The e-mail to Chandler dated Oct. 22 reads: "Sorry about how things have turned out. I got an urgent call from the Premier's Office asking me to back Jonathan. What else could I do?"
Chandler said the e-mail proves Stelmach's office was trying to meddle with the outcome in Calgary-Egmont.
"You look at the words of Paul Jackson says there, 'What else could I do?' He could have kept his word. He was obviously under great duress."
Hmmm ... it's politics as normal as far as I can tell. I did wonder aloud about Jackson's seeming about-face prior to the nomination vote when Jackson wrote some surprisingly flattering columns about Jonathan Denis.
If any of us are supposed to be either surprised or mad about this, I fail to see why. Nominations are internal party business. Personally, I fail to see much difference between the Premier's office trying to garner support for Mr. Denis and Mr. Crutcher (and other members of the riding executive) being directly affiliated with Chandler's campaign - even when they supposedly had "stepped aside". It's called politics.
When I heard Mr. Denis' name being bandied about as a potential candidate, I wondered if his sudden appearance didn't have some connection to the "party establishment" who by then should have been starting to clue in that something was afoot in Calgary Egmont that could turn out to be a nasty little political liability.
I'm not at all sure that this revelation really means a great deal. From a matter of polling numbers, it's pretty clear that Chandler's campaign in Egmont was effective in garnering people willing to vote for him. Okay, so the Premier's office tried to influence the outcome - so did the riding executive.
When it comes down to it, Chandler's nomination was quashed for the very fundamental reason that the man comes with (to paraphrase Rick Bell) "more baggage than the lost baggage counter at Air Canada". Surely, few are surprised by Stelmach's actions, after all having Chandler running for the party would have handed the Liberals and the NDP enough ammunition to seriously damage the PCs as a whole.
The Calgary Herald editorial page yesterday:
Sometimes it's not just what is said, but how it's said. Chandler is notorious for offending just about everyone with his abrasive in-your-face style. It's no wonder that virtually every PC MLA was nervous about his nomination.
...
Chandler is entitled to his views. But a candidate with a record of support for someone deemed to have breached human rights laws, and who also ran afoul of the AHRC with his own intemperate remarks, is a liability to the party. His views are not the party's views, and Stelmach had no choice but to quash Chandler's candidacy.
Frankly, I can't say that I find this outburst by Chandler surprising at all. He's running about trying to frame it as the party not allowing a "social conervative" to run, but really if you think about it that's largely a crock. There are a good many "social conservative" MLAs in the legislature already - Ted Morton and Victor Doerksen to name two. But neither of those men have run afoul so consistently of Canada's human rights law.
This is all blame shifting on Chandler's part. He's trying to make himself out to be the "hero" of the story (don't we all want to be the hero of our own stories?), and he clearly has yet to take ownership of how his own actions in the past have contributed to the outcome.
3 comments:
I disagree, he's making himself to be the 'victim' in an effort to generate sympathy and to smear the PCs who didn't support him or turned their coats.
Either way, it sounds like yet more bluster to fuel his impending 'lawsuit' against the PC party. If he wins (remote, but you never know) he becomes the 'hero'; if he loses he paints himself as a martyr to the 'cause' of free speech.
E.
Agreed, Chandler's trying to paint himself as the victim here.
But that's precisely why I call it blame shifting.
In order to play "victim", he has to believe that he is "right" in some capacity. I claim that his choice to claim the title of victim also implies that he is not willing to take ownership for how his own actions have played into the situation.
Good point, you're right. Chandler's actions are typical of a child who in an effort to avoid responsibility points the finger at another sibling or imaginary 'friend' or like a sociopath simply feels he's above the rules that govern the 'little' people. I mean, he has God on his side and therefore can do no wrong. And like any bully he'll harass and belittle everyone in his path until he gets his way.
E.
Post a Comment