Tag: Politics

Mayoral Candidate Olivia Chow’s Disturbing Support for Queers Against Israeli Apartheid

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in John Tory, Olivia Chow, Politics

In a recent Toronto mayoral debate,  leading mayoral candidate John Tory reopened the debate about whether the controversial Toronto group, known as Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) should be permitted to march in the very popular annual summer Toronto Pride Parade.

Mr. Tory, to his credit, argued that QuAIA, which promotes a virulent message, should not be permitted to participate in a Pride Parade that is publicly funded by Toronto taxpayers.Mr. Tory also argued that if he was elected Mayor, he would deny public funding to the Pride organization, if the Pride group permitted QuAIA to march in its annual parade.

On the other hand, Ms. Chow in the same debate,  supported QuAIA’s right to protest in a publicly-funded Pride Parade, on the basis that the Toronto City solicitor opined that the use of “Israel Apartheid” was “protected speech” and that the Toronto City Manager Penachetti believed that the participation of QuAIA, did not violate the City of Toronto’s policies against hate and discrimination.

Again, to Tory’s credit, he stated emphatically at the debate, that he believed the city’s position was wrong and such anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish views had no place in a Pride Parade which celebrates human rights, tolerance and inclusivity.

I agree with John Tory’s view and here is why I believe Chow’s support of the anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic QuAIA, is unprincipled, immoral and contrary to Canadian values.

Anti-Israeli Apartheid movement is funded, financed and sponsored by Hamas

The anti-Israeli Apartheid movement is funded, financed and sponsored by Hamas.

According to Hamas’ constitution,  it wishes to kill all Jews and to eliminate Israel from the Middle East. These views are clearly anti-Semitic and hateful.

For Hamas, the anti-Israeli Apartheid movement is an attempt to delegitimize the state of Israel and destroy it diplomatically. Hamas wants to do to Israel diplomatically, what it cannot do, to date, militarily.

Accordingly, the then Federal Liberal leader Ignatieff, labelled the anti-Israeli Apartheid movement as anti-Semitic.

This view has been endorsed by current Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. I also believe that this is the view of Thomas Mulcair,  leader of the federal NDP.

Conservative Prime Minister Harper’s public condemnation of the anti-Israel Apartheid and BDS movements as blatantly anti-Semitic, is also very well known and has been widely reported.

Furthermore, the Ontario Legislature has unanimously condemned Israeli Apartheid week as “odious and unacceptable”.

So we have two levels of government that have condemned the Israeli Apartheid movement.

In the subject debate, Chow argued that her pro-QuAIA position was based upon her reliance upon expert opinion.

Interestingly, Chow is a bit selective when she relies upon experts. The very same City Manager Pennachetti in the past issued a major report praising the Scarborough subway extension, which Chow chose to ignore, because such a report undermined her pro Scarborough bus and LRT view.

It seems once again, Chow is hiding behind selective experts’ opinions and is refusing to take a principled and moral stand.

The Canadian federal government (together with US, Britain and the EU) has also publicly maintained that the anti-Israeli Apartheid movement, which singles out Israel ( while ignoring the human rights abuses of Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Iran etc) is more than mere opposition to Israeli government policies, but is in fact Jew hatred and hence anti-Semitism.

This is a view also held by a majority of the members of the Ontario legislature.

In view of these facts, Chow appears on shaky moral ground to support QuAIA’s right to march in a publicly-funded parade.

John Tory stated that he respected the right of QuAIA to protest , but it can protest anywhere it wants, just not in a Toronto taxpayer and publicly-funded Pride Parade.

Another point Chow should consider is that Hamas, the key backer and beneficiary of the anti-Israeli Apartheid movement – kills, tortures and discriminates against the Gazan LGBT ( lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender) community.

Contrast that with the fair and equal treatment of the LGBT community in Israel.

So why is Chow putting herself on the same side of Hamas, which kills, tortures and discriminates against the Gazan LGBT community?

Since the Pride Parade is about tolerance, the celebration of the LGBT community and inclusivity, why does Chow not take the position that the anti-Israeli QuAIA ( which many Jewish and non Jewish Torontonians believe to be a hateful, Jew-hating, anti-Semitic organization) has no place in the Pride Parade?

By Chow failing to take a clear and principled stand against the anti-Semitism of QuAIA, Olivia Chow risks being tarred with the same toxic brush.

Why the Unlikeable Radical Leftist Olivia Chow Lost The Toronto Mayoral Election

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Olivia Chow, Politics

There are over two months left in this mayoral race. But Olivia Chow’s dream of finally stepping out of the shadow of her more politically talented husband, Jack Layton, has turned into a political and humiliating nightmare.

Several months ago, when Chow jumped into the race, the obsequious mainstream media,  that is, the journalistically suspect CBC, Toronto Star and Globe and Mail, declared her the frontrunner. And the candidate to beat. .

But according to a recent Forum Research poll, Chow has fallen precipitously from first place-( 35% )to third place- 25%, two points behind the unsinkable Mayor Rob Ford (27%), and 10 big points behind the surging John Tory (35%).

Two recent events have further killed her chances of election.

Councilor and former TTC Chairman Karen Stintz, one of Chow’s opponents on the right, has dropped out of the race. Stintz had been stuck at 5% for most of the campaign.

Stintz fiscally conservative supporters will avoid Chow like the Ebola plague. And instead will gravitate to Chow’s opponents,  John Tory and Rob Ford. Catapulting both of them further ahead of the nose-diving Chow.

The Prince of Darkness

But Chow’s most egregious error to date in this campaign, (and there have been a manure load of errors) was to publicly lie about the role of one of her key political advisers.

None other than The Prince of Darkness himself.

The director of her own war room operations.

A black political operator so cunning, tough, brutal and merciless.

Imagine the evil spawn of Tricky Dick Nixon and Dick Cheney- the incomparable Warren Kinsella.

In an over the top, tweet, that will certainly go down as one the nastiest public assaults, Kinsella accused John Tory of being a racist segregationist for Tory’s proposed transit scheme that purportedly excluded some Toronto black communities.

