05.13.2018 10:32 AM

In yesterday walks tomorrow, etc.


  1. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    That’s why the media call them strategists. LOL.

  2. Peter says:

    Politics has become very partisan and polemical today, especially in the States, but both sides seem to forget that there are still a huge number of people who don’t consider themselves dogmatic or even have a limited interest in politics–the decent, muddled middle. Many people who voted for Trump are in no way members of TrumpNation–they are motivated by what they see as Dem corruption, smug elitism and a slavish loyalty to identity politics advocacy. It works the other way too–impressive, moderate Dems worried about income inequality are painted as subverting the intent of the Founding Fathers. The “Chicken Little” approach of loudly demonizing supporters from the other side and warning of the end of civilization as we know it if they prevail may fire up the team already in their camp, but it strikes me that it is a very dangerous game to play with the middle and non-aligned, who may be wary or Ford, but who just aren’t going to believe he is a dangerous misogynist fascist because he makes light of Wynne’s smile and who may, in fact, hold their noses and gravitate to him to avoid being governed by virtue-signalling progressives who heap loud contempt on people they consider good neighbours, family and friends. Harper lost his last election because the Con rhetoric on immigrants and Muslims became offensive to many who saw themselves as small-c conservative. If Wynne and Horvath can’t keep their teams from ranting with fiery eyes about racism, sexism or pick-up trucks in Renfrew, they may suffer the same fate.

    • Fred from BC says:

      Very well stated, Peter.

      I’m not sure that the progressives will be able to heed that advice, though, even if they want to; it seems that bullying is just an inherent part of their nature (and indeed, too much *fun* for many of them to give up). They may try really hard to paint conservatives as the bigoted and intolerant ones, but that’s not my experience so far. Try exposing a ‘progressive’ to an opinion he or she does not share and see how long it takes for them to start spewing venom at you…it’s disturbing…

      • Katamount says:

        Fred, the opinions we’re talking about are not “which hockey team do you like better?” These are serious policy matters that affect people’s lives. And in my almost 33 years of living in Ontario, the worst of those policies came during the Mike Harris years. It was his policies that left me in a double cohort year with slashed extracurriculars and regular support staff strikes during my high school years. That’s the kinda thing that galvanizes your politics really fast. If the McGuinty Liberals had any huge failings, gas plants aside, it was not reversing those devastating PC policies that the school boards have not yet recovered from even 16 years later.

        The anti-LGBT and anti-Muslim rhetoric is just boilerplate dog-whistling to rabble rouse for the base. Doesn’t matter if it’s Doug Ford or Patrick Brown, the slash and burn attitude to the regular function of government is exactly the same and that’s not just an “opinion,” that’s a matter of history.

    • Katamount says:

      Sorry, back up a sec… did you just try to convince us that the ostensible low-information voter who voted for Donald John Trump–prominent boorish media side-show since the 1970s–woke up one morning, looked at the candidate backed by David Duke and said “Hmmm, I probably shouldn’t do it… but that Hillary is just so SMUG!” before pulling the Trump lever? You show me somebody who thought that way and I’ll buy the bridge you’re selling. No, these people were always Republican voters. Maybe not registered in the party, but voted Republican since Nixon. And Trump was Republican id in its basest form: loud, domineering, reveling in ignorance, self-assured of his superiority over “experts” and openly contemptuous of not only those different than him, but the basic principles of democracy.

      See, the chattering class likes to make Ford and Trump out to be some kind of anomaly among otherwise principled small-c conservatives. No, they’re the product of 30 years of distilling moderates out of right-wing parties in both Canada and the US. To me, the personalities are ultimately irrelevant, because make no mistake: it’s the policies that have always been problem. It wasn’t Rob Ford’s crack use that made him an embarrassment to me; it was his ridiculous subway idea that somehow Toronto is still saddled with! By the same token, you think that Patrick Brown’s or Christine Elliott’s platforms somehow *wouldn’t* involve massive cuts to public services? That’s the textbook conservative answer to any problem: cut government and shovel money towards private interests!

      And as was properly pointed out in the Star recently, only one word should describe any demands for “efficiencies” in government: Walkerton.

      • Pedro says:

        As a conservative fiscally and open yet committed to bougie social values (gotta whole family that seems to be happy and not broke cuzza them) let me say it WAS Rob Ford’s crack use that was a problem and embarrassment to me. And re: Walkerton. I saw it and see it as a provincial government treating muni’s as adults and expecting adult behaviour and Walkerton got . . . a drunk. Laugh and roll yer eyes but most expect – “git ‘er dun.” To me, Trump is doing it, Wynne got things done by buying everything somehow and Ford will be somewhat less of a disaster or, with good fortune, not.

        • Katamount says:

          Uh huh, feel free to explain that $3.2 billion dollar (and rising) one-stop Scarborough subway (that John Tory just torpedoed hearings about) to me anytime.

          No, what Walkerton got was six preventable deaths and 2000 grave illnesses facilitated by a privatized water-testing firm and slashed government oversight. A properly functioning provincial apparatus would have found and relieved those “drunks” before the first person even tasted the tainted water.

