Miller for Mayor?
It has become rapidly apparent that there is no "Miller-ite" candidate in the race or on the horizon who can hope to stop the mayor's chain of office from going to George Smiterman and can hope to continue Miller's soft centre-centre-left political legacy. Whether he realizes it or not, Giambrone's campaign has immolated. Giambrone could have survived this sex scandal if he had an otherwise solid campaign and was an otherwise strong candidate - but he's not. The only thing Giambrone has done in the past three weeks is confirm, time and time again, that he's just too immature for the job - not too young for the job but too immature. Joe Pantalone, the other erstwhile NDPer in the race, doesn't seem to have much hope of gaining traction.
With his legacy on the line the chances of David Miller jumping back in the race should not be discounted particularly as John Tory's withdrawal helps Miller's chances considerably. Consider that even without Tory, Smitherman is falling short of majority support in public opinion polls and this is at a point where he is still running more on name recognition as most Torontonians outside of his riding do not really know him very well yet. Smitherman's bulldog personality would have played well against Giambrone but might not do as well up against Miller who, for all the faults of his administration, is generaly respected on a personal level. Miller's also the best person to defend his legacy and articulate a need to continue public ownership of services against Smitherman and Rossi's eagerness for public-private partnerships - a gravy train their financial supporters are especially eager to climb aboard. Finally, the garbage strike which probably did more to influence Miller's decision to retire is now ancient history. It might have been enough to defeat Miller had the election been in 2009 but by October 2010 how many people will be casting their ballot because of it?
While I wouldn't bet money that Miller will have a change of heart I would be surprised if in the next few weeks a number of city councillors and his previous supporters don't prevail on him to run again. I'd be even more suprised if he doesn't give it some serious thought.
David Miller still has the TTC problem and that's getting worse.
The head of the TTC workers' union lashed out at riders, management and the media during a news conference Tuesday at which he announced a series of “town hall” meetings to reduce the tension between transit employees and customers.
Total trainwreck - or perhaps subway wreck.
As awful as Smitherman is, I can't see big-C Conservatives supporting him. I think Rossi, although a Liberal, is saying all the things they want to hear.
He's also made some sense so far, supporting road tolls. I don't know if that will continue, but it's encouraging.
I think Miller's legacy is going to leach out of the Southwold dump and into Dingman creek, and into the bloodstream of Chippewa on the Thames reserve. But, it'll do that in a leftish way, so it's all good.
So Global News is reporting that another woman has come forward claiming she too has an affair with Giambrone the Tiger last year.
I offered too, but Adam said he didn't need that kind of cosmetics.
Was a bit of a fan of Giambrone. But he really deserves this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo
And contrary to what some others have posted I do think it's important to judge character in instances like this. Perhaps it's because he's a threat to the mainstream but I don't really see it here. I see a guy that fucked up bad. I was disappointed to see that some women posted cheating's normal or accepted.
Wow - busy man!
I just can't believe that Giambrone could possibly think that he can continue his campaign now that he's admitted that he lied to the Star yesterday when he claimed that he only exchanges txt messages with that woman and that he had other affairs with women...IT'S OVER!! I think we must be getting to the point where Giambrone will have no choice. I predict that key supporters of him from city council, unions and social movements are all going to start pulling the plug and saying that they cannot support him and then he'll have no choice.
If anyone can propose a scenario where he gets elected mayor of Toronto after this PLUS the TTC fiascos etc...please post it here.
I predict that key supporters of him from city council, unions and social movements are all going to start pulling the plug and saying that they cannot support him and then he'll have no choice.
How did we end up in the Tiger Woods thread...
I was disappointed to see that some women posted cheating's normal or accepted.
Puritanism -- public judgement of and/or attempts to regulate private behaviour -- is not now, nor has it ever been, in the interest of women or any other group who have been vulnerable to patriarchal power and paternalistic control.
"Cheating" is a loaded term, a moralizing term. You're welcome to live up to your own standards, and to choose whom to associate with according to those standards. Me, I don't feel threatened by other people's sex lives; I'm much more worried about moralizing attempts to regulate and meddle in mine.
Obviously there is a need for more pre-pre-nuptial confidentiality agreements.
nicely put skdadl. it's always interesting to see how quickly some leftish types will jump on the puritan train even though it has always been associated with heteropatriarchy and oppression.
I agree that we can do without these old fashioned, puritanical words like "cheating" etc... In fact, if the only thing these revelations told us was that he had a very active and varied sex life - my reaction would be to say "good for him" and that thids makes me even more likely to vote for him. But this scandal involves wayyyyy more than that. Referring to his recently trotted out girlfriend as being "just there for political reasons" as if she was a piece of furniture is pretty daming and so is lying about what happened to the media as recently as yesterday.
When you already have to fight against the impression of not being mature enough or having enough gravitas to be mayor - this stuff is like a take through your heart. For the good of the city, he has got to get out of the race before one more red cent gets wasted on this quixotic quest for I don't know what.
Stockholm, you think that what he said to Lucas about his partner is "pretty damning." I think first of all that it was a private communication, and then second, that it's the kind of dodge a lot of people might try in that situation. You don't know whether that's what he really thought/thinks, or whether that's the truth of the situation. I doubt we ever will, nor should we.
I agree with you that it's stupid to lie when something like this blows up, but the ambush shouldn't have happened in the first place.
There are a number of things that might be worrying about this, beyond the question of sexual ethics.
