Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Back to none of the above

I tuned in to part of the Leaders' Debate last night and was pleasantly surprised at the modicum of behaviour by the leaders. It actually was conducted as a real debate rather than the brawls of past. Having said that, there was nothing of real substance that would swing a vote one way or another.

On the home front, candidate Darren Hill is gearing up his campaign in his usual manner. Rather than speaking on the Liberal platform and/or issues he is attempting to divert the focus to his main opponent's forgetfulness.

Clearly the issue of incumbent mail outs that were in the system prior to the writ being dropped has already been dealt with by Elections Canada. Trost's error in not pulling the $6.00 ad from a rural weekly newspaper has caused Hill to state: "The fact remains that there is no room for our elected officials to 'forget' how they're spending Canadians money. He's not taking this election campaign seriously, because he doesn't care." (SP Apr 13/11)

This is truly a situation of the pot calling the kettle black. Anyone remember Hill's billboard ads on his 'made for Ward 1' recycling program? Those he claimed were not election expenses as he was doing it as a elected councillor and not for re-election purposes. Odd how you would need billboards on main thoroughfares to advertise a program not sanctioned by the city and run it during a campaign and then say is wasn'y for re-election purposes.

In the last days of the election you should expect that Hill will play his gay card - that being that his opponent's' are attacking his lifestyle choice. Its tired and old but does get some sympathy vote. In realty, voters don't really care about a candidate's sexual orientation. They don't even want to know about it.

I hope voters will look at the past performances of these candidates. In this constituency both Trost and Hill have track records - which brings us back to voting for the best of the worst.

33 comments:

  1. "his lifestyle choice"

    Choice? No wonder the citizens of Saskatoon kicked your butt to the curb and voted for Clark. I do not often agree with Clark or Hill but they have a better understanding of what is happening in society than your 1960’s mentality.

    I am extremely proud of my lesbian daughter and I can tell you that it was not her “choice” to be lesbian.

    She was born a lesbian and is just as an important part of our community as your ignorant uneducated self.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not sure why any voter in Saskatoon would promote a member of our lackluster city council to the national stage. Can't manage a budget without raising taxes, can't stop the roads from opening up and swallowing cars whole... and one of them wants to be an MP now? Gotta be kidding!? Right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. So, you are saying that Trost shouldn't be held accountable for his sneaky tactics since Darren Hill has pulled some? At least that is what it seems like you are saying... Also, how about Trost's complete and utter silence on issues that impact our province. This aparently is not a problem for you either...
    I live in Darren Hill's ward and at least I know that he will speak up when others can't be bothered.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Disgusting post. Looks like somebody already played the "gay card" and it wasn't Hill. Maybe that's because he's focused on a campaign and not some US-style wedge issue used by idiots who can't understand real policy debates. The 50s called, they want their narrow world-view back.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon 9:40 - I offer you my apologies. Clearly my poor choice of words conveyed a wrong assumption. What I wanted to convey is that I don't think any candidates sexuality should be at issue in any campaign. What annoyed me about Hill in the last civic election was his accusation that another candidate was using it against him - and she wasn't. I know this is a fact because I had a copy of an email that was circulated at that time.

    I would like voters not to judge candidates on their gender, faith or honest lifestyles. Judge them on worthwhile positions taken in past and presented for the future.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon 9:40 you had my support until you, like all others who come on here, decide to lower yourself to the lowest common denominator and resort to personal attacks.

    I'm glad you are proud of your daughter and support her. However, when was the last time you put your "ignorant uneducated" ass on the line in trying to improve the greater good of the community.

    It is too bad your daughter never had the opportunity to grow up with a parent who was as open minded and understanding as you claim her to be. Your anger and hate ringing post comes off sounding like you are much a part of the problem. Tolerance and understanding are a two way street, for someone championing tolerance you sure don't have any yourself. Hypocrite.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "his lifestyle choice"

    Choice? No wonder the citizens of Saskatoon kicked your butt to the curb and voted for Clark. I do not often agree with Clark or Hill but they have a better understanding of what is happening in society than your 1960’s mentality.

    I am extremely proud of my lesbian daughter and I can tell you that it was not her “choice” to be lesbian.

    She was born a lesbian and is just as an important part of our community as your ignorant uneducated self.

    ReplyDelete
  8. anon 12:33
    How is Anon 9:40 being a hypocrite? I believe that he/she was simply stating a fact that considering homosexuality as a lifestyle choice comes across as an ignorant and uninformed (uneducated) statement.

    ReplyDelete
  9. anon 12:39,

    Then he/she goes on to call the Mistress ignorant and uneducated.

    The hypocrisy comes in that the one championing tolerance of other lifestyles (do weeven use lifestyle anymore?) he resorts to attacking the Mistress rather than showing a level of tolerance for her knowledge. It's funny, those who defend tolerance of homosexuals sure don't have a lot of tolerance for those who don't share their views (on a side note, I have known Mistress for several years and she is not one of those people, she could care less about someone's sexual orientation).

