Blasts from the past

Stanley

- March 6, 2011 at 15:59:47

So the blog is far from negative? Find me something positive from it. The electorate can be a smart bunch. When a large majority is satisfied with a government, EVERYTHING they do can't be bad, right? You have to agree with SOMETHING don't you? I don't think watton, hollett, maclean are in on some secret that nobody else knows. I don't think everything they are saying can be right, if most other people believe they are wrong. When everything you post is negative and dripped in bias, how can you take a person like that seriously? I looking forward to watton running in the next election. It will interesting to see what he does different next time.

Submit a Comment

• 

  Mark

  - March 7, 2011 at 06:49:14

  I assure you Stanley, it is 100% positive 100% of the time. I wouldn't have it any other way. http://notawa.blogspot.com

• 

  Mark

  - March 6, 2011 at 19:32:44

  Oh, and Stanley - just so I can confirm that we're speaking the same language - would you qualify the tone of this editorial as being 'positive' or 'negative'?

• 

  Chris

  - March 7, 2011 at 06:49:26

  One thing positive from Watton’s blog is that at least you know where he stands. Something more specific? Watton did point out the asinine error with our Elections Act where people can vote ''before'' there are any declared candidates. He’s a Liberal and points out the flaws, for lack of a better term, with the PC’s - much as Tory bloggers do to the Liberals. And I’m certain that Tory bloggers do not point out any of the good things the Liberals (or the NDP for that matter) do. If you really want to read something ''dripped with bias'', I suggest you read a government press release. The good news ones are available around 9; the bad news ones, around 5 on Friday afternoon. But you can’t be naïve enough to think that any party or blogger as a monopoly on being bias. To varying degrees, all parties are guilty of it. All have spin-doctors. As for McLean and Hollett, last time I checked, they didn’t run in any election. But we are free to take each party/blog/press release/attack ad for what they are. Feel free to ignore them if you wish. If I don’t like a particular station, I don't watch it. You are free to do the same. And if it’s a blog that bothers you, feel free to start your own. It's a free country after all. By the way, that large majority of people may not be as large as you think. (If it was, why doesn’t this editorial have 4 stars out of 5?) But you’re right, the electorate is not stupid. Who knows, it may mean more members in the opposition which, regardless of party, is a healthy thing in any democracy. Of course the House has to be open for a democracy to be really effective.

• 

  Stanley

  - March 8, 2011 at 11:10:12

  haha chris and shannon. Loves it. Can I get b.wheeler's two cent on this too please? Mark, the lower churchill will likely be a major issue in the October election. In all seriousness, can you tell me what the liberals would do differently if in power? More so with respect to the actual agreement. Grimes is saying rates will double (based on whatever data he has), but if people have a problem with the deal, I'm more interested in how you would be different? My biggest question is would the liberals go ahead with the development? Or would you get out of the agreement, possibly going back to the negotiating table, starting fresh? If so, what aspects would you change? Would you prefer to deal through Quebec? If so, why?

• 

  Chris

  - March 11, 2011 at 06:56:40

  Is that the best rebuttal you can give Stanley? Ha ha? ...That’s a very convincing argument, especially when you have nothing to defend the actions of the government. As for the Muskrat Falls development, I’ll all for it - if it's economically viable. Why is the government being so secretive on the details? Will our electricity rates increase as many (non-partisan) groups contend? What will the final cost be? How much will a kilowatt-hour actually cost compared to what we pay now? Like I said, if it benefits the province, then go for it by all means. And I don’t know what would be different if the Liberals were in power. Many they would be a little more open.

Shannon Reardon

- March 4, 2011 at 15:26:41

Stanley, that does not preclude them from offering comment, whether you and your ilk like it or not. Also given your partisan snipe, should I thereby take you as a Danny worshiping Tory?

Submit a Comment

• 

  stanley

  - March 4, 2011 at 19:16:12

  Here's a tip shannon - Get over danny williams. Move on. You can use your constant negative comments towards dunderdale now. Keep it up though. Voters are turned off by people that are nothing but negative. Just ask Mark from below, he knows first hand.

• 

  W McLean

  - March 4, 2011 at 19:49:55

  Public opinion must finally be turning; just eleven weeks ago, the message was "Lest We Forget". Now it's "Lest We Remember".

• 

  Chris

  - March 6, 2011 at 08:06:05

  Stanley, You are way off base if you think Mark Watton lost because of his ''constant negativity''. He ran against a well-known opponent in a riding held by an extremely popular premier. I doubt most voters knew of Mark's blog and if anything, it's far from negative. He asks questions, points out governments flaws such as labelling people as traitors, blatant patronage appointments, failure to allow access to information, unwillingness to have a leadership race - the list goes on. If anything, he's asking questions that many media outlets don't - or are afraid to. And in the process, he shows the present Tory government to be more ''negative'' 'than any comments you see here. I hold no political allegiance and I think we should all consider ourselves official members of the opposition and ask questions that hold governments accountable - regardless of which party is in power. But we should be allowed to do so without fear of reprisals. I don’t feel this is case with the present administration. If it was, I'd sign my last name.

