You might not see it on the surface, but it’s there and it runs deep.

There has been only one item on the agenda of Toronto politics — destroy Rob Ford. To his critics, he is simply not of “mayoral timber.” He’s fat. He sweats. He drives an Escalade, not a Prius. He eats KFC, not sushi. He loves football, not Margaret Atwood novels. He has no distinguished Ivy-League credentials to muse about at cocktail parties. He would rather spend Canada Day weekend with his family at the cottage than cavorting with a  self-indulgent, half-naked community that needs to be constantly told how special and pretty they are.

He lives in the suburbs for crying out loud, how could he possible be capable of running a so-called “world-class city?”

Who knows? He may even smoke crack. Perhaps that means the war on drugs is no longer a bad thing? Maybe the taxpayers should subsidize his crack so he doesn’t harm himself from whatever he might find on the streets.

To put it mildly, his critics hate the man who dared become mayor of “their city.” And nothing would be off-limits to get rid of him.

In almost the same breath as they mention his name is some vile slur about his weight. “Blob Ford,” “Fat f**k,” “His Porkship.” The gay community, trying to convince the world bullying and slinging slurs is the most horrible crime known to humanity thinks nothing of saying things like: “He’s probably not going to the parade because they couldn’t find a trailer wide enough for his ass,” or “it’s OK, this is the Pride Parade, we don’t need a Macy’s Day float.”

Videos of the mayor walking into a KFC while on a much-touted diet with the creators laughing oh-so-mockingly, was gleefully posted online for the world to see and share. NOW Magazine puts his face on a naked, obese body begging for laughs and ridicule at the mayor’s expense.

And oh the plots. Sarah Thompson plotting to stage a picture of Ford grabbing her assistant’s ass. A HIV-positive man’s shameful attempt to try and get the then-candidate to buy drugs for him. Taking him to court for small indiscretions. Reports of members of his staff wanting to go public with his “alcohol and drug abuse” so he may get some help, as though public shaming is some step on the road to recovery.

They don’t just stop at Ford, himself. Yes, they go after his brother Doug. But they have taken to mocking and ridiculing the more than 350,000 people who voted for the man. Rubes all of them. Who let them vote?

Never mind that had we have had a Mayor George Smitherman we would have a drug-addict, political bully, scandal-plagued mayor. Or perhaps Jack Layton as Prime Minister had his life not been cut short, one who was found naked in a police raid of a well-known rub-and-tug in Chinatown and a slough of other scandals from his time on council.

They would have gotten a pass of course. They’re on the good side. They’re not Rob Ford.

Is it any wonder people would rally around a fundraising scheme where everyone chips in to buy the reported video of Ford smocking crack from drug dealers who are not only criminals but have most likely contributed to the destruction of so many lives? Morals be damned! The video is a must-see!

It has been the tragic sideshow that has played out in this city day in, day out. Sadly, Ford has given them plenty of fodder.

On any given day, the coterie of Ford’s many critics beat their chests about how diverse and tolerant and welcoming the city of Toronto is.

Nonsense all of it.

If you don’t think a certain way, act a certain way, look a certain way, think a certain way, march when and where you’re supposed to, or deeply envy those who do, you don’t really belong here.

Perhaps they will succeed in ending Rob Ford’s life in politics, but at a very high cost to the respect for humanity and democracy his critics always say they cherish.

Toronto the good is no more.

However the latest scandal involving Toronto’s beleaguered mayor shows that when it comes to not only ousting, but outright destroying, the man who won in a landslide two-and-a-half-years ago, nothing is off limits.

What we allegedly have is a “surprisingly clear” cellphone video of Ford inhaling for what is believed to be a crack pipe, looking “out of it.” As if that weren’t enough we add the two cards most often played against Ford — homophobia (calling Justin Trudeau a “fag”) and racism (using racial slurs about his football players). To date, the only ones who have seen this video are the editor of a gossip site that has a spectacular track record of getting it wrong and two reporters from the Toronto Star that also has a terrible record in “exposing” the misdeeds of conservative politicians (think Raheem Jaffer and Helena Geurgis’s party with crack and busty hookers) and especially Ford (no, he did not physically assault one of his players).

In conversations among those wringing their hands with glee over this latest fine mess Ford is in, there is no mention of “allegedly” smoking crack or “allegedly” calling Trudeau a “fag” or even much mention of an unauthenticated video. No, everything about this must be true, because, well just because.

Surely if the shoe were on the other foot, they’d feel the same way, right? Surely when allegations surfaced that the late Jack Layton was present in a police bust (in the buff) at a well-known Chinatown rub-and-tug, the “allegedlies” were dropped and the calls for him to “come clean” were deafening.

Oh wait, quite the opposite.

When it comes to Ford, if someone, anyone says he did something wrong, he did something wrong. Go straight to jail, do not pass due process, do not presume innocence without proof.