          I recommend rereading the Commissioner’s report, or at least the highlights: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/walkerton-report-blames-province-water-managers-1.303975

          • Fred from BC says:

            “A properly functioning provincial apparatus would have found and relieved those “drunks” before the first person even tasted the tainted water.”

            I call BS on that statement. That is pure speculation,and you have absolutely NO WAY of knowing whether or not that is true. Period. You’re just projecting your obvious ongoing hatred of Mike Harris again.

            Using your own ‘logic’, then, how is it that Walkerton was the only place to suffer such tragedy? What about the thousands of other small Ontario towns…how is it that none of them experienced the same situation?

            If, as you suggest, we really, really need provincial oversight in such matters, then why not *federal* oversight as well? You know…to watch the provincial employees who are watching the local employees? And then just to be EXTRA SPECIAL SAFE, we should also ask the United Nations to send a special force of impartial observers to watch those federal employees who are watching the provincial employees who are watching the municipal employees.

  3. Steve T says:

    And now they are talking about an NDP / Liberal coalition. I assume that will be quite distasteful for moderate Liberals (such as yourself). Is this a jump-the-shark moment?

  4. whyshouldIsellyourwheat says:

    We are the DEPLORABLES! Say it Kathleen. You know you want to.

    Except in Ontario, there is the “Bernie Sanders” option available, who they couldn’t stop from being the candidate of the so-called progressives like the Clintons and the DNC could by fixing Democratic nomination.

    The Wynne Liberals could do the honourable thing and step aside.

  5. JH says:

    Don’t mind being labelled a Deplorable by the Laurentian Elites. Clearly defines where I stand and their opinion of folks like me.
    And there are more of me!

  6. Katamount says:

    Come on, Warren, “Ford Nation” buys into the Ford message because it’s a lifestyle brand, not because it’s any kind coherent ideology that has been carefully weighed against the party platforms of his rivals. Saying things they *know* are straight-up bigoted (see Andrew Lawton) is part of that brand. They’d actually be taken aback if they *didn’t* receive some kind of condemnation from the perceived “elites.” Look no further than some of the above comments wanting to be called “Deplorables.”

    Ford Nation isn’t going to just up and abandon that lifestyle brand, even if Wynne or Horwath adopt populist rhetoric and present a platform that benefits them. They’ll still be construed as “out-of-touch elites” because they happen to have a lot of representation in the Toronto core. No, the only thing that would ever break that brand is if Doug Ford said that he was wrong on something and that Kathleen Wynne was right. That would be the moment that Ford Nation shatters and not a moment before.

    • Peter says:

      Say, Katamount, as you seem to believe all potential Ford voters are deplorables (or maybe the polite Canadian equivalent–low information voters), do you think Wynne and Horvath should be straight with the public and call these people what they think they are or should they lie in the name of some ‘higher truths” and tell them they are “hard-working Canadians” whose interests they pledge to work hard to defend at Queen’s Park?

      • Katamount says:

        To assign them that label would be to play their game. No, their opinions towards, say, women, the LGBT communities, Muslims, immigrants etc. should be called out as bigotry in the event of a dog-whistle, but they want to hold up that label as a sign of victimhood at the hands of their “downtown elite” oppressors.

        Because those that make up Ford Nation are hard-working Canadians. Most of us are. But what they’ve done is bought into a lifestyle brand that says “be jealous of downtown Toronto, distrust experts, resent activists, and consider anybody who tells you otherwise to be condescending to you.”

        We saw this firsthand in 2012, when Scarborough residents demanded “subways or nothing,” but any talk about where the money would come from was taken as a personal attack, or at best hand-waved away with “I’ll take a small tax”. City planners, population experts, civil engineers, all ignored for the sake of what was frankly pure ego.

        I’m an educated man and a former Scarborough resident, but I’m not a city or transit planner. I don’t know the ins and outs of transit infrastructure or population trends over the coming decades neighbourhood by neighbourhood. These people do, and I’ll trust their expertise before perceived personal affronts. That’s not condescension; it’s expertise taking the driver’s seat.

        We could have had Transit City, a fully-funded transit option left on the table by David Miller. We’re now left with a one-stop subway boondoggle for $3.2 billion and rising. So much for fiscal responsibility. That’s what happens when experts are overruled by emotion on matters of public import.

        • Peter says:

          Thanks. I respect your heartfelt views even though I don’t agree with a lot of them, but don’t you think it is telling that one who is as disgusted with and dismissive of Con voters in Ontario is so fixated on Toronto’s transit problems? How many non-Toronto voters do you imagine are going to vote on that issue? Do you see this as another municipal election?

          • doconnor says:

            It’s just a prime example of right-wing hypocrisy.

          • Katamount says:

            As @doconnor said, it’s merely a prime example of the hypocrisy that Ford and Ford Nation engage in, particularly when they’re riled up in some populist furor. They’re for “fiscal conservatism” until they’re cratering the budget with half-baked projects that make them “feel good.”

            And make no mistake, the economy’s not doing too badly right now. Unemployment is low. Job creation is high. Does Wynne get any of the credit? Of course not, she’s only Premier.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *