News   Apr 26, 2024
 2.7K     5 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 735     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 1.4K     1 

Rob Ford - Why the Supervillian?

Rob Ford could provide oodles of Lastmanesque comic relief (and I believe there's a place for this in municipal politics that we don't really want at the provincial level and can't afford at the federal level), but remember that Lastman was the mayor of North York, running against Hall, the mayor of Toronto...and that was the whole election. Two quarters duking it out and the rest of the city had to take sides (which they did in a neat north/south divide across the city roughly at Eglinton). Rob Ford is just a councillor, same as Mammoliti and Pantalone - there's 6 name candidates instead of 2 and no one has a geographic base larger than a ward/riding. I don't think Ford's ward success and satisfaction will translate well city-wide, but you never know...there's still months of campaigning and faux pas left and 6 could become 3 or 4 very quickly, giving Ford more time at the lectern to convert people across the city beyond what the Sun or whatever other outlet will grab on his behalf.
 
I think the noticable queer tilt among UTers skews the acronymic MSM issue--but to me, too, yeah, "MSM" refers first and foremost to "mainstream media".

You might as well object to the use of the term "Teabaggers".
The problem with these cliquey phrases is that fewer people understand them than one might think. I've not seen MSM in either of the two uses. Working with organic chemicals, my first throught is dimethylsulfone. Being British, I might think Meritorious Service Medal, and having going through a lot of CVs recently, I might think Master of Science in Management.

As for teabaggers ... surely they have machines for that now. Though I prefer loose leaf. I have no idea what this refers to - a synonym for a sandbagger (someone who sandbags someone)?

We'd all be better off if we were a bit more verbose here.
 
Typical liberal strategy: sling the mud rather than talk about real issues...

Is it any wonder that Left-wing thought is never able to sell itself to the average person? This is why Left-wing talk radio and TV always is a losing proposition. It is idiotic in its reasoning. Left-wing candidates always have to lie about whom they are and what they believe in order to win. The only way for Left-wingers to win is to lie about themselves, their opponents AND most importantly, promise voters free stuff that will be paid for by other people.

If liberals agree, with each other, on any issue, then, by their reasoning... they are right and everyone else is wrong.

I am definitely not left wing. I wanted to point out that what you say could be used to describe many right wingers. Ever watch FoxNews? Left wingers do promise "free stuff" as you pointed out but that is their platform - no lies necessarily there. Personally I think it is idiotic to think that any one person or ideology has all the answers. For example, I believe that people need to take responsibility to a large extent for their own well being and should not always expect to be looked after by the state. There are many situations however where it may make sense for the state to provide or ensure the provision of certain basic services or needs. Unemployment insurance is a good example. I think education and health care funding are others.
 
Typical liberal strategy: sling the mud rather than talk about real issues...

Is it any wonder that Left-wing thought is never able to sell itself to the average person? This is why Left-wing talk radio and TV always is a losing proposition. It is idiotic in its reasoning. Left-wing candidates always have to lie about whom they are and what they believe in order to win. The only way for Left-wingers to win is to lie about themselves, their opponents AND most importantly, promise voters free stuff that will be paid for by other people.

If liberals agree, with each other, on any issue, then, by their reasoning... they are right and everyone else is wrong.

A real issue is finance. Rob Ford claims that the City is full of “spendaholics” running city hall and he says there is enough fat and inefficiency to slash costs.

Yet, Moody's states "The debt ratio has been stable for five years, including during the recent recession, she said." and "This debt burden is considered low when compared with other Canadian and international cities and, as such, constitutes a credit positive," analyst Jennifer Wong said.

Also of importance to the whole argument that Torontonians are suffering under the arduous tax regime of spendaholics is that Toronto has the lowest residential property taxes in the entire GTA.

Also the current council has cut business taxes by more than $190-million since 2006 and frozen development charges to assist the construction and development industry.

These facts suggests that Toronto is not necessarily in the midst of of spending and tax crisis that Ford claims and that the leftists have done a pretty good job managing the cities finances while keeping residential taxes the lowest in the region.

The biggest threat to the long term fiscal health of the City is not inefficiencies but major structural issues with how cities pay for services across this province and country. Cities are governed by a constitutional framework established in the 19th century when most Canadians still lived in rural communities. These are Toronto's and urban Canada's significant issues, not Councillors expense accounts and Mayors need to talk about the big issues. Therefore, I will vote for the person who is best able to tackle these issues, not the person who gets distracted by expense accounts and vaguely alludes to inefficiencies
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with a right or centre-right mayor. Infact I thing this would be preferable for the next mayoral term. Why I will never vote for Ford is for many of the reasons outlined in other thoughtful posts here. It's his attitude. He lacks maturity, effectiveness, and vision. He stands against instead of standing for. Could you envision Ford galvanizing political, economic, and popular support for his initiatives? Ask yourself that question regardless of your place in the political spectrum.