1. Lucas claims that Giambrone revealed confidential information to her about the TTC: he told her about the TTC fair hike, long before it was announced to the public. I would prefer a mayor who exercises more discretion when it comes to such matters.
2. One might also question the good judgment of a politician who text-messages and facebooks anyone about anything personal that might be used against him, especially something like this. This is a second enormous failure of good judgment.
3. If X and Y enter into an explicit or implicit agreement, and if X breaks the agreement, and if the agreement is central to the relationship between X and Y, then it does not seem inappropriate to say that X "cheated" -- regardless of whether the agreement involved sexual matters.
Is that what faces passengers when the train breaks down?
"Stockholm, you think that what he said to Lucas about his partner is "pretty damning.""
I mean that it was damning in the court of public opinion. Anyways, apparently Giambrone has dropped out of the race for mayor - thank GOD. Better now than to waste millions of dollars and untold hours and then have this happen in October.
I have to say, I really feel for the guy and i hope that he sticks around and runs for re-election to city council and tries to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the public.
If anyone can propose a scenario where he gets elected mayor of Toronto after this PLUS the TTC fiascos etc...please post it here.
It turns out that all of the other candidates are pedophiles and get photographed having a private party at Chuck-E-Cheese? That's about the other way, I figure.
It was supremely dumb of him to lie to the Star about it. Guess he didn't bring Navigator in quickly enough...
Anyhow, that's over, and it looks like he might try running for councillor again, which would probably be a smarter move, if he runs for anything now.
I guess Lucas must be enjoying her pound of flesh at this point. Can't say I blame her, overly - a lot of people would have a hard time withstanding the temptation to get such spectacular revenge on a boyfriend or girlfriend who treated them badly.
Maybe they can all follow it up with an appearance on Jerry Springer. :D
I'm just going to throw a hypothetical out here. Suppose it was discovered that (a politician running for major office) had multiple partners at the same time, and the primary partner knew about them and was absolutely fine with it. Indeed, she/he had multiple partners of their own, which the partner also knew about and was fine with. No deceit, no lying, no whispering of what passes for nuclear launch codes. Everyone has behaved properly and professionally and has been open with everyone else.
Even though there's nothing to get excited about and nothing improper has gone on, would everyone else still flip? I'm guessing they would, since polyamory still wigs a lot of people out.
Maybe someone should ask George Smitherman what he thinks of that...
I'm glad we have a secret ballot. I'm glad that no representative of the state can take me aside and make me justify my vote.
But at the same time, a secret ballot ensures that those who want to vote for the candidate with the flashiest smile, can. Those who want to vote only for old, white men, can. And those who don't want to vote for an atheist, a homely man, someone who wears bifocals, someone who "seems weak", someone who won't wear a flag on their lapel, someone who always wears a flag on their lapel, or (to bring it back) someone who has sex with their illicit lover in City Hall and then lies to the public don't have to, and there's nothing we can do about it.
It might be nice if the sole criteria on which we formed our choice of candidate were that candidates published platform and their recognized history of performance, but I really don't know how we're ever supposed to get people to ignore their impressions of character when choosing representatives. I don't, personally, think Giambrone is made of pure evil, or that he's going to hell for the sin of adultery, but he's experienced enough with politics to know that perceived character matters. Liars don't look so good.
From the point of view of payback this was indeed well played.
I'm just going to throw a hypothetical out here. Suppose it was discovered that (a politician running for major office) had multiple partners at the same time, and the primary partner knew about them and was absolutely fine with it. Indeed, she/he had multiple partners of their own, which the partner also knew about and was fine with. No deceit, no lying, no whispering of what passes for nuclear launch codes. Everyone has behaved properly and professionally and has been open with everyone else.
Even though there's nothing to get excited about and nothing improper has gone on, would everyone else still flip? I'm guessing they would, since polyamory still wigs a lot of people out.
Even though there's nothing to get excited about and nothing improper has gone on, would everyone else still flip? I'm guessing they would, since polyamory still wigs a lot of people out.
I think at least part of the issue has to do with deceit. Politicians use their spouses as props to create a particular image - Giambrone was no different (I'm thinking of that picture of McQuarrie looking up at him longingly). So yes, people's conservative social mores would colour their reaction, and perhaps that is perhaps unfair. However, when somebody presents themselves in a particular way, and you find out that it is a lie, it makes you wonder about other aspects of their image.
I think there are a few lessons:
1. If you are a politician that has cheated, it is better to let the information get out there gradually. Leak it as a rumour, openly admit it, etc. When it is discovered by the press first, you get a media feeding frenzy that makes ordinary campaigning impossible. The survivors of that kind of discovery are few - Clinton survived because the right overreacted, and Sanford is still governor because his lieutenant governor was utterly nuts.On the other hand, the affairs of Mike Harris, Rudy Giuliani or John McCain never really took off as an issue. Admitting the affair seems to have worked out for Mel Lastman, David Letterman (non-political example, I know) and indeed, David Paterson didn't really suffer from his announcement of infidelity. With the three words: "I'm not perfect" you can even make yourself more relatable.
2. How you conduct an affair matters.The information that becomes public may say something about you. The picture I got was one of Adam Giambrone hitting on women by bragging that he ran the TTC, and being less than discrete in the process. Rent a sleazy motel and don't leave a paper trail!
3. Who you have the affair with matters. The public will care a lot more if there is a large age discrepancy, prostitution, or if the affair is homosexual. Cases where one person has authority over another look bad too.
"The public will care a lot more if there is a large age discrepancy, prostitution, or if the affair is homosexual. Cases where one person has authority over another look bad too."
