Of particular note, in my view is the contrast between an announcement in August to the effect That David Crutcher had LEFT the Chandler campaign committee.
Then there is the signatures found at the bottom of the screed that residents of Egmont found dropped in their mailbox:
Waitasec - what is the executive doing here? Didn't Crutcher step aside as a member of Chandler's campaign team? And aren't most of the other executive signatories listed as part of Chandler's campaign team?
So, if they are writing "as individuals", please tell me why the letter is emblazoned with Chandler's letterhead? (and no, I don't buy that ripping Chandler's logo off his website and then slapping names below it differentiates this from Chandler's campaign crap - especially when the text of it blathers on incessantly repeating the talking points off Chandler's previous campaign literature.
This vile bit of drivel ends off with an appeal based on all of Chandler's wonderful attributes and integrity:
Oh yes, let's review Craig's "integrity" for a moment shall we? After all, if he wants to play representative for people, we might expect him to live up to his commitments.
Over at Concerned Christians, we find the documents related to a human rights complaint lodged by Rob Wells of Edmonton. In these pages, we find the text of a negotiated settlement of the dispute, which reads:
[Update: Nov. 28/07]
I see that the apology letter page now has a link to the CHRC settlement agreement document. It's new to me, and I apologize if I missed it earlier.
[/Update]
I suspect like the pseudo distancing of Mr. Crutcher from Chandler's campaign team, it's a matter of political convenience. Members of the PC association in Egmont need to think carefully about whether their next candidate should be Mr. Chandler, and whether Mr. Chandler's associates should remain on the board of that association.
1 comment:
Isn't it just AMAZING that it also comes out with the same inferior production quality and other telltales as the rest of Chandler's campaign literature?
1. Low resolution letterhead
2. Mis-spelluns (The Calgary Conseravative Association - right on the MASTHEAD?)
3. Extremely wordy and text heavy. Repeats himself. Wordy and repetitive. Also text heavy. (think of the CHILDREN!).
4. Comes across as if the author thinks himself as God. (Wait a minute, that'd be Chandler all right)
5. Slams anyone and anything that doesn't subscribe to the ultraconservitive "family values" croud - think of the CHILDREN he wails!
6. Speaks down to Liberals and NDP using terms like crawls, and making it seem as if that would be the worst thing that could happen to Egmont, when indeed it would be the BEST.
7. Assures the reader that if he runs there will be no competition from the Alliance or Wild Rose parties (show me the proof! And what happens if you DON'T win? Are you one of THEIR candidates?).
8. Poor quality photocopy, looks like the dog ate it.
9. Starts off talking as if the letter is authored by all of the named individuals "WE..." and gets confused and throws in a few "I"s here and there.
I could go on... but it's offensive to me to find this crap in my mailbox. Sure, it's "the most important election campain in our constituency's history. That's right. We're not exaggerating." Well, it's the most important to Craig, but the rest of us are just hoping that it goes AGAINST the man so we don't have to continue listening to this over-inflated wind bag blathering on.
Ugh.
Post a Comment