Toronto Mayor Rob Ford

[The_Falcon]

Indeed, although my campaign was more of a "how not to" exercise. The advantage for non establishment politicians today is there is a far greater access to non traditional channels for getting the word out than back in 06, although that cuts both ways; the "elites" can pay to have their messages pushed to the top of Google and probably manipulate other social media channels as well. Of course the person who defends everything defends nothing, so diverting dollars from traditional campaigning may be a good thing.

Hatchetman

I would also suggest that your friend researches and does the numbers. Although the political class is loath to talk about numbers, and will go to dizzying lengths to change the subject (or if pressed compare apples to building material), this is an effective tactic. Both Mayor DeCicco and then challenger Joe Fontana started their campaigns with an emphasis on Toronto garbage being trucked down the 401 as their key campaign issues, by doggedly sticking to the numbers both of them eventually changed their tunes as the campaign progressed, and discussions about finances and taxes were high on the list towards the end (although not as much as I would like, and certainly not enough to sway the election, otherwise I wouldn't be writing to you on Army.ca now!  ). You might not see any real effect in the campaign world (the Media faithfully stuck to the "narrative" in London, and I think they might actually have been puzzeled and even a bit annoyed that the "narrative" was changing from underneath them).

And of course cultivating legacy media is a good thing in Toronto, where there is a large media market and it is harder to get shut out. He might be able to get a reporter, talk show radio host or (low probability/high payoff) TV personality interested in following his campaign. I managed to get two talk show hosts to give me more than cursory coverage because I could supply a good sound bite and sounded halfway intelligent on their call in shows, skill sets your friend should start working on now. Practicing for ambush questions is also a skillset to be developed. While I doubt your friend or most people in his circle have the issues Rob Ford has, a detailed life review by your friend and his inner circle of advisors is probably desirable. You know the press and opposition are going to do this, be prepared. I suspect that now even relatively trivial events (parking ticket, controversial letter to editor, indescreet social media faux pas) could be vacuumed up and held as ammunition to make things difficult, and set your friend back on his heels (especially if he is gaining any traction).

Other lessons learned is to boil your campaign down to an "elevator pitch" (i.e. can you explain your campaign in the time it takes an elevator to go up or down a floor). Sadly for people like myself who like discourse, most people don't and are unwilling or unable to sit down for a big, detailed pitch of how he is going to change Toronto.

Trust me we have been discussing alot of this for over a year (quick sound bites, hard details, responding to loaded questions etc) now (almost 2 really)  It started off more as a joke between our circle of friends, but has gotten more serious, and I have on numerous occasions (especially when he and others pointed out Ford's earlier and seemingly minor now, trangressions) pointed out his own past, and done the hypotheticals... 48th Regulator is on my Facebook (probably doesn't realize though), he can see some of the battles we refer to as "Thunderdome".  But I will still pass on your advice , thanks. 

 

[Kilo_302]

That Rob Ford is a reaction to the "political elites" that "run our lives" is at once hilarious and depressing. Rob Ford IS ELITE. His dad was an MPP, he has inherited a family business, and he has NOT done a day's worth of honest work in his life. Just because he can't string 3 words together in a proper sentence doesn't mean he is somehow "of the people." I for one want my politicians to be "elite." This means I want them to be educated, intelligent, intellectually open and honest and ambitious.

The train wreck that is Rob Ford speaks to one of my posts on the tragic "Deconstructing Progressive Thought" thread on this site. He represents the conservative elite and their overall project to cut spending, cut taxes and thereby achieve an upward transfer of wealth. This austerity nonsense only helps those who don't need it, those at the top. And to sell their bullshit policies
(that have been proven to be wrong, over and over and over again), they've hired a plain speaking Argos fan who also happens to have a drug problem. And many of those who are rightly fed up with politics bought it, hook, line and sinker. The conservative movement in North America has organized, and they have realized that emotion works better than thinking. So we get the Tea Party, we get Ford Nation, and the very people who are hurt by these movements end up supporting them because it feels good. Everyone is right to be angry, but let's be angry at the right fucking thing here. And that thing is an overabundance of corporate power, wealth inequality, and as a result, a far less democratic society. Rob Ford is here to pretend there's a revolution going on, while he's working for the man, because he IS the man. And don't take this as a pro Miller post. David Miller embraced neo-liberalism (this has nothing to do with being 'liberal'. We do not have liberal politicians at all anymore) just like the rest of them. What we have to realize is that we don't have choices, because we aren't supposed to.

