Weasel-wording Hudak Strikes Again!!!

As reported in the Hamilton Spectator, it seems that Tim Hudak is still desperately trying to pin something on Dalton McGuinty's Liberals.  And he seems to always have trouble because these positions put him in uncomfortable places.

Case in point, in chasing after McGuinty over the HST implementation, is putting him in the difficult position of having to explain why the business community supports it, but he doesn't.  Furthermore, you can hear the crickets chirping everytime he is asked whether or not he would repeal the tax.  But that's another story...

The problem with his latest is a real doozy.  (chuckles)  The reason why the Stoney Creek Dairy plant is closing is because electricity is expensive in Ontario and the province can't afford to give subsidies like Quebec does.  And that's mostly because of deregulation and other insidious charges forced upon us.  And who was responsible for that debacle?  Why that was none other than Michael D. Harris, Timmy's BFF!  But I'm sure that like any good Conservative, they probably blamed it on some staffer who won't answer any questions that could be potentially embarassing to the Cons themselves.

Hudak is grasping at straws, looking for any way to gain traction on the Liberals, but just being a party of "no is not enough.  The PC's have offered no alternatives up to now and to make matters worse, the NDP has been consistent in what they are for and against and there is no one questioning their sanity.  They have been far more principled than the PC and if the Liberals are to be replaced, they are more likely to be replaced by the NDP for that reason.

So now it's official.  Hudak is a loose cannon, unable to control his minions, let alone himself.  And it's starting to look as if the PC Party of Ontario chose their leader poorly this time around.  It will probably be their next leader who will be premier, but not this clown.

Visibility and Electability (...with a visit to the NHL)

The Bulldogs will not play for the Calder Cup and so begins the speculation of whether or not the Dogs will stay in Hamilton.  There has been talk about them moving to a new facility in Laval.  It could be the prelude to something else on the horizon...

Yesterday, the Spec reported that, Fred Eisenberger went to New York to talk with Gary Bettman and fix some bridges.  It was a good move.  It is important that the city remains in the minds of the NHL, although my cynical self says that Hamilton has always been on the NHL's mind, but only as a city to avoid.  And the total expense to the city is a little over $1000. 

I don't see anything wrong with this.  It was a legitimate trip to market the city.  Where the NHL and Hamilton goes from there would be another story.  But let's call it as we see it.  It was a good spend.  There are obviously councillors who have obviously spent more on less.

But as far as Eisenberger's response to the question of why there was so much secrecy about it, I found it disingenuous.  The fact that we find out now, months after the meeting took place is surely an insult to the taxpayers.  But in an election year, timing is everything, even if you haven't said whether or not you will run.  His explanation of loose lips sinking ships brings us to another question.  What was really at stake if word got out about this meeting?  False hope?  For us, where Hamilton and the NHL are concerned, if you're not disappointed, either you never cared or you're dead.  More pressure on the NHL to admit that Hamilton is a viable host for an NHL team?  It's been pushed back for a half a century so why stop now?  Those walls are starting to buckle.

But here's the real deal.  Fred Eisenberger's biggest weakness has been his lack of visibility.  He just hasn't been visible.  While leaking this says that he has done some marketing, we know that he hasn't done enough.  And if he has been trying to be visible, he's been failing miserably.  When we consider that we had Bob Morrow, Bill Powell, Jack McDonald and Victor Copps over the 30 years before Wade. Over the last 40 years, we've had a history of vocal and visible mayors, until we come to Eisenberger and Wade, both disasters by their own rights, while Larry Di Ianni's term was one fraught with distractions.  So for the last 10 years, neither have been truly effective for their own reasons.

If he runs for re-election, Fred Eisenberger will be just as weak of a candidate as he was four years ago.  And as I said before, the election four years ago was more of a vote against Larry DiIanni than it was a vote for Eisenberger.  With the choices before them, Fred was chosen as an alternative to a term potentially continuing the distractions.  So based on the choices given, the voters did make the right choice.

But it doesn't mean that the election is devoid of issues.  There are problems I am seeing so far in the active campaigns.

One of them is that neither candidate has achieved some form of electability.  We know that Eisenberger, up against the right candidate, is toast.  But we haven't seen anyone who could be seen as a suitable alternative to Eisenberger.  Neither candidate is being taken seriously and part of that blame lies with one of those candidates who has been running again and again, making the elections a running joke and ruining it for the others.  But at the same time, the burden of demonstrating sincerity in wanting to serve, is just as much on the candidates themselves.  We still have yet to see the platform of one candidate and as for the other, we hope that he doesn't burn any more bridges.

