- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
sounds like our politics... we always seem to talk about voting for "the lesser evil" :disapp:
Oh, Canada... your Toronto's Mayor...
- Thread starter Tonichelle
- Start date
sounds like our politics... we always seem to talk about voting for "the lesser evil" :disapp:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2012
I would say that the story is rather "skewed". (I do think that he did run a clean campaign though.)
George had a lot more problems than were listed there. His nickname "Furious George" for his temper and treatment of staff did not come out of nowhere. He had people in his own party hoping that he would lose (or actually working against him for other candidates as was Warren Kinsella for Rocco Rossi). At the very least, a lot of people sat it out not helping him when they could have because they did not like him. And he made some very big tactical errors in the running of his campaign, accepting endorsements from councillors who had notoriously made really bad errors (such as the St. Clair reconstruction) in the previous regime. Instead of separating himself from the previous government, it created an association in some people's minds. As well, perhaps some of the problem had to do with learning that municipal elections are not run in the same way as provincial elections, but it just seemed, especially at the beginning, he was making a lot of mistakes. He started to pull things together near the end of the campaign (with endorsements and pledges of participation with former mayors John Sewell and David Crombie, and he did start to put together a really great plan for building the city) but it was, tactically speaking, a little bit too little and a little bit too late. By then, people had made up their mind and the main newspaper was basically running anti-Ford articles (without there being pro-Smitherman articles setting out constructively what he was trying to sell). Aside from that, George Smitherman had serious problems, and even since the election, his political stock, even within his own party, has decreased. There have been newer Ontario government scandals (such as air ambulance fiasco) for which the newer leadership has basically blamed him outright. He has been imho thrown to the dogs. Let's put it this way: no one I know in the Liberal party was surprised that he withdrew this summer from running for the nomination of the Federal Liberal party in the Toronto Centre riding that is now being waged. I doubt that he would be electable as anything higher than councillor now, because I would be very surprised if either the provincial Liberal party or the Federal Liberal Party would approve him as their candidate. He is not in the same league as Ford as an undesireable, but his record and reputation is, at least arguably in many people's minds, not a good one either.
There should have been a better candidate running for mayor. They all had problems.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Rob Ford's anger issues make George Smitherman look like Mother Theresa. 
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
Is Toronto not gay friendly? I always thought it was with the way folks talk, but the article suggests otherwise?
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2012
That is an interesting question. Although Ford is a homophobe (I believe), I don't agree that it was a factor in the election materially. I did not get that sense, and I was looking for it during the election. I really did not see it. The reason why people did not vote for Smitherman had more to do with his reputation, his ties to the provincial government, his inability to rally his own party behind him and his bad strategy during the campaign. I believe that.
This is only my opinion: Toronto is gay friendly in certain sections, especially the city. It is gay neutral in others. In some small areas, it is not so friendly at all. Over all, it is a decent city for gays to live, to be accepted, to live and to raise families. My sense was that the gay issue was really not a factor and, if it was, I never heard that it was from the people I knew who were working on Smitherman's campaign. The only time I can recall it even coming up was when Ford endorsed a candidate running for council who was on record as being against same-sex marriage. Ford's campaign team saw that as a liability and put out a press release separating Ford from the issue and the candidate in respect of that issue, which suggests to me that they saw it as a liability in Toronto to be labelled as homophobic. My sense is that the pro-gay vote and the tolerant vote is bigger and negates the anti-gay vote, and that it would be a liability in most of the city to be seen as not being at least tolerant.
In my mind, Ford's conduct regarding the gay community did not really become an issue until he refused to participate in gay pride week here, and that was after the election, not during or before. And my sense is that it is going to cost him votes, not give him votes, if he is ever going to run again. So I think that Toronto is mostly gay friendly in that sense and I think that Smitherman is not correct in his analysis.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
Ah. Well, I somewhat figured it was a one sided article (and American viewpoint at that). So I'm glad I asked to get a more "in it" sort of view point. Thanks for taking the time to answer!
