On the 4th of June, 2012, I logged onto myjoyonline.com and stumbled on the article: ?If the NDC is in the ditch, where are the Rawlingses.?
The article was a great read; sensationally titled, professionally written, but unprofessionally biased with a few na?ve arguments thrown in here and there.
The writer of said article wrote and I quote: ?Whether by his own design or through an accident of fate, former President Rawlings is really ill-at-ease?and with his wife in tow, he is suffering the pang!?
I disagree with the above and the writer.
Mr. Rawlings is in a strange situation currently but he IS NOT ill at ease.
To the writer’s titled question I’ll answer thus: the Rawlingses; Mr. Rawlings in particular is in the ditch but not fully submerged like the rest of the Umbrella family. He’s in but keeping his head and shoulders above water, above board unlike some politicians I know, who’ll go to every length to try preventing a celebration from taking place at a particular place.
The writer continued and stated thus: ?The NDC has run itself into a ditch, leaving the Rawlingses unscathed? How did that happen? One might ask further: Being the blind leading a blind party, can the party alone fall into the ditch without them??
I wonder if the writer knew what he was talking about there. Rawlings being a blind leader leading the NDC into the ditch? What made him think Rawlings was and is the bus driver?
For his information, Rawlings ceased to be an influential figure immediately Mills was sworn in. Mills, to make mockery of the old argument that he was Dr. Boom’s personal pawn, immediately distanced himself and his government from having an intimate relationship with the party founder. It’s as simple as that.
Rawlings wasn’t and isn’t leading the NDC. And he IS NOT blind, please.
The wrier continued again: ?The real issue is that it is the Rawlingses who have fallen into the ditch, dragging the party along with them. Indeed, from all that has been going on ever since they decided to lock horns with President Mills and all those not in favour of their political excesses, one can tell that their political edifice has fallen apart and its centre cannot hold anymore. That is what they fear now and are hiding behind this ?ditch? metaphor to portray.?
Sounds like this guy doesn’t believe in such a thing as internal democracy.
Of course, opinions are like noses; everybody has one, and he’s free to air his own. But I disagree with his wild conjectures.
Towards the end of the article, he also droned on and on about the Rawlingses not being free from corruption and so on and so forth; then climaxed it with the perception that a corrupt person shouldn’t criticize another corrupt person.
What? He should come again, please.
Rawlings isn’t squeaky clean mouse but he can criticize corruption if he wants to and he does do so; whether such corrupt acts are perpetrated on a gargantuan scale or in a wawa way, right?
Source: Stanley Courage Dugah.