But, as in the classic Watergate, the attempted cover up by Chow was far worse than the crime.

Instead of publicly castigating Kinsella for his impolitic suggestion, Chow lied publicly and stated that Kinsella was just “one of thousands of volunteers”.  Even though Kinsella’s company was on the Chow payroll as a media consultant. And Kinsella was a critical director of her quick response war room operations.

Chow’s public statement was such a bald-faced lie, that even the craven Pravda-like CBC/Star/Globe, which to date Chow and Kinsella have intimidated with Putinian efficiency, could not ignore or cover up Chow’s immense public blunder.

Her grand public lie once again cast a harsh light on Chow’s entire flawed public character.

A public persona, characterized by a pattern of morally questionable behavior that Chow has exhibited throughout her whole public life.

In 30 years of public life, Chow has never once admitted to making a mistake. She has never apologized or taken responsibility for her many errors. And they are legion. For example.

How did Chow in 1985 secure a below market subsidized Hazelburn co-op unit, within one year ( according to her own autobiography) when the wait list for such affordable housing was many years and over 30,000 needy families were ahead of her in line?

What about her untruthful and unbelievable public defense of her husband’s cure for a bad back, when he was caught naked in a police raid at an illegal massage parlor around the corner from their home @ThisAintTheElmwoodSpa?

Why did Chow as MP rack up one of the highest personal and office expenses than any Ontario federal MP including federal Tory Cabinet ministers?

Obviously, as in Hazelburn fiasco, Chow as a public figure, believes that she is entitled to her public entitlements.

And that as a leftist political activist, she is above moral reproach.

Well, the chickens have come home to roost for Olivia Chow.

Her campaign is in disarray as she falls further behind John Tory and Rob Ford.

Her moral failings,  her arrogance, her weak character, and her confused policy platform have finally done her in.

History will not be kind to Olivia Chow, widow of Jack Layton.

In running for mayor of Toronto, Chow believed that she would be Hillary to Jack’s Bill Clinton.

Instead her imploding political campaign has demonstrated that she is more like Yoko Ono who was nothing without her John.

Canadian PM Stephen Harper Courageously Slams Hamas’ Terrorism

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics, Stephen Harper

Canadian Prime Minister Harper dominates all western political leaders, in terms of his courageous advocacy of Israel’s right to defend itself with all necessary and justifiable force.

In this area, no western leader can match Harper’s eloquence, tough-mindedness and principled and articulate vocal opposition to Hamas’ terrorism.
And that unfortunately includes the hapless and sadly” missing in action” US President Obama.In the wake of Israel’s bombing of Gazan missile installations, in reaction to hundreds of missiles being launched by Hamas at Israeli citizens, Harper recently publicly remarked that “self defense is not merely an Israeli right to be exercised in the abstract, but an Israeli obligation that must be defended by all Western nations.”

Harper further stated that “failure by the international community to condemn these reprehensible actions will encourage these terrorists to continue their appalling actions.’’

Harper, on behalf of Canada, called on its allies and partners to recognize that these terrorist acts [by Hamas] were unacceptable and that solidarity with Israel was the best way of stopping the conflict.

Contrast Harper’s full-throated support for Israel’s right to defend itself by attacking Hamas’ missile sites and Hamas’ military leaders, with Obama’s embarrassingly weak response.Obama paid mere lip service to Israel’s right to defend itself,  when he stated that, “Israel has a right to defend itself from rocket attacks that terrorize the Israeli people.

But then Obama called upon Prime Minister Netanyahu and demanded that Israel show restraint and press for a truce.

To which Harper called out the weak-kneed Obama and publicly rebuked him when Harper stated to the effect that ending the war does not require Israeli “restraint”.

Harper publicly scolded the feckless Obama, the UN and the “international community” for calling for Israeli restraint in the face of escalating rocket fire aimed at murdering and maiming Israeli civilians.

Harper called a spade and spade. He demanded that the world declare the sole responsibility for the violence belonged to the Hamas terrorists.

Harper argued that Hamas and Hamas alone was fully responsible for the current Israel-Hamas war.

Harper further asserted, “that Hamas was deliberately using human shields to further terror in the region.’’

Harper rejected outright calls coming from both the White House and the UN that Israel agree to a negotiated ceasefire with Hamas.

Harper insisted that not only should Israel not agree to a ceasefire, but Harper, said Israel should continue her offensive until the Iranian-backed terror group was “massively degraded,” if not eliminated entirely—once again arguing that “indiscriminate rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel are terrorist acts, for which there is no justification.”

Contrast those clear eyed and strong comments with the Obama Administration’s pathetic plea that both parties (Israel and Hamas) do all they can to protect civilians and mealy-mouthed observation that the US was heartbroken by the civilian death toll in Gaza.

In effect treating the Hamas action and Israel’s defensive military counter action as morally equivalent.

How disgraceful and shameful!

With Obama and the international community in mind, Canadian Foreign Minister Baird drove home the point and said what Obama should have said.

“There is no moral equivalency between a democratic state and a terrorist organization” and  that “Hamas militants hiding within its civilian population is abominable.”

How the mighty have fallen. The United States used to be front and centre in the Middle East—leading from the front.

Harper’s principled and courageous defense of Israel, in contrast to Obama’s characteristically disengaged feeble approach, has demonstrated that the US under Obama is no longer even leading from behind (which logically makes no sense). But is pathetically cowering in the corner, hoping all the troubles in the Mideast will magically blow over all by themselves.

Socialist Chow’s Past Subsidized Co-Op Continues to Cast Cloud on her T.O. Mayoral Campaign

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Olivia Chow, Politics

The city of Toronto is currently experiencing a long, drawn out, almost year-long mayoral campaign.

The current Mayor Ford, returning from a self-imposed two-month rehab, is battling Olivia Chow, a former federal member of Parliament for the New Democratic Party (NDP- Canada’s mainstream democratic socialist party), and John Tory, former leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party.Chow has been leading in the polls since she first announced early in 2014.