    On a secondary side note, you stating that someone believing homosexuality is a choice is ignorant and uneducated as a fact is rather dubious. I will preface this by saying that I too believe homosexuals are born as such and it isn't a 'choice' they make. However, where is the scientific basis for you accepting this as fact? It is still dispute among many parts of society. In your group, which is probably the same belief group as myself, it is seen that way. But I would hardly say that at this point we can call it a fact. If we are calling it a fact, then we can probably also so that it is a fact that there is no God.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anon 10:18 and other haterz,

    The post reads nothing like you insinuate it does. You clearly are reading with a predisposed opinion that Trost is bad and Hill is good. You are a decided voter who is not open.

    The posts reads pretty clear, in that Hill is criticizing Trost for the same thing that he did himself. As the Mistress alluded to where was Hill last elections deriding the billboard's he had put up supporting the program and with his big old face smiling on them during an election?

    Hill's attacks on Trost would have a lot more credibility if he himself didn't flirt those some principles he now defends. What does Hill hope to accomplish? He is saying Trost is untrustworthy or a sneak because he forgot? Fine, then Hill also is untrustworthy and a sneak. What's his point? Him and Trost are both bad choices?

    AS for the Mistress' choice of term "lifestyle choice" it was a poor decision. I'll give her a level of deference in that (sorry if this dates you) she appears to come from an older generation that doesn't adapt to the changing terminology from year to year. My grandfather, who doesn't have a racist bone in his body, still refers to First Nations as "Indians" despite the outdatedness of the term. I've known Elaine a long time and can attest that she has no prejudice towards homosexuals in the least. While her terminology could be updated, I would hardly think that with true bigots out there she deserves the scorn of such a label. Doing so only isolates another supporter and creates more hardship in the fight for equality.

    As for the homosexual issue (sorry to call it an issue and upset those protectors of terminology). It is not narrow minded or ignorant to take note of a reality. Whether we like it or not, when there is a gay candidate in any election at some point or another someone will reference it, generally in the past as a determent to that candidate. Is that wrong? In my mind yes, but that does not change that as they say the "gay card" is played politics. Should we shun away from talking about the "coalition card", or "corporate tax card", or "deficit card", or "rent control card"? Whether people care for it or not, in modern politics the "gay card" is generally played when a homosexual candidate is involved. I think the Mistress was simply saying that playing that card distracts from the real issues much the same way as "coalition card" does right now.

    Considering that Hill has basically said Trost's practices are questionable, which by default also means Hill's are as well, I will not be surprised to see one of them play the "gay card" at some point this campaign with the goal of scoring some political points. Hill already did it in Municipal election, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see Trost pull it now.

    Good post Mistress, sorry about the rant. It just bothers me when people try to focus on nitpicking and personal attacks at the expense of constructive debate. To the posters here who think the Mistress us outdated, LEAVE THEN. Those who know her, while we may not always agree with her policy views, appreciate that someone who had the cajones to run for public office of some kind is willing to engage and debate with the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon 12:39 I know of a few churches and that would disagree with your 'facts' as well.

    Where again is the scientific proof that homosexuality isn't a choice?

    ReplyDelete
  12. This thread may be my top reason for thinking the political correctness thing has gone too far. Are we really going to get so sidetracked from the larger debate simply based on each terminology used?

    Anon 9:40 can probably be given a free pass, growing up with a homosexual daughter I have no doubt he has encountered numerous incidents of discrimination. Hearing 'choice', rightly or wrongly, touched a nerve that led him to his personal attack.

    Anon 12:39 using the word 'fact' in there probably wasn't the best choice either, but I don't think the end result is their entrenched position that predisposed homosexuality is a scientific fact.

    The Mistress cleared up her intent, there seems to be some testimonial that she isn't anti-homosexual and was using an outdated term. So what. She is not part of the problem.

    The longer people care to wage this debate on semantics and look to pick at the precise words people use the longer they ignore the larger overarching issue. Grow up people.

    Can we get back to the bigger issue of the post, the so called 'pot calling the kettle black'.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why would we want someone to be our MP who doesn't believe in government transparancy? Ms Repo had to speak up at city council to put an end to Darren Hill's attempt to stop citizens from making a record of PUBLIC meetings.

    She sent around emails to all of us to let us know of the motion and why we should be worried about it.

    If Hill had his way the only record of any meeting would be the official one from the government. If he doesn't believe in civil liberties at the local level, why trust him to protect our rights at a federal level?

    The scary thing is that he has never backed down from his position in limiting a citizen's right to document the representations made by government in public events.

    His motion was defeated due to the actions of a true rights crusader and community activist in Ms Repo but he still holds the same views of the rights of citizens.

