Did anybody actually read either one of Margaret Wente's columns? I mean actually read and comprehend, inwardly digest and otherwise get what she was saying. It reminds me of an e-mail I got today from a friend who passed on the comments of a Conservative friend of his. This Conservative guy couldn't understand that I found a positive aspect to Margaret Wente's first Danny Williams column. Well, b'y, I read it. And compared to Charlie Lynch, Margaret Wente should be given a guest spot on Hatching, matching and despatching or be feted by the local "Newfoundland" Club, if there is one anywhere near The Beaches.
All this comes after seeing the Fair Deal posting today and hearing Dave Salter on Out of the Fog. I am not even sure I'll turn on Nite Line for fear of hearing the same thing.
Let me make it easy: to understand Margaret's lastest musings on Newfoundland and the country, read the Globe and Mail editorial (If the provinces shout, Mr. Martin's all ears) on the other page.
And just so that there is no mistake and everybody gets it, here is the message:
The Globe and Mail does NOT support this offshore deal.
Let me go a step beyond that. The Toronto Star doesn't support the deal either.
What bothers them is the idea that Danny Williams got what he was looking for: oil revenues plus Equalization, even if we are richer than Ontario and wouldn't qualify for Equalization. So here we are with everyone in the country thinking danny won, when he didn't. Everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador is over the moon and more and more people across the country are definitely not that happy.
The problem with that is, as far as I am concerned, everyone is in a knot for the wrong reason.
So with that said, CSI is on and I have some Tim's coffee to enjoy.
2 comments:
Ed, give me a break.
This is Kevin, the Fair Deal guy. I don't really want a Blogger "profile" so I'm tagged as anonymous. Just a suggestion: if you can turn that requirement off you'd definitely get more comments -- if that's what you would like (web guy talking and the tone is not patronizing).
Stunned, baffled, dismayed that you could interpret and dismiss my post as a failure to understand that Wente + The Globe and Mail are not supportive of the deal. It seems to me that you chose to interpret the post in this way. It's abundantly clear that they are disappointed that Martin caved.
My point was, and I've added an addendum on my post to clarify this, that Wente thinks Williams got a good deal. This has nothing to do with her support of the deal. They are two completely different notions; do you see that, and if so, do you just plain disagree?
The guy did a good job for the people that put him in office. You might think that he didn't, which is fine, but I think that he did, and I think that history will judge him that way. If Wente can recognize this, I am suggesting that others can too. Simple.
On another note, I too believe that the jumping over the moon honeymoon phase is a little too heightened, but it can't be helped. It will end soon and reality will set in. Williams biggest challenge now is dampening expectations.
That said, if you really read my post and didn't get the point, re-read it. I'll take greater pains to write more clearly next time.
Kevin: Thanks for the post and for the observations. Let me say simply that people don't post here or identify themselves in any way publicly for a variety of reasons. They do send e-mails and that is a bit different.
As for Wente, I think we are talking at cross purposes. Wente most emphatically does not support this deal at all in any way, at least by my read.
As for the deal itself, it is a good one, but I think people are getting way too carried away with their enthusiasm before the deal and now afterward. If you interpret that as being pro-Danny or anti-Danny well, that's up to you.
Post a Comment