But Chow has been dogged by allegations that, notwithstanding her humble immigrant roots, early in her political career she used her Toronto NDP socialist connections to score herself cheap affordable housing ahead of thousands of more deserving Toronto families in need.

Within hours of Olivia Chow announcing that she would be running for Toronto mayor,  another mayoral candidate, Karen Stintz, issued a statement reminding Toronto voters that Chow lived in a taxpayer-supported subsidized Toronto co-operative apartment from 1985-1990, and especially from 1988-1990, when Chow’s family income was approximately $120,000.

Stintz’s statement referring to Chow: “She (Chow) has a history of being a double dipper. First, when it comes to housing and taxpayer salaries, and now, when it comes to securing her full Ottawa pension after just 6 years of MP service and then seeking the mayor’s salary. “One of Chow’s major campaign planks is that in contrast to her wealthy opponents, Ford and Tory, she comes from amore humble immigrant background, which is accurate.

The inference is that, due to her humble background, she cannot be accurately accused of representing the downtown elites or being an elitist herself.

With the greatest respect to Ms. Chow, I believe the facts point to a different conclusion. I maintain that in 1985 Chow joined the ranks of Toronto’s political elite to which she has been a member for nearly 30 years and coincided with Chow securing a much sought after, below Toronto market rent unit in the federally subsidized Hazelburn Co-Op Apartments.

To accurately assess the full measure Chow as a mayoral candidate, it is critical that the facts of Chow’s residency in the Hazelburn Co-Op Apartments, from 1985-1990, be fully disclosed.

Let me take you down memory lane to Chow’s Hazelburn Co-op Apartment issue of 1990, to ascertain why Chow’s past questionable conduct raises questions today about her character and her suitability as Toronto mayor.

On June 14, 1990, Star reporter Tom Kerr revealed that Olivia Chow and Jack Layton had been living separately in the taxpayer-supported, federally subsidized Hazelburn Co-op in downtown Toronto (Dundas/Jarvis area) since 1985. And in 1988, after their marriage, they had moved into a three bedroom apartment there and were paying $800 per month in allegedly market rent, notwithstanding that their combined family income was approximately $120,000. At that time, Chow was an elected public school trustee and Layton was an elected Toronto city councilor. (Source here and here)

In a subsequent June 21, 1990 Star article, Kerr confirmed that this 72-unit Hazelburn Co-op was subsidized by Canadian taxpayers through the federal Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which provided the Co-op with a 2% mortgage which cost the Canadian taxpayers about $405,000 per year.  The assumption being that actual market interest rates were considerably higher and hence annual interest payments would have been $405,000 higher, which would have translated into higher monthly rents per unit to cover the higher interest payments. (Source)

According to the June 14 Star article, commencing March 1990, Chow and Layton voluntarily paid an additional $325 per month to offset their share of the co-op’s Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation subsidy, the only members of the co-op to do so.

According to the same article, Chow and Layton, subsequent to the June Star articles, left the Co-op in June and bought a house in Toronto’s Chinatown.

Chow and her supporters have tried to bury this story for years under spin and half-truths.

The popular rationale, then as now,  is that Chow was paying market rent. Her unit was not subsidized by the taxpayers.

But corpses and skeletons—poorly buried—have a tendency to resurface with a vengeance.

And the stench can be overpowering, as potentially in this case.

Chow acknowledged through her own conduct that she paid a monthly amount of $325 as her portion of the CMHC subsidy, in addition to the monthly rent of $800.00.

But this CMHC subsidy issue raises further questions.

It is agreed that Chow had been a resident of Hazelburn Co-op from 1985 to June 1990. So Chow has been the beneficiary of her portion of the $405,000 annual CMHC subsidy from 1985 to March 1990.

Assume her portion of the subsidy was 1/72 of $405,000=$5,625 per year for 5 years. So that Chow had been subsidized by taxpayer money for approximately $28,125.

Furthermore, based upon my own experience of downtown apartment living in Toronto in the 1980s, actual market rent for a 3 bedroom apartment, even in the Dundas/Jarvis area, was considerably higher than $800 per month, and perhaps closer to $1,000-1200 per month.

I believe that Chow’s claim that she was paying actual Toronto apartment market rent at $800 per month is questionable and subject to further scrutiny and investigation.

I also do not believe in coincidences.

The public exposure of Chow’s living arrangement in a tax-subsidized co-operative apartment was clearly embarrassing to her as evidenced by her departure from Hazelburn Co-op within a month of the Toronto Star expose.

This matter was also embarrassing for Chow because Chow had always held herself out as being sympathetic to the marginalized and homeless in Toronto and those Toronto residents desperately seeking and needing affordable housing.

In the 1980s, as today, there was a lack of affordable housing and there were long waiting lists for such housing.

Olivia Chow, with her combined family income of $120,000, had many more housing options than those Toronto residents below or just above the poverty line ($20,000 per year) or even middle income residents ($40,000-60,000).

No matter how many ways Chow tried to spin it, the Hazelburn Co-op was not intended to subsidize $120,000 income earning families.

In effect, public opinion, then, as now, holds Chow—the defender of the poor and the downtrodden—of taking allegedly through her political and personal connections a subsidized unit that should have gone to Toronto residents more deserving than Chow.

The writer of the blog referring to the latter Star article made a similar point:

“Until everyone can enjoy a housing subsidy, they must go to those who need them more. A problem with any form of government spending on housing is that people with connections tend to grab them rather than for those they were intended or who need them more.

It does not look just curious, it looks bad. But I think the Laytons eventually got the message and moved to private housing. “

This housing scandal strikes right at the core of Chow’s character and suitability for mayor.

Chow has publicly lectured Mayor Ford to face up to the truth and take responsibility for his actions. Ms. Chow should practice what she preaches.

To date, Chow has never apologized for allegedly jumping the queue and allegedly using her connections to secure a 3-bedroom apartment in the Hazelburn co-op, notwithstanding the huge waiting list for such housing by more deserving Toronto families.

Furthermore, to date, she has never explained or apologized for taking advantage of taxpayer-funded CMHC loan subsidy, notwithstanding her family’s income of $120,000.