    I'm so glad that I no longer live in his ward.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anon 1:25

    I watched council the day of the public meeting recording debate. It was not Hill's motion. It was Lorje's. Hill did agree with the motion at the first meting but at the next meeting voted against the motion.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm only going by what I remember from paper accounts and Ms Repo's emails. He spoke in favour of the motion. If he voted against it, it was only because people were pointing out how difficult it would be to police. He has never repudiated his support for the concept of restricting citizen liberties in the manner proposed in the motion. He only backed off when they couldn't figure out how to target citizens without targeting the media as well. For someone who now advocates the need for an open and accountable federal government his position on this matter is a continuing mark against him.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon 238pm. It's dangerous to suggest any reason why someone voted for or against an issue without actually asking him/her. Your making a large assumption based on third party accounts....

    ReplyDelete
  17. Prior to the 2009 election, Darren Hill held a campaign-style townhall in Sutherland, a community which at that time was not part of his ward. He sent out invites for the public meeting with a City of Saskatoon logo and, at the meeting, he made it sound like he was just a concerned councillor just there to listen to the residents concerns. He took names and contact information, and made special mention to the fact that the meeting was not being recorded. When confronted by one of his constituents on the dubious intention of the meeting, he flat-out denied that the it was in fact a campaign event. It was Pat Lorje who defended Hill's actions at that same event.

    Although his wrist was slapped by administration, he never to my knowledge claimed the meeting expenses against his election campaign.

    And this was before he held his "New 2 U" campaign in Sutherland parallel to the election campaign, which again he never claimed as an election expense.

    After the election, Hill made insinuations that his opponent had ran against him out of homophobic spite. This was a malicious slur and had it been made against a more litigious person, it might have landed him in a civil suit.

    Moreover, no city councillor has done more to re-write municipal election campagin rules than Darren Hill, who continues to earn a reputation as a distrustful and cynical opportunist among the political community.

    I'm no fan of Brad Trost, but I would love to see Trost absolutely and unequivolcally embarrass the hypocrtical Hill come May 2. Unfortunatly, I predict that Hill will once again smear his Christian opponent unjustly after his well-deserved romp.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I'm only going by what I remember from paper accounts and Ms Repo's emails. He spoke in favour of the motion. If he voted against it, it was only because people were pointing out how difficult it would be to police. "

    This wouldn't be the first time Hill spoke against one motion while voting in favour for it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. to anon 3:41 would one not have to find mr. trost to do said smear? the extreme right wing of the cpc has made this party very distasteful to right of center conservatives.what does mr. trost beliefs have to do with any of this? calm down and go to a prayer meeting

    ReplyDelete
  20. "I'm only going by what I remember from paper accounts and Ms Repo's emails. He spoke in favour of the motion. If he voted against it, it was only because people were pointing out how difficult it would be to police. He has never repudiated his support for the concept of restricting citizen liberties in the manner proposed in the motion."


    Wait, back the truck up a sec.


    Wasn't the whole debate about concerns from people that felt intimidated when other people (non-media) were shoving cameras & recording devices in their faces when speaking at public meetings?

    Aren't our elected officials supposed to represent ALL people? Including those that felt intimidated?

    Aren't they supposed to debate if a way can be found to ensure that everyone who wants to have their voice heard, does?

    Aren't they supposed to consider & debate ideas that may seem like a good idea at first blush, but are ultimately determined to be a bad idea? Or vice-versa?

    Aren't they supposed to represent their constituents and express their constituents opinions and concerns, even if they don't necessarily agree with them?

    Didn't council vote to send this back to committee to die a slow and painful death in the dustbin of bad ideas?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Prior to the 2009 election, Darren Hill held a campaign-style townhall in Sutherland, a community which at that time was not part of his ward. He sent out invites for the public meeting with a City of Saskatoon logo and, at the meeting, he made it sound like he was just a concerned councillor just there to listen to the residents concerns. He took names and contact information, and made special mention to the fact that the meeting was not being recorded. When confronted by one of his constituents on the dubious intention of the meeting, he flat-out denied that the it was in fact a campaign event. It was Pat Lorje who defended Hill's actions at that same event"



    "made special mention to the fact that the meeting was not being recorded."

    I seem to recall he said that the person who was going to take minutes couldn't make it. I think he mentioned that he was not recording (other than taking notes). I don't recall anyone at the meeting with a camera or anything.


    "When confronted by one of his constituents on the dubious intention of the meeting,"

    LOL! if by constituent, do you mean Carol Reynolds and her loudmouth campaign manager who did nothing but interrupt everyone (including the public) at the meeting? She couldn't even show up on time, so she sent her mouthpiece to interrupt everyone until she got there, then she took over. It was hard to even get a word in edgewise with those two.