Another problem I'm seeing right now is that the mayoral race has been way too quiet and that doesn't bode well for the newbies.  These guys have to start making noise (the right kind, Mahesh) and get themselves and their platforms known!  You can't get signs and posters out, but you can still do flyers, handouts, letters to the editor and a lot of other means to get the word out!

So we could be in a situation we encountered the last time.  But it's still too soon to say.  It will depend on who else puts forward his or her candidacy.

In the meantime, rumours are flying about new mayoral candidates coming into the fold.  Leave it to Cal to scoop me!  :)

The Day After... is the Monarchy still relevant?

Canada was a major first for a country of its kind - a country ruled by a monarch of a country that happens to be one of our founding nations, namely the British.  The additional arrangement would be that a vice-regal appointee would be, in a sense, a steward while the sovereign is not in the country at the time.  It was the perfect compromise, since neither party had the stomach for a revolutionary war, especially after fighting one almost a century before confederation and 50 years after showing their loyalty to the crown by driving an American invasion out of the Niagara Peninsula.  They did have to do something.

Normally, the third or fourth Monday of May is used to celebrate the Queen's birthday in the United Kingdom, but we choose to celebrate the Queen that got the ball rolling towards our independence as a country and for whom we are grateful.  Her name was Victoria, soon to be the second longest reigning British sovereign, as Queen Elizabeth II is right now on the verge of eclipsing that very record held in the previous century.

So now the hangover begins and so begins another adult conversation which we've been dancing around for a long time:  what is the importance of the monarchy and is it still relevant?  I suppose the real question here is what is the alternative?  Will having a republic make this country any better?  I mean, the power to dissolve parliament is one that is used with great care and the last guy to do it without advice from the Prime Minister got his head chopped off.  And we begin to wonder if the Governor General can refuse advice from the Prime Minister since none have done so for decades.  What is really the Governor General's job, other than a rubber stamp for the government of the day.  As a teenager, I thought is was an interesting job, because it would also be an opportunity to be enlightened about the country of which you've been made head of state on the sovereign's behalf.  But as we go forward understanding the role, would it make sense to elect one?

My answer would be no.  The one thing that Canadians generally like about our Governor-General, it's that the person is supposedly above the politics of the day.  We need interesting people like Adrienne Clarkson and even Michaele Jean to be the country's steward, because the one thing that is missing in the American republic is something that we individually have:  a conscience.  We actually have someone who embodies our country as a whole.  That is the true purpose of the monarchy.  And while they are still human, frailties and all, they are still a symbol.

Now if you understand some of the history behind it, there are people who believe that the monarchy is not relevant to us at all.  Most of these people have no roots in Europe.  These were peoples oppressed through the imperialistic tendencies of the European countries, the worst of them being Spanish, but England made more than its share of enemies as well.  India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and many other countries were left in a mess, mostly because they were formed following a revolt.  So I empathize with them and since its the patron countries that have to answer for these, I leave it to them. 

And while the system works well right now, it is only as reliable as the guardians.  Michaele Jean's term as Governor-General is coming to a close and the question of who is next is one that has brought about great anxiety.  Stephen Harper has probably made his choice and he might have chosen someone he can control.  The problem with that is there could be politics coming in to play in an area that an unwritten rule comes to mind:  you choose someone who embodies our collective conscience or you risk cheapening the job.  That is the purpose behind the constitutional monarchy.  Abuse it at your own peril.

The only alternative is a republic with a president and if you've been watching south of the border, you've been watching presidential primaries and elections running on for almost two years.  So while the president is running things in the first three years, he has to spend the fourth one organizing his re-election campaign and sometimes it just isn't entertaining watching presidential campaigns with no apparent end.  Politics is interesting, but it's also tedious and mind-numbing after a while.

So all in all, I do believe that the monarchy has relevance, because of its continuity.  While governments come and go, the crown will always remain.  I would rather see this kind of long term continuity than see presidents coming, going and continuously campaigning.  And if you are still on the fence about it, here's a question that you could answer:  In a battle, what symbol do you have an easier time rallying around?  Would you rally around a person or an object?  I'll leave that one to you.