True, though in Giambrone's case, the age discrepancy was not that large. He's 32 , she is 20. When Pierre Trudeau married Margaret he was 50 and she was 21 - in fact he was two years younger than his new mother-in-law!, there is no suggestion of prostitution and there is no suggestion that he had any "authority" over her.
I don't know that a gay affair makes much of a difference - unless you had previously been a homophobic social conservative.
Puritanism -- public judgement of and/or attempts to regulate private behaviour -- is not now, nor has it ever been, in the interest of women or any other group who have been vulnerable to patriarchal power and paternalistic control.
"Cheating" is a loaded term, a moralizing term. You're welcome to live up to your own standards, and to choose whom to associate with according to those standards. Me, I don't feel threatened by other people's sex lives; I'm much more worried about moralizing attempts to regulate and meddle in mine.
I guess I haven't learnt enough about the issue so thanks to you and Le T for your replies. I will try to keep an open mind but I'm not a fan of deceit. Not trying to regulate or moralize just having a difficult time understanding why it's considered acceptable in some instances but not others. (Not talking about sex lives, meaning general human interactions)
I know for a fact both you and Le T would denounce deceit in other circumstances, trying to get around that.
Adam calls it an Eve
Sorry, the actual headline was: "Scandal claims Toronto mayoral candidate"
Can we stop talking about him now?
RP, I'm not a fan of deceit on those turfs where I figure I have a right to judge. But how do we know about private lives? We can't; we simply can't. As edmund's fictional scenario suggests, people could be living by all kinds of arrangements we don't know about, and the mere fact that they don't feel compelled to tell you or me about them doesn't mean they're being deceitful.
Unionist, I do not feel that you are taking this discussion with the level of seriousness appropriate to it.
And Michelle and p-sto, I am shocked, shocked, I tells ya. I srsly doubt that either of you would give in to such a revenge fantasy. Why did she do it? Because a lot of young North Americans still think they're living in Disneyland and it's great to be famous. But then they get famous by doing something like this, and suddenly they realize that it's actually no fun at all. I've read that Lucas is not bearing up well. I feel for her, but what she did was utterly appalling. Someone should warn young persons about fama.
I'd say that about half of all babble posts contain loaded, moralizing terms!
Maybe she can join a support group along with Linda Tripp!
I'm of course guessing, but I would have assumed that she was a tad insulted that if Giambrone needed a "beard" for the purposes of asserting his heterosexuality, or of being seen as a stable family man, he wouldn't have chosen her, and instead chose someone he claims to care little about. Evidently, McQuarrie is someone you can take out in public, whereas Lucas is someone you keep in the bedroom. I can't promise that if I were in her shoes I might not have done the same thing. As payback goes, it's worlds better than getting the girlfriends together to Krazy-glue some fella's pecker to his stomach, anyway.
But here's my question: if a person is willing and able to lie to people he loves (and apparently, practiced at it) then is it unreasonable for the public to wonder how much easier it might be for him to lie to us? I'm not denying that for many there's moralism at the root of this, but even if you subtract old notions of monogamy and all that, aren't you left with someone who's just proven themselves a liar (and a poor one at that), which is bound to stand in contrast to those who at least haven't verified their status yet?
I'd say that about half of all babble posts contain loaded, moralizing terms!
[homer simpson]It's funny because it's true![/homer]
I'd say that about half of all babble posts contain loaded, moralizing terms!
Half of all posts, or half of each post?
Really? I've discussed this issue at length with all my partners, and they voted 6-1 (in separate polling stations, because they're not yet aware of each other's existence) that my posts in this thread are the most serious things they've heard me say in years.
And Michelle and p-sto, I am shocked, shocked, I tells ya. I srsly doubt that either of you would give in to such a revenge fantasy. Why did she do it? Because a lot of young North Americans still think they're living in Disneyland and it's great to be famous. But then they get famous by doing something like this, and suddenly they realize that it's actually no fun at all. I've read that Lucas is not bearing up well. I feel for her, but what she did was utterly appalling. Someone should warn young persons about fama.
You're right, I wouldn't. I think we've probably all had the opportunity to seriously embarrass or hurt people we've had relationships with afterwards, but it's just not worth it. You get pulled down into a nasty spiral of anger and hate. I've seen friends be obsessive about getting revenge on others for whatever reason, and I've also seen friends who have been the target of someone's revenge obsession. It's just such a waste of time. And in a case like this one, where it's so public, it doesn't reflect well on the person doing it. She either becomes an object of pity or of contempt, or perhaps a mixture of both.
It's so much better revenge to just pretend that people who have hurt you don't exist and you couldn't care less. Because when you do that, then before you know it, you really DON'T care. They just become a footnote in your history, a funny story for girls' night. ;)
The National Post is already all over her. Hope it was worth it!
Edited to add: They're going after him too, which just might make it worth it to her. ;)
giamboner [gee-am-boh-ner]
-verb. informal.
when a public figure is brought down by his or her own indiscretion.
~ "whoa, did you hear Steve pulled a total giamboner?
see also: Lisa Raitt
But here's my question: if a person is willing and able to lie to people he loves (and apparently, practiced at it) then is it unreasonable for the public to wonder how much easier it might be for him to lie to us?
Snert, Snert, Snert: how many people have you known?
Snert, it's all over between us.
You say this after I just get finished indicating my partial willingness to indulge in messy, public revenge? :)
But here's my question: if a person is willing and able to lie to people he loves (and apparently, practiced at it) then is it unreasonable for the public to wonder how much easier it might be for him to lie to us?