    She could have learned something about the people & neighborhood she intended to represent if she had simply closed her mouth and opened her ears.

    I didn't even know who she was until that night, and her disgraceful behaviour guaranteed that I wouldn't vote for her. Regardless of whether I agreed with her position(s) or not.

    In fact, I believe that it was Hill's handling of her disruption that earned him some votes that night, IMO.

    "It was Pat Lorje who defended Hill's actions at that same event"

    I seem to recall Councilor Wyant was there that night too. I don't recall him objecting to the nature of the meeting.

    The only 2 people who seemed to think that it was a "campaign event" was Reynolds & her lackey.

    "He took names and contact information"

    From people who wanted to give that info. How dastardly.


    Good on Hill for taking the time to meet with residents of a neighbourhood that he would be representing (due to ward boundry changes) IF and only if he was re-elected.

    And good on Lorje & Wyant for listening too, even though their wards were in different areas of the City


    As for Brad vs. Darren?

    Darren returns my phone calls.

    Brad does not.


    'nuf said.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mistress, you are not entirely accurate with your comments.

    I attend the same church as some people that were working on Hill’s opponent’s campaign in the last city election. There certainly were communications suggesting how people should vote, based on Hill’s personal life. I was going to vote against Hill until this happened.

    I do not know if it was a directive of his opponent, an eager campaign worker or simply an independent person, but as a result I lost complete respect.

    I had the opportunity to hear Hill speak at the Breaking the Silence conference this year. He received a standing ovation after relaying parts of his personal story. I am amazed that he continues to want to hold public office after the hatred and abuse that he has experienced.

    Hills commitment to Saskatoon and Saskatchewan are admirable and now he will always have my vote no matter what he is running for or what banner he is running under.

    In a final note tolerance begins with each and every one of us. If, as adults we could demonstrate this maybe it will resonate with younger generations and we could stop the unnecessary teenage suicides that are a direct result of bullying.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The fallacy of our electoral process, idiots like this:

    "I do not know if it was a directive of his opponent, an eager campaign worker or simply an independent person, but as a result I lost complete respect. "

    So you had no idea who was responsible for starting the rumour, or suggestion, so your natural inclination was to randomly select Hill's political opponent and attribute blame there and lose all respect. Solid decision making.

    How can any rationale person lose all respect for someone on the basis of a hunch?

    ReplyDelete
  24. "I attend the same church as some people that were working on Hill’s opponent’s campaign in the last city election. There certainly were communications suggesting how people should vote, based on Hill’s personal life. I was going to vote against Hill until this happened.

    "I do not know if it was a directive of his opponent, an eager campaign worker or simply an independent person, but as a result I lost complete respect."

    It could hardly have come from Carol Reynolds. She didn't criticize Hill for anything, much less his orientation. Hill, on the other hand, was quick to accuse her of that.

    Who is the intolerant one here?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anon 8:52, the intolerant one is clearly the slimebag Darren Hill.

    As the original point of the posts highlights he is a complete hypocrite when it comes to running a campaign. He's allowed to side skirt the rules as he sees them, but the second someone else does something questionable then he is there is condemn them for it.

    Oh and if all else fails, he accuses them of being a bigot and against his lifestyle. The vast majority of figured out Hill's style.

    The worse part still is that he is already teaching it to his proteges. Thank god that girl from the previous by-election (little Miss Hill) didn't get elected.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 9:40 AM
    Seriously -"that girl"!!! "(little Miss Hill)???

    I think these quotations say everything we need to know about you. Please join the 21st Century anytime.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 9:40 am are you referring to Ainsley Robinson? The same lady that is a "Woman of Distinction" two time nominee, recognized as a "Woman of Influence" in Saskatoon .... plus many other accomplishments and community work ....

    Get Serious!

    ReplyDelete
  28. I can't wait to vote against Darren Hill. The only option in Saskatoon Humboldt to defeat Brad Trost is Denise Kouri.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Funny Darren Hill never resigned his seat on Council prior to running. Are all the hypocrites that blasted Wyant for not resigning prior to running going to come out of the wood work and rip Hill for double dipping (for the record I know he took the LOA, just emphasizing how principles of many only apply when it is convenient)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Darren Hill has taken an unpaid leave of absence during the campaign. Please find me where anyone asked Wyant to resign his seat completely.

    ReplyDelete
  31. A councillor can hold another office if they so choose. I believe Penner was both a councillor and MLA a few decades back.

    ReplyDelete
  32. All these comments about a guy who is going to get his butt kicked badly. The national campaign can't help as Iggy has no coattails for him to grab onto. This is also the riding which kept sending Jim Pankiw to Ottawa. Compared to Pankiw, Trost is as middle of the road as they come and Hill is way over on the left fringe with the Dippers and the Greens.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Can't wait to send Hill packing from ward 1!

    ReplyDelete

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