Fred Mitchell, the ever-loyal Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), continues his now well-worn routine of warning the Bahamian public that the Free National Movement (FNM) is engaging in “nasty politics.” This would be a fair concern—if it weren’t for the fact that Mitchell himself, along with his fervent band of PLP loyalists, has already dragged Bahamian politics into the gutter with rhetoric far worse than anything they accuse the FNM of. The irony is almost poetic.

As 2025 begins, the PLP has seemingly donned its full war armor—not one of progress, unity, or even basic governance, but of hatred and division. Their political strategy appears less about solutions and more about manufacturing “battles” to justify their aggression. And leading the charge? The usual suspects, armed with baseless accusations, racial paranoia, and the usual dose of fear-mongering.

If there’s one thing the PLP has mastered over the years, it’s the art of weaponizing race to keep its base in check. Former PLP Member of Parliament Leslie Miller recently resurrected this tactic with his absurd remarks about “Project 2025,” claiming it was an FNM-led conspiracy to get rid of or suppress black Bahamians. Let that sink in: Miller, without a shred of evidence, accused the FNM—led by a Bahamian of color—of colluding with the “white man” to oppress black people.

This is nothing more than the same tired race-baiting narrative the PLP has peddled for decades, now dressed up with a modern, Trump-era twist. The story goes like this: The “wicked and evil white man” is always lurking, waiting to rob Bahamians of their future, and the only way to stop him is unwavering loyalty to the PLP. Never mind the fact that this narrative is divisive, outdated, and harmful. Never mind that it actively distracts from real issues like economic stagnation, crime, and governmental mismanagement. To the PLP, stoking racial paranoia is far more useful than governing.

Not to be outdone, Chairman Fred Mitchell has been busy playing his own twisted version of identity politics. In response to a claim made by the Member of Parliament for St. Anne’s, Mitchell saw fit to twist the discussion into racial terms.

• “Exactly what do you mean when you say ‘there is nothing good for someone that does not look like him,’ Chairman Mitchell?”
• “What do you mean by ‘when they see a man like Adrian White,’ Chairman Mitchell?”

Mitchell, who is no stranger to inflammatory rhetoric, seems to be openly suggesting that Adrian White—an FNM politician and a white Bahamian—is some sort of bogeyman to be feared. What is the message here? That Bahamians should view their fellow citizens through the lens of skin color rather than merit? That white Bahamians cannot represent or act in the best interest of the nation? If these statements had come from an FNM official, they would have been met with national outrage. But because it’s the PLP, we’re supposed to just let it slide?

The most laughable part of all this is that the PLP constantly portrays itself as the victim while being the aggressor. They feign outrage when criticized, yet have no problem unleashing the nastiest political attacks imaginable. They cry foul when challenged but are always the first to dive headfirst into mudslinging. This is not the behavior of a party that genuinely cares about the Bahamian people—it’s the behavior of a party that sees politics as a blood sport, where the goal is to destroy the opposition by any means necessary.

Let’s be clear: This is not governance. This is not leadership. This is not even effective opposition politics. This is a desperate attempt by the PLP to deflect from its failures and maintain control by sowing division. The Bahamian people deserve better than this petty, race-baiting, intellectually dishonest nonsense. If the PLP is truly worried about “nasty politics,” they should start by looking in the mirror.

Until then, their crocodile tears will fool no one.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END

As expected, Fred Mitchell, the self-appointed defender of the “New Day” Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), has once again graced us with his melodramatic finger-pointing. This time, he’s attempting to claim that a full-page ad in The Tribune—one allegedly targeting the Free National Movement (FNM)—is some grand act of political sabotage. Predictable, isn’t it? When all else fails, Fred’s go-to strategy is to blame the FNM.

In his characteristic bluster, Mitchell suggests that the Members of Parliament featured in the ad should sue because their images were used without permission. But let’s get real—who’s truly behind this so-called “fake ad”? Mitchell’s over-the-top accusations don’t just strain credulity; they collapse under the weight of their own absurdity.

And then there’s Mitchell’s sanctimonious diatribe about the ad’s ethical breaches, which he describes as an “unlawful tortious interference in a contractual right.” (Bravo for pulling that one out of the legal jargon hat, Fred!) Yet, he conveniently ignores the elephant in the room: the growing chorus of PLPs voicing their dissatisfaction with Hon. I. Chester Cooper. These voices aren’t coming from the FNM, Fred—they’re coming from your camp. Are you seriously unaware of the internal power plays? Or are you just playing dumb because it’s politically expedient?

Let’s examine the plausibility of Mitchell’s claims. According to him, the FNM is behind this “vicious” act, orchestrating an elaborate scheme to fool voters. Really, Fred? Is this the best deflection you could muster? Here’s a more likely scenario: the ad was placed by someone within the PLP, someone with a vested interest in propelling Coleby-Davis further up the party ranks. Perhaps it’s part of a backroom promise gone awry. If the plan failed, no problem—blame the FNM. It’s a textbook move from the PLP playbook of “nasty politics,” isn’t it?