I can't abide the line of thinking that goes "liberal elites run the world, let's run them out of town and replace them with a Bush/Ford type person." That makes no sense at all. These guys are the epitome of elite. Who else can drink on the job and drive around buying drugs and NOT get arrested?  Let's be real here. Ford has more in common with SA gangsters than any other politician of recent memory. He is a thug and a bully and he is a damaged self-'loathing person, and we all deserve him because we all have allowed our system to be hijacked by private interests.

 

[pbi]

That Rob Ford is a reaction to the "political elites" that "run our lives" is at once hilarious and depressing. Rob Ford IS ELITE. His dad was an MPP, he has inherited a family business, and he has NOT done a day's worth of honest work in his life. Just because he can't string 3 words together in a proper sentence doesn't mean he is somehow "of the people." I for one want my politicians to be "elite." This means I want them to be educated, intelligent, intellectually open and honest and ambitious... . Ford has more in common with SA gangsters than any other politician of recent memory. He is a thug and a bully and he is a damaged self-'loathing person, and we all deserve him because we all have allowed our system to be hijacked by private interests.

First, I'm glad somebody has seen through this patently phony "little guy" act. Ford, in my opinion, epitomizes the behaviour of any spoiled, monied rich kid with an overweening sense of entitlement and of "one law for me, one law for you". A lesser employee of the City would have been sacked ages ago. It doesn't matter what point on the political spectrum he supposedly comes from.

As the recent statement by Minister Chris Alexander suggests, even the Harper Tories have realized that this guy is poison, along with others who are now shunning him, such as the Argos management (hardly a coterie of liberal, elite, bicycle riding, latte-sippers scheming for the triumph of  the nanny state); the Ford Motor Company, and the Santa Claus Parade (another well known gang of anti-business leftist tree-huggers).

And this, to me, points out the bigger problem as we move forward and gradually leave Rob Ford smouldering in the rear-view mirror. Conservatism has some good things to offer society: indeed, in some reasonable form it may be the salvation of our way of life from IOUs written on our children by untenable social programs and silly government spending. The encouragement of initiative, of business, and of investment are all good things we typically associate with conservative platforms.

So why, oh why, does the conservative movement seem inexorably drawn to people like Ford, or Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachmann, or Rush Limbaugh? These caricatures merely convince middle-of-the-roaders (lefties don't need to be convinced) that conservatism champions boorishness, ignorance, anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, homophobia, religious fundamentalism, blah, blah, blah.

There have been, and there are, some honourable people who march under the banner of conservatism. As I have noted elsewhere, I think that Mr Boehner in the US is one. To a certain extent, Mayor Bloomberg of New York was another. I think Bush senior was a third.  Harper, although I am not happy with him about everything, seems to me to be an honourable and respectable individual who actually values the family, and conducts his personal life in a manner that, thus far, has been above reproach. To be a conservative is NOT automatically to be a lout.

So what's the attraction? I don't get it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Your definition and characteristics are not confined to the conservative\ right.

The liberal\ left have plenty of skeletons and ill defined traits of their own.

That big brush your using strokes both ways.

Let's quit pretending it doesn't.

 

[pbi]

Your definition and characteristics are not confined to the conservative\ right.

The liberal\ left have plenty of skeletons and ill defined traits of their own.

That big brush your using strokes both ways.

