November 10th, 2006
JOHN LORINC COLUMN: The mud-slingers
Posted by John Lorinc
The mud-slingers
One of the least savory moments of the increasingly mythologized 2003 mayoral race occurred in early November, when Barbara Hall dispatched a campaign worker to disrupt a David Miller event, outside the Toronto Reference Library, with a cocked up accusation about how his “Looks like a mayor” posters were racist and sexist and probably hairist if such a category exists. It was a sleazy move, but also a clumsy admission of pending defeat on Hall’s part.
We’ve definitely moved into that phase of the 2006 race, with Jane Pitfield’s anti-Miller attack ad, plus reports of mudslinging from various corners of the city. In Ward 17 (Davenport), Alejandra Bravo’s opponents are clearly in desperation mode as they go door to door, telling voters that she should be with her three children, not out campaigning.
Just one ward east, John Adams and his trusty sidekick Rob Davis have been distributing pamphlets in Forest Hill and Cedarvale, smearing front-runner Joe Mihevc, who was endorsed this week by the Toronto Star. Constructing a tortured syllogism, Adams contends that CUPE Ontario backed a boycott of Israel in March and now backs Mihevc for council, which somehow proves — although he doesn’t quite come out and say it in so many words — that Mihevc is anti-Israel. Mihevc quickly issued an open letter to the Jewish community, laying out his bone fides and stating that he said back in March that the CUPE resolution was “inappropriate.” I was unable to reach Adams last night.
The real story here isn’t the he-said-she-said stuff. Many St. Paul’s residents remember that in the 2000 election, Davis, then running against Mihevc, started a whisper campaign in which he accused Mihevc of being an anti-Semite. The claim was preposterous, given all of Mihevc’s work with inter-faith groups, and he was able to ask several rabbis to sign a letter refuting the slander. The tactic “backfired,” Mihevc recalls. “It is frankly surprising that they would pull a similar stunt right now.”
But it’s not all that surprising. The Adams camp has been flinging mud because that’s the kind of political operative Davis has always been. More tellingly, though, they’ve resorted to such tactics because — for all the anti-ROW rhetoric from Adams and John Sewell — they now realize that Mihevc is poised to win decisively Monday. The smear just seals the deal.
Loading ...
Comments
See also the attack on trustee candidates supported by the campaign for public education. Somehow the insinuation that “unions are taking over our schools!” is worthy of the front page of the star.
Comment by Paul
November 10, 2006 @ 9:22 am
If you drive down Bathurst, it sure looks like John Adams has locked up the apartment vote. Every building has an identical sign! I am sure if someone were to canvas the people who live in the building, they would find at least one Adams supporter, wouldn’t they? I mean, Adams wouldn’t just plant a sign in front, hoping that renters would assume some other renter agreed to put it there? Of course not! Adams is not that sort of scumbag at all!
Meanwhile, I am noticing several Joe Pantalone signs in the garbage this morning. Is it possible that Pantalone’s people are putting signs up without permission? Naw …
Comment by gord
November 10, 2006 @ 10:55 am
One of the nastier smear campaigns going on right now is against Adam Giambrone in Ward 18. I had a chance to meet the body shop owner from Caribou street at an all-candidates meeting this week. He has taken it upon himself to poster the streets and put anonymous flyers out in large numbers informing people not to vote for Adam, saying that Adam is behaving like ‘a communist and a dictator.’ Apparently Adam has stepped in and prevented the body shop from parking car wrecks illegally on a residential street, where they have been used to parking illegally for so long that they now feel entitled. This behaviour seems to be rallying a renewed tide of support for Adam who has worked hard as councillor for this neighbourhood for the past years.
Emily
Comment by Emily Visser
November 10, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
As John Lorinc has pointed out so clearly, the Adams smear campaign offers a sense of déja vu to Ward 21 residents. In doing some phone canvassing for Mihevc last night to residents in the area north of Eglinton, where many residents are Jewish, only one even mentioned the letter. She made a point of telling me that Adams’ smarmy letter convinced her not to vote for him.
Comment by Vid I.
November 10, 2006 @ 7:07 pm
John:
You’re missing the nasty slugging in Ward 20. It goes something like this. The nastiest is emanating from Helen Kennedy and Olivia Chow.
1. Olivia Chow told relatives of Adam Vaughan that he does not send his children to schools in the ward. Facts: The youngest child is 3 years old - to which school would he go? The older child lives with his ex.
2. Helen has said that Adam does not have the time to do the job because he has children. Please — this is the most sexist remark I’ve heard. What would people say if it were a woman runnning.
3. Helen has distributed literature in my neighbourhood taking credit resolving the neighbourhood dispute with the Art Gallery. What a load - Read all about ADAM’s role in the Globe and Mail article by James Adams. Better yet, ask Stephen Diamond - AGO lawyer who was in the room when the discussions took place.