And speaking of nasty politics, Mitchell doesn’t stop at wild accusations. He drags Dr. Dwayne Sands, FNM chairman, into the mud, rehashing old scandals and taking cheap shots. Is this your idea of elevating the political discourse, Fred? Or is this just more proof of how low the PLP is willing to sink when their own house is in disarray?

Here’s a reality check for you, Fred: your party is not the fortress of solidarity you would like us to believe. It’s more like a crumbling facade, barely holding together under the weight of its own infighting. When Prime Minister Davis called for an end to the PLP’s internal squabbles, is this the chaos he was referring to? Or is this just the latest in a long line of disasters that highlight the PLP’s utter dysfunction?

So, Fred, while you flail about trying to pin this fiasco on the FNM, maybe it’s time you turned your attention inward. The real issue isn’t the Free National Movement (FNM)—it’s the power struggles, backstabbing, and utter lack of cohesion within your own party. Your deflections are not fooling anyone, and your desperate attempts to control the narrative are as transparent as your party’s increasingly hollow promises.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason; it is their nature.

END

Oh, Fred Mitchell—because when you need a distraction, who better to step up to the podium with ignorance and bluster disguised as gravitas? The chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) has once again graced us with his unique blend of deflection and contempt, this time targeting the Leader of the Opposition, the Honorable Michael Pintard, over his entirely valid remarks concerning the appointment of not one, but two deputy police commissioners. Yes, Fred, because what the nation really needed was another lecture from you on how to misunderstand both the law and leadership in a single breath.

Let’s start with the substance—or rather, the lack of it—on Mitchell’s part. Pintard, to his credit, delivered a thoughtful critique, clearly stating, “We are in support of the prime minister’s proposal to appoint Sr. Deputy Commissioner Andrews. We are not in support of an appointment of an additional Sr. Deputy of Police. There is no provision in the law. While there has been precedent where it has been done, there is no provision in the law for a second deputy commissioner.” Now, pause here. No provision in the law. Not exactly a trivial point, wouldn’t you say? And yet Mitchell, rather than addressing this glaring issue, chose the well-worn path of ad hominem attacks and fear mongering.

Fred; precedent is not law. I’ll repeat that slowly for the folks in the back: Precedent is not law. It’s the bureaucratic equivalent of saying, “Well, we’ve done it before, so it must be fine.” Wrong. The legal foundation for appointing a second deputy commissioner is nonexistent, and no amount of Mitchell’s hand-waving changes that. If anything, Pintard is doing his job—calling out actions that lack statutory support and questioning decisions that could undermine the credibility of the very institution tasked with upholding the law.

But Mitchell? Oh no, he’s not interested in such pesky details. Instead, he’s busy peddling the narrative that Pintard is “unstable” and “unfit to lead.” Classic PLP strategy:  When you can’t defend the policy, attack the person. Because who needs substance when you have slogans and insults, right?

And then there’s the larger issue of governance—or, in the PLP’s case, the utter lack thereof. Mitchell has the audacity to cast stones while standing in a house not just made of glass, but riddled with cracks from years of scandals, corruption, and failure. From one debacle to the next, the PLP has managed to string together a legacy of mediocrity and mismanagement, with little to show for it other than empty promises to the very working poor they claim to champion.

A quick reminder, Fred: Not every criticism is an attack. Pintard’s concerns are rooted in the law and in the optics of this appointment’s potential to undermine public confidence. But Mitchell, as always, prefers to twist this into an opportunity to sow division, relying on what he must believe to be the electorate’s short memory and low expectations. Here’s the problem: the Bahamian people are smarter than you think, Fred. They can see through this charade.

And now, let’s address the elephant in the room—or should I say, the ticking time bomb that is the PLP’s new 90-day crime-fighting plan. Yes, folks, a 90-day plan, as if crime is a temporary inconvenience that can be swept under the rug with a catchy deadline. Let’s ask the obvious question: does this shiny new plan imply that every previous initiative was an abject failure? Of course it does. And here’s the kicker: by introducing this “bold new strategy,” the PLP is effectively hanging the outgoing Commissioner of Police out to dry, hoping we’ll all forget the years of failed policies that preceded it.

Fred, if this is what stability and leadership look like to you, I’d hate to see chaos. Instead of focusing on his petty war of words with Pintard, Mitchell might want to take a good, hard look at his own party’s failures—and then, perhaps, do us all a favor and sit this one out.

Because here’s the truth: the PLP’s playbook of “Hate Through Ignorance” is wearing thin. The Bahamian people deserve better than cheap theatrics, empty slogans, and leaders who are more interested in scoring political points than solving real problems. So, Fred, the next time you want to climb your rhetorical soapbox, perhaps come armed with facts, solutions, and a little humility. Until then, maybe it’s time for you to stop talking and start listening.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for reason, it is their nature.

END