Let's quit pretending it doesn't.

Actually, I'm not pretending anything. I'm asking a question specifically about the conservative movement, not about the Centre or the Left.  I mean it to be a question, not a backhanded praising of NDP or Liberals by slamming conservatives.  In fact, I'll even add Tim Hudak to the list as a political figure on the conservative side who, as far as I can tell, behaves himself very well.

If we say "the liberals/left do dumb stuff too so it's OK" we are verging on moral relativism, which isn't what I'm after.

 

[Edward Campbell]

First, I'm glad somebody has seen through this patently phony "little guy" act. Ford, in my opinion, epitomizes the behaviour of any spoiled, monied rich kid with an overweening sense of entitlement and of "one law for me, one law for you". A lesser employee of the City would have been sacked ages ago. It doesn't matter what point on the political spectrum he supposedly comes from.

As the recent statement by Minister Chris Alexander suggests, even the Harper Tories have realized that this guy is poison, along with others who are now shunning him, such as the Argos management (hardly a coterie of liberal, elite, bicycle riding, latte-sippers scheming for the triumph of  the nanny state); the Ford Motor Company, and the Santa Claus Parade (another well known gang of anti-business leftist tree-huggers).

And this, to me, points out the bigger problem as we move forward and gradually leave Rob Ford smouldering in the rear-view mirror. Conservatism has some good things to offer society: indeed, in some reasonable form it may be the salvation of our way of life from IOUs written on our children by untenable social programs and silly government spending. The encouragement of initiative, of business, and of investment are all good things we typically associate with conservative platforms.

So why, oh why, does the conservative movement seem inexorably drawn to people like Ford, or Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachmann, or Rush Limbaugh? These caricatures merely convince middle-of-the-roaders (lefties don't need to be convinced) that conservatism champions boorishness, ignorance, anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, homophobia, religious fundamentalism, blah, blah, blah.

There have been, and there are, some honourable people who march under the banner of conservatism. As I have noted elsewhere, I think that Mr Boehner in the US is one. To a certain extent, Mayor Bloomberg of New York was another. I think Bush senior was a third.  Harper, although I am not happy with him about everything, seems to me to be an honourable and respectable individual who actually values the family, and conducts his personal life in a manner that, thus far, has been above reproach. To be a conservative is NOT automatically to be a lout.

So what's the attraction? I don't get it.

It isn't that conservatives or Conservatives are attracted to Ford and Limaugh (who is also a son of privilege masquerading as everyman) it is that they, Ford, Limaugh, et al are so consumed with hate for progressive change that they have flocked to the least progressive alternative. But: gay rights and abortion and all those other fair and equitable social policies are, now, part of the fabric of society and Ford and Limbagh and all the others have no place to go because neither Stephen Harper nor Tony Abbott, neither David Cameron nor the next Republican leader in the USA are going to undo those policies.

The only hope for 21st century conservatism is to unceremoniosly dump the social conservatives and, especially, the religious right, and return to proper, modern, conservatism, à la Eisenhower's GOP, and adhere to small town/small business values of social moderation, fairness, equity and fiscal responsibility.

 

[Kilo_302]

Your definition and characteristics are not confined to the conservative\ right.

The liberal\ left have plenty of skeletons and ill defined traits of their own.

That big brush your using strokes both ways.

Let's quit pretending it doesn't.

You're assuming I support some or any of our "liberal/left" politicians. I do not (althought Linda McQuaig has said some pretty impressively honest things about austerity and cuts public programs). We don't have a left wing in mainstream politics in Canada to speak of. The NDP just dropped the socialist language in their party charter, and the Liberals are much the same as the Conservatives when it comes to appeasing corporate power. Look at the throne speech. Giving us pathetic crumbs in the form of a better cable package and lower cell bills? And the worst part is that this was ripped from NDP policy. We have been reduced to consumers, and no one in party politics is mounting an effective structural critique of our economy or the reality of corporate power.