Even more disturbing is the fact that there is a crowd-sourcing campaign underway to raise the $200,000 to pay the Toronto drug dealers who allegedly took and possess this video.

So now people essentially take up a collection to pay off drug dealers to pay a ransom for a video they all want to see simply because it would destroy the person they so blindly hate?

We really do live in interesting times.

Gawker today is reporting that they have lost contact with the drug dealers involved. Colour me shocked.

Did anyone stop to think that this whole ransom-for-the-video thing was not only highly immoral, but quite likely illegal?

At some point in time, the money will have to change hands. That will involve money laundering. Just wire them the money? No, can’t do that. Any electronic transaction over $10,000 would be flagged on both sides of the border. Multiple wires under that limit to the same person, same thing.

These dealers are known to police, so don’t think for a second that if the video suddenly emerges, they won’t be getting a knock on their door — here in Toronto or anywhere in the country they might flee.

Maybe Gawker can round up 20 people for a road trip, each carrying $10,000 cash to give to them? Remember, people will stop at nothing to get this salacious piece of optic light out there. Oh, but odds are at least one of them would be checked and found to have the cash.

It would take quite a marvel of stealth to get the cash into the dealers’ hands without catching the attention of the authorities given the high profile of the case and the scrutiny that will be placed by those who donated wanting to see their money put to good use. They’ve been told if the video is not purchased, they will donate it to CAMH.

But oh the irony watching their money potentially being thrown down a rat hole to fund a pet project only to have nothing to show for it.

Three appeals court judges saved Toronto from its longstanding city hall circus spinning out of control.

Equal parts Mayor Rob Ford’s stubborn, pig-headed style and his opponents blind hatred for the resounding verdict voters handed down in 2010, the perpetually dysfunctional civic government has become nothing less than a sandbox full of petulant children, kicking, screaming at the tops of their lungs and crying at every dirty look or exasperated glance.

Friday’s ruling overturning the division court’s finding that Ford must be removed from office for speaking and voting on a council resolution that might force him to repay funds donated to his football charity, should send all sides back to their corners and do the city’s business.

That’s what the public expects them to do, but are rarely surprised when they fail in that regard.

For Ford, this last two years leading up to his re-election bid are an opportunity to truly practice what he expressed in his comments following the ruling: “This has been a very humbling experience.”

On balance, Ford has a rather solid record of delivering on his election promises. For that he has earned a respectable approval rating, in spite of the sideshows.

But, oh those sideshows.

Ford must now stand on principle, but make a principle of finding common ground with opponents to ensure the people’s business is done.

He would be wise to keep the radio show, but change the tone. He would be wise to show up to the Pride Week flag-raising even if he does nothing else with Pride festivities. He would be wise to propose a well-thought-out and carefully constructed policy — perhaps on transit or, as he appears to be doing, championing a casino — to show he is serious about governing and not just righting a listing the ship.

Get a driver and find get someone you trust to take over the football team for awhile and pop in when city business calls to offer moral support.

Ford’s opponents need to understand fully that Ford is the duly elected mayor of the city. The public expects them to honour that fact.

The more they attack him personally — whether he invites it upon himself or not — the more they turn him into a sympathetic character. The more they try and pick at procedural straws to have the courts do what they couldn’t do at the ballot box, the more they anger a public that values its authority to choose who governs.

They would be wise instead to prepare for the next election and engage the public to their side if they want Ford removed from office. A clear vision for the city with a true price tag, would be a great start.

And, if Ford or his allies initiate a proposal or a project for the city that is good for the city, they are wise not to shut it down for the sake of denying Ford a political win, but to work co-operatively to improve upon it and sell the merits of the improvement.

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say Ford’s rehabilitation might be only slightly more successful than his opponents. Humility has a way of finding correction. Blind hatred does not.

A year ago the conditions on the Attawapiskat Reserve in Northern Ontario — of which Spence is the current chief — rightly shocked and appalled Canadians witnessing the squalid conditions residents endured.

How can this be in a prosperous nation like Canada?

Spence, many of her fellow chiefs and the movement known as Idle No More place the blame squarely at the feet of Harper and his government, though paint all previous governments with the same cloth.

The trouble is, Harper’s government has spent more money through standard budgetary and treaty obligations, stimulus funding and infrastructure investments than any other previous federal government.

Every year, the federal government, under the Indian Act that essentially makes on-reserve First Nations peoples de facto wards of the state, pumps billions in direct finding to bands and councils.

Under the government’s stimulus program, the Harper government has committed nearly $2 billion more over three years to invest in things infrastructure, income assistance, education and economic development initiatives.

