In a voice verging on hysteria, a staunch PLP supporter was recently screaming into the telephone on one of the talk shows: "It was wrong then and it's wrong now! Two wrongs don't make a right! Two wrongs don't make a right! We should have learned our lesson!"

She was referring to moves by PLP backbenchers to unseat Dr Brown from the party leadership.

This was the same lady who at every challenge of questionable conduct by PLP leaders, especially the Premier, has spouted some version of "well, the UBP did it, so what's wrong with that."

Whether it's accusations of kickbacks, nepotism, flouting the law, race-baiting, unaccountable funds, you name it, her main song and dance has been to deflect the unethical, immoral or illegal act of the PLP Government by insinuating that if the UBP did it in the past, there should be no criticism of Dr. Brown or the PLP doing it now.

But Dr. Brown's current problem, shared by his boosters, is that their call for distancing themselves from repeating past wrongs just doesn't ring true. They want lessons to have been learned when it suits their desires, but reject doing right, as opposed to copying wrong, when it's their boy doing the wrong.

Another double standard rears its ugliest of heads when listing accolades for Dr. Brown's accomplishments. They want to give him credit for the petty largesse of free bus travel for students and seniors, free (oops, free for selected people) day care, extended benefits for seniors and so on.

They don't want to give him credit for the chaos caused in the taxi service, the excessive speed on our roads, the increasing scofflaw attitude among our youth and on our roads, exacerbated labour unrest, escalating violence and gun-related crimes, increased racial and ethnic tension – the list is extensive.

They want his head to pop up when there's praise to be handed out, and to duck out of sight when there's blame or shame at hand.

And when he is implicated in doing wrong, as in the firing of Ms Junos, or sluicing funds to friends, family or suspected scam artists, or "misleading" the public (friend and foe alike), he and his coterie then turn to character assassination, and spreading rumours and blame in every other direction.

We have noticed that it's the same voices who are given the job of attacking critics using sleazy tactics of rumour, innuendo and personal attacks. We have noticed the attempts to paint all critics as having personal motives (and we note that this says more about the Premier and his hench-ladies and -men than it does about the critics).

We are getting the clear impression that one only remains a friend of the Premier if one brings some gift that helps satisfy his craving for money, power and image.

As soon as one is no longer a potential contributor, then one is cast as enemy. The problem with this approach is that eventually one creates more "enemies" than friends. Downfall soon catches up.

To the mothers who want desperately to be proud of their sons, Dr. Brown is a surrogate – if he can be Premier, perhaps their sons can too.

To the males whose masculine image is unfulfilled, Dr. Brown is an icon – his continued success is theirs; should he fall, they worry they will fall with him.

To the partisans who have watched or heard of the downpressing of past leaders, Dr. Brown is almost a Messiah – here is a leader who stands up to the former masters, or at least to their offspring.

But the good doctor's flaws are creeping out from their shadows. His tyranny over those who are perceived as weak, whether they be the "indigent" in need of health care or disposable Civil Servants, is a progressively weightier albatross around his neck.

Acceptance of his propensity to spend public funds for his own aggrandisement is wearing thin. His readiness to pick a fight and to seek vengeance is shaking some of even the staunchest loyalists.

The PLP must now choose: fish or cut bait. It's their reputation and future on the line.