News   Jul 17, 2024
 574     0 
News   Jul 17, 2024
 506     0 
News   Jul 17, 2024
 1K     0 

Next Mayor of Toronto?

Candidates don't debate people who aren't candidates. Campaign management 101.

Actually, I think we're seeing a lot of politicians avoid debate nowadays. Where you are correct, is that it is "Campaign Management 101", as in, avoid confrontation (aka debates) where obvious holes can be poked in your arguments. It's really unfortunate, but "handlers" have way more power than they should, and a real debate of the issues has been stifled. (See: federal election televised debates-- when was the last time you learned something new watching those?)

That said, if a candidate doesn't have the courage to defend their platform against opposing viewpoints, they don't really have what it takes to be mayor, and they aren't getting my vote.
 
Rossi doesn't really know very much about the city and likely knew he'd be killed debating Bambrick. There's not really any downside to him refusing to debate her, either. The 'refusal to debate' story is Page 17 news. The debate, if it was an even battle or a Rossi 'win', is maybe Page 6 news. Rossi getting schooled and embarrassed by Bambrick? Could make Page 1.
 
The Star's Christopher Hume on Rocco Rossi - Friday Feb 26, 2010

Here's what Christopher Hume says about Rocco Rossi. I certainly couldn't say it better myself, but I was thinking the same punchline - if Rossi wins, Toronto loses:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/771756--rossi-s-jarvis-proposals-a-road-to-nowhere

By Christopher Hume
Urban Issues, Architecture

If for no other reason, Rocco Rossi's mayoral campaign is interesting because of what it reveals about the state of Toronto beyond the downtown core.

As Rossi would have it, new post-amalgamation Toronto is fed up with having old preamalgamation Toronto shoved down its throat.

The defining issue, of course, is the car. That sounds simple enough, but the implications are many and varied, everything from transit expansion to closing the infamous fifth lane on Jarvis St. to make way for pedestrians and cyclists.

Rossi, a neo-conservative and former Liberal Party fundraiser, has made no secret of his belief that Toronto will ride to its glorious future on a high-speed multi-lane highway free of bike lanes and walkers.

"I am calling for any further work on this project (Jarvis) to be suspended until the people of Toronto have spoken on Oct. 25," Rossi said this week. It is, he declared, "a clear affront to democracy and to the voters of Toronto."

Other than the fact that this is bunk, unworthy even of a candidate whose platform is one of unrelieved banality, many Torontonians would rather listen to the Rossis of the world than face the truth. Therein lies his main political advantage.

Rossi's constituency is made up of people whose lifestyles are threatened by changes ahead, whether that means cutting greenhouse gases or closing a lane of Jarvis. It's okay, Rossi wants them to know, you can carry on as you always have, just bury your head a little deeper in that sand and don't forget to vote for me.

There's nothing new about the politics of middle-class disgruntlement.

The best local practitioner was former premier Mike Harris, a master of divide-and-conquer tactics. Rossi hopes to adapt the strategy to a civic situation.

Though it's unlikely he will succeed, his popularity offers clear evidence of the growing backlash against the sort of progressive policies that have made Toronto one of the planet's most admired cities.

Tolerance, the quality for which Canadians are most respected, has no place in Rossi's Toronto. According to him, Torontonians feel such anger at this point that even a program requiring drivers to share one street with cyclists and pedestrians has them freaking out.

How ironic that a candidate who likes to present himself as the non-politician would turn out to be the most cynical of the bunch, in populist parlance, therefore the most obviously and crassly political.

On the other hand, it doesn't help that governments, bureaucracies and institutions are very poorly run; as an exemplar of public transit, for example, the TTC leaves much to be desired, GO isn't much better. Transit in the Toronto region has failed to keep up with demand and we have slipped behind much of the world. Even now that we're starting to expand various systems, we're still using technology – most notably diesel – that's decades out of date.