Snert, Snert, Snert: how many people have you known?
Perhaps, this is why I don't have more friends. I cut the deceitful ones loose. So, just because a lot of people are deceitful, it's defensible?
It's part of the core of my mental health issues. Even psychiatrists used to try and get me to accept it rather than talk about it.
Why can't we hope for an honest world?
So where's the left-of-centre alternative candidate for Toronto's mayor
Surely to goodness there will be another candidate.
What the deadline for nominations?
The only person who can save Miller's legacy now is David Miller
It's amazing how disgusting Giambrone has turned out to be.
So now he admits that he didn't just send explicit text messages - he had sex with multiple women and cheated on his girlfriend?
The text messages were bad enough - when you are a City councillor you don't send sexually explicit text messages to other women. Councillor Paula Fletcher admitted in one of the quotes in The Globe and Mail that she knows several women who have been made uncomfortable by this.
On top of that he has multiple affairs with other women? So is he admitting that he had sex in City Hall with one of them? That is disgraceful. It's one thing to have an affair, but at least go to a hotel. You don't have an affair in the building where the people's representatives have sent you there to serve the public.
Yea, let's let the Cons & the Liberals decide on the left-of-centre candidate. Good thinking.
Councillor Paula Fletcher called text messages that surfaced "disturbing."
Said Fletcher: "A lot of women today have told me they are very concerned about what's in the text messages,"
What's your point? He has quit the race and EVERYONE agrees that his text message referring to his girlfriend as "just there for political reasons" were deplorable.
I'm happy for him that he had sex with multiple people in the past year. I think the more people have sex the better. Good for him!!
So where's the left-of-centre alternative candidate for Toronto's mayor
Surely to goodness there will be another candidate.
What the deadline for nominations?
The deadline for nominations isn't until early October
There are already is one left-of-centre candidate for mayor - deputy mayor Joe Pantalone who is an NDP stalwart
There may be other new faces in the race. Maybe Shelley Carroll will get back in the race.
Fair enough. I was using this particular episode as a jumping-off point to muse on the limits of what's socially acceptable, and I wasn't quite sure in which forum to post this. All the possibilities I considered – Canadian politics, LGBTQ and culture – didn't seem quite right. And hence my post ended up here.
The only person who can save Miller's legacy now is David Miller
I disagree. Miller's negatives are too high, and an entry into the race would immediately make him a target due to his high name recognition.
I think a stealth campaign with a less known candidate (Pantalone?) would be much more effective. Fly under the radar, consolidating the left, raising money and developing a strong organization till the summer. Meanwhile the Rossi vs. Smitherman slugfest will get negative, and Smitherman will be increasingly pushed to the right. There is a fairly high floor for the left in Toronto mayoral races.
The other concern is the unite the right issue. If Miller looks like he can win from the get-go there will be a big push among right wing donors and the business community to consolidate behind Smitherman. They will be much less able to do that against an insurgent campaign.
And maybe, just maybe, Miller quietly rides off into the sunset and starts quietly looking into other outlets for his energies. There's a lot of time between now and 2011 …
Why can't we hope for an honest world?
RP, I hear you; please believe me. I'm sorry if I was being too flip, although I do believe deeply in the civil-libertarian principles I was trying to defend, and I also believe in sex. Of the good kinds, admittedly not always easy to find, but certainly of multiple kinds.
More than that, though, I believe in love. Honesty is great, and I try for honesty, and when I was younger I would have roasted people over the coals for betraying me in the slightest. But you also have to decide whether you love people enough to forgive them sometimes, and then also to recognize that you need forgiveness too. Honesty is great, but love is better.
Great post skdadl, thanks.
And Michelle and p-sto, I am shocked, shocked, I tells ya. I srsly doubt that either of you would give in to such a revenge fantasy. Why did she do it? Because a lot of young North Americans still think they're living in Disneyland and it's great to be famous. But then they get famous by doing something like this, and suddenly they realize that it's actually no fun at all. I've read that Lucas is not bearing up well. I feel for her, but what she did was utterly appalling. Someone should warn young persons about fama.
You're reading too deeply into my comment. I was merely pointing out that if polyamory is employed properly then Giambrone has responsibility to both McQuarrie and Lucas. I never implied that what Lucas did was right. I did state that her actions imply that she was wronged by Giambrone for what ever that is worth.
Lucas was wronged by Giambrone, definitely. But I'm sure she'll survive - according to the National Post link I posted above, she's an aspiring actress who allegedly posted under the alias "pornomouth" on Twitter, and sent her glamour shots to Drink The Glitter (a Canadian celeb website) so that she'd have good pics floating around out there during her 15 minutes of fame. To which I say, why not? Good for her. Who are we to begrudge her for using Giambrone to her advantage, as he used her to his?
I'm just not sure what kind of advantage it is for her, that's all. Are directors going to suddenly recognize her talent because she slept with the Chair of the TTC and told all to the Star? Best of luck with that.
I think this is the first column of Wente's that I've ever completely agreed with and enjoyed. :D
Edited
Just wasn't as funny as it was in my head
Michelle, there's something here I'm not getting. In what way was she "wronged"? And even if you believe that his "using" her was wrong, and then you admit that she "used" him back, which presumably is also a wrong since you think "using" is wrong, then how can you end up saying "Good for her!"?
What she did bothers me because it is socially toxic. She played on some highly regressive traditional prejudices in our culture at the same time she was exploiting other kinds of widespread cultural appetites. She reinscribed meddling, moralizing shock as the flip side of titillation -- in this culture, it seems, you can't have one without the other. Who wants to see that persist?