And then there were three... plus more councillor candidates!

Another mayoral candidate has thrown his hat into the ring.  His name is Andrew Haines and I hope to hear his platform, if Cal DiFalco hasn't done it yet.  Still have yet to hear of the intentions of the incumbent Mr. Eisenberger.

Julia Kollek has recently submitted her candidacy in Dundas, challenging incumbent, Russ Powers, who as some may have recalled, was in the middle of a debacle of his own.  This one was over the cost of city hall furniture and his poor attempt at spinning the issue.  I am sure they will have a good spirited debate, something the Dundas community could use.

As Cal DiFalco mentioned a couple of weeks ago, Paul Tetley has entered the race for Ward 2 city councillor, a race that's starting to get crowded, especially when Wilamina McGrimmond has entered the race as well.  And while it's good to have a mixture of candidates, the only concern that comes up from here is whether or not Bernie Morelli would run.  The unfortunate thing about a crowded ballot is that it tends to favour the incumbent.

And still questions remain.  Tom Jackson will run again in Ward 6 and if so, will Natalie Xian Yi Yan's marketing campaign be able to keep her close, considering Jackson won by a landslide the last time they vied for the job?  Will there be a challenge to Ward 4 powerhouse Sam Merulla?  Will Bratina run again?

9 wards remain with only one candidate running and nomination day is coming quick.  If you want to run in the city elections, it's now or never!  You need at least 2 months to get acquainted with the people in your local ward and they need to know who you are.  And don't forget my mantra:  if they don't know you, they won't vote for you.  Get those issues down pat and best of luck to all who enter the races.

Endorsements and Working with the Establishment

It looks like pressed a few buttons over at Raise the Hammer.  I have to admit that I was taken aback about some of the comments about my piece, but a thick skin is what is needed when you venture out and let people know of your opinion, especially after being called a "smart ass writer".

My thanks to Ryan for publishing my thoughts on Mahesh Butani's rant.  Perhaps I will be doing more commentary on the mayoral race as time goes on.  But I need to touch on some thoughts that were laid out, because some took exception to a supplementary statement I made in the comments area that, "an endorsement from the Spec is gold."  Some argued that it was bunk because Fred Eisenberger won the election despite Larry DiIanni being endorsed.

But I need to point out that despite all the polls, especially a bogus one that left the impression that there was nothing that could get in DiIanni's way of a second term, Fred Eisenberger did win.  That shows that it's one thing to win an opinion poll, but another thing to win the election.  As they say in football, you can predict the outcome of a game, but you can't give the win to a team before the game is played.  So let's go over why Eisenberger won over DiIanni.  The most obvious thing here is that not one candidate could even reach the 50% mark. 

One could speculate that it was the low voter turnout that did it.  Perhaps everyone thought he had it in the bag and just didn't bother to show up and do the formalities.  Some could speculate that the Spectator poll was a load of junk and the election demonstrated that.

But the most obvious thing I could see here is that there were more votes against DiIanni than for him.  It was more that Di Ianni lost the election than Eisenberger won it.  Unfortunately, I can't see how the election was broken down by wards and that would have better illustrated where the voters were from.  What I am sure of is that Ancaster, Dundas and Flamborough had a free-for-all, making those the wild card areas or kingmakers, while Hamilton, Stoney Creek and Glanbrook would have had very close numbers between them.

It is too easy to criticize the media when you don't see things their way.  Heaven knows a lot of the logic used in the papers have me shaking my head a lot these days.  But opinion is just that.  And phone-in polls are only as good as the participants, while random polls are only as good as the sample.  Look, most polls are psychological.  They hope that you'll see things their way.  But as they say, you can lead a horse to water, etc...

There are those who thought that Mahesh Butani's letter was a metaphoric banging on the doors on Frid Street to get attention to some apparent attempt to shut out someone of the wrong race from the mayoral race.  The problem with that analogy is that other than the blogosphere debating this matter, nobody's paying attention.  When you burn one bridge that could have got you some respectable notoriety, what do you replace it with?  My concern with Mahesh's approach to the Spec was that if he did come across as a loose cannon, throwing baseless accusations, who will pay attention to him?  Who will Mahesh have to rely on to make sure people know who he is?  He needs the media to get his messages out, otherwise nobody knows who he is.  And yes, he doesn't just need the Spec, but it would be a good start.

