There has been no shortage of North Vancouver political topics to discuss lately. And just when you think the November Municipal Election was ancient history this one comes to light. I recall sitting in the Highland United Church waiting for the All Candidates meeting to commence when I was handed literature entitled 'The Real Hazen Colbert Report'.
Read more from the North Shore News article Friday, March 5
10 comments:
Curran must be hopping mad!
Well, as far as Mr. Curran is concerned, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
That aside, I had the opportunity to see Mr. Colbert in action at one of the all candidates meetings, and I can only describe him as a bully without a real grasp of or solution to the various issues concerning the electorate. And I say that with no prior knowledge of the "Colbert Report". I would say Mr. Colbert got exactly what he deserved too.
When the dust settles, the lawsuit will be dismissed and they will both slink off into their respective little corners.
Colbert slammed the incumbents for bad decisions they made. He is entitled to do that. It's called democracy. Curran decided that he was going to defend these incumbents, as he is pro-development at all costs. He has spoken to DNV council to have a "code of conduct" enforced, which is a useless idea during a municipal election. Dirty tricks?? Robocalling? The Federal Conservative fiasco where people were steered to an incorrect voting place... it goes on at all levels of government. Colbert was the scapegoat for Curran's rants and he passed out brochures slamming Colbert's character. Unacceptable.
Neither one of them has much to be proud of, IMHO.
While you may have a point as far as Mr. Curran's behaviour is concerned, the brochures he was handing out were not widely circulated to my knowledge.
Therefore, I guess one could conclude that the electorate who did not vote for Mr. Colbert made their decisions based on what they saw/heard of the man and not what they read about him courtesy of Mr. Curran.
12:42:
Curran attacked a candidate's character during a municipal campaign. This is not acceptable.
But Mr. Colbert attacked the character of other candidates during the election. Does that not count?
He did not attack their characters. He made reference to their bad decisions. Big difference.
Not at the meeting I was at!
Does anyone have a copy of the newsletter?
So many opinions based on not having read any of the material. Where were all of these indignant moralizers when Colbert made false allegations about council entertaining developers at taxpayer expense in the District hall's "dream kitchen"?
Curran did not defend the incumbents, but has continually pressured them to make decisions based in study and demonstrated outcomes.
Post a Comment