I am only asking the questions

OVERNIGHT I got the opportunity to see the “controversial” report in question that got the ire of the Prime Minister’s Office; and earlier this morning I also got to see Richard Simon’s TV interview on the issue.

Now to be fair to Richard, I am near certain he doesn’t have a enough of a clue of the internal happenings of the National Democratic Congress because (a) don’t think he has the time to really do an independent investigation (b) he really does not need to because that is not his beat and (c) that he is not held in such confidence as to be openly and genuinely briefed.

He said he was trying to correct some inaccuracies.

What I did not get clear is who determined they were inaccuracies?

How does Richard know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are?

Did the Prime Minister himself tell him that they were inaccurate? Did the Prime Minister really tell him so? Did he? Can he watch the nation with a straight face and say so?

Thomas is a politician, maybe he can.

Did any other party official tell Richard so?

Could he get the senior executive members of the party to deny the truth of the report on the record?

And when he said in his letter that it was not true that the Prime Minister has been meeting in some constituencies without the knowledge of the MPs, did he speak to Michael Church and Sylvster Quarless and Alleyne Walker?

Did Richard even ask Glen Noel, who is the common dominator in attending all those MP-absent meetings?

Did he listen to the audio of the Prime Minister’s comments about what he did and can do and will do at the General Council meeting in Carriacou on Sunday?

Glen, if Richard says you say that is not true, I would say Richard lying on you.

But Richard you said the Advocate report quoted no sources. Fine! What’s the source of your rebuttal again?

And when you said the Prime Minister had no slate or no candidate preference – can the Prime Minister get on record as saying that?

And can he ask the party executive members?

Man, I am with your standards. I need a source. I want to believe you bad, but I need a source.

And if the Prime Minister says he is not running with Joe Gilbert and with George Prime – and can say that openly – is he leaving those spaces blank?

While at it, ask him for me, is he running with Alleyne Walker still? And Sylvester Quarless? And Glynis Roberts?

I just need a source man.

But, what if the constituency branches elect them to run again – what will the Prime Minister do?

Hijack democracy again (boy that’s just me trying to get under George Grant’s skin), or do a Herbert Blaize?

And what is the Prime Minister doing asking people to support his team?

Oh Tity man you got the thing wrong. The Prime Minister has a team not a slate.

Get a lesson from Richard in semantics.

Richard, my dictionary says about the word team: number of persons associated in some joint action.

It says of slate: a list of candidates, officers, etc., to be considered for nomination.

Can we inter-change them? Or am I getting too brilliant for my own good?

Teach me man; teach me. Doh leave me hanging so!

And since we are talking about politics, what so damning about any political leader having a slate or a team, that it puts him in such a bad light, there needs to be an apology or retraction?

(Oh! I just get it. He is Mr Democrat, and he supposed to wait on the process. But it’s allyu that believe in democracy. Good for allyu. I never got caught up in that managed farce).

BTW, if he thinks he was slandered and his character was smirched, then take Advocate to court nah!

Another question – with the caucuses he has been holding without most of the MPs and the party executive, why are those not political strategy meetings?

The last time I used the word caucus, I was rebuked by George Grant. He said it is inaccurate, it was just a meeting, not a caucus.

But my dictionary lying to me again! It tells me caucus is a meeting of party members.

Oops sorry! Maybe George Grant has a point.

Are those meetings with real party members?

Boy, I just asking the questions. I don’t have the answers.

Since you in the business of correcting inaccuracies, teach me man!

The Prime Minister said on record he has discussing with elders and people close to party the way ahead with elections a year away.

What is this? A strategy meeting, or a comedy show?

Semantics again! Here you go Hamlet.

My dictionary tells me strategy is a plan, method or series of manueuvers or strategems for obtaining a specific goal or result.

It also tells me about comedy: a dramatic work in which the central motif is the triumph over adverse circumstance.

So can I call those meetings a comedy show?

Eh, George? Eh, Richard?

Now I am getting too fancy.

But since you have the facts and are in a position to correct inaccuracies, I suspect you can find the answers to my more serious questions

Remember I don’t have the answers. I am just asking the questions.

PS: On a personal note. Pardner accept my sympathies. Sorry for the trouble I got you in. I just don’t hope “they” setting you up.

Do the government work, and tell them leave you out of the party melee.

Glen is quite capable of handling that part himself – as the “chairman” of the Prime Minister’s slate.

Opps! Sorry!

What do I know?

I am only supposed to be asking questions.