4. Helen’s camp is saying Adam is a male and feminists should not support him. Has Helen not read Adam’s web site to see the vast numbers of feminists who support Adam Vaughan. Helen has failed Lesson Number One in feminism - You Don’t have to be female to be a feminist.
5. I heard from the Ottawa Grapevine that Helen’s former squeeze - Nancy Ruth - was booed off the stage for not supporting women’s right to choice in childcare.
Comment by Grace Bains
November 10, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
More on ward 20: Helen listed a bunch of feminists supporting her in the Toronto Star, one of which was Anne marie McDonald.
Only a few minutes ago I heard from a friend volunteering for Vaughan that McDonald called in and ordered one of Adam’s signs in protest. Seems Helen did not ask for her endorsement and just used it without permission.
Also circulating is a pamphlet that completely distorts quotes from Adam. You know Vaughan is doing well when Kennedy keeps putting out literature attacking him while he keeps putting out literature that outlines his own vision. You can knock whether that vision is best for the ward, but he leaves the criticism to the debates and promotes his principles without getting dirty.
Then there’s the accusations about Vaughan accepting Liberal volunteers. Please! The place is stacked with independents and with Tam Goossen’s NDPers who worked on the head tax issue (with very little help from Olivia, which is why they are supporting Adam). The other people are Kensington activists and an assortment of old-tme Annex residents who see the same leadership qualities in Adam that were the hallmarks of his late father Colin Vaughan.
Even tho Kennedy has some of the T-S NDP machine behind her, she can’t shake the notion that she’s running on Olivia’s ticket and not her own. Vaughan has controlled what gets discussed during the election which shows how ineffective Kennedy’s campaign has become.
Comment by gloria
November 10, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
John: I have just been on the babble site. Good Grief. They are now accusing ADAM of exceeding campaign expense limits and of not posting all of his donors.
First of all, from the start we have known who Adam’s donors and supporters were.
Second, don’t they know that ADAM was a TV journalist and knows how to use a camera, and doesn’t need to pay someone to do it?
Third, who are the developers who support ADAM. Could it be Margie Zeidler who is really an artist and small business person. Could it be retired lawyer Steve Diamond — at least that’s the person Helen has complained about at all candidates meetings. Isn’t Steve the self same who worked with ADAM on the AGO resolution when Olivia refused to do so.
And, oh yes - someone is putting up signs in the ANNEX saying that ADAM doesn’t support the ROW. Adam has been clear about this - that this is one of the things that he supports with modifications.
He and Sewell are not on the same page on this one.
Comment by Grace Bains
November 10, 2006 @ 9:41 pm
Re: Ward 20
Funny how smears are being used to protest supposed smears.
Comment by Judy MacDonald
November 10, 2006 @ 11:01 pm
Smears= lies that are meant to damage an opponent.
Nothing on hear looks to be a smear. There is some innuendo, but most stuff is fact (like the posters, brochures, Olivia’s comments, Anne Marie MacDonald).
The only thing that is bad here is the Nancy Ruth thing. Most other info can be confirmed.
Comment by gloria
November 10, 2006 @ 11:16 pm
And how, exactly, is Helen Kennedy responsible for what’s being posted on babble?
Comment by Judy MacDonald
November 11, 2006 @ 12:25 am
“… someone is putting up signs in the ANNEX saying that ADAM doesn’t support the ROW …”
In the context of the flurry of anti-Kennedy posts here, the implication is that this signage is “emanating from Helen Kennedy and Olivia Chow”.
Proof, please. Otherwise, it is a smear.
Comment by Judy MacDonald
November 11, 2006 @ 12:51 am
Judy ^
I don’t think anyone here is acussing Helen of having anything to do with the discussion on Babble. For the most part, the only mud-slinging going on that website is towards Vaughan, with one or two people grumpy about Helen.
On the other hand, Helen and Olivia are doing their best to discredit Vaughan, which always a part of an election. But when it turns to smears (like Adam being a Liberal in disguise taking Ianno volunteers and has Smitherman working for him, as dicussed on Babble) and the out-of-context posters and brochure Helen is circulating, reeks of desperation.
Comment by Mick Mick
November 11, 2006 @ 12:53 am
“But when it turns to smears … as discussed on Babble …”
Again, why is Kennedy being blamed for what people post on babble?
And what does “out of context” mean?
And why is it cool to claim that Helen Kennedy had some kind of intimate relationship with Senator Nancy Ruth? What is this based on? Is it simply because they are both lesbians, and the Senator has endorsed Kennedy? And how, exactly, is Kennedy responsible for what the Senator said in Ottawa (which is misrepresented here)?
