[AlvinofDiaspar]

Hipster:

Tend to agree with the moral/logical aspects of the Gawker/crackstarter campaign - but not so sure about the losing part. This episode basically reduced his ability to work with most of the councillors to nil, tore a giant hole in his office (one can only imagine the repercussions from Towhey's firing). He inflicted a tremendous amount of self-damage to his own reputation and network that I am not at all sure he can recover. Sure, there is Ford Nation - but I have a feeling that softer supporters won't be so eager to go back for seconds.

Plus come next election it will be the conservatives that will be taking a huge risk - support Ford and risk their brand on an eventual blowup, or choose someone else and fight the Tea Party headon. I suspect the long knives might come from within.

AoD

 

[syn]

I reckon nothing.

Relying on promises of a single copy of a "video" that was supposedly in the hands of a drug dealer who Gawker didn't even have firsthand contact with was about as solid as a house of cards. Compared to that, George W. Bush's WMD alibi to attack Iraq looks like a smoking gun. I'm glad I didn't throw money at this campaign which I thought was both unethical and illogical (if you want to take down Rob Ford for drug using, you ostensibly think drug use is bad...but you are going to give money to a drug dealer) and so shaky that it was doomed to fail - which I think it already did.

Maybe we've all learned a valuable lesson: don't count your chickens before they hatch. This seems to be something that people who want to bring down Ford seem to miscalculate time and time again, and we will probably do it one more time.

We lost today, and we know it.

Ford lost. The damage is done.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

MetroMan:

I am not sure if Baeremaekr has the believability required.

AoD

 

[christiesplits]

The CFRB legal analyst made a great point. "Why isn't Ford suing the Star or Gawker for defamation?" If there is no shred of truth in the allegations the Ford's would "make a killing" in the courts.

 

[syn]

Hipster:

Tend to agree with the moral/logical aspects of the Gawker/crackstarter campaign - but not so sure about the losing part. This episode basically reduced his ability to work with most of the councillors to nil, tore a giant hole in his office (one can only imagine the repercussions from Towhey's firing). He inflicted a tremendous amount of self-damage to his own reputation and network that I am not at all sure he can recover. Sure, there is Ford Nation - but I have a feeling that softer supporters won't be so eager to go back for seconds.

AoD

I know quite a few people who voted for him. One or two are "Ford Nation" types who still support him, but the others regret their decision; most can't believe they voted for him in the first place. They reached this conclusion last year.

 

[BurlOak]

The CFRB legal analyst made a great point. "Why isn't Ford suing the Star or Gawker for defamation?" If there is no shred of truth in the allegations the Ford's would "make a killing" in the courts.

I think the Star was very careful to say that the video "appears to show Ford" and he is smoking something that "appears to be crack". I think all articles in the Star were very carefully scripted to avoid such a lawsuit.

 

[MetroMan]

There's also the possibility that The Star can hand over its information to the police. The police already know who it is but a formal request would likely lead to a follow up.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think if you sue you open yourself (and those whom you sue) to factfinding - and can you imagine what happens if the Star is legally compelled to provide all the info they have on the case in affidavit to the court? There would be no plausible deniability that the statements are fiction.

AoD

 

[TonyV]

Wow. Councillors aren't buying it! Everybody knows he has a problem and this was his chance to admit it. Baeremaekr says Ford lied and that the "Mayor has no legitimacy, the Mayor must resign, we're going to collectively run the city without the Mayor". This is BIG! Never expected this! This isn't over at all.

Also, this did have an effect on the IndieGoGo campaign! It's shooting up again.

MM, I am thinking along your lines. No surprise that councillors aren't buying it. Why should they? I have two neighbours who work at City Hall and they both told me months ago about the suspected substance abuse problems. I am told that it is widely spoken of at City Hall.

I believe a tape will surface, btw.

 

[MetroMan]

I think if you sue you open yourself (and those whom you sue) to factfinding - and can you imagine what happens if the Star is legally compelled to provide all the info they have on the case in affidavit?!

