I was surprised to receive today’s press release from the Coalition For Cayman (C4C) who were disappointed in the People’s Progressive Movement’s (PPM) alleged “personal attacks in an attempt to discredit the Coalition for Cayman and the leaders working to promote independent-minded leadership that will put Country First. They complain the “attacks only reinforce the divisive and negative image of political parties that discourages everyday citizens from participating in the democratic process.”

It is surprising seeing the C4C only last week accused the PPM leader Alden McLaughlin of being “inaccurate and misleading” in stating his support for the “one man, one vote” initiative, which the coalition was unsuccessfully trying to implement ahead of the May 
2013 general election.

“Not having been involved in the ‘one man, one vote’ efforts himself until the very last day due to public pressure and only after all of the work had been done by concerned citizens,” the C4C statement read, “it is not necessarily surprising that he is a bit out of touch on this issue and his views on the need for change are consistent with his leadership style.”

In retaliation McLaughlin noted that in 2002, Coalition for Cayman co-chairman James Bergstrom wrote a letter to the Caymanian Compass in opposition to the proposal for “one man, one vote”, at least in the 
scenario where it is applied to single member voting districts as was suggested in the July 2012 referendum.

Bergstrom’s letter was republished in the Compass by request for all who read the newspaper to see and it clearly did state he was against the present electoral system. He however advocated that 15 representatives – as existed at the time – could be elected in a different fashion by having seven chosen from the districts and the remaining eight representatives 
chosen from among all the voters. Not exactly One Man One Vote but he was against the present system.

McLaughlin accused the C4C of trying to delay the election hinting they as a group were not ready for the May General Election.

All good stuff. And when you are a politician you must be ready to take the hits and allow them to bounce off and come back with a counter punch.

The C4C started the attack and then cry “foul” and use it to reinforce their stance that ““attacks only reinforce the divisive and negative image of political parties that discourages everyday citizens from participating in the democratic process.”

I have to ask the question to them, does this not also apply to committees as the coalition have likened themselves to? Or can they hide behind the independent misconception that a party cannot make a personal attack on him/her?

If I were one of the C4C leaders I would delight in being attacked by one of the two major political parties if I was the new boy on the block.

The publicity one gets from it couldn’t be paid for. If you are not a threat no one cares what you say or do.

When after only three months of publication iNews Cayman and me in particular was hammered in the Legislative Assembly by the premier for one of my Editorials, I rejoiced. The publicity and our newspaper sales soared.

When the premier personally verbally attacked me last October in a church I grinned widely. I wasn’t insulted one bit. Many members of the congregation after the service congratulated me and I knew then they were going online and reading iNews.

So C4C to be attacked is good and shows you are indeed a threat.