And I'll resist commenting on Wente.
Okay, I can go with that. Ultimately she wasn't wronged because they both got what they wanted in the end. He used her for sex, she used him for publicity. He caused her great emotional pain when she cared about him and was humiliated by him (explained here), and then she caused him great emotional pain by exposing and humiliating him.
As one learns in introductory psych, the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. As well, humans tend not to compartmentalize their behaviour. Behaviour in one area of a person's life is a good predictor of how one will behave in other domains.
The one thing I object to is her decision to get her revenge on Giambrone in such a public way through the media. Imagine if she was jilted by some guy who wasn't a public figure and the media had no interest at all in all the text messages that had been sent etc...what would she have done instead? Slapped him across the face end of story.
I dunno, I think that this is a case where she felt jilted in what was an entirely private matter and she should have retaliated in private - or not retaliated at all. This is a free country - no one HAS to form a relationship with anyone else and people have a right to "jilt" other people if they want to. It just seems that the amount of damage she was able to inflict on Giambrone was so totally out of proprtion to what he may have done to her. She's 20, she gets jilted, big deal - it probably won't be last time in her life that she falls for someone and they decoide they aren't interested. But she had to know that by going to the media she wasn't just "getting back at him for dumping her" - she was getting back times 100 by totally destroying his life.
I think that he probably deserved a private slap across the face not to a public hanging.
ETA: in response to Caissa:
Uh oh. And there I was, hoping to reform.
Yes, I pretty much agree, Stockholm.
Funny. You and I didn't use to agree much. Are we both getting mellow in our old age?
As someone once said, "all is fair in love and war".
Perhaps her "over-reaction" somehow compensates for the unbalanced social relations that were inherent in their relationship (gender, age, professional status, race). He played her for a fool by "hiding" his true status, i.e. participating in deceitful relationship. I would say that is "personally toxic". She wasn't just "jilted". She was lied to, used and embarrassed among her family and friends but didn't say anything until after a few days after the public campaign launch. According to the Star report, she was demonized semi-publicly before she finally went public. Play with fire and you get burned.
I'm disliking how this thread is turning into a condemnation of Lucas. What she did was foolish at worst, I disagree with the moralising that's going on in calling her behaviour wrong.
Hehe. It's funny to imagine revenge with rules.
He lied to her in order to have sex with her. There's a pretty good chance that if he hadn't chosen to fraudulently pretend to be single, she would not have chosen to sleep with him. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but that, to me, is a pretty big "wrong". And then, for added humiliation, he made it pretty clear that she wasn't up to the proper standards for a girlfriend or spouse that you can take to gala openings and public events and such. And predictably, in the end, "Gosh, sorry, but I guess I do love my partner after all".
As far as I'm concerned, she's welcome to go public with his lies if she wishes, and as far as the repercussions on him, I think the onus should be on those who climb high, to recognized that if they fuck up, they'll fall further and land harder. Tough noogies for Adam. He's no victim here; he called all of the shots.
Agreed. How long before we're calling her a trollop or a golddigger or something similar?
Well, I don't think this should have been a news story at all. It wouldn't have been, eg, in much of Europe. And there's where the social toxicity comes in.
People keep trying to figure out what one person did to another in private, but I would say give that up. These are totally fictional, moralizing narratives whichever way they go. We cannot know; we absolutely cannot know what was true of any of these relationships, and we have no right to know. Spinning moral tales off of isolated quotes is delusionary, y'know?
But that's why going public is a problem of a different order, a social problem. That plays on the general cultural delusion, and just keeps it spinning on and on.
Skadl, are you saying that Giambrone cheating on his partner is challenging our traditional patriarchal social structures?
I'm saying that I don't know whether he was cheating. I don't know nuffin'.
Interesting. I remember reading, in many different places, that John McCain called his wife a particuarly odious name that I shan't retype here (but it rhymes with 'front'). Evidently there was some concern about a man who would do such a thing becoming the President in a land of 150 million women.
Was that just more busybodying about something that's really a private affair between a man and his wife? Or was there something in that? Does that speak to his character, or is it just really none of our business?
Skadl, are you saying that Giambrone cheating on his partner is challenging our traditional patriarchal social structures?
What do we know? Maybe they have an open relationship and they are each free to sleep with whoever they want - ergo there is no such a thing as "cheating"? who knows?
There are lots of people who many of admire who we now know were total jerks to people in their own families etc...there are other people who we all hate who may be wonderful to their spouses and children. Am I supposed to be feel more favourably disposed towards Stephen Harper if he's been "faithful" to his wife and is nice to his kids? I wonder how long before someone calls for George "Party and Play" Smitherman to drop out of the race for mayor because he is obviously immoral and untrustworthy since he has confessed to having been a drug addict in the past? Where does this all end?
Agreed. How long before we're calling her a trollop or a golddigger or something similar?
Why would anyone do that? Why would such a thought cross anyone's mind, except, apparently, yours? She wasn't either of those things and no one said she was.
Before I read that Star article about why she decided to go public, I kind of assumed her only motive was revenge and her 15 minutes of fame, and while I probably wouldn't have done it, I can appreciate the temptation. So, while I thought it was crass, I couldn't really condemn her for it.
