The nomination process from the Federal Conservatives is anti democratic and challenges many of the grass roots supporters who help and build support for the party. There is little correlation between this poor decision and the Provincial conservatives – in fact the Alberta PC party has a very open, transparent and democratic nomination process and no window where they try and secretly freeze out new party members from voting. When the party wants to control who the members are, when they can vote and by what rules – they stop being a grass roots party, and I would agree that the Federal Conservatives cannot with a straight face any longer claim they are a grass roots political movement – I don’t personally see a connection with the Alberta PC’s though – they are separate entities entirely.

1st – The voter turnout for the province was 41% - certainly not great, but nobody was barred from voting and unlike Communist Russia voters did have other people to choose from, in fact heading into the election many predicted Stelmach would see a decrease in his majority and expected the Liberals to make significant gains. The sample of those who did vote was not remarkably different from polling data. I think it would be great if voter turnout was 100% - but the mandate is given by those who DO VOTE, not by those who DO NOT. (Unless you manage the Federal PC riding associations - then apparently that key democratic lesson is lost to you) Which is to say only that it would be hard to argue the people of Alberta didn’t vote for and deliberately choose Stelmach as leader… whether you love him or hate him his support from Albertans in the last election is really without question.

2nd – I think you are quite mistaken about the Monte blog posts after he stepped down for our riding. To be perfectly clear - I MADE NO SUCH ACCUSATION (Read Post #8) – I only commented on the fact that a legitimate though controversial news outlet had run that story. In your post just now you commented on that topic as it was raised …and so did we at the time. I honestly see no difference between our actions then and yours now. Simply commenting that a story had been run by a publication and was circulating in our community.

3rd – If Monte was indeed disgusted with the Conservative party why did he participate in the highly flawed nomination process after he left? Why would he have continued to campaign for the party during the election if he no longer supported its now flawed and embarrassing ideology? I don’t think any of that is true. Monte is a good man and was a great representative for our community – but it would be a serious re-write of history to say he left the party in disgust.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/03/10/fortmac-voting.html?ref=rss

There is no way in the world that anyone should be voted in on a 21 percent voter turn out. Any time a small minority alone elect an official it is not a functioning democracy. The way we have been ‘electing’ officials in Alberta on both the provincial and federal level is an absolute farce, it differs little from the way the communists held ‘elections’ during the soviet regime. The only difference is that in the soviet union the masses were forbidden to voice their opinions, in alberta it’s all about apathy. Go into any bar, listen to any alberta talk radio show, or go to any campus and while it’s clear that most people have conservative leanings there is no way it breaks down nearly as lop sided as 72 conservative seats to 11 in the opposition.

And yes, both the federal and provincial conservative parties are a good old boys club. Keep the secrets, tow the party line, and you have a job for life.

People on this site and in the media tried to raise questions of Monte Solberg’s morality by saying that maybe he stepped down because he was having an affair. Well I think that’s rubbish. I would suggest that he stepped down because he’s a good man and he doesn’t want to be involved with all the corrupt back scratching we’ve seen evidence of.

When a good man walks away from a party that he helped form I’d say it makes more sense to look at the party itself instead of fabricating crap that belongs in as the world turns. Occam’s razor states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. A good man steps down with no notice because he’s having an affair or he simply doesn’t fit in with a party that sees MP’s making racist comments and making light of the lysterosis crisis… which seems more likely? And now they are further corrupting the nomination process… hmmm I wonder why Monte Solberg stepped down… here’s a guy who built his political career on the accountability of politicians, on honesty, and even on limiting the terms of MP’s. And we’ve seen the conservative party go in the exact opposite direction. I respect you mouse but you really should be ashamed of yourself for posting that story about Solberg’s alleged infidelities. The reason for Solberg stepping down has been glaringly obvious from the start, he is a moral man who believes in integrity and accountability and there is obviously no room for that in the conservative party right now.

It is certainly a sad time to be a conservative. Voter apathy have brought us to a point where we see a supposed ‘conservative’ premier in Stelmach enact the same policy that the NDP goverment in saskatchewan did that destroyed their oil industry for nearly thirty years and now the federal conservatives are working to corrupt grass roots democratic principals. Frankly as albertans we should all be ashamed and concerned.