Cathy Bennett has two significant messages for us.
1. I am a Liberal - Always been a Liberal - Will always be a Liberal.
2. I am the leader who can bring the Liberal Party together.
Let's examine these:
Williams and Dunderdale do not appoint Liberals.
In fact many of the Liberal and NDP complaints revolve around the extreme partisanship of this government.
Our agencies and Crown Corporations are run and managed by well known Tories such as Len Simms and Glenn Tobin.
The halls of Confederation building are traversed by many lifelong Tories and their families.
So partisan is this government that serving a community breakfast - if you are not a Tory - is a no no.
So how then can we possibly believe that this Tory partisan government appointed to the top position of Nalcor - a lifelong Liberal? How can we reasonably believe that the top priority - massive spending - key Muskrat deal would be under the hand of a lifelong Liberal?
For me this is not possible. I must go with the balance of probabilities - that is Cathy Bennett did in fact through contribution and action demonstrate that she was a loyal PC.
As for the second claim of bringing the Liberals together - I can only say that with her unmovable stance on Muskrat Falls and her longstanding Tory connections - that she would have the most difficult time in bringing Liberals together. One only needs to watch and listen to Liberals after they have observed her in a debate to know that electing her leader would be more divisive than the Efford Grimes fight.
To accept this candidacy as anything more than special interests protecting special projects is too much of a stretch for me. I guess it's up to the other candidates to expose this for what it is. Kissy Kissy Lovey Lovey - we are all Liberals chant - will not cut it for this circumstance.
Showing posts with label jim bennett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jim bennett. Show all posts
Friday, September 13, 2013
Tuesday, July 02, 2013
Bond (Ed) Bond hits the nail right on the head of Bennett
The Sir Robert Bond Papers seems to have best summed up what to expect from Cathy Bennett if she became leader of any political party.
In his "Politics of Fashion" post Mr. Hollett talks about pollster Don Mills and his chat with the Board of Trade. Please see the excerpt below or keep it all in context by reading the complete post HERE
"...The provincial government started focussing on things like the Lower Churchill, squeezing more hand-outs from the federal government, and spending beyond what the public treasury could support. One of the provincial Conservatives’ biggest supporters after was Don Mills. Right in line behind Mills was the St. John’s Board of Trade. They cheered as the provincial government increased spending by incredible amounts. As the government admitted starting in late 2009, what it was doing was what the public couldn’t afford. Neither Mills nor the Board of Trade said a peep about it.
None of this is surprising. The two go together. CRA is the only pollster the local elite accepts and the Board of Trade reflects the views of the highly clique-ish local establishment. Mills is on the Board of Trade’s agenda because he is fashionable, not because he is saying something provocative or even something the Board actually supports. They don’t. The Board actually supports unsustainable government spending because that’s what puts cash in its members pockets.." (emphasis added)
Mr. Hollett certainly does not hold anything back when talking about Mills or the Board of Trade and their support of unsustainable spending by government.
Mr. Hollett continues on by adding the following later in the post:
" The Board is like an arm of government. The Board is such a reflection of the official view of things that they won’t even give time at a luncheon for a representative of the Liberals or New Democrats to speak. That sort of thing would be commonplace anywhere else but not in Newfoundland and Labrador since 2003." (emphasis added)
Well Mr. Hollett - I could not have said it better myself - however it was not only the Board of Trade and Don Mills who remained quiet while spending soared. You failed to mention one other; Cathy Bennett as the President of the Board of Trade in 2007.
This seems to differ greatly from Hollett's earlier post on Bennett's candidacy where he says:
"Bennett could prove to be the catalyst for a major change on the local political landscape. She is a fresh face. She offers potential."
Hard to match "fresh face" and "potential" with Hollett's earlier description of the Board of Trade and Don Mills since 2003. Hard to match "an arm of government" with catalyst for change.
Many of us already believe that Ms. Bennett is an opportunist - but Mr. Hollett puts it so much more clearly.
In his "Politics of Fashion" post Mr. Hollett talks about pollster Don Mills and his chat with the Board of Trade. Please see the excerpt below or keep it all in context by reading the complete post HERE
"...The provincial government started focussing on things like the Lower Churchill, squeezing more hand-outs from the federal government, and spending beyond what the public treasury could support. One of the provincial Conservatives’ biggest supporters after was Don Mills. Right in line behind Mills was the St. John’s Board of Trade. They cheered as the provincial government increased spending by incredible amounts. As the government admitted starting in late 2009, what it was doing was what the public couldn’t afford. Neither Mills nor the Board of Trade said a peep about it.
None of this is surprising. The two go together. CRA is the only pollster the local elite accepts and the Board of Trade reflects the views of the highly clique-ish local establishment. Mills is on the Board of Trade’s agenda because he is fashionable, not because he is saying something provocative or even something the Board actually supports. They don’t. The Board actually supports unsustainable government spending because that’s what puts cash in its members pockets.." (emphasis added)
Mr. Hollett certainly does not hold anything back when talking about Mills or the Board of Trade and their support of unsustainable spending by government.
Mr. Hollett continues on by adding the following later in the post:
" The Board is like an arm of government. The Board is such a reflection of the official view of things that they won’t even give time at a luncheon for a representative of the Liberals or New Democrats to speak. That sort of thing would be commonplace anywhere else but not in Newfoundland and Labrador since 2003." (emphasis added)
Well Mr. Hollett - I could not have said it better myself - however it was not only the Board of Trade and Don Mills who remained quiet while spending soared. You failed to mention one other; Cathy Bennett as the President of the Board of Trade in 2007.
This seems to differ greatly from Hollett's earlier post on Bennett's candidacy where he says:
"Bennett could prove to be the catalyst for a major change on the local political landscape. She is a fresh face. She offers potential."
