The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Mr. Tory do not run for mayor
There has been rumors for three years now that George Smitherman, Ontario Liberal cabinet Minister, will run for Mayor of Toronto in 2010. Today Mr. Smitherman made it as close to being official as he can without making it official. The race in 2010 will be between Mr. Smitherman and Mr. Miller.
The open question is if there is going to be a third factor. John Tory has been contemplating running for mayor as well. This could lead to the splitting of the anti-Miller vote, thus allowing Mr. Miller to slip by for a victory. What is more both Mr.Smitherman and Mr. Tory agree that running two candidates against Mr. Miller is a bad idea.
So the question becomes this, who is best able to defeat Mr. Miller?
George Smitherman has long been elected from a downtown riding, yet he has a network throughout the city. He has shown leadership during the garbage strike by organizing people to clear the garbage. He has real executive experience as the former Minister of Health and current Minister of Energy. Mr. Smitherman has the makings of a strong candidate.
John Tory has never been elected in Toronto. The two times that he tried he failed. He has never been in government and has demonstrated a lack of leadership ability. He has also destroyed all his credibility as a political player. The by-election defeat that precipitated his resignation as party leader was the final humiliation. A party leader who cannot even win a safe seat is not a political force. The only thing he can hope to do is drain votes away from Smitherman.
Mr. Tory, for the sake of the city, do not run.
Hugh, the objective should be to replace Miller with a better candidate, not replace him at all costs, as you suggest.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-09 12:40:40 PM
I agree that replacing him with someone worse would not be beneficial. Yet I cannot imagine Mr. Smitherman being worse. Actually I can't really imagine Mr. Tory being significantly better than Mr. Smitherman. Under these conditions I would prefer to go with the one that is more likely to win.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2009-09-09 12:53:46 PM
Fair enough, Hugh.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-09 1:34:40 PM
So, Hugh's liberal leanings are shown once more! He wants to choose a center-left liberal who will walk towards socialism at only 80% of the speed that Miller is! A McGuinty style Liberal versus a Bob Rae style NDPer. Is there really that big a difference? For eight years, Mike Harris governed Ontario with a right-leaning majority. Right-wingers can win(this excludes liberal-lighter John Tory)! Why settle for the lesser of two evils? Is there nobody from the Ontario PC, Libertarian, Family Coalition, or former Reformers who can make a fight for Toronto? Heck, I will even settle for parachuting in a talk radio hosts like Charles Adler or Roy Green(isn't Green living in Ontario?).
New York City only changed when a real center-right leader took control(Republican Rudy Giuliani). Rudy combined a tough on crime approach with very conservative economic policies(tax cuts, downsizing of government). He even started to reform the city's school system. The result was his reelection with 57% of the vote in a city where Democrats hold a 5 to 1 voter registration. Giuliani was succeeded by another Republican mayor Mike Bloomberg who continued his reforms. The result is that New York City which has a 5 to 1 Democrat registration edge also has had Republican mayors for over 16 years. In fact, the Democrats will probably lose the mayoral race in 2009. This will make it 20 years that the Democrats have not held the top job in New York City(previous record was 12 years from 1933-1945 under Republican mayor Fiorello LaGuardia). The point is that Giuliani never wrote off New York City and eventually triumphed! Why can't the center-right around Toronto show the same courage?
Posted by: Bob | 2009-09-09 6:55:43 PM
Smithers? I don't think so. Too bad Ben Kerr is dead. I'll write him in anyway.
Posted by: Realist | 2009-09-09 10:28:08 PM
I so tired of Conservative ramblings about socialist claptrap.
European countries such as Sweden are swimming circles around us - socialism really does suck.
The bottom line is if the Conservatives believe resurrecting the "red scare" of the 1950's will supplant the necessity for the presentation of fiscal and social policy; then we are in for many more minority governments.
This "red scare" signifies a party with no direction and no leadership.
I had big hopes for the new conservative party; however they have proven to be anything different than the conservative party of past.
Posted by: Chris | 2009-09-10 1:41:23 PM
Chris, the first person here to use the words "red scare" was you. I've noticed, too, that liberals are often the first to use words like "God," "religion," "Dark Ages," "Hitler," "Nazis," "mean-spirited," "racist," "sexist," "biased," and the rest of the identity-politics litany. By so doing, they reveal their own biases and their own preconceptions about their political opponents, which are often wrong. Right-wingers are harder to figure out than Left-wingers because Right-wingers don't spend every waking minute shouting their beliefs from the rooftops. They're too busy working.
Oh, and in what way is Europe "swimming circles" around us? And why is looking to Europe for solutions better than looking to America, the most successful country in human history (and not coincidentally populated by Europe's castoffs), for solutions? If you want to live the European lifestyle, move to Europe. They'll probably be glad to get some white immigrants for a change.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-10 2:49:31 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.