Politicians can be duplicitous and annoyingly hedge their positions. However, they represent a range of views, they are not there to always push their own agenda. Some politicians can and do take this standpoint (Harper, Ford) while others take a peacemaker and conciliatory role that seeks to bind together disparate viewpoints to come to a solution (Wong-Tam). If a politician takes a position that you don't agree with, they can make you feel better by listening to your perspective and attempting to understand and sympathize with it. That is all she is doing it seems to me - reasoned judgement. A better solution can also arise, though not necessarily. While I hate parking in the city and don't mind at all its loss, I also understand that many people from the GTA drive to Yorkville as a destination to shop or dine. The single-minded promotion of my viewpoint would not address all the needs of the city, and I can recognize that - just as Wong-Tam seems to. In the end, the right decision will get made, but the process will be inclusive and understanding - that is all. I don't see a huge problem with it.
That would be the equivalent of Obama going up as soon as he got elected and saying "Yeah, I know I promised to legalize same sex marriage, but I'm not sure. Maybe we shouldn't?"
No, the equivalent would be to say, "I understand that there are worries about the loss of marriage as a holy union between two people for the purposes of creation, but I believe that those worries are not justified enough." You don't have to smash your opponents completely - that is the cause of the "culture wars" that are tearing the US apart IMHO.
Another example would be the oil sands. Harper said everything was a "no brainer" and dismissed the opposition. Now, the opposition tot Northern Gateway is so entrenched that it will never happen, while the Americans are delaying Keystone and its fate hangs in the balance. I suggest a conciliatory approach would have better succeeded in pushing a single-minded agenda. It doesn't always have to be my-way-or-the-highway (though sometimes it does).
No she does not! The whole point of electing one official, and not letting all the candidates take power is so that instead of having stalemates where everyone is arguing, society can progress in favour of the majority (who elected one official to represent them). A Conservative does not (and should not) have to represent the views of a liberal, and vice versa.
Again, you assume an antagonistic theory of politics whereby combatants fight based on one prescribed set of beliefs that are set in stone and are constantly and completely pushed forward. Other theories of democracy base themselves on dialogue, understanding and compromise. Check a Poli-Sci 101 class for the various theories. Still, obviously your view is valid as that is the way some people act politically. Clearly, Wong-Tam is just the latter theory in action. That may not be your cup of tea, so vote accordingly.
I get that she hasn't given a final conclusion, but I also don't buy that she was "just saying it."
Check the quote again. She
has decided that it is worth it. I can't be inside her head, but saying that there is a concern then saying why that concern is not enough to stop the project doesn't mean she was "just saying it" - she could believe that business in Yorkville thrives by wealthy people driving in to spend their money. How many high-end shoppers take the subway in our fair burg? I'm sure many do drive unfortunately. Look at Yorkdale.
