Giambrone by-election imbroglio

235 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stockholm

Ken Burch wrote:

Stock, cut it out already.  The earlier issue with Giambrone was never that "he had sex"-it was that he was and is a member a party that supposedly supports feminist values and, despite that,  CHEATED ON HIS FIANCE.  Nobody was demanding that Giambrone be chaste...just faithful to the person he loved and respectful of women. 

It was never about sex in and of itself, and you damn well know it.  Try making a positive case FOR Giambrone(I seriously doubt HE would think you're helping him with that cyber-sneering you've been engaging in here...why don't you go over to Scarborough and canvass for the guy instead?) instead of disrespecting people and trivializing the issues here.  Nobody was making a big deal over nothing in this discussion, and nobody deserved to be treated like they had no right to express their concerns.  You're better than that.

(sorry for shadow-modding...but this has gone on long enough).

How do you know he "cheated" on anyone and btw: isn't "cheating on someone" because you have sex a very socially conservative concept that belongs amongs sorority girls in the 1950s? What the hell do we know about Giambrones relationship with his fiancé? Maybe they have an open relationship? Maybe they believe in free love maybe they have three ways with people? What do we know and what business is it of yours to speculate on what is or is not OK between him and his wife. All we do know is that they went ahead and got married a few months after this pseudo scandal too place. Maybe she has sex with other people too. If so all the more power to her, the more sex the is in the world the better!!

I salute Adam Giambrone. I consider monogamy to be a repressive dated social construct and I believe that we should all be free to have sex with any consenting adult we choose o have sex with. I think we need MORE politicians who are proudly and openly NON-monogamous and toss all prudes into the garbage can!

I thought feminist values are supposed to be that men and women should be able to be free in their choice of sexual partners. This idea that people should be punished for having sex with more than one person is something that belongs in Sharia law or in US suburbia circa 1955.

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

Stock, I agree with what you say about their relationship -- who are we to know their agreements and dynamics in their relationship? I had a similar conversation, though about the different cases of Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner (another thread). But that is an important point you made.

But i think declaring non-monogomy for all is similar to upholding everyone to monogomous standards too. And saying monogomy is a dated social constuct is a pretty subjective view there.

The sex scandal stuff is scandal, but it does potentially signify how someone upholds themself in the private life versus the public life and if those to things fit and represent the values they are trying to cast on society. I don't think anyone is advocating that sex with more than one person is "punishable by Sharia law" or what have you, but it does potentially contort the public image he has presented of himself.

Stockholm

If we disqualified from public life every person who ever had sex outside of marriage we would have almost no one left to run the country. What about Kathleeen Wynne? She apparently left her husband for another woman, that means she cheated on him too!

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

ooo but the word 'apparently' is there. (being silly)

I see what your saying Stock, and at certain points, these "scandals" aren't the most important thing. For me it would be not "sex being had" but how that act affects the political message being touted. 

For an extreme example, like those Republican politicans that talk about "normal family values" and anti gay crap and then are caught with male sex workers. What they are preaching (the horrible message) to their base is directly opposite of what they are doing. Therefore, how can this person be reliable and accountable if they can't even uphold their own standards?

The same questions could be potentially asked of Giambrone. We do not know what the relationship agreements and dynamics are, but your point that he is a feminist could go both ways -- is it feminist to "cheat" or be non-monogomous or the other way around. Those are really held by the person. So, if the 'scandal' doesn't sway you it fully well can sway other people who define themselves the same way.

 

Stockholm

Kaitlin McNabb wrote:

I see what your saying Stock, and at certain points, these "scandals" aren't the most important thing. For me it would be not "sex being had" but how that act affects the political message being touted. 

For an extreme example, like those Republican politicans that talk about "normal family values" and anti gay crap and then are caught with male sex workers. What they are preaching (the horrible message) to their base is directly opposite of what they are doing. Therefore, how can this person be reliable and accountable if they can't even uphold their own standards?

As far as I know, Giambrone never talked about "normal family values" or attacked other people for the choices they make in their personal/sex lives so I see no hypocrisy on his part. To this day I've never understood why the Toronto Star of all outlets decided that having an active sex life was a "scandal". Of course the Star's "Messiah" in the last election was George Smitherman - for some reason they didn't run screaming headline and exposes about his past addictions to "party drugs" or try to tally up just how many people he had ever slept with etc...and there would be LOTS of material there. But since Smitherman was their darling, he was treated like a Faberge Egg compared to the way they swung at mallot at Giambrone.