As things get worse (and believe me they will), we will see more Rob Fords. Politicians who take advantage of righteous anger and steer it in dangerous directions. The problems in Canada are not latte-sipping liberal Trudeau supporters (though they ARE part of the problem in that they are allowing a slow motion takeover by corporate interests) the problem is a broader corporate agenda that has largely succeeded. And the anger resulting from this is real, and justified. But unfortunately we are seeing it manifested in knee jerk reactions like Ford and the Tea Party. These movements are often xenophobic, racist and incredibly misguided. This how we get a Hitler in an otherwise "civilized" society.


Check this guy out : http://www.joebageant.com/

and also pick up a copy of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" It's a pretty good look at how the conservative movement has tied economics to religion, family values etc and convinced the "common man" to vote for policies that destroy his chances of upward social mobility.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Kilo_302 ]
I for one want my politicians to be "elite." This means I want them to be educated, intelligent, intellectually open and honest and ambitious.
[/quote]

That's setting the bar a little low to be elite IMO.

This how we get a Hitler in an otherwise "civilized" society.

Annnnnnnnd Godwin.

 

[Kilo_302]

It isn't that conservatives or Conservatives are attracted to Ford and Limaugh (who is also a son of privilege masquerading as everyman) it is that they, Ford, Limaugh, et al are so consumed with hate for progressive change that they have flocked to the least progressive alternative. But: gay rights and abortion and all those other fair and equitable social policies are, now, part of the fabric of society and Ford and Limbagh and all the others have no place to go because neither Stephen Harper nor Tony Abbott, neither David Cameron nor the next Republican leader in the USA are going to undo those policies.

The only hope for 21st century conservatism is to unceremoniosly dump the social conservatives and, especially, the religious right, and return to proper, modern, conservatism, à la Eisenhower's GOP, and adhere to small town/small business values of social moderation, fairness, equity and fiscal responsibility.

You're spot on. Eisenhower famously warned about the military industrial complex for example. That sounds positively socialist by today's standards. I would also add that conservatives have a proud history of protecting our natural resources and the environment, one might say they conserved it.

 

[Journeyman]

He represents the conservative elite and their overall project to cut spending, cut taxes and thereby achieve an upward transfer of wealth. This austerity nonsense .......

In this day and age, I can't believe anyone of any political stripe, with even the most vague flickering of understanding political economy, would consider getting a grip on government spending and debt to be some conservative conspiracy.  :

This how we get a Hitler in an otherwise "civilized" society.

Perhaps you can tie Godwin's Law to the Greeks having to speak German as part of their debt reparations, since they also apprently thought that looking after their financial house was "nonsense."


If only we had more windmills.......    :brickwall:

 

[Kilo_302]

Well actually I have a degree in economics and political science. It's not a conspiracy, as they aren't even hiding it. In a time when we have unprecedented wealth in Canada, why all of the sudden can we no longer afford programs we have had for decades? There HAS been an upward transfer of wealth, this is undeniable. The numbers do not lie.

 

[George Wallace]

Well actually I have a degree in economics and political science. It's not a conspiracy, as they aren't even hiding it. In a time when we have unprecedented wealth in Canada, why all of the sudden can we no longer afford programs we have had for decades? There HAS been an upward transfer of wealth, this is undeniable. The numbers do not lie.

Well; if we look at the growing numbers of people now using Food Banks and the numbers of Welfare recipients draining off the Taxes of the hard working, but shrinking Middle Classes, I would find it hard to place all the blame at the top.  I would place an equal, perhaps more, blame on the Bottom Feeders.................



Sorry!  Was that my inside voice you just heard?

 

[pbi]

...The only hope for 21st century conservatism is to unceremoniosly dump the social conservatives and, especially, the religious right, and return to proper, modern, conservatism, à la Eisenhower's GOP, and adhere to small town/small business values of social moderation, fairness, equity and fiscal responsibility.