This is not an isolated incident., but I believe part of a pattern of behavior throughout Chow’s political career of double dipping and living large on the backs of the Canadian taxpayers. (Source here and here)

Jim Flaherty: A Tough Fiscal Conservative With a Big Heart

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

Jim Flaherty, at 5’3″ was a towering figure both at home and abroad.

Perhaps Flaherty’s greatest success was charting and sailing Canada safely through one of the most dangerous recessions in modern times: The recession of 2008.

When destiny called, Flaherty responded with calm determination, incredible single-mindedness, supreme confidence, toughness and above all, clear-eyed pragmatism. And in the process, he even surprised his most critical political foes with his smooth Gretzky-like stick handling of Canada’s economy.

– ADVERTISEMENT –

Flaherty was born and bred for this career-defining role.

Flaherty was one of eight children from an Irish Catholic home raised in the tough blue collar community of Lachine, in southwestern Montreal.

Flaherty was no trust fund kid. If he wanted a new pair of skates, he had to earn it himself.

I never saw Flaherty play hockey at Bishop Whelan High School or Loyola College.

But my Westmount friends used to play competitive hockey against the tough Irish boys from Lachine.
Even in those days, Flaherty was known as a very scrappy but skillful player, with steel cojones.

He was fearless.

He was the Irish Pocket Rocket, who split the defense and always beat you up in the corner for the puck.

The test of a true Montreal-born hockey player.

And then Flaherty made the leap from the mean streets of Lachine to the ivy-covered walls of Princeton as a true scholar-athlete.

Then an Osgoode Hall law grad, then founder and partner of his own thriving law practice.

Then a leap into provincial politics with the Mike Harris government and the Common Sense Revolution.

At that time, Ontario was reeling from the profligate Peterson Liberals and the tax and spendthrift NDP Rae. (Much like today’s Ontario, under the deficit-loving Wynne.)

Then, (as now) Ontario was on the verge of pulling a “Greece” (and I’m not talking about the Travolta/Newton-John musical).

Ontario was hitting a debt wall. Lenders were threatening to pull the plug.Government spending was out of control. Deficits were soaring.

Harris won an overall majority to stop the economic insanity. Together Harris and Flaherty, as his finance minister, took an ax to Ontario’s bloated and unaffordable health/education/welfare system.

As a result, Flaherty, a true hard-nosed fiscal conservative, was responsible for the closing of hospitals, schools, and removing thousands from welfare.

Teachers and nurses rebelled. The public railed against the slash and burn Flaherty. But Flaherty stood firm and tall against the slings and arrows of liberal/leftist arrogance and myopia.

Flaherty took no joy in shutting down hospital beds, turfing nurses or expelling teachers. But the sorry state of Ontario needed radical surgery, and Flaherty was the man. The patient was saved.

But Flaherty was tarred with the rep of being a cold-hearted Harrisite.

Even by his fellow provincial Tories, who preferred the Tory-lite Ernie Eves and John Tory as their leaders, as opposed to the far more competent Flaherty.

How did that work out, by the way?

I am sure Flaherty identified with Oscar Wilde’s classic aphorism, “no good deed goes unpunished.”

Fortunately for Canada, Flaherty did not flee to the private sector, after his two leadership defeats.

Harper and the federal Conservatives needed someone of Flaherty’s experience and stature to guide Canada’s financial ship.

Once again, Flaherty “manned up” and responded to the call for public service.

The American writer F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that, “there are no second acts in American lives.”
Clearly, Fitzgerald had never met the feisty Flaherty, who in his third act, became Stephen Harper’s finance minister.

Together Harper and Flaherty, formed the dynamic duo of tough fiscal conservatism.

With Harper by his side, Flaherty attempted to reduce the size of the federal government by reducing the GST (from 7 to 5 per cent). He reduced corporate taxes (from 22 to 15 per cent). His overall goal was balanced budgets and stable and sustainable growth. While finance minister, Canada’s economy did outperform the average of the G7 major industrialized countries every year but one.

But in 2008, when Canada and the world’s economies were faced with a potentially catastrophic financial melt down, Flaherty showed Canadians and the world that he was no ideological hard-ass.

Contrary to his own principles and hard right fiscal Conservative orthodoxy, Flahertythrew out the deficit-cutting playbook. Instead, Flaherty pumped $40 billion worth of stimulus in the ailing Canadian economy. He bailed out the auto sector, saving thousands of jobs.

When the credit markets seized up, Flaherty pro-actively intervened in the capital markets and had the federal government buy up billions of dollars of CMHC-insured pooled mortgages,which kept liquidity in the system and sustained both lending and borrowing.

In order to keep the Canadian economy afloat during this period of private sector panic, Flaherty engaged in deficit-financing budgets, which added about $162 billion to the total federal debt.

However, in the last five years, Flaherty determinedly returned Canada to annual balanced budgets.

Also in the early days of the 2008 international financial crisis Flaherty showed decisive leadership. He was credited with convincing his fellow finance ministers to enact a concrete five-point plan, which calmed the global markets. As a result, Canada and the world avoided a calamitous financial breakdown.

For me, Jim Flaherty exemplified the rare fiscal conservative who was also truly compassionate. Flaherty will also be remembered for creating the registered disability savings plan, which was designed to meet the needs of people with physical, developmental and psychiatric disabilities. He was an active supporter of the Special Olympics. But more importantly, Flaherty used his political clout to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities in the workplace and in other aspects of everyday life.

Jim, we salute you.

We salute you for your tremendous personal sacrifice, your service to Canada, your humility, your strength of character and above all, your work on behalf of the vulnerable in society.

We you wish all the best, in this, your final act.

Skate free, skate hard, and forever, skate long.

Ford Is Rapidly Taking Over Chow Country

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

I thought former Trinity NDP MP Olivia Chow, would be a formidable challenger to Mayor Rob Ford. But I am starting to have my doubts, as the glow of the brief honeymoon with Chow has dissipated. And Olivia Chow is faltering and fading.