Why it might make sense to vote for Ford: If you feel that the city shouldn't do anything, perhaps Ford is your candidate. Don't dismiss this sentiment. I deal with a lot of small businesses and residents and I can say that a large portion of the population is just not interested in change of any kind. A lot of people would rather pull the temple down on their own heads than deal with change. Many business owners do this very thing, they actually ruin themselves financially by refusing to deal with change or be proactive or take initiatives.

Why you might not want to vote for Ford even if you feel the city should do nothing: Ford stands for a culture of nothing. Nothing gets done, nothing is spent, no initiatives move forward. However, there is a difference between a culture of nothing, and nothing getting done due to political gridlock. The result may seem the same, but a culture of nothing is far more damaging. I think a mature attitude towards governance is to appreciate that society can only function as a balance between competing interests and points of view, many of which you yourself do not share. In a culture of nothing everyone losses because the passion that fuels people to push forward their interests gets extinguished. In a political gridlock this fire remains kindled. Maybe we can't afford the cost of living increases in this city but at the same time how well can we handle 4 years of a "do nothing alternative" at city hall?
 
Rob Ford is Lex Luthor, with hair.

416_cp24_ford_mayor.jpg
 
Fresh Start,

Why not Mammoliti, why not M.Thompson? why not Doug Holyday?

They represent everything Ford does without the baggage.

No, Ford is the guy who always votes against council ALONE, these guys are known for at least sometimes co-operating and accomplishing things. In fact I think Michael Thompson is future mayor material.
 
I guess one's vision of a perfect mayor is formed by what they consider the mayor's job to be and what a city is.

Visualise a graph.
Plotted on the left side is a city that is a perceived by many to be a multi-culti petri dish in which the Mayor must be leading the pack and trying to make all factions happy.
On the right side of the scale is a City that is perceived to be a business entity that requires a Mayor who knows how to run a business and is willing to delegate many of his responsibilties to others rather than try to control everything himself.

Obviously Mr. Pantalone owns the left goalposts and Mr. Ford the right goalposts, everyone else is somewhere in between, the distance that they are seen to be from either end of the field is a personal choice to be made by the voters who bother to come on election day.
 
I guess one's vision of a perfect mayor is formed by what they consider the mayor's job to be and what a city is.

Visualise a graph.
Plotted on the left side is a city that is a perceived by many to be a multi-culti petri dish in which the Mayor must be leading the pack and trying to make all factions happy.
On the right side of the scale is a City that is perceived to be a business entity that requires a Mayor who knows how to run a business and is willing to delegate many of his responsibilties to others rather than try to control everything himself.

Obviously Mr. Pantalone owns the left goalposts and Mr. Ford the right goalposts,

While that's a good characterization of a traditional right-wing politician, I don't think anything Rob Ford has done to date would suggest that he would run the city the way that a CEO runs a for-profit business. Nothing suggests that he would run anything at all; Ford is a one-trick pony whose only principle is to oppose for the sake of opposition.
 
John Tory would be a fine mayor.

I agree.

Rob Ford to me is like Toronto's version of Carolyn Parrish: loudmouth buffoons with constant idiotic outbusts, and prone to fits of violence, that have singlehandedly turned their respective city councils into a three ring circus. It is sad to think of the possibility of the two of them being mayors at the same time.
 
While that's a good characterization of a traditional right-wing politician, I don't think anything Rob Ford has done to date would suggest that he would run the city the way that a CEO runs a for-profit business.

Except, of course, that he has done exactly that (run a successful business) and done it on a part time basis.
 
^Running a family-owned printing business is slightly different from running a city of 2.5 million with a multibillion dollar operating budget.

If he was the CEO of a publicly-owned company and his idea of tackling a massive deficit was to cut the salaries of 24 executives by 10% (if they earned $100,000), he would probably get the boot. Empty symbolic gestures don't get you very far in the business world.
 
Last edited:
Running a family-owned printing business is slightly different from running a city of 2.5 million with a multibillion dollar operating budget.

Maybe so, but his experience where the rubber meets the road is a positive as opposed to the accomplishments of the other candidates.
 

Back
Top