Hard to match "fresh face" and "potential" with Hollett's earlier description of the Board of Trade and Don Mills since 2003. Hard to match "an arm of government" with catalyst for change.
Many of us already believe that Ms. Bennett is an opportunist - but Mr. Hollett puts it so much more clearly.
Friday, March 09, 2012
Blunder - Stunder - Thunder - Media, Liberals, Kennedy
Yesterday if Gregory Parsons was watching the House of Assembly - he must of been proud of what Jim Bennett did for his constituent - as it was exactly the approach used by then defence lawyer Jerome Kennedy when he was fighting for him.
The only problem is Jerome Kennedy became self-righteous and showed indignation toward his colleague Jim Bennett for doing exactly what he would have done.
Let's look at what Jerome said in July In 2003 when he was frustrated by the refusal of the Newfoundland inquiry commissioner, former Supreme Court of Canada chief justice Antonio Lamer, to examine the role of trial judges in the wrongful convictions. National Post Story
"It's the trial judges, some of whom don't know what they are doing...Part of it is as a result of political appointments. Part of this is a result of intentional or unintentional biases."
Then how about this?
Kennedy said Lamer's findings — particularly that police investigators had "tunnel vision" and prosecutors were excessively focused on winning cases — would be read closely in other Canadian jurisdictions.
"This notion that we have to win — that's not the role of the Crown," Kennedy said following the release of the report.
"I would suggest that Crown culture [involves] deeply seated attitudes and beliefs. You can put all of the resources and money you want into a department, but unless you change the attitudes, you're not going to change the system itself," he said.
And what about this one? CBC Story
Meanwhile, Kennedy lashed out against criticism this week from retired judge John Gomery, who was appointed in 2004 to oversee the federal commission on the sponsorship scandal.
Gomery said it was inappropriate for Williams and Kennedy to have spoken out, and particularly said Williams should not have used the words "witch hunt" to describe the tone that inquiry counsel have taken. Gomery also said that his reading of the inquiry so far indicates that some witnesses have been covering up what they know.
The justice minister said it was "presumptuous" of Gomery to make what Kennedy slammed as "uneducated opinion."
"Judge Gomery is entitled to his opinion," Kennedy said.
"[But] prior to his being appointed to this commission, no one ever heard of him. He conducted a $60-million sideshow in Ottawa," Kennedy said.
"So who he is to come down here and start to tell us what to do — I have questions with that."
Kennedy also said that Gomery was accused of "holding a bias" during the inquiry into the sponsorship scandal, which examined how the former Chrétien government used the federal sponsorship program to bolster federalism in Quebec.
You see it's like this - both Bennett and Kennedy are lawyers, both were representing interests of people. Both got the result they wanted. Both people they were representing were fighting for their lives. Both were right in talking about incompetence in the system.
The difference is: the media missed the irony and reality of the political side-show. The Opposition did not enjoy good research and advice on the situation. International Women's Day was used by Kennedy and the government for a great political game.
The media bought it hook - line - and sinker. It was amateur day all round yesterday as the boys fought it out during a day to celebrate women.
I have not even started on the Cameron Inquiry - remember that one Jerome?
The only problem is Jerome Kennedy became self-righteous and showed indignation toward his colleague Jim Bennett for doing exactly what he would have done.
Let's look at what Jerome said in July In 2003 when he was frustrated by the refusal of the Newfoundland inquiry commissioner, former Supreme Court of Canada chief justice Antonio Lamer, to examine the role of trial judges in the wrongful convictions. National Post Story
"It's the trial judges, some of whom don't know what they are doing...Part of it is as a result of political appointments. Part of this is a result of intentional or unintentional biases."
Then how about this?
Kennedy said Lamer's findings — particularly that police investigators had "tunnel vision" and prosecutors were excessively focused on winning cases — would be read closely in other Canadian jurisdictions.
"This notion that we have to win — that's not the role of the Crown," Kennedy said following the release of the report.
"I would suggest that Crown culture [involves] deeply seated attitudes and beliefs. You can put all of the resources and money you want into a department, but unless you change the attitudes, you're not going to change the system itself," he said.
And what about this one? CBC Story
Meanwhile, Kennedy lashed out against criticism this week from retired judge John Gomery, who was appointed in 2004 to oversee the federal commission on the sponsorship scandal.
Gomery said it was inappropriate for Williams and Kennedy to have spoken out, and particularly said Williams should not have used the words "witch hunt" to describe the tone that inquiry counsel have taken. Gomery also said that his reading of the inquiry so far indicates that some witnesses have been covering up what they know.
The justice minister said it was "presumptuous" of Gomery to make what Kennedy slammed as "uneducated opinion."
"Judge Gomery is entitled to his opinion," Kennedy said.
"[But] prior to his being appointed to this commission, no one ever heard of him. He conducted a $60-million sideshow in Ottawa," Kennedy said.
"So who he is to come down here and start to tell us what to do — I have questions with that."
Kennedy also said that Gomery was accused of "holding a bias" during the inquiry into the sponsorship scandal, which examined how the former Chrétien government used the federal sponsorship program to bolster federalism in Quebec.
You see it's like this - both Bennett and Kennedy are lawyers, both were representing interests of people. Both got the result they wanted. Both people they were representing were fighting for their lives. Both were right in talking about incompetence in the system.
The difference is: the media missed the irony and reality of the political side-show. The Opposition did not enjoy good research and advice on the situation. International Women's Day was used by Kennedy and the government for a great political game.
The media bought it hook - line - and sinker. It was amateur day all round yesterday as the boys fought it out during a day to celebrate women.
I have not even started on the Cameron Inquiry - remember that one Jerome?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)