Let me explain.

For several weeks now, my associates and I have been tracking the support of Ford Nation in Mayor Rob Ford’s base — Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough.

We have been talking to folks informally in Tim Hortons, Wendy’s, McDonald’s and in bus stops and subways.

We have been calling, emailing and Facebooking known Fordites.

As we suspected, the support for Ford is holding steady, notwithstanding the arrival of such high profile politicos as Chow and John Tory.

But something strange is also happening in downtown Toronto — the home of such Ford antagonists as dystopian novelist Maggie Atwood and Jane Jacobs-wannabe, Richard Florida.

Anecdotally, we are hearing that downtown Toronto residents are leaving Olivia Chow and gravitating back to Rob Ford. Notwithstanding the continuous media onslaught against Ford by the Star and Globe — and the overt air-brushing of Chow’s politicalimage, by these very same newspapers.

In a recent Forum Research poll of Toronto voters taken immediately after the first TV debate, Mayor Ford’s support increased from 28 to 32 per cent. While Chow’s support of 36 per cent, (taken on March 16 when Chow first announced her campaign) dropped significantly to 33 per cent. Tory’s support was stable, but unchanged at 21 per cent (22 per cent on March 16).

Mayor Ford’s approval rating has also increased from 42 per cent (March 16) to 46 per cent.

Clearly, Ford benefited from the first debate. Chow’s surprisingly weak performance, hurt her.

Effectively, both Ford and Chow are tied.

We had noticed indications of Ford support in downtown Toronto in a previous informal survey of young Toronto residents. Even prior to the official launching of the Ford, Tory and Chow mayoral campaigns.

Since the first debate, the indications are even stronger that Ford is cutting into Chow Country.

The reasons are obvious.

I believe that Ford is clearly drawing support from midtown and downtown Toronto residents who are pro-business, pro-development, low property taxes, pro-Porter Air, pro-subways and pro-garbage privatization.

Chow, according to her own platform and her public statements, is on the opposite side of all these issues.

Both downtown and midtown Toronto residents appreciate that under the pro-business and pro-development Ford Administration, Toronto has continued to enjoy a construction boom of not only residential condos, but office buildings, as well.

Large Toronto-based companies, banks, life companies and pension funds are not running off to Calgary or Vancouver, but are choosing to stay in Ford’s business-friendly and tax-friendly Toronto. And instead they are building new office complexes downtown for the thousands of employees who prefer living and working in downtown Toronto.

I believe that Chow’s pro-children, pro-families, pro-higher taxes around inflation, pro-social welfare agenda/platform, is not attracting this low-tax/pro-business Toronto crowd.

Chow’s agenda recalls an earlier more left-wing extremist period in Toronto politics, pre-Miller time, when the anti-corporate, pro-tax and spend councilor and former mayor John Sewell (and political friend of Jack Layton) ruled the roost in Toronto city politics in the 1970s.

In other words, the prospect of Olivia Chow being mayor, like the controversial former mayor Sewell, scares many downtown and suburban Toronto residents — shirtless.

I also believe that Chow’s anti-Scarborough subway position has hurt her in her efforts to attract voters in suburban North York and especially in vote-rich Scarborough.

Apparently, Chow has thrown Scarborough residents under the proverbial bus, with her strange anti-subway, pro-bus policy.

Chow’s whole position of Toronto transit has been incredibly incoherent and inconsistent.

This is very surprising because for years Chow was the federal NDP transit critic. For years Chow had been criticizing the Harper government and imploring the said federal government to invest in transit.

Well, last year, PM Harper and Finance Minister Flaherty committed about $660 million to the Scarborough subway extension, with the public support of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.

In addition, the Toronto city manager last year concluded that whereas the LRT option would cover a larger geographic area, include seven stations and come at a lower cost, the subway extension option, with only three stations, would have higher speed, higher quality service, higher ridership and no transfer for passengers from one mode to another at Kennedy station.

In other words, the subway option was a superior mode of public transit — higher speed, higher quality service, higher ridership and no transfer for passengers from one mode to another at Kennedy station.

Furthermore, this Scarborough subway option had the support of the Wynne government, the opposition provincial Tories, the majority of the Scarborough city councilors. And Ford had agreed to a dedicated tax in support of this subway.

Notwithstanding the above, Chow still opposes the Scarborough subway and now believes the downtown relief line should not even be an issue in this election.

Chow seems to be parroting the views of fellow leftist SWAG (smug white affluent gentry) councilors Matlow and Perks to the effect that the Scarborough subway is too expensive and Scarborough residents should settle for a cheaper LRT.

These self-centred councilors don’t think that their affluent downtown constituents, through their taxes, should pay for a Scarborough subway, despite the fact that Scarborough residents have been financially supporting three downtown Toronto subway lines for years. And notwithstanding that Scarberians are as deserving of transit benefits as their wealthier neighbors in downtown Toronto.

Wow, who would have thought that Olivia Chow, from a modest immigrant background, would have become so SWAG?

Trudeau’s Lack of Support For Christine Innes Will Hurt Him

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

Justin Trudeau has done a great disservice to the political career of long time Liberal Christine Innes and candidate for Olivia Chow’s Toronto Trinity-Spadina federal seat.

Trudeau has also seriously undermined the candidacy of his favoured female Toronto candidate, Chrystia Freeland.

Before I elaborate, a brief summary of the facts is in order.

According to National Post columnist Kelly McParland:

“One of the numerous grand promises Mr. Trudeau made on becoming Liberal leader was the pledge to do things differently. No more sneaky backroom shenanigans — only Tories do that. The new improved Trudeau Liberals would be open, honest and accountable. And democratic. Not like Stephen Harper. Mr. Trudeau would be more of a co-ordinator, listening to the party rather than handing down dictates and micromanaging activities.”

Specifically, Trudeau publicly promised that all Liberal nomination meetings in all the federal ridings would be open and democratic.

Recently NDP MP Olivia Chow resigned her federal Trinity-Spadina seat to run for Toronto mayor.