But after reading her side of it, I can understand more why she did it, and I'm feeling a lot more sympathetic. If she thought she was Giambrone's only girlfriend for over a year, then she likely told all her friends and family about him and their relationship. Don't most of us tell our friends about our significant others? All that time talking to her friends about her boyfriend, and then it turns out that he publicly shares with the world that he's been living with a "life partner" for years - the whole time Lucas told everyone in her life that he was her boyfriend.
So how would that make her look in the eyes of her friends and family? Either like she was delusional or lying about the relationship with him. And on top of that, discovering that his people are spreading nasty things about her (as if SHE was the problem and not Adam).
I'm having a hard time mustering up moral condemnation here. It sounds to me like the brief bit of fame was just a side benefit to her desire to make sure everyone knew the truth. Read between the lines of that line from the Toronto Star article a bit, and it sounds like people she didn't know in Giambrone's circles were slagging her as some crazy stalker who has delusions of being Giambrone's girlfriend.
I don't blame her for wanting to set the record straight if people were spreading that kind of gossip around about her. And I believe it - they never did deny that they forged that e-mail from her, as she claimed. If they were willing to go that far to malign her character, then it isn't hard to believe that they were spreading nasty gossip about her before that, too.
Fine so the media is being unfair to Giambrone. It happens to most politicians one time or another. Some of them handle it. Giambrone lied, then he waffled and ran away. I don't see him being worth defending if he won't even defend himself.
No, but wasn't everyone's tongue a-waggy when it was revealed that he shook his son's hand.
Remember how that told us everything we needed to know?
Why would anyone do that? Why would such a thought cross anyone's mind, except, apparently, yours? She wasn't either of those things and no one said she was.
Fair enough. She's not doing it for the money, she's doing it for the fame that leads to the money. Either way, I do find it funny that it's now her character that's being scrutinized, as though she was the liar with someone on the side.
To answer your question, I guess I don't know why anyone would, but I don't know why anyone would dissect her character in the first place, and yet here we are.
Well, here I go. Much of this discussion sounds like a bunch of voyeurs salivating over some people's private sex lives, which are none of our business. Or, getting worked up over a celebrity mag or soap opera plot.
None of what Giambrone or Lucas or whoever did is of any public interest whatsoever.
I personally made up my mind about Giambrone when he issued his Youtube campaign launch ad showing him doing a workout in his business suit. My absolutely groundless intuitive conclusion was that he was a narcissistic immature nitwit. Mercifully, if you try to access that video clip now, all you can find are parodies. The original was "removed at the request of the subscriber".
In short, I don't know why he ran, and I don't know why he quit. But I do confess, I don't really care either way.
I'd like to respond to this:
She's 20, she gets jilted, big deal - it probably won't be last time in her life that she falls for someone and they decoide they aren't interested. But she had to know that by going to the media she wasn't just "getting back at him for dumping her" - she was getting back times 100 by totally destroying his life.
She hasn't "totally destroyed his life". His life will go on. People will forget about this, and he'll either go on to be a respected archeologist, which was his path before, or he'll rebound and either get his council seat this fall, or get elected to something else in a few years when he can say, "That was then, this is now." In the meantime, he's still a city councillor for the rest of his term, he is still the chair of the TTC (which he can work really hard at turning around in order to get public confidence in his abilities back). In fact, his future life is probably going to be filled with a lot more money and fame than hers will be, considering the tiny percentage of would-be actresses who get anywhere, and considering the huge income gap between women and men, and considering that he is a privileged guy with a fallback career and lots of people pulling for him. He'll be just fine.
And she didn't just "get jilted". He lied to her for a year, made a complete fool out of her in front of her family and friends by declaring in the largest newspaper in Canada that he has been with his "life-partner" for the entire time she had told them he was with her, and, according to her, he and his entourage allegedly spread nasty gossip about her in an attempt to cover his tracks. That goes way beyond your average "jilting" or "break-up". If you want to use hyperbole about people's lives being ruined, then I think that his actions would have felt just as much to her like "ruining her life" by discrediting her with everyone she knew and even people she didn't know.
The truth is, neither of their lives are ruined. They may have ruined each others' lives for the time being, but this will blow over and no one will die and they will both be fine.
Well, here I go. Much of this discussion sounds like a bunch of voyeurs salivating over some people's private sex lives, which are none of our business. Or, getting worked up over a celebrity mag or soap opera plot.
None of what Giambrone or Lucas or whoever did is of any public interest whatsoever.
I personally made up my mind about Giambrone when he issued his Youtube campaign launch ad showing him doing a workout in his business suit. My absolutely groundless intuitive conclusion was that he was a narcissistic immature nitwit. Mercifully, if you try to access that video clip now, all you can find are parodies. The original was "removed at the request of the subscriber".
In short, I don't know why he ran, and I don't know why he quit. But I do confess, I don't really care either way.
I suppose I should move on to doing something more productive with my time. Back to the game.... Damn it.
She hasn't "totally destroyed his life". His life will go on.
I agree. Even if it has, it's just for now and it's far from undeserved.
I lose.
None of what Giambrone or Lucas or whoever did is of any public interest whatsoever.
The exact details, no - but I think it's still fair to take into consideration when you decide who to vote for. Someone who's a scumbag privately might not treat the public with the respect it deserves either.
To answer your question, I guess I don't know why anyone would, but I don't know why anyone would dissect her character in the first place, and yet here we are.
Because this whole stupid story is about "dissecting characters".
Motive on both sides is entirely relevant to the story. A huge reason why he had to step down was because so many people felt so much sympathy for her as victim, and anger towards him as "cheater". This whole story is about nothing else EXCEPT a spectacular public break-up and sex scandal, a great big morality play. How does dissecting characters NOT come into it?
