Rob Ford's Toronto

[LordWanker]

I really am dumbfounded how anybody -- anybody -- can still support Ford after all of this. What would it take? Murder? I'm disappointed in human kind.

Never under-estimate the stupid voters. EVER. Obviously as proven with Ford's improbable election as mayor.....

 

[freshcutgrass]

No, obviously Ford was in violation of the law. Legally, this couldn't have gone any other way.

So what is your point then??? The system works. Is there something in this scenario you would like to change?

It's still a very, very modest amount of money.

So why knowingly break the law to prevent yourself from paying it then? If he robbed a liquor store for the same amount and used the money to buy football equipment, is that ok too?

Ford isn't gone because he's a shitty mayor

Oh...that's exactly why he's gone. How much shittier can you get by getting yourself turfed from office by your own illegal actions? And this is just one of THREE legal cases he's in court for.

He's gone because a group of activists didn't like him and found a way to screw him

Here's a newsflash for ya....all politicians of every political stripe have opponents that don't like them, and will seize the opportunity to "screw them". The trick is...don't give them the opportunity. There's nothing different going on with Rob Ford than any other political leader....except other politicians aren't generally as shockingly dumb as Rob Ford. Continuing to play Rob Ford as a victim in this shows a complete lack of credibility.

It is circumventing the democratic process though.

When you say "it", you are referring to the rule of law, which is of course supposed to trump the democratic process. Would you prefer it to be otherwise?

 

[King of Kensington]

For those who claim that Ford's removal from office is the circumventing the democratic process, do you also think that Richard Nixon (who won in one of the biggest landslides in US history in the 1972 election) should have been allowed to finish his term?

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I think it is obvious that Ford was in a conflict of interest in regards to the vote.

I also think, based on Ford's behavior in the past twelve years, that the amount of money involved was minimal and in no way was large enough to influence his vote. This is a man who had covered thousands of dollars (per year) of office expenses from his own pocket for ten years. If the legislation would have had some type of exemption for minimal amounts of money, Ford could (should) have been found not guilty. I wish I knew exactly what "pecuniary" means, but I think it pertains to the amount of money - not the symbol that the money had in terms of his reputation (i.e. paying back, not matter how small, is an admission of guilt). I think there is such an exemption.

Strangely, as quoted in this Post article (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/26/rob-ford-christie-blatchford/), the judge was quoted as saying that Mayor Ford’s case “involved a modest amount of money". If I check the thesaurus for "modest", it returns small, minor, tiny, trivial. Almost identical language to the statute - Section 4 (k).

The quote the judge stated in relation to this issue had nothing to do with the significance of the amount to Mr. Ford

"if it wasn’t for this foundation, these kids would not have had a chance. And then to ask for me to pay it out of my own pocket personally, there is just, there is no sense to this. The money is gone, the money has been spent on football equipment….â€

This obviously means Ford was referring to pay back the actual "donated money" (not an equivalent amount of money) since that money was gone. It appears that this was interpreted as Mr. Ford admitting that he did not have $3150 in his bank account to pay it back.

Ford's lawyer must have been pretty poor to not have succeeded based on this Clause (4k, a legal exception) to the Conflict of Interest Act.

I wonder if Ford can have different legal representation for the appeal and can he introduce any new evidence, because I think there is ample evidence to show that the amount was insignificant to Ford, but maybe for some reason he did not introduce it at the trial.

Seriously, did you just re-try the case in your head based on Blatch's commentary and find Ford not guilty? Welcome to Ford Nation, delusional supporters wing.

He lost because he was guilty. You might not like that truth, but it stands.

 

[King of Kensington]

Ford Nation? More like Ford Hamlet!

 

[gristle]

When you say "it", you are referring to the rule of law, which is of course supposed to trump the democratic process. Would you prefer it to be otherwise?

More importantly, in this instance the rule of law upholds the democratic process. Here, it curtails an elected representative from abusing the process and his elected office. It applies to all members of council equally.

It's unfortunate that there are some people out there who think being elected means doing whatever one pleases - that is, of course, until a politician of a political stripe that they oppose does something questionable.

 

[PinkLucy]

I really am dumbfounded how anybody -- anybody -- can still support Ford after all of this. What would it take? Murder? I'm disappointed in human kind.

.
They fall for sound bites. There are people who say "he was just helping the kids, how can that be wrong". And of course there are those who believe this was a witch hunt. And then there's the "he's human, everyone makes mistakes" argument. My favourite was the guy interviewed on CBC whose entire rationale seemed to be that those who live downtown suck.

 

[adma]

One thing we have to remember: Ford may have been felled on something more picayune than gross corruption; but I wouldn't be surprised if even those who made the case against him (and those who supported them) were a little surprised by how easily it all went. Like, they were expecting it to be a "principled gesture" against a bulldozer; but all it took was one hammer tap, and the bulldozer shattered into a jillion pieces. (Almost akin to a lot of the Perestroika overthrows in 1989.)

 

[diminutive]

For those who claim that Ford's removal from office is the circumventing the democratic process, do you also think that Richard Nixon (who won in one of the biggest landslides in US history in the 1972 election) should have been allowed to finish his term?

Nixon isn't the best example. For one, he resigned and wasn't kicked out. Second, Nixon's charges were far more severe than Ford's. Three, Nixon was about to be impeached, which is far more democratic in that it's a process within the Legislature as opposed to judiciary.