• 

  Shannon Reardon

  - March 6, 2011 at 19:32:32

  "Stanley", it is not "negativity" to raise questions, criticize blatant patronage, point out hypocrisy, etc. But if you see it that way, that's you're deal. Williams, while officially gone, is still a big part of things, and the impact of his seven years in office is still being felt. Commenting on him, and on his directives and actions while in office - the biggest being the Emera deal right now - is completely acceptable to do, and must be done. We'd be irresponsible, apathetic citizens not to. There's no negativity or bias coming from you, though? Give me a break. And furthermore, fundamentally speaking, fi we had no opposition here, then what would we have? Chew on that. And I don't need any "tips" from you.

greatarticle editoral

- March 4, 2011 at 15:25:23

well said article; i wish all former fed/prov liberal and pc former politico read it and heed it

Submit a Comment

Mark

- March 3, 2011 at 18:41:03

''He felt the need to phone a radio show from sunny Florida to express his dissatisfaction.'' No - that isn't the case at all. The CBC put him on a panel because (like most media in the province) they lack the creativity or common sense to put anyone but washed up politicians on the airwaves to provide commentary on anything political in this province. The media can't have it both ways - endlessly turning to retired politicians for news, commentary and soundbites on the one hand, and then chastizing them for hanging around on the other.

Submit a Comment

Mark

- March 3, 2011 at 17:35:40

''We realize it’s difficult for some politicians to walk away from all the excitement of running the show and being in the public eye...'' Tonight's NTV news will provide ample evidence of that.

Submit a Comment

stanley

- March 3, 2011 at 17:35:31

What the liberal supporters here, or danny-haters, or both (dowler, watton, meeker, Cabana, reardon, mclean) fail to understand with this editorial is that efford, grimes, and dumeresque all ran to be a voice for the province and were rejected. If Clyde Wells or Brian Tobin came out and said the lower churchill should be developed then people would find that a lot more interesting.

Submit a Comment

Shannon Reardon

- March 3, 2011 at 14:53:06

Wow, skewed any?

Submit a Comment

Ursula Dowler

- March 3, 2011 at 12:48:09

"We realize it’s difficult for some politicians to walk away from all the excitement of running the show and being in the public eye". More difficult for some than others it appears . Or is Williams' appearance at the provincial by-election just a one-off for old times sake ?

Submit a Comment

Geoff Meeker

- March 3, 2011 at 12:47:58

Such hypocrisy, nicely lampooned by Mark Watton: http://nottawa.blogspot.com/2011/03/on-involvement-of-former-politicians.html

Submit a Comment

W McLean

- March 3, 2011 at 12:47:25

Well, since the Western Star has utterly abdicated its responsibility to ask difficult and uncomfortable questions, SOMEONE has to.

Submit a Comment

Robert

- March 3, 2011 at 12:47:03

At least somebody is asking questions. This news outlet certainly isn't. you'd think that a questionable investment that will add 6 billion to our debt and double or more our power bills would deserve a lot more ink. Is asking the tough questions of our government not part of this paper's mandate, or do they have another agenda to drive. We all know who owns them

Submit a Comment

Brad

- March 3, 2011 at 12:45:27

"They should let those in charge now do what they think best ... without all the harping from has-beens in the cheap seats." Now I don't agree with these people commenting on politics in this province either but that statement above is plain stupid. Do you like living in a communist regime? This government already does what it wants, and to give it the go ahead on megaprojects like this one without asking questions is very unintelligent. What do a bunch of lawyers and teachers know about hydroelectricity? The lower Churchill is all about personal gains and not the interests of the province. I wish Grimes of all people would go away, but he has a point about this project because alot of info isn't being shared and alot more doesn't even exist. You may readily take it in the behind from the government but don't speak for the rest of us.

Submit a Comment

Mark

- March 3, 2011 at 12:45:02

''They should let those in charge now do what they think best'' What a fitting line for a Western Star editorial. Well put..

Submit a Comment

Andrea

- March 3, 2011 at 12:44:10

I totally agree with this editorial. It is spot on. As another example, The Liberals only managed to dig up an old, previously voted out MHA to run for them in the Bay if Islands this coming fall. We need new faces to politics, not washed up MHA's from the 80's and 90's. Take your pension and keep your thoughts to yourself.. allow so new blood to run in the election... that will evoke change and new ideas... that is what we need in NL.

Submit a Comment

Steve Winslow

- March 3, 2011 at 12:44:00

You are right. But you forgot the other has-been who emerged from his Florida lair in the attempt to influence political events. Gracing us with his presence, Danny's actions in the Humber West by-election fly in the face of his stated belief that former Premiers should shutup and go away. Feel free to take your own advice, Dan.

Submit a Comment