Allow me to sum up this long, tired drivel that is passing for an editorial, in one sentence: "The Tribune concedes that Fred Mitchell (and Jeanne Thompson, et. al) was right...we should not have endorsed the opposition leader.

You do realize that in this modern Bahamas, i.e., post 1992, that the FNM has held the government longer than the PLP, right? So, logically, wouldn't the FNM also be responsible for our debt, bloated civil service, et al.)?

Realitycheck242, I do not disagree regarding Mr. Brown's track record. Said track record, however, does not mean that what Mr. Brown has said is inaccurate.

EastenGate, but the kids at private schools generally come from more stable and affluent homes, with greater parental supervision and interest in the work of their kids. So one can argue that the private school teachers have an easier (note: not "easy") function. I think if you put the private school teachers in the public school environment, they would immediately complain to their union representative.

John, your overall point is well taken. However, just for your edification, the concessions policy that exists today is actually a relic of Sir Roland Symonette/Sir Stafford Sands, et al (well before 1973). Pindling merely continued with what was in place. Even the most sycophantic UBPs/FNMs/PLPs agree on this point. In fact, new-FNMs (read: old UBPs) still like to rattle the cages of the PLP by reminding them that, despite the claim of independence and a better day for Bahamians, we (i.e. The Bahamas) still utilize one of the UBPs primary policies. Though I take your point that the policy should be revisited and even abolished, if necessary.

I find your comments hypocritical. On one hand you ask for us to "put that aside if only for today", but on the other hand, you begin your comments with "I was no fan of his politics". Who cares if you were a fan or not. Pray for his soul and that of his loved ones, politics be damned.

Socrates, do not be petulant. You can disagree with your party's stance, internally and externally, on certain issues without resorting to nonsense such as "crossing the floor". Vaughn Miller was quite accurate, the FNM campaigned, and ultimately won, on the grounds that Perry was corrupt and that they (FNM) represented a new time, "a people's time", if I may. What is happening now is the antithesis of the campaign promise. It is quite fair of the 4 MPs to point out this dichotomy. Let's try and have mature discussions...

Sorry, I stopped reading this drivel after the first paragraph...the Tribune cannot spell either "measured" or "objective", even with a dictionary. Any first year journalism student, of which I was one a few moons ago, can point out the obvious FNM slants over the decades.
Stop it Tribune...but, thank you so much for the huge laugh, it was a welcomed respite from my work.

Jetfit, not that I find defending George Smith a good thing, but, you are incorrect in this instance. George routinely blasted PLPs (Miller, Fitzgerald,Maynard-Gibson) who all were caught in compromising positions.

So BahamaPundit, admittedly, I was laughing at your suggestion...and, called you a few unflattering names while I was at it. But the more I think about it, you may have a point...actually, I think you have a very valid point. Don't think we have the temerity to go that far, though. Apologies for judging the book by only looking at the cover...