Unionist

The attacks on Giambrone for his private sex life remind me of the campaign against Rob Ford for smoking crack. Progressive people (IMHO) should not get sucked into these dangerous diversions.

What Clinton did was arguably far worse - not because he was a good Christian married man, but because there's a rather obvious unequal power dynamic inherent in the relationship between a female White House intern and a, umm, POTUS (related to the Yiddish word, "potz"). Oh, and instead of saying, "my sex life is not the public's business" (which would have been an arguable position), he simply chose to lie.

Sounds to me as if what Giambrone did to Chhabra was also far worse than his private philandering. That's a political act, and the kind of betrayal the public has a right to be concerned about.

 

Stockholm

Unionist wrote:

The attacks on Giambrone for his private sex life remind me of the campaign against Rob Ford for smoking crack. Progressive people (IMHO) should not get sucked into these dangerous diversions.

Being addicted to crack cocaine is something that would impair someone's cognitive ability to do the job of mayor. Crack is also illegal and to obtain it one would have to be dealing with underworld drug dealers and put yourself into a position of being a target for blackmail.

Having an active sex life is perfectly legal and probably just makes the politician in question do a better job because they will be happier!

Summer

The cheating/sex/scandal thing is a non-issue for me.  Lots of people have sex with people they are not married to.  For all we know, he’s in an open relationship and his then gf (now wife) was fully aware of what was going on.  

Of course, he handled the whole cheating/sex/scandal thing very badly and couldn’t even get through his own press conference.  http://www.blogto.com/city/2010/02/adam_giambrone_drops_out_of_mayoral_race/

His reaction showed a lack of maturity which I believe makes someone ill equipped for a life in public office. He should take a break from politics for a good decade or so and get some real world experience outside of the wheeling and dealing nature of politics so that he can learn that government is not a game.

Overall though, my biggest issue with him is his lack of respect for public money.   If you can’t handle a budget, you don’t belong in office.  If you treat public money like a personal piggy bank, you don’t belong in office.  He is one of the councillors who played right into the Ford “gravy train” narrative and paved the way for the Ford victory.  Ugh.

To me, there is nothing about this man that shows integrity. Call me old fashioned and naive, but I think politicians should at least try to demonstrate a little integrity – especially at the beginning of their careers!  They mostly go downhill over time.  He’s starting so far down the hill, I shudder to think how low he can go.  

 

Stockholm

Summer wrote:

Overall though, my biggest issue with him is his lack of respect for public money.   If you can’t handle a budget, you don’t belong in office.  If you treat public money like a personal piggy bank, you don’t belong in office.  He is one of the councillors who played right into the Ford “gravy train” narrative and paved the way for the Ford victory.  Ugh.

Are you sure you're not one of the Ford brothers?

Summer

Stockholm wrote:

Summer wrote:

Overall though, my biggest issue with him is his lack of respect for public money.   If you can’t handle a budget, you don’t belong in office.  If you treat public money like a personal piggy bank, you don’t belong in office.  He is one of the councillors who played right into the Ford “gravy train” narrative and paved the way for the Ford victory.  Ugh.

Are you sure you're not one of the Ford brothers?

 

yes.  I'm sure.  Are you sure that you have nothing on point to add to this discussion?  Do you think Giambrone is a good politician and/or would he be a good representative for the people of Scarborough-Guildwood?  Please provide explanations to support your answer(s) as this will contribute to an interesting discussion.  

I take it you don’t like my comment.  Is it because you think it’s ok to use public funds for personal activities?  Or is it because you don’t think that Giambrone did use public funds for personal activities?  Just because someone identifies as “left” or “progressive” or NDP does not mean they get an automatic pass.   

 

Aristotleded24

Summer wrote:
Just because someone identifies as “left” or “progressive” or NDP does not mean they get an automatic pass.

No no, don't you see? The left is always right! We should never question anyone on the left, because they have the right answers, and even if they have to cheat to get to power, that's okay because the end justifies the means.

I wonder how many people defending Giambrone would jump to his defense if he had decided to run for the Liberals or Greens instead?

