#2 2009-11-02 16:29:17
As an “outsider looking in,” and as someone who has not made the misstep of becoming part of the news it’s my job to cover...
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant
Offline
#3 2009-11-02 18:15:25
cas, I couldn't agree more, except...
slager has been pulling his stuff & nonsense for years, including the time he spent with the Courier. the Courier is loathe to admit, even in a peripheral manner, that anything that they published could possibly be an error, or Over the Top, or out-of-bounds, or whatever. "rob" is their boy, after all, so he gets an oblique tap on the wrist. My first grade teacher, Miss Crabbe, would have broken several rulers whackin' that hand puppet; I think that I still have scars from that year in the 2-room schoolhouse with the pot-bellied stove (no lie).
And, it appears that the list of 'Slagophiles' is growing (yes, hard to believe). We had the fosterchild a few weeks ago, who made it clear that his only public statement would be thru you-know-who. Now, the Chairperson of the BoS has joined up, refusing to talk to the Courier. the Courier, Brucie? didn't they publish your long polemic in favor of the Westfield project just a short while ago? We know, Sweet Brucie, that any conversation with Mr. Steve U. of the S-T is out-of-the-question, now don't we? Except for the cursing & swearing part, that is. Yes, Brucie, you set a fine example, a wonderful exemplar of the the leadership that any town needs. Cuss out them reporters. characterize the majority voters in your town as having "black hearts". Take the Rodney Dangerfield approach: " I asked the doctor for a second opinion. OK, you're ugly!" Yeah, sweet Brucie, you're a real pip (apologies to gladys Knight et al).
And the decorum at the Town Meeting results in intimidation. Are you kidding? Your own article says that the Westfield debate spanned two hours! Hello? couldn't be too much 'intimidation' if voters trooped to the mikes for TWO hours. Sounds like a losers lament.
but there is a point to made about the decorum. and here's the point: WHERE WAS THE BLITHERING IDIOT OF A TOWN MODERATOR?????
I have been to countless town meetings in multiple communites over the past 35 years. It is the job of the Moderator to control the meeting. To use his gavel. To lecture the body, if necessary, on what is acceptable or not. I have seen a moderator order the removal of a recalcitrant individual from town meeting. The photos of cops escorting a frail-looking senior
(who wouldn't shut up at the moderator's repeated requests) out of the hall made the front pages.
"Government, short of a coup, cannot be redesigned at the will of one person" Oh, really. check out Venezuela, Bolivia, Honduras. WAIT. that last one, Honduras. Pres. Zelaya tried to "redesign" the Honduran constitution, to allow himself to continue in office past his term limit date, which I believe is this coming January. But, responsible people in Honduras, including the Congress and the Supreme Court, stepped up and said NO! Under the Honduran constitution, even an attempt at such a revision is grounds to be removed from office. So. Zelaya has been out of office for months.
A constitution on the federal level, perhaps compares to a Town charter on the local level. Ask yourself Mr. Smith, has one person, with some cronies aiding & abetting, attempted day-by-day, point-by-point, year-over-year to "redesign" the Town government?
I do not mean to be overly critical. I do respect your attempt to present a fair and balanced look from the 'outside'. No one knows that perspective better than this writer. Please, sir, please: stay the course. Make your newspaper, unlike the one that aspires to, but falls far short of earning that designation; make your newspaper the one that Wareham turns to for fair and balanced reporting. God knows it is sorely needed.
Offline
#4 2009-11-02 23:17:16
Wow, it's like, any amount of criticism for Sweet Brucey automatically results in Bobo flailing his limbs like a spider monkey on crack trying to jump in front of it and deflect it.
David Smith of the Courier wrote:
We would like to provide you with more on Mr. Sauvageau’s thoughts on the matter, but he has declined to respond to questions we asked him. Whatever his issue with the Courier or any of its staff, Sauvageau’s refusal to answer us signifies disrespect to our readers, who are, after all, the voters he is asking to support him and his board. Hate us all you want, Bruce, but don’t take it out on those you were elected to represent. It’s just bad politics to ignore a soapbox placed at your feet.
Why would Sweet Brucey bother talking to any paper other than the rag that he carries in his back pocket?
Bobo, Official Court Jester of King Brucey, Came to Sweet Brucey's Defense (as a good lackey always does):
I spoke to Sauvageau before Smith’s column was posted on the Courier web site.
Let me just pick up my Sweet Brucey red phone, my direct line that rings straight through to Brucey!
I asked him if other newspapers had contacted him.
Because I get very jealous if my Beloved Brucey is talking to reporters other than me! You've been talking to other reporters, haven't you Brucey? Haven't you?!!
He said the Courier had, in fact, called him. He said the reporter asked him if he was suffering some sort of nervous breakdown.
“When they want to ask me professional questions I will give them professional responses,” Sauvageau told me.
Seems like a legitimate question to me. We've been wondering if he's been suffering from some sort of nervous breakdown for years. In fact, it would explain alot.
Offline
#5 2009-11-03 00:27:58
Nervous breakdowns aren't anything to laugh about. I don't see Bruce slanted towards one. I see arrogance and power turning into pure ANGER. Now, that is something to be concerned about. Any shrinks out there with the correct word? Brenda, on the other hand, could be having a breakdown, what with her comments and outbursts, her tears and her shaking body but I also notice she never smiles. Full of anger. Dangerous.
Offline
