Categories Alberta Politics alberta politics venn diagram: ted morton versus danielle smith. Post author By Dave Cournoyer Post date February 20, 2011 20 Comments on alberta politics venn diagram: ted morton versus danielle smith. Thanks to Tony for sharing this Venn Diagram. Tags Danielle Smith, Ted Morton ← city centre airport redevelopment concepts. → legislative agenda a side-show. leadership contests the only show in town. 20 replies on “alberta politics venn diagram: ted morton versus danielle smith.” Brilliant, Dave. Wish I’d thought of that. Difference is that Ted’s a leader – not someone like Danielle who comes out swinging the minute that things don’t go her way. Ted Morton IS a leader. And who better to get Alberta on track than a non-academic (take that, Taft) who was born and raised in Alberta, and what little schooling he did get was of course at the University of Calgary. Anything else would be anathema to the Alberta electorate. Ted Morton lacks the experience of being fired as a school board trustee. Cute, but reveals more about its proponents’ POV: 1. Prefer status quo for broken AB health system. 2. Would rather have Albertans pay more for less in regards to gov’t pension plan. 3. Don’t believe AB gov’t has a spending problem. 4. Prefer appointed Senators over elected ones. 5. Approve of the effects on fellow Albertans of the short-lived Stelmach royalty increases. No argument that Ted and Danielle are have many similar views. However one is riding the wave and the other may be washing up on shore. I’m not sure who the actual author of this (Tony?) is but – Bullet one is good ole’ fashioned fear-mongering. Bullet four displays a poor understanding of basic economics – naive Keynesianism adhering to sticky price-theory. Bullet eight is a over-simplified cheap shot. Setting royalties requires balancing many variables – the last few years have shown just how delicate this balance is and what can happen to capital investment when sending mixed signals. I had come to expect a useful and fairly non-partisan set of information from daveberta.ca and am disappointed by this partisan shot. Thanks for the comments, Bill & Justin. Please lighten up. It is a satirical look at the policy similarities between the two politicians. As you are both Wildrose Alliance candidates, I would warn that when ideology trumps comedy, we all lose. I can write comedy too 😉 Will tweet some soon. Bill Dave you really are clueless. Bill Jarvis is right. Morton is clearly riding a wave and Danielle Smith is clearly washing up on a wild, barren shore. Ideology gets a bad rap. Probably because it is more important than any other factor. What often goes under reported and under discussed is the underlying financial and vested interests that made Morton and Danielle Smith, they ARE ONE IN THE SAME! At the end of the day, both are working to take as many votes as possible to the right for their common financier. Lets quit wasting time on dissecting and microscoping ideologies to death. The public and the citizens are both having a bad joke played on their intelligence and sensibilities. If you want in on the joke, just start reading and digging around. This is all about MONEY and only about MONEY. The right wing policies and ideologies gets that MONEY. You forgot the most important factor that they both share, which really should be item #1: “Serious chance of being elected the next Premier of Alberta.” Danielle Smith has zero chance of being elected. Incompetent and extreme come to mind. We need more Venn diagrams. This one has multiple uses. If one took out all the existing contents, it could represent the relevance of the Alberta Party encircled by a line. Only doubled. In addition to the lazy partisanship/ideology that Bill and Justin pointed out, it should be noted that Morton taught political science, not economics, and I don’t think he ever worked for the Fraser Institute. Keep up the good work, “Tony.” Oh, and you’d think their extremely divergent views on property rights and Bill 36 would’ve warranted a mention… Dave – maybe its the consultant in me – I’ve seen too many Venn diagrams to see any comedy in them… And I confess to a nervous reaction to over simplified portrayals of our health policy for the purpose of scaring. Next time, I’ll be sure to preempt a visit here with a few Tolstoy versus – anything will seem funny. Peter: “Danielle Smith has zero chance of being elected. Incompetent and extreme come to mind.” Really Peter. Well, I would say she stands a better chance than David Swann, wouldn’t you agree. Or Brian Mason. Or whoever comes out of the pack on behalf of “Liberal Redux” – the Alberta Party. And what, exactly, is the “extreme” portion of the Wild Rose Alliance that offends you? A commitment to the Canada Health Act? Funding for families who wish to take in their parents and grandparents in their dying days? Expanded building of long-term care facilities for seniors instead of housing them in acute care hospital wards at a much higher cost to the tax payer? Assuring that farmers and other Albertans have rights of due process and proper compensation for government expropriation of their land. Yup. Pretty extreme. Peter. This is what we call discussing “substantive issues”. Ok.. we’re done Peter, you can go to your Liberal caucus meeting now. @Rob H. Your snide remarks are why I am never voting for the Wildrose. If anything they push me farther left. Please excuse me while I go to my Communist Party caucus meeting. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment * Name * Email * Website Δ This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.