Canadian Press reported on Friday, Oct 16:

On another ethical front Friday, a non-partisan group asked the ethics, lobbyist and elections commissioners to investigate a fundraiser organized for Tory MP Rick Dykstra.

Democracy Watch said Dykstra hosted 60 “friends” last month in the owner’s box at Toronto’s Roger’s Centre for a Blue Jays baseball game. The donors got tickets to the game, access to the owner’s suite, food and drinks, an opportunity to attend batting practice and meetings with unidentified federal cabinet ministers and Blue Jays players.

The group wants to know what, if anything, Dykstra or the party paid for the various perks – particularly the owner’s box which can’t be rented and is only used with permission of owner Rogers Communications Inc., a company which lobbies the federal government.

And the fact that you feel “small government reformers” are completely opposite from Liberals is the problem.

I, as a Liberal, am not a socialist. I do not want big government. I do not want the largess of bureaucracy. I want small government. I want government kept out of my fiscal life. I want government kept out of my social life.

I want it to be there to provide a safety net when things go awry, but I don’t want it tending to – or even caring about – what I do beyond that.

I am not comfortable with David Swann’s definition of Liberal. He seems to be at best a soft socialist.

Liberals like Matthew Naylor (and myself) are uncomfortable. We don’t want to fight the NDP for the left. We live in the middle. We see no strategic sense, and we don’t believe in what he’s selling.

Either:

A) Swann shapes up,
B) Swann quits, or
C) Many more Liberals will be finding a new home in the WAP.

The fact that you could be a Liberal who makes that very broad jump just shows how idealogy really does not have much to do with political allegiance.

Fascinating fact.

Also, Naylor, I hope you didn’t mind I edited your post to actually include a link to join the WRAP.

As for the fear of the Wildrose Alliance under Smith fizzling out like Dumont’s ADQ, I personally don’t think you have to worry about that. Unlike Alberta, Quebec is not naturally inclined to conservatism the way Alberta is. Dumont’s 2007 breakthrough was more a one time protest vote, and now Quebec politics seem to have realigned back to the old Liberal-PQ swings.

Since a party currently needs about 10 seats to become the Official Opposition, it would be wise for the WAP to strategically target ridings they can win, and steadily build up support. Along the way, that strategy can be modified if there’s some major issue that comes along in Alberta that really galvanizes the population. I think at that point, the WAP might stand a chance at ousting the latest dynasty.

I look forward to Prime Minister Layton giving the throne speech come the new era in Canadian politics that will surely dawn. This dawning will happen shortly after I fall asleep, and last until shortly before I wake up.

And cut back on caffeine? There’s no way to survive an election without it!

You may want to cut back on the caffeine a wee bit.

- the AWOL (or being punished for it anyways) other blogger of this website. I promise to start posting soon, just as soon as I can.