What does this say to you?

"There is enough guilt to go around and everyone feels bad enough as it is"

and

"I don't think that should become an election issue, because it can work both ways"


These are quotes by Liberal leader Gerry Reid found in a Telegram story today about the party's candidate Linda Goodyear raising the issue of double billing during a campaign event on Bell Island.

It says - I think voters are FOOLS

If that's not bad enough - Goodyear's figures on her Tory competitor and incumbent Diane Whelan were wrong. Very wrong. Apparently Linda got her figures from a story she read in the Independent either read improperly or written factually incorrect - and not from the Auditor General's Report.

First Gerry Reid has determined that the spending scandal should not be an issue in this election. He also believes that politicians already feel bad enough. Here's the deal voters - leave them alone - it was not their fault. Voters should back off and understand that because all political parties were involved - therefore voters can't just blame one.

This means - Reid has not accepted that taxpayers were ripped off - treated like fools - their money like a cookie jar. He wants people to understand how hard it's been on all the embattled MHA's - who cares about someone who needs life saving drugs or a medical test - or a safe house - or food for their kids - the politicians need a break from this incessant criticism.

As for Linda Goodyear - she gave Diane Whelan a pass to re-election or at least a good fight between her and NDP's Gavin Will. If Linda Goodyear cannot get that level of research correct and she uses that false information to take the last and biggest swipe at her opponent - she probably won't be so hot when examining legislation.

Then Reid states in the Telegram that:

"I'll have a talk to Linda and tell her it's not just Tory MHAs that double-billed. Liberal MHAs double billed as well."

First of all - it appeared on a CBC Morning Show report that Linda did know that all political parties were involved - and if she did not as Gerry seems to think - then Goodyear is not in the same world as the rest of us.

Disarray - Confusion - Mixed Messages - and Continued Cover-Up would seem to be the Liberal's campaign theme.

This is one big reason Danny Williams is so high in the polls. An awful lot of Liberals just do not want to vote or are switching sides.

From one AG to another...tsk tsk tsk...

If we are to accept that one MHA - Elizabeth Marshall - above all others was the catalyst for the Auditor General to gut the financial operations of the House of Assembly - and there's no shortage of people who would claim that to be true - then Elizabeth Marshall's constituency spending and accounting should be perfect.

Let's look at this MHA's record - as prepared by the AG - for three of the four years she has been in office.

Of 115 MHA's that served the people (yah right) over a 17 year period - almost 25% had no double billings. Their average years of service was about 5 years. Elizabeth Marshall double billed.

Despite that the current Auditor General John Noseworthy states and the former Auditor General Elizabeth Marshall should know - that alcohol only purchases are inappropriate and represented part of the concern then AG Marshall had with former Cabinet Minister Paul Dicks - Marshall managed to make alcohol only purchases in the few short years she has been sitting. This despite that fact that 50% of her colleagues did not.

When the $2875 special payment was given to the MHA's as a "top-up" of their constituency allowances - although the former AG did not take it - she did not make it public either and waited for the current AG to get his hands on it and report.

I would also like to know whether or not the donations made by Marshall over the past 4 years have in any number or amount been claimed on her personal income tax return. Given the amounts reported and averaged and working with the latest taxation information - Marshall could have benefited in access of $2000 per annum personally.

The question is - will she tell us?

Given the Member for Topsail has only been in office for 4 years - the bar set by this former AG is not very high.

Why did the Premier threaten Private Citizens?

You see the Premier would like a few of us to change our commentary. Let's first deal with what Williams was trying to do. I can say that because when he mentioned me yesterday - one of three private citizens named - there was no stated reason?

I was not contacted by any lawyer - government MHA or the Premier to remove or alter a post on the blog or anything I said on the air.

His purpose therefore was to threaten - to warn - but why?

Well if one is critical of the government or Members of the House of Assembly - they might be named publicly like Sue was. Therefore it could only be seen as an intimidation tactic.

The Premier in his musings about besmirching peoples characters should be more concerned by his own actions. The naming of individuals yesterday was one example but the Premier has not shied away going at other people when it suits him.

For instance when the Premier was freely condemning Max Ruelokke's ability to represent the province properly on the CNLOPB - he routinely ignored the process of the appointment and forced Ruelokke to go to court in order to be appointed.

He had no problem putting Rulokke's life on hold - and then had no problem besmirching the judge.

Then there was the whole incident with his son downtown - as NUPGE puts it - the Premier owed the civil service an apology for even implying that the union might have had something to do with it. As it turns out the Unions had nothing to do with the incident.
Here's a part of a story on the site of National Union of Public and General Employees.

Evidence given in a St. John's court on Thursday indicated that the labour movement had nothing to do with the late-night assault on his son near the city's waterfront.

Without any evidence to back his claims, the hot-tempered premier went on television in March 2004 to suggest that unions had targeted his son in retaliation for his Tory government's anti-worker budget, which outlined plans to wipe out 4,000 public sector jobs across the province.