Despite all this, Rossi's desire to eliminate change rather than promote it amounts to little more than a vain attempt to turn back the clock. It's easy to understand the lure of nostalgia, of the good old days, but they are finished, over, caput. And never should it be mistaken for public policy. That would be disastrous.

Needless to say, Torontonians know better than this. Support for transit as well as the Jarvis remake is overwhelming. That's why Rossi will lose.

As long as there have been politicians, they have appealed to our most selfish instincts. Rossi's pitch is just more blatant and unashamed than we're used to in Toronto.

Though it's early days still, already it's clear that if Rossi wins, the city loses.
 
Too me, Rossi sounds like he's the only one that knows how to handle a multi-billion dollar budget.
It could be because he's actually done that sort of planning in the private sector, vs the other two current candidates.

Your conclusion is entirely without foundation. Your premises are wrong, and even if they were right, you have drawn the wrong conclusion.

Are you a sentient being or a right wing chatbot?
 
Don't you know that private sector experience is something to be revered because it means people know how to make TOUGH DECISIONS and REIN IN SPENDING? I mean, seriously, when was the last time you heard about a multi-billion dollar scandal in the private sector?! It's unheard of!
 
Christopher Hume is such a Cassandra - basically the James Howard Kunstler of Toronto.

People who will vote for Rossi aren't voting for him because of his stance on bike lanes; they're voting for him because he's the only one who has pledged to get tough with public sector unions. I think this is a topic that will resonate with far more Torontonians than whether a 3 km road in downtown Toronto gets a bike lane.

BTW, the comments on "tolerance" and how diesel trains are a backward technology reinforce my view of Hume as a sensational ignoramus.
 
Last edited:
Just discovered an interesting google tool--"google fight"--where you compare number of google search results between two words etc.

George Smitherman vs Rocco Rossi: RR wins easily

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=rocco+rossi&word2=george+smitherman

That's not a good comparisson, as there are a lot more people named Rossi in the world than Smitherman. An accurate search is "George Smitherman" vs. "Rocco Rossi". In that case Smitherman wins easily.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1="rocco+rossi"&word2="george+smitherman"
 
Don't you know that private sector experience is something to be revered because it means people know how to make TOUGH DECISIONS and REIN IN SPENDING? I mean, seriously, when was the last time you heard about a multi-billion dollar scandal in the private sector?! It's unheard of!


private sector doesn't force me to pay them taxes. The government does ;)

Mandatory vs elective... that's the big difference.
 
Private sector businesses operate on the premise of maximizing revenues. Transfer that philosophy to government and "running it like a business" equals higher taxes.
 
Christopher Hume is such a Cassandra - basically the James Howard Kunstler of Toronto.

People who will vote for Rossi aren't voting for him because of his stance on bike lanes; they're voting for him because he's the only one who has pledged to get tough with public sector unions. I think this is a topic that will resonate with far more Torontonians than whether a 3 km road in downtown Toronto gets a bike lane.

Yeah right, and next thing you're going to tell me is that an airport bridge wasn't the most important issue of 2003.
 
Private sector businesses operate on the premise of maximizing revenues. Transfer that philosophy to government and "running it like a business" equals higher taxes.

I guess that's the philosophy Miller has been following the past 8 years? - under the guise of the a feel good hipster of course.

And if it was that easy, I would be a millionaire! You forget that in the private sector, there is a breaking point when you raise prices. People stop buying. And so, that's the ultimate equalizer, choice! One can argue that I can choose not to live in the city, but that's why there is a democratic process, which allows me to choose a candidate more concerned about how they spend public dollars.


It's easy to paint me as a 'right wing chabbot' (I'm actually very centerist), but it seems like some people don't want to deal with the fact that before this administration, this city had 4 years of amalgamation and did not have a 3.6 B+ debt.
It seems like the only defence people have for this is to deflect it to the Province and Federal levels.
BReaking news - both other levels are BROKE!

SO I ask the left - how do we get out of this mess? Do we continue course and simply ignore?
 

Back
Top