Sunday, September 19, 2010

Overheard candidate's comment this weekend...

"We gotta get Brad Clark outta here!" (made with dismissive-thumb gesture.)

You know, within reasonable bounds, people can express themselves pretty much as they see fit in this Canadian society of ours. Of course, you hope that kindness and propriety inform what's said, and that if someone's going to be critical, they balance this with some degree of generosity. Or at the very least, precision.

For me, within a political campaign, I am increasingly dumbfounded by the tack taken by so many non-incumbent candidates, a situation I'll be posting about tomorrow-ish.

The tack involves something akin to the empty, stir-'em-up rhetoric currently being broadcast by the Tea Party in the United States.

It's too bad I wasn't there at this function today, where this comment was not just uttered, but declared. Proudly. Because I'd have wanted some form of expansion, an explanation, for the thought to be expounded upon. I'd want to know precisely why the candidate felt 'We gotta get Brad Clark outta here!' Because I'm a little disappointed that what amounts to in-the-shadows rabble-rousing, cheap gossiping is -seemingly- considered acceptable as behaviour from those people who are attempting to become the leader of an entire community...a position I'd prefer to associate with dignity, grace, and insight.

So here's my challenge to the afore-referenced candidate: How about submitting a post of your own creation addressing just why it is that you feel 'We gotta get Brad Clark outta here!' In detail, tell my readers, the residents of Ward 9 just what it is about Mr. Clark's performance over the past four years that you feel warrants such a statement. After all, I'm sure you must have good reasons for having formed this belief. Your convictions surely transcend 'playing politics' must have firm examples of either transgressions he's committed, situations where he's simply let down his constituents, downright failures of effort.


You write it, I'll publish it, and you'll reap the benefits of additional press, increased coverage, and a leg-up in the campaign.

Who knows? Maybe if you're sufficiently eloquent, you may even capture a few readers' imaginations, and find more people jumping onto your bandwagon.

Even if this doesn't turn out to be the case, maybe you'll feel more inclined to change your approach, to inject into your campaign a little bit of decorum, and instead of what you opined to those present this weekend, you'd say something like "I believe Ward 9 deserves better representation than what our incumbent Councillor Clark has provided...and further, I believe that I'm the person to deliver that representation! Here's why..."

Regardless, I'm very much looking forward to hearing back from you.


  1. For the record, I have to say clearly that I was not the "candidate" referenced here as making any statement regarding Mr.Clark.
    My campaign has revolved around letting the people of Ward 9 decide who to choose and not on any attack on the incumbent or the other candidates.
    It is the people of Ward 9 who will ultimately decide. I also do have great respect of Mr. Clark and I firmly believe that professionalism is returned when it is given.
    Perhaps the person who is being accused of making this comment should be directly named so that the rest of us do not get categorized similarly as "bad preachers".
    My campaign focuses on what I can offer the residents and not on a performance evaluation of the incumbent. I'm sure the voters will speak loudly on that through the power of their votes.

    Thank you
    Nancy Fiorentino, Ward 9 Candidate

  2. Nancy;

    Thanks for commenting.

    I take your point about the person being 'directly named'. I suppose my response is that the level of engagement on the part of so many candidates city-wide has been rife with this attitude...and so many people listening, responding and commenting get fired up by what amounts to lazy politicking. I won't flog a dead horse here, merely reiterate that I find the situation disappointing on all counts. (Additionally, if I could go back and re-do this post, I may have contacted you and the other candidate not 'guilty' of this behaviour with a heads-up...but this gesture itself is worthy of discussion due to the prevalence of this approach to politics; the concept of being substantive in what you say seems to have gone the way of good manners...and common sense. Still; mea culpa, for what it's worth.)

    There is no doubt that there's widespread disenchantment with this Council. Some of the disenchantment has been well-earned. But I find it unacceptable for notions such as 'Throw the bums out!' and 'We need new blood, fresh ideas!' and the like to be generated (and wholeheartedly embraced), while at the same time, thorough examinations of the particulars of each incumbent's performance and each new candidate's qualification are not being carried out. (My firm belief) So what's commonly being pushed forward is hardly the stuff of discriminating viewpoint, something arrived at after due diligence by (some) candidates and (some) residents.

    As for the voters speaking loudly through the power of their votes...this presumes that they've formed qualified opinions, and with these kinds of antics seemingly being the norm, I don't have as much faith as you seem to in the profile of how things generally are now. If enough people get caught up in this 'rabble-rousing' and base much of how they vote on such antics...where does that leave us regarding an informed electorate making informed decisions?


I'm always interested in feedback, differing opinions, even contrarian long as they're delivered with decorum...with panache and flair always helping.