Public sector workers were on the verge of striking at the time and Williams threatened to keep them out "until the cows come home" if any connection between the incident and his son was established.

Did the Premier in that case attempt to besmirch the characters of thousands of people?

There was also the incident with an employee of the Government (at the time) - that he accused of hacking into the Opposition's (him at the time) computers. The RNC found nothing criminal there either.

The rules of this "democracy" are being made by Mr. Williams - and I guess we as people can tell him - it's not his democracy - it's our democracy - and we will defend it.

It was inappropriate for Williams to name private citizens for no reason other than to threaten - he his trying to intimidate.

The question is why?

Why Premier is it so important to shut me up? Lower Churchill? Fishery? Outmigration? Wind energy? Metis? Mistakes in the additional agreement? Why?

Where was the Premier when the moratorium was called on the fishery? Who will fight for them? When Hydro was being sold out from under us? Who will fight for them?

The Premier is a rookie with respect to public discussion on public policy - when compared with those he names. You were not really that loud when the government awarded Cable Atlantic a contract (under Tobin) or when you purchased that piece of land for the golf course (under Tobin) no all that was neat and tidy.

The Premier didn't mind taking a piece out of the fella who wanted to be paid for his role in the sale of his company (Cable Atlantic) - he won his court case too didn't he - as did Max Ruelokke

The Premier has no problem telling us what will happen before the RNC have finished investigating a matter - does he? Does he have a problem telling them? There's a chance the odd one of them is going to hear his statements on the air.

Here's a quote from the Premier's News Release:

"I am so pleased to welcome Minister Hickey back into Cabinet," said Premier Williams. "Effective immediately Minister Hickey will resume his full Cabinet portfolio and related responsibilities. I regret that he had to step aside last week, but under the circumstances it was the prudent thing to do. However, I reviewed the circumstances surrounding the Auditor General's findings into some double billing, and I am confident that there was no intentional wrong doing. As such, I am pleased that Minister Hickey is back where he belongs."

Then Judge Halley calls the delay tactics used by the provincial government on Ruelokke's appointment "reprehensible" - the Premier says the Judge had a bad day. Remember now - he is an officer of the court and was the Premier when the Crown was defending that action.

Here's the quote:

"We all get up on the wrong side of the bed. I have good days and I have bad days and perhaps that was a day when he felt a little more zealous than he normally would feel,"...

You said of Ruelokke who won his case:

"You know, Mr. Ruelokke had been kind of in the papers, in everybody's face on this particular one, in order to express his viewpoint," Williams said. "It might be just better if he just kept his head down and let the process run its proper legal course."

And as for women - the Premier is gaining a reputation:

Joyce Hancock?
Beth Marshall?
Sue Kelland-Dyer?
What do they have in common?
All strong women! All women the Premier has singled out in one way or another.

The Premier is also continually alluding to what Lorraine Michael will do or say on one position or another - and also propping her up (as if she needs his help) using her to take smacks at Gerry Reid and the official opposition.

His public support of Kathie Goudie versus John Hickey.(What's the difference?)

The Premier said on Open-Line today:
"But you can't allow malicious people to tell untruths and destroy the reputations of good honest law-abiding people on open-lines."

Who?

The Premier said on Open-Line today:
"There's an awful lot of other people who are going very very very close to the line on what they're doing to destroy peoples' reputations - and ya know they need to be watched -
because if they're going to be there and their gonna try and get political gain on the basis of taking someones good character and someones good reputation down - they deserve to be accountable in a court - and a judge will decide."

Who?

Based on the fact that you also said on Open-Line today:

"...but I can tell you and I said it yesterday and I'll say it again - if Roger Grimes or anybody else goes after reputations of public officials - and they are telling untruths and they are telling incorrects incorrect things and they are not they are telling lies about people and destroying their reputations - they have a right to be sued and the people that want to should sue them and hold them accountable."

I must be on the "watch" list.

Now how will I be watched?
Am I being watched now?

Who is watching me?
What are they watching for?
How long will I remain on the "watch" list?
Will I be notified if and when I am removed from the "watch" list?

For a complete transcript of the Premier's Statements today on Open-Line
PRESS HERE.



and finally - once and for all - you do get paid...we pay you and as for his further statement that:

"I work for nothing - I donate my salary"

What does this mean Premier?

The Premier works and he is paid a salary - he says I give it to charities which in his words means he works for nothing. Interesting!

How is it that we have come to know that Premier Williams donates his salary to charity? Did somebody else expose this - or was it him? It was him! Perhaps it would have been better to give (because he can) quietly. If for no other reason so people should not feel more indebted to his public service than that of others - because he "works for nothing"? The Premier expresses - every time there is a criticism of him - in a somewhat frustrated tone - that he donates his salary. Why is he saying this? Why does he keep saying things like "I don't need this" - or "Dean MacDonald doesn't need this" - is it to purchase exemption from criticism? If not why? I ask the reader to objectively answer these questions.