I know of no evidence of a link between private and public virtue.
Anyway, let's carry on. What about MacQaurrie? Did she have any outside love interests? I want the whole story before I decide how to vote.
The importance of this story (and importance is greatly over stated as we are talking about a mayoral candidate here, nothing more) is what Giambrone did after this came out, or in relation to his fear of it coming out. That is fair game.
There is one other big lesson that public figures need to learn - if you are going to let Willy Wanker come out to play - for goodness sakes put your texting finger away.
I suppose there's a certain thoroughness in looking into both sides of a conflict, but it doesn't really seem like, notwithstanding not shutting up and going away, she did anything wrong here. If he had, say, defrauded her out of a bunch of investment money nobody would suggest that it would have been more civil of her to keep quiet and deal with it privately, and nobody would look for some kind of ulterior motive in coming forward to say "this guy, this guy that wants to be Mayor, defrauded me". I guess I don't see this as all that different.
Why is the victim's character also under scrutiny? That's what I guess I'm not getting.
[double]
Defrauding is against the law. Having a messy breakup with your girlfriend(s) isn't. The only thing this story is about is who was right and who was wrong, not about whether someone did something against the law.
I don't think she did anything wrong either. As I said earlier, she was well within her rights to go public with this and humiliate him. But when you force your messy breakup onto the front pages of a newspaper in order to dissect someone else's character, then you kind of invite speculation about the role you're playing in the story as well, right?
...and another thing about this story that no one has mentioned. In today's Star, Linda Diebel has a looong article on why Kristen Lucas "went public" with all of this. After reading it, I'm still not quite sure why she did. The story says...
"Moreover, Lucas, who believed she was Giambrone's girlfriend, was deeply hurt when Giambrone, then on the verge of announcing his bid for mayor, messaged her last Dec. 27 he would be announcing McQuarrie was his partner. He needed her for the campaign, he said.
"I felt very silenced and forgotten, somebody living in the shadows," says Lucas. "He had humiliated me in front of my friends."
Even then, however, she needed one more reason to speak to a journalist. It came at his campaign launch when her stepmother allegedly overheard McQuarrie refer to Lucas as "crazy." Lucas had sent McQuarrie uncomplimentary messages on Facebook."
OK, so let me get this straight. She decided to go to the press after she unilaterally started sending nasty messages to Sarah McQuarrie on facebook and then her step-mother overheard McQuarrie refer to her as crazy. Well, helloooo! If I suddenly started getting unsolicited nasty messages from a perfect stranger I'd probably think the person was "crazy" as well. And, if she is so pissed of at Giambrone, what's she doing sending nasty messages to his partner - what did she do to deserve this?
I agree that the newsworthyness of this is questionable at best. But, we know about it now, and you can't unknow it. Even knowing that the media conspired to cover up Harris' affair or affairs or whatever, and are quick to expose someone who doesn't look like he just might punch you in the nose for doing it, you still can't unknow it, try as you might.
I have to admit, that being in possession of this information now, I wouldn't vote for Giambrone if I had the opportunity. I do believe that lying to your partner is a a hell of a rubicon to cross.
But, Skdal's points are well made. If Giambrone was involved in a certain kind of relationship where having sexual relationships outside of it was okay, then I'd be okay with it too-- if I was somehow made aware of what is none of my beeswax. And, there's always mitigating factors within relationships, and I'm not as all judgemental as all that. Not everyone who, for lack of a better term, "cheats" on a spouse is an immature narcissistic twit.
I think this is the first column of Wente's that I've ever completely agreed with and enjoyed. :D
How ironic. It's clear from "Wente's" columns deffending Micheal Bryant that she's cheating on her readership, telling them that she's a journalist, while in fact she's just mouthpiece (I had other words, but let's leave it with those) for Navigator.
I'll put Wente's points about morality and cheating right where I put Micheal Jackson's points on child care.
EXACTLY!! What did McQuarrie do to deserve this? We simply don't have enough information. Is anyone looking into McQuarrie's private papers? Monitoring her Myspace? Following her Facebook? Tabulating her Tweets? This McQuarrie person is too innocent by half. There's a HUGE story here just waiting to be told. This is Toronto, after all. Should we call out the troops?
LOL
Well, I wasn't referring to "breaking up with" her. I guess I was referring to "intentionally lying to her in order to get sex that he wouldn't get otherwise". But you're right, it's not illegal.
Funny that, though.
If I use a gun to take $20 from you, that's a crime.
If I use the gun to force sex on you, that's a much, much worse crime.
If I lie to you to trick you out of $20, that's a crime.
If I lie to you to get sex out of you, that's life, kiddo.
Good statement by David Miller:
Miller says he won't ask Giambrone to resign
“Pierre Trudeau once said that government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation,” Mr. Miller said. “I think, frankly, there are areas where the media have no business as well. Adam Giambrone has stood before the people of Toronto, he has accepted responsibility on their actions and he's working with his partner on their private life. And that's his private life. … He's acknowledged he's done something wrong, and he's paid the consequences in front of all the people of Toronto, and probably of Canada.”
I'm glad he's not asking Giambrone to resign. The electorate is free to make choices based on their morals (or moralizing) as they see fit, but the sitting government surely isn't.
That said, he could at least ask Giambrone to not do his fucking in City Hall. I mean, Giambrone makes good money. Rent a damn room. Also, when you're not getting a leg over in your taxpayer-supplied office, on taxpayer-supplied furniture, it makes it so much more plausible to say "this is a private matter, and none of the public's business".
