To the editor:
My friend is fond saying, “you can’t reason with a drunk.”
But after the Capital News story Two Sides Square Off Over Tax Vote (June 1), we can probably include BillVander Zalm and Chris Delaney in that expression. It’s tough to reason with the anti-HST.
Reading Vander Zalm’s comments about this referendum being “a matter of trust” gets a little thick when you remember that as premier, his own attorney general found him in a conflict of interest.
And, when the former premier describes this government’s reducing the HST as a bribe, well that too gets a little rich when you remember that he was the one accepting cash in a paper bag as payment for Fantasy Gardens—while holding office as premier.
The real tragedy with their inflammatory comments is it denigrates our public discourse on what should be a reasoned public debate. Citizens wishing to make informed decisions are hardly helped when they have to weigh facts (pro HST) against half truths, hype, style, emotion, and erroneous suppositions (anti-HST).
Maybe I should have a few drinks. Then their comments might make sense.