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Here's a bit of a more comprehensive list of Ford's track record. It's astounding...
http://mayorford.info/
http://mayorford.info/
I don't agree entirely with phaeljones' interpretation. I lived in Toronto before and major liberal US cities on both coasts - the fact is, Toronto was and still is considered a somewhat conservative city by Canadian standard. Even just 10 years ago, words like "gay" or "lesbian" are still being filtered out as slur on some of its downtown core's major companies intranet. As recent as the early 2000s, many gay and transgender people don't feel safe enough walking alone in downtown any overly expressive manner because it is not safe. That said, Toronto does have a very vibrant and active gay community that is strongly tied to its downtown's business community and to the political circle as well, from local all the way to Federal/cabinet level. If you are a gay person, new to the city, you shouldn't have too much trouble reaching out and establishing a network of contacts for both business and personal relationships. This is in contrast to some U.S. cities such as Seattle where it is very difficult for outsiders to break in due to people only hang out within their own little circles. It should be noted however the community is highly concentrated in the downtown core so the so called safe zone for gay people is in fact quite limited. Outside of that, attitude can vary quite a bit. As a whole, the city is without a doubt conservative by Canadian standard. But it's not necessarily social conservative as the Americans understand it nor is it entirely libertarian. The better way to describe it is that it's somewhat uptight but with an understanding that people can live whatever they choose. So at least from an outward appearance point of view, you are expected to be somewhat conforming, i.e. not extravagant - this is not San Francisco or the west coast where you can just wear anything, including jeans to work. What you do in your private life, it's unlikely people will give you a hard time in part because it has been illegal to discriminate for quite some time already and also, they just don't care. The grey area is when you are in public, that becomes tricky.
So when the article says George Smitherman being openly gay was perceived as a negative - it probably wasn't wrong. Being mayor is a very public role as does a mayor's appearance in every way. Not a pageant contest to be sure, however, the kind of image the mayor projects likely matter. I don't think him being gay on its own was the solo negative factor. But when you combined with the fact with his admitted past drug use, it helped to reinforce a negative stereotype. This may be less of a problem in other parts of Canada like say in Montreal but in the relatively more conservative Toronto, that probably didn't come across well among conservative voters in the suburb.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2012
Perceptions can be different. However, I disagree with yours. Here is why:
I would point out that Toronto has changed a lot in ten years and the "safe zone" has expanded quite a bit. Regarding George's drug use, it was never mentioned by any of the candidates and rarely by any of the newspapers during the campaign. Most people outside of the gay community, even to this day, in Toronto, are either unaware or only vaguely aware of it, and they have no idea even what drug it was. (Contrast that to Ford where his recreational drug use, albeit not crack use, was front page news during the campaign. While Smitherman's drug use was not an issue, Ford's drug use was.) Whatever "stereotypical" connection you drew on the basis of some probability regarding George's drug use, I don't know anyone here who came up with it. Regarding whether being gay is a factor that can hurt a candidate, I would point out that Kathleen Wynn, our gay Premier, is extremely popular across the city and she is not from the core and her riding is actually in the suburbs (Don Valley West). It is not a "grey area", it is not "tricky", she is right, front centre in public and people have no problem with it. If it has not hurt her, why would it have hurt George? (It is her party that is not popular, but she is very popular.) Gay candidates are electable in Toronto outside of the village in most places without it being an issue. If George Smitherman's being gay had been an issue, why was he so ahead in the polls at the beginning of the campaign? He had a thirty point plus lead, which he blew. If his being gay had been a factor, he would have never had that lead.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
I have friends in Buffalo, NY and they were all appalled to see him at the Bills game yesterday - and he was wearing a Bills jersey. Then I read this:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...days-rob-ford-football-fever/article15711252/
:disapp:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...days-rob-ford-football-fever/article15711252/
:disapp:
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
Gag. I apologize to your friends in Buffalo. Earlier this week I read that Oprah and Dr. Phil have been calling. Personally I'd prefer Judge Judy and Russell Brand.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
The former two are only wanting to cash in on the publicity... the latter two are apparently above that (besides in Judy's case her show writes itself and he'd just be one of the masses of crazy on that one).
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
Now he and the city council are dancing to Bob Marley? Please tell me you Canucks are just playing a prank on the rest of the world?!
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
Toni, for Canadian humour, go check out Rick Mercer (his rants are wonderful) and This Hour Has 22 Minutes (intelligent, biting political and cultural stuff).
Similar threads
