Miller for Mayor?

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.

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.

aka Mycroft wrote:

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.

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.

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.

RevolutionPlease wrote:

 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.

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.

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.

torontoprofessor wrote:

... TTC fair hike ...

Is that what faces passengers when the train breaks down?

Stockholm wrote:

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.

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.

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 [i]don't[/i] 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.

Quote:

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.

edmundoconnor wrote:

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.

skdadl wrote:

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.

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.

Maybe she can join a support group along with Linda Tripp!

Quote:

I'd say that about half of all babble posts contain loaded, moralizing terms!

[homer simpson]It's funny because it's true![/homer]

skdadl wrote:

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. ;)

Snert wrote:

 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 wrote:

I can't promise that if I were in her shoes I might not have done the same thing.

Snert, it's all over between us.

skdadl wrote:

Snert wrote:

 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?

Yea, let's let the Cons & the Liberals decide on the left-of-centre candidate. Good thinking.  

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!!

p-sto wrote:

I appreciate the spirit of what you're saying, but I wonder how much it matters in this situation. His primary partner isn't the only one to be considered here. Was he being fair to his other partners. My guess is that he wasn't or why would at least one of them be so vocal.

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.

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 …