A better example, given the severity of charges involved, is probably Bill Clinton's perjury. Legally, he did perjur himself. But I think most people reasonably saw that Clinton's democratic legitimacy outweighed such a trivial legal infraction, and see the event more as Congressional Republicans trying to kick him out through the back door.

So what is your point then??? The system works. Is there something in this scenario you would like to change?

Yes, I would have liked several things to be different. Rob Ford could have been less boneheaded and paid back the 3,000. The activists who brought this case could have just waited for 2014 rather than try to search for any way to get rid of Ford.

Also, just to be specific, the system still *is* working. We'll see whether Ford gets a stay and/or appeal, but it's not impossible.

I just can't see any result from this trial which is preferable to simply waiting for 2014

Oh...that's exactly why he's gone. How much shittier can you get by getting yourself turfed from office by your own illegal actions? And this is just one of THREE legal cases he's in court for.

The only judge of elected officials and legislatures is an election. The legal system obviously determines if someone is fit for office, but it can't make subjective assessments of their quality. I get that you think Rob Ford is a bad Mayor, but he's not getting kicked out for being a bad mayor who closed bike lanes and what not.

 

[doug]

but he's not getting kicked out for being a bad mayor who closed bike lanes and what not.

No, he got fired for breaking the law, just like anyone else would...why is this so hard for some to comprehend?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

diminutive:

The teabaggers lost, Obama won. All is right in the universe.

I wouldn't think that's hunky-dory - the irrationality of the electorate remains, and that above all else is far more of an issue than the political stripe of the winner.

I can't predict what would have happened in 2014, obviously. The latest, pre-Hackland polls seemed to put him at about 35%. That's competitive, but barring a perfect left-wing split wouldn't have been nearly enough. Also, that's 12% drop in support from 2010, so I'd question why you think the evidence hasn't "sunk in" by now. Presumably two more years of Ford being Ford wouldn't help that.

That's why I said "core" support - I have a feeling that the 12% drop doesn't belong to that group.

If Ford runs again and manages to get a modest boost from this ruling, it could actually make him viable. And it's an easy campaign to frame for Ford in a sense: "Toronto, you voted for me to stop the gravy train, but donothing-activists said your vote doesn't matter!"

Except that this time, the electorate won't be as "mushy", and RF will have his own very public sins to answer for. It will energize his core constituents, but I am not sure if it is enough to convince everyone else to vote for him. That's not to mention the additional spectre of challengers from the right of the spectrum who might want to euthanize his political career before it can do more damage to their interests.

I suspect most Toronto voters will want to move on from the spectre of Ford regardless, but there won't be a public thumping of Ford and (MORE IMPORTANTLY) his policies now.

On the other hand:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cityhallpolitics/article/1294164--plan-c-a-ford-switcheroo

AoD

 

[jje1000]

.
They fall for sound bites. There are people who say "he was just helping the kids, how can that be wrong". And of course there are those who believe this was a witch hunt. And then there's the "he's human, everyone makes mistakes" argument. My favourite was the guy interviewed on CBC whose entire rationale seemed to be that those who live downtown suck.

This is exactly the method the Fords are taking on their path to an relection:

Nick Kouvalis, the mastermind behind Ford’s 2010 victory, says he is not working on any campaign — yet. But he also laid out a theme that could serve Ford should he have to face voters again in the near future.

“This is Canada, where the people elect their leaders. In Pakistan, judges choose their leaders. In Egypt, military commanders choose their leaders. Council should allow the people to choose their mayor, and Ford should be able to be judged by the people,” said Kouvalis, who also served a stint as the mayor’s chief of staff early on.

This isn’t a case of alleged corruption, Kouvalis continued. “He was raising money for under privileged kids.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cityhallpolitics/article/1294164--plan-c-a-ford-switcheroo

Ford's team is really going to try to shift perception that he was removed over the use of city letterhead over the fact that he was really removed over a conflict of interest. Furthermore, the Star predictably shoots itself in the foot with an article like this:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cit...27-year-old-who-triggered-rob-ford-s-downfall

The Fords can now really portray themselves the victims of a "leftist conspiracy". Really, Daniel Dale has the worst sense of timing ever- why put this article online now instead of waiting a month or two when emotions have simmered down?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Funny he should talk about Egypt - that's where Morsi just decided to give himself additional powers, as per his interpretation (sounds familiar?). In that light, I am sure he meant that we should be using that particular democracy as an example to follow - afterall, what works for Toronto works for the rest of the world, right?

It seems that everyone has a rather shallow understanding of democracy and a complete blank in the power behind it - rule of law. We've seen that when Harper prorogued Parliament while arguing that the opposition alliance equates to a coup...and now, we have this. Seriously, that's teabagism.

AoD

 

[hawc]

Never under-estimate the stupid voters. EVER. Obviously as proven with Ford's improbable election as mayor.

Always loved the assumption that someone that has a different point of view is mentally inferior. Shows a certain arrogance.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

hawc:

It can't however beat the assumption by Rob Ford that he knows everything about conflict of interest because his daddy was an MPP. Now that's arrogance to the Nth degree - without the intellect to back it up.

And speaking of Rob, even after the bad news week, he didn't bother to stay for the whole council. That speaks of his true priorites in the face of adversity.

AoD