Look at it this way:  the media is a tool and nothing more.  If you use the right ones, you will do well, but use or abuse the wrong ones and your fortunes will turn for the worst and from that point, nobody's listening.  But don't shoot the messenger for it.  Love them or hate them, we need the media to inform us and entertain us and hopefully enlighten us.  But keep in mind the words of Marshall McLuhan:  "The medium is the message."

The fact is that civic elections are supposed to be civilized.  We have them so we're not having civil wars over who is in charge and that everyone has a say in who they want in charge.  Unfortunately, not everybody wins, but that's democracy and that's the world we live in.  We have a right to be unhappy, but only when you actually vote.

Play Nice, Both of You! (Update Below)

It seems that Andrew Dreschel and Hamilton mayoral canadidate Mahesh Butani have a bit of a disagreement.  And it began with a small paragraph put into Dreschel's column, to which I will defer the details to my fellow blogger, Cal DiFalco. 

So I will take this opportunity to pass some of my now famous words of wisdom to all of you about this most unfortunate situation.  I will begin by stating the obvious.  In this case, Mr. Butani's apparent attempt at getting some publicity for himself just blew up in his face.  I'm sorry, Mahesh, but that's the truth.

It is important to an aspiring politician to avoid impulsive anger at all costs.  It is important to be in control of your emotions and your words and to avoid looking like a loose cannon.  And I hate to say this Mahesh, but you did sound rather unhinged, angry and vitriolic.  All that he did was point out that you have a long way to go to be known as a credible candidate and that unless you do something, you won't have a chance.  You should have taken that as a signal that you need to get your name out, otherwise the people that matter will not know that you even exist, short of a name on the ballot.

As far as Andrew goes, I have to say that he was out of bounds on this one too.  When credible candidates do step up and put their names in for nomination, these guys should be honoured, not scoffed at.  I think the greater insult here is that Dreschel dropped credibility-challenged Michael Baldassaro's name well before he mentioned Butani's, making the mayoral race one in which the more credible candidate has to overcome the less serious candidate before he will even get credibility from the media.  It was almost as if he wasn't even in the gates when the horserace began.  What's even worse is that the incumbent mayor still has yet to submit his nomination papers. 

But the insult doesn't stop there.  Cartoonist Grame MacKay had a depiction of the mayoral race in a sparring metaphor where Eisenburger is taller than both Baldassaro and an even smaller Mahesh Butani.  A door opens and a large Larry DiIanni is entering the ring.  I will make this picture available as soon as I find it.

So yes, it is easy to see why Butani was rather angry and frustrated.  But he cannot be absolved of such a major campaigning faux-pas.  From this point on, I would suggest that Butani accept that he acted impulsively and try to take back what he said, otherwise his letter will haunt him for the rest of the campaign.  Getting on the wrong side of the media early in the campaign will not help his chances.

Update! 
Mr. Butani has responded to some of the reactions shown in the comments section of the original entry that Cal made in "The Hamiltonian."   While he has legitimate concerns with the direction that this city is taking, I don't believe that there was anything racial to what Andrew Dreschel said in that one single paragraph, unless there was something I missed.  But I do have to say it again, Mahesh.  If you haven't started doing it yet, you have to get your name out NOW!

Oh so NOW he says it!!!

It has been over five years since the general consensus was that there would be a new stadium somewhere in the west harbor area.  This idea has been around since Hamilton put in a bid for the 2010 Commonwealth Games, one which was one of the most corrupt decisions ever made by the federation.  The delegates were openly offered money to select Calcutta to be the host city for this year's Commonwealth Games.

So this plan has been in the works for a long time.  The city simply waited for the right opportunity.  After all, we needed a reason to build a new stadium.  Forget that Ivor Wynne Stadium was a few degrees away from being condemned, well beyond repair.  Forget that it was getting more and more expensive to, for some silly sentimental reason, repair and renovate the old lady.  And the city didn't want to foot the whole bill.  They wanted to get some federal and provincial money to build a new one. But that's another story.

Unless either you're not living in Hamilton, or you've just been sleeping under a rock, you know about the recent drama that has been unfolding over the last couple of weeks.  The city wanted the stadium on the west harbor all along and the establishment has fought tooth and nail to ensure that this would be the only site of choice among many better ones.  The Tiger-Cats organization made their views loud and clear as the process rolled out.  But the city still didn't listen.  They pushed their plan to the hilt, to the chagrin of the Tiger-Cats.