Comment by Judy MacDonald
November 11, 2006 @ 1:11 am
as someone who is volunteering on Helen’s campaign, and someone who is definitely a supporter of hers I can say with little doubt that nothing on babble is coming directly from Helen or Olivia or anyone managing the campaign. I’ve spoken with Helen’s campaign manager about the claims of Vaughan using Ianno’s lists or Smitherman’s volunteer and he thinks both are BS. I think both those ideas are hysterical rants of a few partisans on babble with little better to do during their day.
I personally haven’t seen these posters, but the brochure I think is definitely a “pull out all the stops” move by Helen’s campaign in an attempt to distinguish her from Adam. Something I’ve heard at the door while canvassing is that a lot of people don’t see a difference between the two.
I personally severely doubt Vaughan is a Liberal, I think he’s a honest-to-God independent with support coming from New Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives and non-partisans. I also think that Helen is a New Democrat with support from Liberals, Conservatives, Greens, and non-partisans.
Both camps are going pretty hard at each other. One side is screaming that Vaughan is a egotistical neophyte who just wants to be mayor one day and the other side is screaming that Kennedy is an inept, slanderous crony.
Comment by DCS
November 11, 2006 @ 1:17 am
So, I went to Babble to see what everybody is talking about, and:
a> If that represents “the left,” I think I’m done, after a whole bunch of years of being a supporter too! It’s like a parody of what I imagine is an internal Tory website. I don’t want to vote like these people, i don’t want to be in a party with them, and i don’t want to ever read that thing again.
b> Adam Vaughan doesn’t seem to be doing any mudslinging, and attacks against him seem desperate. This has really depressed me. I think i’m done with the NDP for good now. Thank god for the odd independent.
Comment by Walmer-ish
November 11, 2006 @ 4:21 am
Calling the Adams office they said Rob Davis was out but gave me a number for campaign manager Jim Ross.
Davis is a failed conservative politician who lost to Mihevc in 2000 but who is Jim Ross? Does anybody know.
Only a fool would have these two idiots running his campaign.
It is clear the Adams campaign is now in desperation mode and is doing anything to bring down Joe Mihevc since they know they can’t win and will run a distant third.
Comment by St. Paul's
November 11, 2006 @ 10:52 am
Wow, does anyone actually believe this crap being posted about the Ward 20 race? Pretty ironic to use a blog post about dirty campaigning to engage in just that.
Over in Ward 18, I’ve heard that Giambrone’s lawn signs have been going missing at an alarming rate over the past few days.
Comment by Boo Radley
November 11, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
Boo: What are you calling “crap” - your word not mine. I’d say that flyers and letters that are being dropped off by the Kennedy camp about Adam Vaughan are a fact. Describing bad and desperate behaviour does not equate with “dirty campaigning” as you’ve called it.
I was pretty impressed with the development discussion in the CONDO section of this Saturday’s STAR. It’s got DAVID CROMBIE making a comparison between the current bad development and the situation just prior to the election of the reform Council in the late 1960’s.
ADAM VAUGHAN’s ideas within the article on how to build neighbourhoods in highrise developments need to be implemented and expanded upon.
Comment by G Bains
November 12, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
Would appear that bloggers here don’t believe that facts of what’s appeared in Ward 20. There are negative flyers and letters being circulated that target ADAM VAUGHAN. Commenting about that behaviour is not the same as “dirty campaigning”.
Looking forward to November 14th
Comment by Grace
November 12, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
I am soooooo looking forward to the 14th!!!! Yet, I remain strangely addicted to these blogs…
Comment by Jack Straw
November 13, 2006 @ 2:16 am
Here is a direct quote from John Adams’ website:
“Leadership
As your city councillor I will exercise leadership in the community, bringing people together to resolve issues and not let them become divisive. I will listen to my constituents and not allow issues like the St. Clair right-of-way to polarize neighborhoods.”
Say no more.
Comment by Vid I.
November 13, 2006 @ 10:22 am
Last night I got a letter from Rob Davis, as did many other constituents in Ward 21. Now he’s going after Sewell right alongside Joe Mihevic, saying that a vote for Sewell is a wasted vote. The letter suggested that people should vote strategically for John Adams.
I like Sewell for Ward 21, I like his ideas and hope he wins. I also think pretty highly of Mihevic, I just don’t think he’s done as much as he could to build community. But the suggestion that he is anti-semetic is laughable.
The word in in Ward 21 is that Adams never really planned on winning this race, this is his warm-up act to run provincially. In fact, he didn’t put Councillor on this signs so he can re-use them for that campaign.
If he does run again, I know a lot of people who will work against him.
Comment by Mark
November 13, 2006 @ 12:35 pm