As a result, federal Liberal candidate Christine Innes immediately began organizing her campaign to become the Liberal nominee in the upcoming by-election to fill the Trinity-Spadina seat. Within days, Innes had obtained the endorsement of the local Carpenters’ Union.

To the outside objective political observer, moi, Innes appears to be the ideal candidate, regardless of gender.

Innes is smart, tough, hard-working, articulate, politically experienced and a lawyer by training. She is also very well respected by the powerful provincial Ontario Liberal machine. She is currently a political aide to the Ontario Liberal Tourism Minister Michael Chan.

To her credit, she has run twice against Olivia Chow in the federal elections of 2008 and 2011. Innes lost both times, but in each case, she was very competitive against incumbent Chow, a formidable candidate.

It takes an enormous amount of personal sacrifice, time and money to mount not one but two hard-fought political campaigns.

Frankly, I think Innes should be commended for her political work on behalf of the Liberal party, her tenacity and her willingness to throw her hat in the political ring one more time.

I also think that it is a big plus that she inherited her husband Tony Ianno’s campaign organization and then developed her own strong organization. (Ianno held the riding for the Liberals for 13 years until his loss to Chow in 2006)

The impressive Innes seems Clintonesque in her political drive and ambition.

However, instead of supporting and encouraging Innes’ efforts to win a third nomination, surprisingly and clearly unfairly, Trudeau kiboshed her candidacy and destroyed Innes’ dream of recapturing Trinity-Spadina.

Then Trudeau and his spokesman, David MacNaughton, Ontario campaign co-chair, proceeded to botch the explanation for Trudeau’s unilateral, draconian and undemocratic interference in the riding nomination process.

According to the Post’s McParland, “MacNaughton told Innes she has been banned from running. Ianno, he alleged, had been accused of bad-mouthing Trudeau favourite Chrystia Freeland and trying to ‘bully’ eager young workers into abandoning Freeland for Innes.”

OMG! Ianno committed the heinous crime of criticizing a political opponent. And “bullying” young workers. How absurd and ridiculous.

Innes denied the allegations against her husband, Ianno. But even if what Ianno did is true, so what? Politics is rough, tough, hard, messy, competitive and the ultimate zero sum game where victory goes to the toughest, strongest, most effective and hardest working campaign.

Innes suspected that the real reason for Trudeau’s action is that Innes refused to back away from contesting the nomination against Freeland in the general federal election of 2015, where Freeland was planning on running for the Liberals in a restructured riding which included part of the former Trinity-Spadina riding.

I believe that Trudeau’s intervention has backfired badly — against both him personally and his party.

Liberal Trinity-Spadina riding president Julia Metus was publicly livid. She angrily and publicly denounced Trudeau when she claimed: “There was absolutely no due or fair process…. No one picked up the phone to contact me, there was no opportunity to discuss their concerns, and there was zero local involvement.”

Young Liberal and rising political star, Zach Paikin, son of well-known newscaster Steve Paikin, publicly dropped his candidacy for the Hamilton/Ancaster riding and accused Trudeau of going back on his word.

Ouch. Holy hypocrisy, Justin!

Please note some of Zach Paikin’s gutsy and principled comments published in the Huffington Post. I would like to add to Paikin’s courageous words, that Trudeau has also seriously undermined Chrystia Freeland.

By blocking Innes,Trudeau has sent the public message that Freeland, as a relatively new female candidate, on her own, is too weak and inexperienced a woman to compete against the apparently better organized and more experienced Innes.

Poor defenceless Freeland needs the help of the big boys at national office. So Trudeau has resorted to gaming his own Liberal nomination process. In doing so, in my opinion, Trudeau has acted in a paternalistic and sexist manner.

And he has hurt Innes, Freeland, himself, the Liberal Party and the cause of women in politics.

Does John Tory Have the Right Stuff To Face Off Against Olivia Chow?

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

As expected, a recent Forum Research poll has Olivia Chow leading as initial front runner with 36 per cent.

Mayor Ford is second with 28 per cent, his support still holding strong.

The big surprise is the third place finish of John Tory, at 22 per cent. In a previous hypothetical match up between Chow, Ford and Tory, Forum Research had Tory at 27 per cent in a February poll.

I propose to offer some hard-nosed political advice as to how Tory can kick start his faltering campaign.

But first, a brief explanation as to why Tory finds himself in third place.

Lorne Bozinoff, President of Forum Research, interpreting the most recent poll results above, concluded:

“These findings represent relative stability for Ford since the company polled him at 31 per cent in February, “while John Tory, who had just entered the race the last time we polled, has seen his vote decline from 27 per cent.”

Marcus Gee of The Globe and Mail attributed Tory’s weak numbers to the fact “Ms. Chow is a strong candidate with an appealing personal story and she is off to a fast start. She can count on the city’s well-organized left.”

As to Ford’s support, Gee concluded, “Mr. Ford has a core of supporters that seems to stick with him whatever he does. Mr. Tory has no such natural base.”

I have already written a series of Huffington Post articles that explain the unwavering support of Ford supporters, who are sticking with Ford, despite all the allegations, videos and Ford’s personal demons.

My conclusion is that Ford’s support is rock solid. But support for Chow, the new politico on the block, is much softer.

And if John Tory wants to grow his numbers, he cannot wait for seven months to connect to the voters.

As Tory claimed in his kick off speech at a downtown Toronto rally this past week.

I believe that that Tory has four to eight weeks to make a forceful and compelling impression on Toronto voters.

Marcus Gee suggests that Tory can be successful in this mayoral race by trying to occupy the happy middle between hard right Ford and tax and spend Chow on the left.

Gee stated: “The essence of Mr. Tory’s message is that he would give voters Mr. Ford’s respect for taxpayers without the divisiveness and the sideshow and Ms. Chow’s care for the disadvantaged without the hard left swing and the reversion to “tax-and-spend.” That would position him neatly in the middle as a caring conservative, the candidate who would take Toronto “not left, not right, but forward.”

In other words, John Tory, wants to present himself as a “Red Tory.”