So now here we are debating the merits of a stadium in the west harbor with a stubborn group of people who chose that site years ago.   In their minds, there is no other site.  No wonder Bob Young finally put an editorial in the Spec last weekend.  He had to make his views known.  After some arguing, they agreed on a facilitator to try to address their issues.

Well all of a sudden, Freddie finally says that he is open to other locations.  The Spec reported that he is now open to other locations.  After his rebuttal, he finally agrees that the west harbor may not be the best location for the new stadium.  I wonder if this has anything to do with Larry DiIanni's possible candidacy.  I mean it could be a good opportunity for a wild card candidate to step into the scene and pull votes away from the both of them.  This could be the moment in which "None of the Above" becomes a better candidate.  It's bad enough that turnout could be the worst in city history.  But still, no regrets.

Not this time...

After the successful scorched earth plan enacted by the Russians against an emperor bent on the conquest of Europe, it was Napoleon Bonaparte that said that an army marches on its stomachs.

The first thing to understand about wanting to get into politics is whether or not your family can handle the possibility of you being in the public eye.  There are a lot of problems that come with the territory.  Being in the public eye makes you publicly accessible and can open the door to impromptu meetings, impromptu bouquets and the occasional impromptu brickbats.  Of course there is the humiliation of being fingered in a matter that you may not have had any involvement in first place.  But your name was brought up and now every blogger around is going to town on you.  Yes, politics is not the best vocation.

At best, you are showered with praise and people look to you for their support.  Your name carries more weight than ever.  At worst, you are scum.  You are the person everyone loves to hate.  Just ask Liberal-turned-Tory-Turncoat Brad Clark.  It's the ultimate love/hate relationship.

Of course, there's also the aftermath of an election loss.  The money spent and lost forever, never to return, along with the disappointment of having lost something that you thought you deserved to win.  Politics just isn't everything it's cracked up to be, especially when you do lose.  But that's sort of the beauty of the whole thing.

The final factor in my decision is the fact that I am just moving into the area I intended to run in.  I am not there yet and that could be a negative on me.  I suppose the only way I would change my mind is if there were enough people asking me to run.

I told you the challenges that the next mayor would have to face.  Will the next city council be one that works together?  I hope so, but one thing is for sure:  If I don't like what I see, I am running in the next election.  It just isn't right this time.  I am really sorry about this folks.

The future of this blog will be assessed and I will have some words with Cal diFalco to see what he suggests as we both share the same passion and that's for our city's growth and future, of which we stand at the crossroads.

Andrea actually has it right!!

Now hold on to your hats kids!  It's not often I do this.

Being a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, sometimes it can be rather difficult to see eye to eye with a dipper, especially one like Andrea Horwath.  But I give credit where due.  It's one of those leadership commandments.  I could go into details about those wonderful commandments, but I would rather stay on topic.

Andrea has been consistent on her position on the HST, while Tim Hudak can't stop the weaseling out of the outright question on whether or not he would repeal it.

Andrea has impressed me again on her position with Hamilton's LRT funding.  She wants the commitment in writing, especially with the Pan-Am games on the way.  One thing is for sure.  If Dalton really wants to lose Hamilton, he can re-neg on the funding.  Too much is riding on the building of the LRT system, including getting a decent mandate to renovate and rebuild the downtown core. 

Why the need for such a commitment?  Well, when it comes to promises from federal and provincial governments, us Hamiltonians are used to disappointment.  Collectively, we are Charlie Brown and those funding promises are the football and therefore those governments play the part of Lucy.  Just when we're ready to kick things off, the governments pull the funding away at the last minute.

So I have to say that Andrea has this one right.  And I hope that recently annoited politi-star Sophia Aggelonitis is listening and reminding Dalton about it, otherwise she will have to watch her seat which was hotly contested in 2007, return to the NDP.  I hope that weasel-wording-responsibility-abdicating Timmy is listening too.  After all, Glanbrook is part of his riding and that's where the airport is, the destination for the next RT system to come.

We have seen promise after promise broken by the powers that be and we've never been happy about it.  So it is with good reason that we get these promises in writing and woe betide the party that breaks that commitment. 

Okay, you can breathe now.