and then ? ? ?

It's still bothering me, I thought it had been all sorted out, but I heard Tim talking about the HRC issue again. To me, it's the third rail of this race... you touch it and you're dead. I know it's an effort to appeal to Randy's supporters for their second ballot support, but again, it's the Third Rail issue for me.


UPDATE: Thanks to all the Hudakites that have commented, MSNed, e-mailed, and Facebooked. Keep encouraging the team to A) SHUT UP about the HRC's until AFTER Tim's elected Premier, and B) get a commitment that key members, NOT TOKEN APPOINTMENTS, of the other campaign teams are brought on board for the Election campaign team... I've got a couple names that ought to be included.

Labels: , ,

posted by Christian Conservative @ 11:28 p.m.  

18 Comments:

  • At Wed Jun 17, 06:10:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said…

    The communication on the HRT issue needs to be improved. There is a lot of confusion out there.

    Part of the problem may be that many people don't realize the insidious issues involved in it.

    I personally just learned yesterday that there is a difference between the HR Commission vs. the tribunal.

    What I like about Tim is that he's taking the high road whereas some of his opponents aren't.

    His desire is to unite the party and I expect that will mean reaching out to the Elliott team as well, if he becomes leader.

     

  • At Wed Jun 17, 06:11:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said…

    BTW, if you want to ask Tim a few questions, drop me a line and I'll put you in touch with his social media contact.

     

  • At Wed Jun 17, 07:10:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Shawn Abigail said…

    The team is as important as the candidate, IMHO.

     

  • At Wed Jun 17, 07:53:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I've decided for Mr. Hillier. I know he won't win, but it's been a while since I've seen a leader try to run on principle against the chattering conformists, and it seems to me that this is a relatively safe time to stand on principle and try to turn the party more to real conservatism rather than the Liberal-lite we have now.

    We have the CPC in Ottawa, McGuinty is not radical (just an idiot) and I don't believe Hudak, Klees, or Elliott represent a substantial improvement over Mr. Tory.

     

  • At Wed Jun 17, 08:05:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous nichoho said…

    Is the Elliott campaign really that impressive? Yesterday, they were pushing around a planted poll that they paid for. Brian Lilley of CFRA called them out on it.

    Then there was last weekend's push poll...

    These are pretty crude, minor-league tactics. I don't think they're ready for prime time at all.

     

  • At Wed Jun 17, 08:21:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It's a dilemma - why? Because there isn't a decent choice. They need new blood.

     

  • At Wed Jun 17, 09:16:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Don't agonize over the order of your picks too much because mine will be cancelling yours out, Hillier first, Klees second, Elliott third and Hudak last and my spouse is voting the same way. Unlike Joanne we got involved by paying the $10 each and becoming members.

     

  • At Wed Jun 17, 09:33:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Kate said…

    I personally think that Hudak's team has done a great job ... the "best" team shouldn't be based on push-polls and fudging statistics to make yourselves look good, but rather it should be about organization and the ability to bring people across the province together. Since Tim is the only candidate with people on the ground in every riding, he is the most organized and most likely to bring us to victory through his organization. Fancy mail-outs and misleading polls can only get you so far.

     

  • At Wed Jun 17, 09:37:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Peter said…

    Buffoons? That's a little harsh, eh? Don't forget that the Klees campaign was behind a notorious push-poll and the Elliott campaign e-mailed around a poll from Angus Reid that they bought & paid for, yet didn't tell anyone that they did so. One high-profile reporter even refused to run the poll results, citing conflicts with the manner in which it was conducted. These are dirty campaign tricks that undermine the integrity of our party. Only the Tim Hudak campaign has stayed true to Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment that one shall not say negative things about other conservatives.

    I truly hope that you see in Tim Hudak what half our caucus and more than half of riding association presidents and candidates of record have seen. That Tim Hudak is the best-positioned candidate to lead us to victory against Dalton McGuinty.

     

  • At Wed Jun 17, 10:24:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "I truly hope that you see in Tim Hudak what half our caucus and more than half of riding association presidents and candidates of record have seen. That Tim Hudak is the best-positioned candidate to lead us to victory against Dalton McGuinty."

    I just curious, what percentage of the caucus and the riding association presidents felt that Ernie Eves was the best-positioned candidate to lead us to victory, how about John Tory?

     

  • At Wed Jun 17, 11:03:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Bryn said…

    Uhm...the Elliott campaign has much more John Tory support. All of John Tory's paid loyalists are behind her and have advised her to stay "red" to win. Stand up Catherine Pringle, Mike Wilson, and Patrick Harris! Voting Elliott = more John Tory advisors.

     

  • At Wed Jun 17, 11:12:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Bryn, you don't know the Elliott insiders that I'm talking about... some former anti-Tory folks, for the record.