I have four words for Mr. Tory and his illustrious brain trust: “Joe Clark/Alison Redford.”

Red Toryism is dead federally (Joe Clark/Peter McKay), provincially (has Toryalready forgotten his provincial losses in the provincial ridings of Don Valley West and Dufferin/Peel/Wellington/Grey, and the disastrous 2007 provincial campaign as Ontario PC leader?) and even, municipally.

Today, there is no happy middle in Toronto city politics.

There is the right, which is: pro Scarborough subway, pro Porter Air, pro Porter Air expansion, pro taming unions, pro garbage privatization, pro privatization, pro minimum increase in taxes, anti-government expansion and pro business/private sector.

And the left which is: pro Scarborough LRT, anti-Porter Air, anti-Porter Air expansion, anti-privatization, pro unions, pro larger increase in taxes, pro government expansion and cool to business/private sector.

If Tory thinks that he can straddle these two political poles, and pick some issues from Column A and other issues from Column B, then I guarantee that Tory will alienate Toronto voters from both the right and the left.

And he will achieve a record-breaking sixth political loss.

Alternatively, I suggest that Tory has to come out now — hard, fast and negative against Olivia Chow. He needs to “Harperize” Chow and define her in the public eye, before she defines herself. In order to wrest Chow’s soft supporters, who really do not know the real Olivia Chow, from the Chow camp.

Because Olivia Chow does not come to this city race, without some major political baggage.

Frankly, I am surprised that Nick Kouvalis, Tory’s own answer to Chow’s political attack dog, Warren Kinsella, has not done a better job in the media and the social media of raising serious questions of Chow’s subsidized co-op housing arrangement in the 1980s at the Hazelburn Co-op Apartments.

Chow, in an interview on Sun TV, with her own advisor, the above-mentioned Kinsella, once again stated that she did nothing wrong because she paid “market rent” of $800 for a three-bedroom apartment from 1988-1990.

The Tory campaign should also question whether Chow’s anti-Scarborough subway, pro Scarborough LRT position, is in reality, just Chow pandering to her downtownToronto SWAG/ leftist elitist base.

Chow has many weaknesses.

The question for John Tory is does he have the toughness and cojones to attack and fight Chow and take support away from her, in order to be the next mayor of Toronto?

On Kimmel’s Show, Ford Was the Epitome of Grace Under Pressure

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Entertainment, Media, Politics

Initially I had my concerns with Mayor Ford agreeing to be a guest on Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show.

But I should not have worried. Despite facing a barrage of good-humoured jokes, embarrassing videos of past foibles and probing questions, Ford comported himself calmly and coolly with good humour. Grace under pressure.

And Ford even had the self-confidence under the hot Hollywood lights, to launch a few zingers himself at his City Council critics and his enemies in the press.

This was great TV. It was edgy, no holds barred, two guys flying without a net — and laugh out loud funny.

Kimmel was in fine fighting form. He might have even been training for this bout with Ford for months. He was lean, he was quick and he was very well prepared.

Kimmel admitted half-jokingly, “In a way I feel that I’ve been waiting for this night my whole life.”

But Ford was ready for this match too. Ford strode out confidently, dressed in black with a bright tie and matching handkerchief. He looked more like lovable family man, Salvatore “Big Pussy” Bonpensiero, of The Sopranos fame, than a magician, as Kimmel joked.

And then Ford started chucking Ford Nation T-shirts into the crowd.

For a big man, Ford is very agile and athletic. (Later in the show, Kimmel showed a brief video of Ford on a football field, falling backward on his ass, trying to throw a football.)

This was a good, aggressive start for Ford. He had come to play. The home town crowd loved the free T-shirts.

Right from the opening intro, Kimmel was jabbing Ford with a left, then a right, then a quick combo left/right to the face and to Ford’s stomach.

Kimmel asked, “Why are you on this show? What good could come of this?”

Kimmel was clearly the quick-witted Muhammad Ali, to Ford’s more slow-moving, but very solid George Chuvalo.

If Ford was a little surprised by this comical assault, he quickly recovered and responded that he came on the show because Kimmel had personally called him on his cellphone.

Then Ford counter-punched with a brief defence of his political career, by saying that for 14 years, 10 years as councilman and four years as mayor, he always responded to the people. He takes their calls, listens to their problems and if required, he goes out to visit them at their homes to solve their problems. In effect, he gives out his number, because Toronto residents are his bosses.

Kimmel was temporarily thrown by the sincere honesty of Ford, the consummate retail politician.

Then Kimmel tried to hit Ford below the belt, by quoting Ford haters who were angry with Kimmel for having Ford on his show. These trolls claimed that Ford was racist, homophobic and other outrageous things.

Ford kept his cool. His smile never leaving his face. Calmly Ford replied, quickly and adroitly, “Is that all you got?” to the approval of the Kimmel crowd. They might have felt, as I had, that Kimmel had blindsided Ford.

Then Ford, keeping his cool, started promoting Toronto as a fantastic place. To the effect that it is booming with tonnes of cranes all over the city (accurately implying that there is still a construction boom in Toronto).

Ford stated that he wanted people to come to Toronto to see how good the city was.

Just as Ford was about to promote Toronto’s film industry, citing the success of TIFF, Kimmel cut him off, which is unfortunate.

In a earlier CBC radio news report, prior to the Kimmel show, Ford had talked with a CBC reporter at length about the fact that Toronto had a very successful film and television industry. With millions of dollars being invested annually in film and television productions, this creates thousands of well-paying industry jobs. Ford was trying to use his profile to promote Toronto as a great place to do film and television business.

In the second round, after the break, Kimmel tried to sucker-punch Ford, by moving him off the comfort of the couch to a large TV screen, in order to have Ford comment on some of his most embarrassing videos:

  • Ford’s rant against an unknown enemy, (Ford admitted not remembering that video);
  • Ford accidentally knocking down fellow councilor Pam McConnell in the council chambers;
  • Ford speaking Jamaican patois at the infamous Steak Queen fast food restaurant (Ford explained that this was a private meeting with friends and that he has a lot of Jamaican friends, undermining claims that he is truly a racist.)

