Friday, October 30, 2009

Just hype?

"I never had an opponent." On October 27, 2009 Darren Hill sent out a letter saying his opponent was running a smear campaign on him based on his "family life." He stated that many of his lawn signs had been defaced and that he received threatening calls as a result of his lifestyle. He seems to believe that his opponent, that he claims is supported by both Trost and Vellacott were behind it. He suggests they should google these two MPs and verify their positions on GLBT. He stated they have an army of finances and volunteers behind my opponent he needs help to fight this. And lastly he states "I am asking for you to stand up and show them that when it comes to our city - they do not have the control here! WE DO!"

I don't don't know who the collective "we" is.

The letter was then circulated by Peter Garden of Turning the Tide Bookstore, who was the political activist who organized the protest march during Bush's visit to Saskatoon.

Interesting enough, about a week prior to the election, someone was stating in the north end of the ward that Carol Reynolds was gay in an attempt to solicit the christian vote. And her signs were destroyed or went missing as well.

Interesting enough, the press are usually quick to hop on a "hate" issue during a campaign. Nothing seems to have been reported to the police or news.

Interesting enough, Ward 1 is, in my opinion, one of the enlightened wards in the city as evidenced by their election of Lenore in 2000, and Darren in 2006 and have not let sexual preference issues turn their vote.

Offensive is stating that two MPs elected by some of the same voters that he is courting should surrender "control" (whatever that means) to him and his supporters.

This whole thing is bizarre. And while defending an act of intolerance against one party these same people exhibit intolerance of others and their beliefs.

And finally Mr. Hill did have an opponent and I think the hype was his.

Perhaps Ward 1 has safe water issues too.


  1. What did Carol expect to happen when she is backed by Brad Trost and Maurice Vellacott? Certain groups are certainly going to vote against you if you are backed by those two. I wonder if Vellacott has figured out the location of the mysterious drinking shack or if he is still busy attempting to fight his speeding tickets based on false science.

    Ward 1 seems to be perfectly fine but not shocked that Elaine and Carol are attacking Ward 1 residents after Carol was rejected.

  2. How can someone say pointing out the truth about a campaign should be considered attacking. Thanks Mistress for having the where-for-all to speak your mind. That's why I come here. Many would fear the wrath of Kahn or should I say COMM as in communist for telling it like it is. Love the Blog keep it up.

  3. Well - if anybody knows about the press reporting statements incorrectly – it is you Elaine. I worked with you for three years and you were always complaining about the press “misinterpreting you!” Especially when you shifted from school board to city council.

    If you are truly interested in civic politics you would attempt to find out the truth, rather than regurgitate the gossip. Go to Hill’s facebook page and see the copy of his letter he sent Reynolds after the Star Phoenix article.

    However, I am not sure you are interested in the truth. It must get hard to do that little extra Google search at 2:00 pm when you are still in your pyjamas and on your third bottle of wine!

    Wonder why there is not a Hnatyshyn on city council?

  4. Wow, talk about a low life. What a disgusting personal attack.
    Dont be such a coward...take off the anonymous mask & see if you have the guts to say that then...easy to attack under anonymity..doubtful you worked with her. but sure easy to lie anonymously...creep!

  5. Civic Mistress - I was thrilled when I found this site and thought that it would be great to have a stimulating conversations about municipal politics. Thank-you for starting this site and the conversation.

    I am disappointed that people appear to have forgotten, or never learned, how to disagree with an argument. And that only surrounding yourself with ideas and people who are similiar to you does not stretch or stimulate higher levels of thinking.

    Attacking a person (especially anonymously) is cowardly and shows a complete lack of ability to debate on the topic.

    Civic mistress - I may not agree with you - but thank-you for starting the conversation.

    Pamela McLeod

  6. So why has Civic Mistress attacked anonymously? Why not put a name to the blog when attacking Hill, Paulsen or Clark?

  7. Hill (and Peter Garden) better offer some proof regarding Reynolds' "smear campaign".

    If he can't, I suggest that Reynolds ought to talk to her lawyer.

    This letter, if it's true (link please?), is absolultely revolting.

  8. Considering his ties to a admitted "Truther", someone should ask Hill if he believes that 9/11 was an inside job.

  9. If the letter is true it would seem pretty easy to provide it? Beyond that why comment on something nobody seems to have ever seen themselves? Kind of like a mysterious drinking shack outside of Saskatoon.

  10. It is my experience that when people can't rebut the issue they resort to personal attack. My comment was simply that the day before the election Mr. Hill certainly thought he had an opponent and the evening of the election he stated he didn't. Up, down, blue, brown . . .we're back to judgment and character.

    As for the contributor who insists on including Paulsen and Clark with Hill, please note neither of these two conducted themselves poorly during a campaign and their conduct has not been questioned. I'm starting to wonder if in joining Tiffany to Hill you are hoping a little of her shine will glow on him.

  11. So are a large number of your post and responses a result of your inability to rebut the issues? You have attacked, Clark, Hill, Paulsen, Lenore,....


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.