Stockholm

Summer wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Summer wrote:

Overall though, my biggest issue with him is his lack of respect for public money.   If you can’t handle a budget, you don’t belong in office.  If you treat public money like a personal piggy bank, you don’t belong in office.  He is one of the councillors who played right into the Ford “gravy train” narrative and paved the way for the Ford victory.  Ugh.

Are you sure you're not one of the Ford brothers?

 

yes.  I'm sure.  Are you sure that you have nothing on point to add to this discussion?  Do you think Giambrone is a good politician and/or would he be a good representative for the people of Scarborough-Guildwood?  Please provide explanations to support your answer(s) as this will contribute to an interesting discussion.  

I take it you don’t like my comment.  Is it because you think it’s ok to use public funds for personal activities?  Or is it because you don’t think that Giambrone did use public funds for personal activities?  Just because someone identifies as “left” or “progressive” or NDP does not mean they get an automatic pass.   

 

You seem to have a deep personal vendetta against the guy...maybe you should challenge him to a duel - pistols at six paces or something - and settle it for us.

Ripple

Summer wrote:

Are you sure that you have nothing on point to add to this discussion?   

Stockholm wrote:

You seem to have a deep personal vendetta against the guy...maybe you should challenge him to a duel - pistols at six paces or something - and settle it for us.

So that's a yes, Summer: Stockholm is sure he has nothing on point to add.  (And if wild speculation is now allowed, I think Stock is Adam Giambrone.)

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Just on the face of it, why was Giambrone parachuted into this riding in the first place? It doesn't have a strong NDP history to begin with. If your party wanted to help a prominent person within advance his or her political career, wouldn't it make more sense to choose a safe riding? To say nothing of the fact that the nomination process, regardless of what may be technically legal, has left a bad taste in some people's mouths. And Giambrone doesn't seem to have a great grasp of issues facing Scarborough. So what was gained by causing needless divisions within the party to parachute in someone with no local connection to an area that isn't that strong for the NDP in the first place? Surely they could have waited for the general election and found a riding that was a better fit for Giambrone? What was his hurry? Why now?

Because the ONDP is run by morons.

 

Stockholm wrote:

Meanwhile according to the latest Ontariu-wide poll the ONDP has gained 3 points and is now at 27%, just behind the Liberals at 31% and the PCs at 36%...the only possible explanation for this surge has to be the deluge of positive publicity and hype around Adam Giambrone's candidacy!

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/07/24/tories_add_to_lead_ove...

Keep dreaming. Giambrone is going nowhere.

 

janfromthebruce wrote:

Just saying there is a pattern here that is followed when they want to pillar an NDP but don't do the same relentless bashing of Liberals.

Here's another pattern: in 2010, the entire slate of democratically elected socialist candidates for the ONDP Youth was rescinded by the party brass. In 2011, Barry Weisleder was democratically elected by the members of the Thornhill Riding Association to represent that riding in the provincial election. Less than 48 hours later, the brass rescinded his nomination. Also in 2011, the party brass refused to allow Diana Andrews to seek the nomination for Etobicoke North. And in 2010, the party brass refused to allow MPP Michael Prue to speak at hearing regarding public funding of Catholic schools.

Stockholm

OnTheLeft wrote:

In 2011, Barry Weisleder was democratically elected by the members of the Thornhill Riding Association to represent that riding in the provincial election. Less than 48 hours later, the brass rescinded his nomination.

Yippee!!!

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Cheerleading aganist open, transparent and fair party democracy and for the corrupt party brass.

Summer

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Summer wrote:
Just because someone identifies as “left” or “progressive” or NDP does not mean they get an automatic pass.

No no, don't you see? The left is always right! We should never question anyone on the left, because they have the right answers, and even if they have to cheat to get to power, that's okay because the end justifies the means.

 

I give in!  From now on, no more questions.  I will hear and obey.  Now when do I get my pony?

Skinny Dipper

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Summer wrote:
This guy's blog does a good job of summarizing the problems with Giambrone. 

http://davenportdemocracy.blogspot.ca/2011/02/we-need-to-banish-adam-giambrone.html  (FWIW, he appears to support the NDP)

If true, Giambrone does seem to have some character issues.

Interestingly enough, people claim that Giambrone is well-suited to win Scarborough because of his tenure with the TTC and that there are transit issues in Scarborough. I'm sure that's not the only issue facing local voters?