I believe this, wholeheartedly. But, it seems that lots of people (Ford Nation, for example) don't.  This is why the mainstream Republicans were fighting in the alley with the Tea Party-ites. The mainstreamers know what is the art of the politically possible. The screamers, trash-talkers and Fords only spew anger and stupidity, but that sells in some places.

I agree with Kilo that the corporate agenda can be seductive, insidious and almost irresistible for many politicians, but I also believe that business is the engine of everything, and that blind anti-business legislation and idiotic Euro-style red tape will further choke out what remains of truly Canadian business. There is a reasonable and prudent middle ground in all things.

 

[pbi]

Well; if we look at the growing numbers of people now using Food Banks and the numbers of Welfare recipients draining off the Taxes of the hard working, but shrinking Middle Classes, I would find it hard to place all the blame at the top.  I would place an equal, perhaps more, blame on the Bottom Feeders.................

If you've never had to use a food bank, good for you. It's a pretty dismal experience, but one that more and more otherwise decent Canadians are finding themselves reduced to. Thank God that I have not yet had to do this, but there are people quite close to me who have, whom I would not classify as "bottom feeders". As manufacturing plants are closed and jobs are off-shored, and towns lose their long-standing sources of livelihood, we will probably see more of this.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Well actually I have a degree in economics and political science. It's not a conspiracy, as they aren't even hiding it. In a time when we have unprecedented wealth in Canada, why all of the sudden can we no longer afford programs we have had for decades? There HAS been an upward transfer of wealth, this is undeniable. The numbers do not lie.

Because they were unaffordable when they were launched in the 1970s. We could afford the modest social programmes M. St Laurent introduced in the 1950s and that Messers Diefenbaker and Pearson continued in the 1960s, but we cannot afford the regime Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced. Messers Mulroney, Chrétien and Harper were/are all too afraid of the electorate to institute necessary reforms ~ remember Solange Denis, the lady who ambushed Prime Minister Mulroney with her "goodbye Charlie Brown" comment and derailed his complete fiscal agenda? ~ so they will wait for it to collapse around us. In fairness, Mr. Harper, a Thatcher Conservative, is doing battle with our bloated, ineffective public sector.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Well actually I have a degree in economics and political science.

Get your money back quick before they realize you failed. Actually, and sadly, that's the kind of bullshit "they" teach students nowadays, isn't it?

Borrowing money to pay for everyday living expenses is not "affording" something.

, why all of the sudden can we no longer afford programs we have had for decades? 

 

[ballz]

Well actually I have a degree in economics and political science.

Unfortunately for your argument, most people on this site either have a Bachelor's degree or two and realize it does not mean one is "educated," or they have worked directly for people with Bachelor's degrees and suffered the consequences of assuming a Bachelor's degree means one is "educated."

 

[Journeyman]

Unfortunately for your argument.....

And some folks don't care what degrees a person claims (this is the internet after all), but rather tracks that person's ability to produce a cogent argument, supported by credible sources....or their repeated failure at same.   


Or we can just go with what you said.  :nod:

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Just had to post this......

 

[Nemo888]

Well; if we look at the growing numbers of people now using Food Banks and the numbers of Welfare recipients draining off the Taxes of the hard working, but shrinking Middle Classes, I would find it hard to place all the blame at the top.  I would place an equal, perhaps more, blame on the Bottom Feeders.................



Sorry!  Was that my inside voice you just heard?

Ridiculous. It's working families who are forced to use those food banks now. Welfare rates have been falling since the mid 90's. 3,070,900 recipients in 1995 to 1,679,800 in 2005 for all of Canada. Ontario had 1,344,600 recipients in 1995 and has dropped steadily every year to 455,247 this September. There are now less than half the people on welfare there were 15 years ago. Likewise the number of workers making minimum wage has skyrocketed.

http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/ncw_factsheet09.pdf
http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/documents/en/mcss/social/reports/OW_EN_2013_09.pdf