AoD

The Toronto Star can sue Rob Ford. They probably will given the loaded accusations in that statement.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Hipster:

Tend to agree with the moral/logical aspects of the Gawker/crackstarter campaign - but not so sure about the losing part. This episode basically reduced his ability to work with most of the councillors to nil, tore a giant hole in his office (one can only imagine the repercussions from Towhey's firing). He inflicted a tremendous amount of self-damage to his own reputation and network that I am not at all sure he can recover. Sure, there is Ford Nation - but I have a feeling that softer supporters won't be so eager to go back for seconds.

AoD

But his reputation was already tarnished and so many councillors already found working with him to be toxic. I think this amplifies that, but it doesn't ultimately result in a decisive defeat for Ford, which is removal from office. If we are victorious today, then it's a pyrrhic victory. We still have a distracted council and a deadweight figurehead on the payroll to the tune of $160,000/year.

The other thing I am really worried about is that Ford still has a possibility of being reelected due to voter apathy in our municipal democracy. This despite consistent evidence from all media outlets - highbrow and lowbrow, intellectual and populist, local and international, right and left - that he is terribly unfit for office. There are strong democracies and there are weak democracies. In a strong democracy, like the US presidential election or election for mayor of New York City, the democratic machinery basically vets out the crackpots and streamlines the candidates to relatively middle-of-the-ground, reasonably qualified individuals who have at least some modicum of technical experience in the job before people can get their say at the ballot box. In a weak democracy, like in much of the developing world, Italy, the Weimar Republic and the city of Toronto, there are no systems to vet out crackpots and the very farce of the democracy means that a significant number of people stay away from voting and those crackpots have a legitimate chance of getting in - such was the case with us. I don't see why it couldn't happen again.

 

[guitarchitect]

The Toronto Star can sue Rob Ford. They probably will given the loaded accusations in that statement.

... once they can get the tape, that is. But I don't think it's a good precedent for a newspaper to sue a citizen, elected public official or not. Has it happened before?

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Why would Ford's lawyer advise him not to say anything, as he stated? If there's 'nothing to see here', what's the problem? Why avoid the media for 8 days and throw the city into absolute chaos over these allegations, sneak out back doors and laugh off allegations? Guilty. The best we could hope for is that a backup copy of the video is stored on a server somewhere on the internets and will surface through Gawker or once the Gawker campaign is over.

 

[Irishmonk]

What's the status now on the letter from the executive council. Did Ford issue his "denial" just to take the air out of that story which suddenly seems to have vanished.

On edit:

Ok, I was a little confused: so THAT was the response to the letter. Lame. He didn't address anything--the firing of Mark Towhey, the substance abuse allegations and the general chaos at city hall--which I thought was supposed to be the whole point of the executive taking matters into their own hands. This does nothing except kick the can a few more days down the road. Simply pathetic.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Hipster:

But his reputation was already tarnished and so many councillors already found working with him to be toxic. I think this amplifies that, but it doesn't ultimately result in a decisive defeat for Ford, which is removal from office. If we are victorious today, then it's a pyrrhic victory.

True, but his executive was pretty much in open "revolt" at this point - and that's where he advances his agenda. I am not sure if that relationship had survived unscathed this past week. Beyond that, given the way our laws are structured, I am not at all confident that there is an avenue of removal by external agent. It was never a victory we can hope for.

The other thing I am really worried about is that Ford still has a possibility of being reelected due to voter apathy in our municipal democracy...

Don't get me wrong, I think you have a point and we are all concerned about THAT aspect. That being said, the pecularities of our electoral system actually provides a foil against singular crackpots - we have a weak mayor system, with an extremely strong opposition in the core. The two combined together practically meant that it will be difficult to advance any crackpot agenda - and that's assuming the suburban councillors are mindless automatons, which they clearly aren't either. The power is too diffuse. The downside of course is the utter failure of governance when the city most needed it.

AoD