     

  • At Wed Jun 17, 11:23:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    We've tried to field Red Tory candidates like Eves, Tory, and Elliott before, and the compassion and vulnerable people rhetoric DOES NOT WORK. We need to treat New Canadians with the dignity and respect that we treat Old Canadians. Immigrants want jobs. Tim Hudak was apart of a government that created 1 million net new jobs and made Ontario no. 1 in economic growth. This will be the issue in 2011. As much as McGuinty tries to make the OHRC or Faith Schools or the Mike Harris government an issue, people will want to know "Who is the best leader to steer Ontario out of this economic mess?" Tim Hudak has lots of experience with these issues. "Twice elected" Christine Elliott is a good candidate, and the #2 on my ballot, but will not have the ability to lead us to victory. Charitable tax credits, while a good idea, are not a path to victory.

     

  • At Wed Jun 17, 11:56:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Nathalie said…

    I just don't see Elliott's campaign as being that impressive. What exactly are you referring to CC?

    From what I know, Hudak has a solid organization, both online and on the ground, and has gone out of his way to reach out to party members all around. I don't see what your beef is exactly, but maybe you should have done yourself a favor and held out on publishing this post.

     

  • At Wed Jun 17, 01:10:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Chris said…

    The issue with John Tory is not his former advisers or the fact he is a "Red Tory" but his political judgment/instincts (faith based school funding, Campbell campaign, etc). CC, I agree with you on the HRT issue - it is toxic for us. What noone seems to mention is the fact that major revisions to the human rights system came into effect less than a year ago. Rather than the Commission carrying cases on behalf of complainants, we now have a direct access model to the Tribunal. The new system is faster, more efficient and removes the agenda-driven Commission as gate keeper. Libs can point to these changes and say they have "fixed" the issues. Christine may have Tory's advisers but is already showing political judgment far beyond her rivals. I also think a flat tax is a winner though she will have to explain what she plans to cut to make it happen. In my view, she also has the best personal narrative/life story. Elliot, Klees, Hudak, Hillier in that order.

     

  • At Wed Jun 17, 01:59:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Assisting Capobianco is Ted Matthews, a former executive director of the party. He is said to be using his bulging Rolodex to call party members with pro-Tory messages.

    http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/281985

    Ted Matthews, Protector of John Tory and Deputy Campaign Manager Tim Hudak.

     

  • At Wed Jun 17, 02:06:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Chris -- Christine Elliott is all over Hansard saying the direct access model in not the way to go. She didn't support keeping the tribunal until it was time to try to win an election. That is not leadership; it is politicking.

    How can we all agree that the human rights bureaucracy is broken but only 2 candidates have the courage to do something about it? How is scrapping thoughtcrime and frivolous cases a losing issue? How is moving to real courts not a winning issue? Randy Hillier once said, "If someone steals my car, I have access to the courts. But if someone violates my human rights, I have to go before a politically appointed bureaucrat." These tribunal members make $160,000 a year. Some of them aren't even lawyers or judges but career civil servants.

    John Tory's loss was bigger than faith schools. He was a red tory, and given the choice between a red tory and a Liberal, Canadians will choose the Liberal. We need to offer a conservative alternative, and not be afraid to defend our conservative principles in public.

     

  • At Wed Jun 17, 03:44:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Chris said…

    Anon,

    A specialized tribunal dealing with human rights complaints is preferable to the proposal to construct a "Human Rights" division of the Superior Court of Justice. First, there are insufficient judicial resources to implement that type of plan. Superior Court judges are federally appointed so we would have to rely on the feds to appoint a large number of new judges. Second, courts are not appropriate venues for unrepresented litigants. The Rules are arcane. Agents or paralegals would not be permitted. A respondent company would have to hire a lawyer, which would increase costs. Third, due to the possibility of paying legal costs if you lose, the greater need for counsel to navigate the court system, the complexities of the system, etc., disadvantaged persons would have much less access to justice, a point that would be hammered home by the Libs. Fourth, we have a number of direct access Tribunals that work ok in other areas (environment, landlord-tenant, policing oversight etc.) so the new system can work. Some of my concerns can be dealt with by adopting rules to make it more like a Small Claims Court but, again, you would not have "real" judges but perhaps lawyers and other people knowledgeable in the field - why not a Tribunal?

    As one prominent blogger noted, she was not even aware of the difference between the Commission and the Tribunal. Most voters don't care about this stuff and will eat up the McGuinty talking points on it. Why would you rather pay a lawyer to take your case to a Liberal appointed judge than take your case to a a Liberal appointed Tribunal? What's the difference?

    John Tory lost because of faith based schools. No doubt in my mind.

    We can agree to disagree on whether or not this is the "third rail" of election issues. I would rather focus our campaign on a flat tax.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home