Ouch!

Stockholm

I for one was responding this the posting below. People say they don't care about Giambrone's ex life - and then they make it clear that its ALL about his sex life.

Ken Burch wrote:

Stock, cut it out already.  The earlier issue with Giambrone was never that "he had sex"-it was that he was and is a member a party that supposedly supports feminist values and, despite that,  CHEATED ON HIS FIANCE.  Nobody was demanding that Giambrone be chaste...just faithful to the person he loved and respectful of women. 

Lord Palmerston

Giambrone's "sex scandal" is a non-issue - unlike in the case of Clinton (unequal power dynamic) and Anthony Weiner (lack of consent) - but supporting him on the basis of how one feels about "1950s sexual morality" and "prudishness" is stupid.  Lorinc for instance has a good piece on Gimabrone's hypocrisy and opportunism without focusing on it at all:

http://spacing.ca/toronto/2013/07/29/lorinc-the-many-faces-of-giambrone/

Lord Palmerston

In any case Giambrone will get crushed in 2 days and will have trouble getting elected dogcatcher after that.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Transit City doesn’t figure anywhere in Giambrone’s campaign bio or materials, and it certainly didn’t get a walk-on part in the “Meet Adam” video. Which, as Alice said, is “curious and curiouser,” because Giambrone, of course, was Mr. Transit City for so many years — the leading evangelist for light rail — the transit mode that, these days, dare not speak its name (at least in Scarborough).

At a high-voltage press conference back in March, 2007, Giambrone proudly unveiled the $10 billion plan to criss-cross Toronto with LRT lines, including a 15 km connection from Kennedy Station to Malvern that would replace the Scarborough RT and bring rapid transit to one of the city’s poorest communities.

The strategy, he told the assembled scribes, is “designed to inspire people” [emphasis added]. It would bring a downtown-style transit network to the rest of the city. As he told The Star, Transit City “will restore Toronto’s stature as a leader in urban transit.” Such bold statements. You can almost feel the hairs standing up….

Oh, never mind.

Today, Giambrone’s faith in light rail — which he has re-asserted in numerous columns for his pliable patrons at NOW Magazine — is nowhere to be seen. His stance in this by-election has been to say he agrees with whatever city council chooses, which, as we know, is a subway to replace the RT, for an extra $1 billion (but probably more). As he tweeted before the council debate, “I support subways & LRT where they make sense. Right now I’m waiting to hear from #TOcouncil on transit plans for #Scarborough.” Inspired, indeed.

[url=http://spacing.ca/toronto/2013/07/29/lorinc-the-many-faces-of-giambrone/...

 

This is what makes it even worse and more damaging, the blatant pandering and spinelessness.

The LRT would only cost approximatley $1.8 billion, with seven stops, it would be easier to expand, and with about 47,000 people served.

The subway would cost $2.5 billion, with only three stops, it would be difficult to expand, and providing service for about 28,000.

Adam G is a travesty.

Stockholm

Lord Palmerston wrote:

In any case Giambrone will get crushed in 2 days and will have trouble getting elected dogcatcher after that.

I don't expect him to win, but i think if he improves on what the ONDP got in the 2011 election (19%) it will be a (small) feather in his cap...if he wants to run again somewhere in Scarborough good for him.

As for the LRT/subway debate. Wake up and smell the coffee - the die has been cast. Thye Ontario Liberals opened pandora's box and thanks to a large majority vote on city council - what's done is done. He can stick his head in the sand and jump up and down and yell LRT! LRT! LRT! and it won't make any difference. At some point you have to choose your battles and decide what hill you are willing to die on.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Nothing has been cast regarding the subway considering it might not even get the full funding.

And, it can be spun as choosing your battles, but it's really about sticking to your principles.

Stockholm

If the subway deal falls apart due to lack of funding then we are back to square one with the LRT - but nothing Giambrone says or does is going to have any impact on that at this stage - unless you expect that in the coming year the ONDP will win an election and that he will become Minister of Transportation!

Winston

I think for most people, it's not the fact he had sex, it's the fact he lied about it.

I can't presume to know the details/arrangements he had with his wife (then fiancé): I know many couples with open relationships and am loathe to judge.  If he did have such an arrangement with his partner and was open and honest with her, then all of this is none of anybody's business.

