> “I won’t speak to the wording (of the statement about VAT made in the Speech from The Throne).

What does he mean? He is the Minister of Finance and those words are his government's words on VAT, which is under his portfolio. The Speech from the Throne, approved by the Cabinet of which he is part, is his government's legislative agenda. It is not simply a ceremonial read.

Is the priority here rushing promises or making sound fiscal decisions for the country at this critical period?

Why is the Party's Chairman speaking on Senate appointments? Only the Prime Minister ought to be doing this.

> The Minister of Tourism yesterday slammed as “absolute bull s*”

He needs to comport himself better than this.

If the money is not there, do not borrow to pay it. When you can see your way clear to paying it, do so. Successive governments refuse to make tough decisions when it comes to our tax dollars and how they are to be spent. It is why we are where we are today.

Go straight to hell Mitchell

Why are you quoting the Tribune's words? My comments are about Ingraham's words, and I cited those words in my post.

Where did Ingraham endorse Minnis? He said he stands in solidarity with the Party and its leader. You need to understand what that statement means. It means, I am FNM, so I'm not going to go against the FNM. That is all it means coming from Ingraham. If Ingraham were endorsing Minnis, he would do what only he can do, which is give a true recommendation of him based on what he knows of him that no one else can speak to. Not once in five years has Ingraham ever done that. And when asked directly about Minnis' capabilities, he refuses to answer and simply says, it is what it is and this is who we have. If you know Ingraham, you know what he is actually saying. Even if you don't know him, the fact that he refuses to say why Minnis would make a good Prime Minister says more than anything else.

> When one examines the Christie government’s record - with some of the “all for me baby” group being exposed as feathering their own nests first - it would indeed be a foolish people who would go to the polls on May 10 and vote for five more years of such failure.

Sure. But the Tribune has also told the nation that Minnis is not fit to be a Prime Minister and should do the honorable thing and step aside "for the good of the nation." So, would Bahamians also not be foolish to vote for him and his party if that were so? Or is the Tribune's position now is that "the savior" has stepped into the race, so it will be okay voting for an unfit leader?

> as he said its focus should not be on presenting itself to be the “moral police” of society.

With his alleged lifestyle, I'm not at all shocked he would say this. He would no doubt be too exhausted having to defend all his alleged improprieties.