Fortunately for Ford, he laughed off these very embarrassing videos and when he returned to the couch, he
defended his record as mayor:

According to Ford, he’s tamed the unions, stopping further strikes by the city garbage union and the TTC, privatizing garbage services, saving Toronto taxpayers over $800 Million and keeping tax increases to below 2 per cent annually. Yet Toronto is still booming.

Ford concluded with saying “90 per cent of what I said I was going to do is done.” Ford caught Kimmel flatfooted with that legitimate claim.

In the last round, Kimmel was easier on Ford and suggested that he may want to get help for his drinking. Ford, true to form, countered that he was not elected to be perfect. Which of course was true then, as it is now. Ford never represented himself as a paragon of virtue or a model for Toronto’s children.

Kimmel concluded that “Ford is the most wonderful mayor I have ever witnessed in my many years.” I sensed that deep down, Kimmel, like the famous Ali toward Chuvalo, respected Ford, for being such a good sport.

And for surviving this tough 16-minute comic onslaught, still on his feet, with good humour.

Verdict: Kimmel may have won on comic points, but Ford did not embarrass himself. Nor did he embarrass the city of Toronto.

And, typical Ford, he controlled the media for the last several days.

I still think Ford is the man to beat.

Ford Nation Is Stronger Than Ever and Ford Is Unstoppable

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

I am not sure Woody Allen was thinking of Rob Ford, when he quipped, “80 per cent of success is showing up.” But it sure applies in our mayor’s case.

Recall many political lifetimes ago, in June of 2013, after the Star had broken the story about Ford and the crack cocaine video, the Star and the Globe were calling for Ford’s head. And even the unelected Premier Wynne was considering stepping in to remove the democratically elected Ford from office.

I wrote then in a Huffington Post blog that, notwithstanding the incredible pressure that was brought to bear on Ford by Old Media and other forces, Ford stubbornly stood his ground and stayed true to himself. Ford also knew that his supporters, the famous Ford Nation, were intensely loyal to Ford, and would stick with Ford right through the 2014 election.

When shocking polls came out indicating that Ford’s support was still strong, Old Media and the anti-Fordists, especially in downtown elitist Toronto, beat an embarrassing retreat.

Fast forward to the present. It seems like déjà vu.

In the last three months, Ford admitted that the alleged crack video did exist. He confessed to having smoked crack cocaine.

Despite this admission in November, Ford’s approval rating held at 42 per cent with 33 per cent saying they would vote for him.

Then Toronto City Council stripped Ford of most of his mayoral powers.

But still Ford’s approval rating held at 42 per cent with 33 per cent still wanting to vote for him — even though Ford was shunned by City Council, and Premier Wynne only wanted to deal with Deputy Mayor Kelly.

A lesser man, a weaker man with no backbone who was overly concerned with public opinion would have resigned. But Ford is made of much sterner stuff and he was buoyed by the unwavering support of his family, his close friends and of course, Ford Nation.

Ford, just by showing up every day at City Council, even though he was a figurehead, stayed in the game.

Then the political gods shined on Ford.

A terrible ice storm was unleashed on Toronto and Mayor Ford was thrust into the spotlight, and into Toronto political history.

I have followed Ford for over 13 years, especially when he was an obscure Etobicoke councilman.

The guy has a big heart. He cares about his constituents, and he takes their calls, answers them and then tries his best to solve his constituents’ problems. Problems like fixing potholes, fixing the roads and sidewalks, installing stop signs, lights and traffic-calming road bumps.

So when the ice storm struck, Ford naturally helped out on a daily basis. He held press conferences, made speeches, and kept the public informed. He rallied and bolstered the morale of Toronto residents and the heroic Hydro workers who were working 16-hour shifts in the freezing cold.

Ford, on a daily basis, travelled all over the city to lend support to residents in distress in their icy cold homes and apartments.

Ford had the public spotlight to himself for over seven days. Deputy Mayor Kelly to whom Council had transferred Ford’s power, was caught MIA travelling to the sunny climes of Florida. Olivia Chow, putative mayoral candidate, was not seen or heard throughout the crisis.

Olivia Chow is launching her book on January 22, 2014. I am assuming she was engaged in putting the final touches to her personal memoirs and preparing for her book launch.

Then Mayor Ford, faced with the option of declaring the city in a state of emergency and calling in the troops, showed true leadership, political smarts and instincts, by standing tough and trusting Toronto’s tireless Hydro workers to restore the power across the city.

This was a gutsy call by Ford, because he was criticized by his leftist enemies on Council for not pulling a “Mayor Lastman” and calling in the troops.

Ironically, Marcus Gee of the Globe, no fan of Ford’s, supported Ford in not declaring a state of emergency (SOE) and calling in the troops.

I actually braved the cold and interviewed many hydro workers trying valiantly to re-install fallen hydro wires.

On the sixth day, on Whitehall Drive, in Rosedale, all the hydro workers I interviewed supported Ford’s decision not to call a SOE. They also appreciated Ford’s show of confidence in them and the superb work they were doing. These hard-nosed workers, dripping with ice and snow spoke glowingly of their mayor with whom they identified.

Then it struck me. OMG — Ford has captured Toronto’s union and non-union people: the hydro workers, the TTC guys, the cops, the firemen. Toronto’s hard working men and women, who help make the city tick.

Because they can identify and feel comfortable with this rough, boorish, fat everyman, with all his flaws and his personal demons. More than the elitist leftists on City Council. And more than Olivia Chow, with whom they have little in common.

Because we all have flaws. We all make mistakes. We all suffer disappointments. We all come under criticism. But the best of us, like Ford, pick ourselves off the ground, and try to stay in the game. And that is 80 per cent of the battle.

Recent Forum Research poll has Ford at 47 per cent approval rating with 41 per cent saying they would vote for Ford.

I predict that the 2014 Toronto Mayoral campaign is over. Ford is unstoppable.

Neither Tory nor Chow can match Ford in toughness, luck or political instincts. And they lack his rock solid and very broad support.