If not, if he was dishonest and deceitful, either publicly or privately, then I view this as a pretty serious character flaw that I do not wish to see in my representatives, regardless of political stripe.

As to the comparisons you drew to Slitherman's (typo intended) sex life in an earlier post, I believe these to be completely inappropriate, and vaguely offensive and homophobic. George Slitherman is an odious man and was a terribly incompetent cabinet minister - there are many reasons to detest him, but his past sexual partners and their cardinality are none of your f*cking business, Stockholm. 

Stockholm wrote:

I for one was responding this the posting below. People say they don't care about Giambrone's ex life - and then they make it clear that its ALL about his sex life.

genstrike

Ironically, for those of you keping track at home, the whole bit about Giambrone's sex life in this thread started here:

Quoting in part from post #76 (emphasis mine):

Summer wrote:
Giambrone is an opportunist, with poor judgment, an inflated sense of entitlement and questionable ethics (and I say this based on his actions in municipal government and not his personal issues)   The NDP showed poor judgment nominating him.  It was a happy day for Toronto when he slinked away from municipal politics.

Summer followed up in post #84 with:

Summer wrote:
There is no question that I have a very strong negative opinion about Giambrone.

Which was immediately followed in post #85 with:

Stockholm wrote:

Summer wrote:
There is no question that I have a very strong negative opinion about Giambrone. 

Why, is it because you don't like people who have sex?

As an outside observer, it sounds to me like Stockholm is the one who is really obsessed with Giambrone's sex life,

Stockholm

Winston wrote:

I think for most people, it's not the fact he had sex, it's the fact he lied about it.

I don't blame him. If a reporter from the Toronto Star called me out of the blue and started asking me invasive questions about whether or not I had had sex with such and such a person on such and such a date etc... i would probably deny it as well. When someone has an "affair" it is by definition a "lie" otherwise it wouldn't be an "affair" in the first place. (Actually I wouldn't even deny it. I would yell "my sex life is none of your fucking business" and I'd slam the phone down as hard as possible in the hope of damaging the reporter's ear drum).

Why should I or anyone else for that matter feel obliged to tell the truth about my sex life to a reporter from some glorified tabloid like the Toronto Star? What right have they to even ask the question? Whatever he did is an issue between him and his wife and no one else. It has ZERO public policy angle and the Toronto Star should be ashamed of itself for even making an issue of it and trying to role play as the Canadain version of the National Enquirer. 

Winston

Stockholm wrote:

[Why should I or anyone else for that matter feel obliged to tell the truth about my sex life to a reporter from some glorified tabloid like the Toronto Star? What right have they to even ask the question? Whatever he did is an issue between him and his wife and no one else. It has ZERO public policy angle and the Toronto Star should be ashamed of itself for even making an issue of it and trying to role play as the Canadain version of the National Enquirer. 

On that, we can agree.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

OK, the ONDP vote went up in Scarborough, but we really can't say for sure that it went up because Giambrone was the candidate.

This was a showing that keeps the man's political career alive, but he now needs to start an open and public dialogue with POC's, activists, and women about the events that just occurred.

Congrats on the higher vote, Adam, but learn from this.  OK?

And I'd say that the party has an obligation now to Amarjeet Chhabra to NOT send in a "star" candidate against her in any other seat.  She's probably owed a nomination in a winnable riding at the next opportunity, but I don't expect to see that happen.

 

Todrick of Chat...

I still think that Amarjeet Chhabra would have done better.

adma

Ken Burch wrote:
OK, the ONDP vote went up in Scarborough, but we really can't say for sure that it went up because Giambrone was the candidate.

I think it went up because Giambrone was an excellent team motivator--and as such, perhaps, demonstrated "how things should be done here".  But as such, it went up almost *in spite of his* candidacy...

nicky

I'm not at all sure that Amarjeet Chhabra would have done better, much less that the party owes her a nomination in a winnable riding. 

Consider:

1. She only got 1.5% of the vote in thmunicipl election, running last out of 9 candidtes

2. She only managed to round up 12 supporters for her nomintion fight.

3. She showed bad judgment taking her complaint to the press and greatly undermining the party's prospects, not just in Guildwood but the other ridings as well.

These things suggest to be that she is not a very promising politician and that her judgment and regard for the party is questionable.

toaster

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

I still think that Amarjeet Chhabra would have done better.