I heard on the news this morning that Mammoliti is pressuring Giambrone to resign over the allegations that he told Lucas about the fare hike before it was made public, and that if he doesn't, he'll be going to the integrity commissioner over it.
Back when the story broke, I thought, "big deal" over him telling her about the fare hike since lots of people confide in their partners about work. But what hadn't occurred to me at the time was that it could potentially have given her unfair inside information that would have made it possible for her and whoever else she told (she says just her mother) to hoard tokens.
So perhaps there's something to that. I'm not sure if it's enough for him to resign over - I mean, it's not like he resided over a billion dollar boondoggle like some other mayoral candidates I could name - but I can see where some sort of discipline might be in order if her allegations turn out to be true. (With his luck, he was probably stupid enough to tell her about it in a text message! :D )
Which reminds me of a Facebook status update one of my FB friends had yesterday:
"Giambrone sleeps with some women and costs the city a couch dry cleaning, maybe. Smitherman oversees E-Health which ends up costing the province more than one billion for essentially nothing. Remind me why it was Giambrone who dropped out of the race?"
Remind me why it was Giambrone who dropped out of the race?"
Because its the scandal du jour?
Because each candidate has to make that choice for themself, and Giambrone seems to have enough sense to?
Is there a law against having sex in your office after hours? Bill Clinton used the Oval office and he's still a folk hero to many. It's funny to see all these prigs suddenly auditioning to see who gets to be Toronto's version of Ken Starr!
Its pretty obvious that the people who are going on and on about this and want to fee AG to a pool of piranhas - are people who love every minute of it because they find it so titillating!
As for the fare increase - it's common knowledge in Toronto for the past year that fares were almost certain to increase and if someone did know in advance - I SUPPOSE they could conceivable buy a few tokens and save a few cents - but this hardly compares to giving insider tips on government decisions to people buying and selling stocks. What if someone else on the TTC commission told their spouse that a fare increase was in the works - should that person be thrown to the crocodiles as well?
I think Giambrone did the right thing by dropping out of the race (and as you all know i was never all that enthusiastic about his candidacy in the first place) - but now this is degenerating into something like a witch hunt to be followed by show trials. I think that having to end his campaign and facing such public humiliation is more than enough of a penalty for him. But apparently it isn't enough for the braying hyenas who won't be happy until they've driven the guy to suicide. Lay off already!
All this is now, and has been all along, is a right-wing witch hunt.
No wonder people miss Pierre Trudeau, at least for his comment about bedroom issues.
Hey, politics is a bloodsport. The right-wingers on council would be fools NOT to demand his resignation as the TTC chair when they have misconduct they can pin on him. You can be sure that the lefties on council would do the same thing if it were a right-winger in charge of the TTC who had been caught giving inside information to a mistress.
I agree, though, it's pretty inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. I say let Mammoliti go to the integrity commissioner. Maybe he'll get a reprimand or something. Big deal. If he stares Mammoliti down, he might be forced by the commissioner to resign, or he might not. If he resigns on his own, he definitely won't have a chance to stay on. Might as well take his chances.
Considering some of the allegations against Mammoliti in the last few years - i think he ought to remember that "People in glass houses should get dressed in the basement"
So Mammoliti, the guy who has streets in his ward named after his supporters, is accusing some one else of lacking integrity?
This is an interesting proposal in this article, near the bottom - to change the composition of the Transit Commission to three councillors and six members of the public, instead of nine councillors.
What do the rest of you think of that?
I don't know that I'd put so few councillors and so many public members on the committee, but I do like the idea of at least a couple of public members.
One potential criticism of the proposal from me is that, at least provincially, "public members" of committees and agencies (including quasi-judicial ones like regulatory boards) are basically patronage appointments for political cronies of the government in power. So for me, it would depend on how they choose the public members.
A law, like in the Criminal Code? I doubt it. Probably there's also no law in the Code against hanging some Hustler centrefolds in your office.
You, uh, really don't get it? I have an office where I work. Maybe I'm just stuck in the Victorian era, but I understand it's been provided for me to do my work in, not have hot, monkey sex in. Even if it's not in the Criminal Code!
If you know of someone, feel free to say. Same goes for anyone. If theirs isn't an elected post then it probably won't matter much. I doubt there'll be any "crocodiles" for them.
But you're missing the point. The point isn't that most people had a hunch about the fare hike anyway. The point isn't that we'd all find out eventually anyway. The point is that at his level of management, he should reasonably be expected to understand the boundaries. I'm a regular TTC customer, and I pay them a pretty good chunk of money each year for my metropass. Don't I deserve to know about these fare increases at the same time someone having sex with Giambrone finds out? Alternately, would it have been tragic if Giambrone's mistress had to wait to find out with the rest of us?
Write a letter to the editor about it, Mycroft!
Here's an article about it.
Those to be honoured include Steve Sanderson (of Accident Support Services International), Robert Chabot (of Centennial Sweeping), late councillor Bob Yuill, jazz singer Carol McCartney, musician Lou Pomanti, former NHL player Ron Attwell, who now lives near North Bay, and Gilbert Parrotta, former president of the Humberlea ratepayers' association. Area pioneers Isaac Devins and Mary Chapman will also get streets.
Larry Perlman, who ran against Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti in 2006, pointed out yesterday several of those named are associated or related to people who made campaign contributions to Mammoliti – and was accused by Councillor Mark Grimes of playing politics.
Slimy!
Long.