Brad Cabana’s candidacy is ruled invalid.
The Telly reported based on Cabana’s Twitter feed. CBC reported based on comments by convention co-chair Shawn Skinner and Cabana.
- srbp -
OK so I read the membership section about who could be members and who are members. It seemed pretty clear to me that only riding association memebers (past and present), provincial executive members (past and present) and MHA's (past and present) etc can sign nomination forms. Why wouldn't Cabana know that? Was it kept from him? Should Skinner and company have just held their noses and let it go?
And what section or sections would that be, Art?Don't worry it's a trick question. There are no such sections.So where did you read them?That isn't a trick question.
Articles 5 and 6 of their constitution as posted on Peter Whittle's page
Article Five doesn't say "only riding association memebers (past and present), provincial executive members (past and present) and MHA's (past and present) etc can sign nomination forms."Article Six only tells us what the affiliated organizations must do to be in good standing.So far you have come up with absolutely zip.I still haven't found any provision that tells what constitutes a member in good standing of one of the affiliated associations, especially considering that Article 12 lays out one rule for candidate nominations and, as Shawn Skinner confirmed, the party doesn't follow the constitutional provisions on that.Keep looking, if you want, or actually quote the bits that say what you think they said. Hint: there is no such section.The Tories don't want a leadership fight. period. They are worried about the divisions. They don't want to incur the cost on top of all the other costs. They had already brokered a backroom deal and even though Cabana met the requirements, to let him succeed would have open up the can of worms the back room boys packed away before Christmas.Rather than have you look for stuff that doesn't exist, why not just sit back and see if Brad goes to court.Oh yes, and watch all the Tories online who are finding the scrutiny of their internal tortures to be a little uncomfortable.
But what's the story on this Cabano fellow ( and I have to say that when I heard his name I thought it was something made up). Is he a sh*t disturber or delusional?(Not that sh*t disturbers or delusional people can't run for office or be involved in politics. That would mean we could only be governed by the extremely well medicated and there would be no fun in that)
It's amazing that the self-proclaimed cream (rich and thick) of the NL legal establishment left such gaping loopholes (Mac truck sized, in fact) in such a critical part of their constitution.However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this situation that more lawyers couldn't cure.Make the Call, Brad, Make the Call!
Art, ya got me as to who he is and please don't take my bluntness and sarcasm for anything more than getting at the foolishness of the PC official claim that what their constitution says and what they have been doing are the same thing. They aren't. I understand there are reasons for their little show but that's another matter.I only came across Cabana online before Christmas after he made a few comments. he didn't seem interested in actually discussing his comments but lots of people don't like to go beyond their platitudes. I've never met the guy. He reminds me of a bunch of people who have been around local politics on and off over the past 40 odd years. Some of them made it into cabinet for either the Liberals or the Conservatives. You can judge for yourself if he is delusional, a shit disturber or just a guy who thinks that he can make some kind of positive difference. None of that actually has any bearing on what has gone on.And yes Simon, their constitution is a mess. The Liberal one on the same sorts of issues needs an over haul. I haven't looked at the NDP one. meanwhile I have a couple of posts (one tomorrow and another on Thursday) that should put some of this in a wider perspective.
Lono, you owe me one keyboard.
I will go with the guy who wants to make a positive difference. Perhaps if more people stood up there would be less on the knees. My passion and concern is for the people of this Province. Brad.
Wonderful thoughts Brad but when does the court case start?
The appeal process starts first. That will begin today. Brad
And since the people who are hearing the appeal were either involved in the original decision or, like Skinner are in a gross conflict of interest, I look forward to your legal challenge.
Of course you look forward to the legal challenge Ed....not because of your geniuine interest in Mr. Cabana but to satisfy your blinding partisn motives. Afterall the quicker this issue comes to some sort of fruition the quicker you will have to deal with the Libs leadership issues.... but then again, that's not going to happen because you never talk about those sorts of things.Your concern is full of genuine sincerity
all this partisan banter aside...i look forward to brad stepping up to the plate and offering us some thoughts on nalcor, the tendering process, the closed books, the 'privatization' deal with emera on our transmission link and how all that might tie into star lake, future water rights, export of our water etc.all you suits see things in black and white, us and them (lib., pc). get over it. the guys running the place have been using that as a shield to carry out their business interests underneath.look at tobin up there in labrador this morning with the iron ore deal. think he got there through being a nice guy liberal? or sitting in the rooms of power first as a politician then as a student of ted rogers? grow up and act like adults please. there is simply too much at stake here.
Murph:regular readers long ago spotted you as one of the Conservative partisans. You have all the hallmarks; you use their talking points (like just now) and use the classic Tory tactic: you attack the person rather than deal with the issue.The fact you are back reveals nothing other than the depth of anxiety in Tory circles. The more you comment, the more you reveal the depth of their anxiety.The more shrill your comments the more you reveal that anxiety.Please. Tell us more.How tight are the bums in the bunker?
Would you mind telling your regular readers what "talking points" I am using?I for one would like to know what they are? Because if I am...then I am clairvoyant!I also wonder if the regular readers chuckle over this comment..."you attack the person rather than deal with the issue"I find that extremely funny from someone who has earned the nickname "Ed Hominin" around these parts...too funny!And as for me being back...well, please indulge me for highlighting your comments that reek of partisanship and bullshit. Once you stop your holier than though comments ...I'll stop!Btw, how are things progressing in the Humber by-election? Maybe Graham Letto will be throwing his hat in the ring. Afterall, he has met the requirement that he must be working for the Party to have a name on the ballott. Brilliant!
In case you didn't notice, Murph, I already changed the subject. My post for today was about patronage.You ignored that and instead went off on your usual diatribe that follows the partisan talking points I already noted in the earlier comment. That's one of the things makes your earlier comment so hysterically funny. Anyway, keep it up, Murph. If you didn't exist I'd have to invent you. As it is, you make my point about Conservatives for me. Keep up the good work under whatever name you are writing under at the moment.
Post a Comment