Really?  I don't think anybody believes that.  There is no way Chhabra would have gotten 28-29% of the vote.  

nicky wrote:

I'm not at all sure that Amarjeet Chhabra would have done better, much less that the party owes her a nomination in a winnable riding. 

Consider:

1. She only got 1.5% of the vote in thmunicipl election, running last out of 9 candidtes

2. She only managed to round up 12 supporters for her nomintion fight.

3. She showed bad judgment taking her complaint to the press and greatly undermining the party's prospects, not just in Guildwood but the other ridings as well.

These things suggest to be that she is not a very promising politician and that her judgment and regard for the party is questionable.

Exactly this.

Todrick of Chat...

Unionist wrote:

Yeah, this disabled female immigrant union activist is a real loser. She doesn't know how to play by the rules. Doesn't she understand the meaning of the words "star candidate"? Doesn't she grasp that internal party disputes must be handled behind closed doors? Maybe disciplinary action would be in order before she embarrasses the party again?

 

This is why I do not believe in the political process.  The provincial and national party headquarters controls everything, the local riding or candidate has no say in the majority of issues.

Unionist

Yeah, this disabled female immigrant union activist is a real loser. She doesn't know how to play by the rules. Doesn't she understand the meaning of the words "star candidate"? Doesn't she grasp that internal party disputes must be handled behind closed doors? Maybe disciplinary action would be in order before she embarrasses the party again?

[url=http://youtu.be/5NuofNHKbVc]Giambrone's back and there's gonna be laundry[/url]

(With thanks to [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/ontario/ontario-elections#comment-1407366]radior....)

janfromthebruce

nicky wrote:

I'm not at all sure that Amarjeet Chhabra would have done better, much less that the party owes her a nomination in a winnable riding. 

Consider:

1. She only got 1.5% of the vote in thmunicipl election, running last out of 9 candidtes

2. She only managed to round up 12 supporters for her nomintion fight.

3. She showed bad judgment taking her complaint to the press and greatly undermining the party's prospects, not just in Guildwood but the other ridings as well.

These things suggest to be that she is not a very promising politician and that her judgment and regard for the party is questionable.

There was a nomination meeting in which it was shown that all eligible members who were presented and allowed to vote. There was a fast turn around time between the resigning MPP and byelection call - 1 week.

Once the vote happen and Adam won, there was a motion to destroy the ballots and show unanimous support. That was the time to voice complaint and not after the fact, especially after one tweeted that you supported the nominated candidate.

If one changed their mind (too late) one should have waited until after the writ/election period because nothing was going to happen to change the outcome during the election.

In reality it was about not about any of this but sabatoging the party. It didn't look good and acted as a drag.

In my mind's eye, without that "airing their grievances" in the press, Adam could have won.

The time to complain was at the time, and not after one says they support the candidate, after voting for unanimous support and destroying the ballots. To me that shows poor political and ethical instincts.

I respect democracy.

adma

nicky wrote:

I'm not at all sure that Amarjeet Chhabra would have done better, much less that the party owes her a nomination in a winnable riding. 

Consider:

1. She only got 1.5% of the vote in thmunicipl election, running last out of 9 candidtes

2. She only managed to round up 12 supporters for her nomintion fight.

3. She showed bad judgment taking her complaint to the press and greatly undermining the party's prospects, not just in Guildwood but the other ridings as well.

These things suggest to be that she is not a very promising politician and that her judgment and regard for the party is questionable.

If Giambrone got 21% as some were predicting, Chhabra *could have* done better (well, it's only a couple of points more than in the last general w/a poteau).  And if it were Chhabra w/Giambrone (or someone from the more localized Rathika/Neethan Shan axis) managing the campaign, she might have done better than 28%.  But I certainly wouldn't say that she'd have done better w/o that kind of support mechanism--that said, I wouldn't keep bringing up her 2006 last-place result in her disfavour, either; that was then, this is now.  (Though paradoxically, that earlier municipal campaign might have suffered from a similar "problem" to Giambrone's presently, i.e. as a "City Idol" winner, she had too much of a Spacing-land Downtown-TO infrastructure behind her for her own good here in the wilds of Scarberia.)

Ippurigakko

Scarborough Guildwood demographic 33% white and 67% non-white, thats how explains Mitzie Hunter and Ken Kirupa are non-white both 1st and 2nd place? opposite to Federal SG, i dont know much there. Just check on demographic thing.

Unionist

Profound.

 

Lens Solution

Ippurigakko wrote:

Scarborough Guildwood demographic 33% white and 67% non-white, thats how explains Mitzie Hunter and Ken Kirupa are non-white both 1st and 2nd place? opposite to Federal SG, i dont know much there. Just check on demographic thing.

Interesting.

You're right that in this riding the Liberals & Conservatives had minority candidates whereas the NDP had the pretty white guy.  Usually it's the other way around.

But I don't know if that was the main factor in the outcome.

Unionist

Lens Solution wrote:

But I don't know if that was the main factor in the outcome.

You mean, people don't just vote on colour lines? Wow.

What's the male-female breakdown among eligible voters?

 

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

nicky wrote:

3. She showed bad judgment taking her complaint to the press and greatly undermining the party's prospects, not just in Guildwood but the other ridings as well.

These things suggest to be that she is not a very promising politician and that her judgment and regard for the party is questionable.

She showed great judgment taking the issue to the media. Party members and riding associations are getting really fed up with all of the anti-democratic scheming and interference of the party brass/Darlene Lawson, it's sickening.

 

Todrick of Chat...

OnTheLeft,

You should realize that the party headquarters knows best about each riding. Trust their choices blindly.

Helsinki

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Yeah, this disabled female immigrant union activist is a real loser. She doesn't know how to play by the rules. Doesn't she understand the meaning of the words "star candidate"? Doesn't she grasp that internal party disputes must be handled behind closed doors? Maybe disciplinary action would be in order before she embarrasses the party again?

 

This is why I do not believe in the political process.  The provincial and national party headquarters controls everything, the local riding or candidate has no say in the majority of issues.

 

I feel the same way about the party.  The attacks on Amarjeet are ignorant and I suspect they are coming from people involved with the party executive and party staffers -- and those are not the type of people we need running the NDP.  

Todrick of Chat...

Helsinki wrote:

I feel the same way about the party.  The attacks on Amarjeet are ignorant and I suspect they are coming from people involved with the party executive and party staffers -- and those are not the type of people we need running the NDP.  

Well that is the type of people running the NDP at the Federal and Provinicial Levels.

nicky

I am not involved with the party executive, nor am I a party staffer.

I gave three reasons that for me strongly indicate she would not have ben a good candidate in the by-election.

On her behalf I have only heard that she is a handicapped minority woman union organizer. All matters of identity rather than ability. As if that is all we should look for in a candidate. 

As for the evil party establishment denying her the nomination, it turned out, even in the conspiracy theorizing of her proponents, half a dozen  extra votes for Giambrone, all of which were eventually validated. 

Brian Glennie

nicky wrote:

As for the evil party establishment denying her the nomination, it turned out, even in the conspiracy theorizing of her proponents, half a dozen  extra votes for Giambrone, all of which were eventually validated. 

Were they? Could you provide a link, Nicky?

Ippurigakko

if you say someone who is D.A or handicapped person is not unable to do, then it called injustice or inequity

If I am deaf and seeking for candidate, you would say i am unable to do or cant win because I cant speak? I can bring ASL interpreter anytime. it is abilities.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

nicky wrote:

I am not involved with the party executive, nor am I a party staffer.

I gave three reasons that for me strongly indicate she would not have ben a good candidate in the by-election.

On her behalf I have only heard that she is a handicapped minority woman union organizer. All matters of identity rather than ability. As if that is all we should look for in a candidate. 

As for the evil party establishment denying her the nomination, it turned out, even in the conspiracy theorizing of her proponents, half a dozen  extra votes for Giambrone, all of which were eventually validated. 

Nothing has been validated, other than the anti-democratic meddling and top down power plays of the party brass - in 2010, the entire slate of democratically elected socialist candidates for the ONDP Youth was rescinded by the party brass. In 2011, Barry Weisleder was democratically elected by the members of the Thornhill Riding Association to represent that riding in the provincial election. Less than 48 hours later, the brass rescinded his nomination. Also in 2011, the party brass refused to allow Diana Andrews to seek the nomination for Etobicoke North. And in 2010, the party brass refused to allow MPP Michael Prue to speak at hearing regarding public funding of Catholic schools.

Pages