In addition, Harper’s government has also settled more than 800 land claims since coming to power 6 years ago, more than any previous government. It has also made the sovereignty of the north a key priority — something no previous government has done. The government has also committed money and other resources to allow First Nations peoples to pursue and prosper through their own economic development.

Bill C-45, which the Idle No More movement claims to be about though it has really been hijacked by those behind the failed Occupy movement, addresses a call that many First Nations people have wanted for decades — less red tape should they choose to lease — not sell — land for economic development, whether that is for a casino, a factory or resources development.

The bill also removes federal permitting requirements in the Navigable Waters Protection Act (act which protects the ability for water vessels to move on these waters) on small lakes, streams and rivers that are not interconnected to build things like docks, boardwalks, pedestrian bridges or boathouses. Connected waterways that usually cross provincial boundaries and can be used by vessels hauling cargo still require a federal permit.

The protestors would have you believe the bill puts First Nations land up for sale and leaves thousands of lakes and rivers unprotected and subject to oil spills, pollution and damage to the ecosystem.

Hardly. First Nations cannot sell their land under the terms of the treaties and the Indian Act and oil tankers or any other cargo vessel would not even be on these waters because they lead to nowhere. All of these waters remain fully protected from harm to wildlife and pollution via the more comprehensive Environmental Protection Act, which remains in effect untouched.

That Spence is standing as the “martyr” of sorts in this movement is not only suspect, but leaves the entire movement to seem like nothing more than a ruse.

You see, Attawapiskat has received more than $90 million over the last five years. In 2010 alone, the Harper government sent $34 million to the community to improve the living conditions. Just over 1,500 people live on the Attiwapiskat First Nation. More than 1/3 are under the age of 19. Roughly 1,300 band members live off-reserve.

Furthermore, since construction started on the DeBeers Victor diamond mine on the Attiwapiskat First Nation in 2006, more than $360 million in contracts have been awarded to companies run by members of the community and partners with members of the community, creating hundreds of jobs for people on the reserve. This year alone, more than $40 million worth of contracts were awarded.

Just the investment alone from the government and DeBeers would amount to more than $60,000 per year per person living on that reserve. How, then can it still be steeped in third-world squalor?

Attiwapiskat is run by a chief, a deputy chief and 12 council members. These band “politicians” and administration of the band account for more than two thirds of the entire budget of Attiwapiskat.

That leaves one to wonder if the rage over Bill C-45 isn’t merely a distraction from Bill C-27, particularly given the fact the current blockades and threats of such are mostly being conducted by chiefs of more “destitute” First Nations bands.

That bill would require transparency and accountability for money that is sent to the reserves. Many bands in Canada would be subject to a forensic audit of their finances. Canadian people understand the debt they owe to First Nations peoples, but they want and deserve to know that their debt payments are actually improving lives as intended.

Many people from many First Nations have long complained that their leaders are living quite well off the money coming in from government, leaving little for the rest.

A report of the 2008-2009 year from Taxpayer.com might shed some light on why those complaints exist:

“50 reserve politicians were paid more than Prime Minister Harper; 160 reserve politicians were paid more than their respective premiers; over 600 received an income that is equivalent to over $100,000 off reserve; and one Atlantic Canada reserve politician was paid $978,468 tax-free (which is equal to about $1.8 million off reserve).”

Spence herself is under that microscope, particularly in light of the attention brought to the reserve in 2011 when a sewer backup forced roughly 100 people from their homes and exposed the squalor.

An report from auditing firm Deloitte showed that nearly 80 per cent of the band’s expenses for everything from salaries and consultants to housing purchases cannot be verified with any paperwork. The band has also not had a budget in several years.

This is about saving hers and her fellow chiefs’ skin when the sun soon shines on just how money allocated to providing for and improving the lives of First Nations people has been spent.

Toronto drag queen Donnarama managed to get a few unhappy tongues wagging following a recent performance at the gay bar Woody’s.

Rahim Thawer, described in his byline as a social worker and community activist in Toronto, shared in the Canadian version of The Huffington Post his offense to Donnarama’s show mixing some fashion of Hindu and Muslim garb with terrorist imagery.

I didn’t see the show, so I’ll defer to Mr. Thawer’s description.

He wrote: “I’ve always thought drag was beautiful; inherently radical, expressive, fun, campy…recently I went to Woody’s and saw Toronto’s famous drag queen Donnarama performing “When I Grow Up” (Pussycat Dolls) and “Firework” (Katy Perry) in what she thinks passes as a burka, a bindi (which doesn’t make sense but OK), and a set of bombs attached to her abdomen. To up the ante, there was some actual fire on stage, coupled with gestures (or “dance moves”) that mirrored gun violence and recurring explosions.

I was outraged. I looked around to see how other people were reacting. They were recording it on their phones and coming up to Donnarama to tip her. Reward. Lots of social reward. That was the community and audience response to blatant racism and Islamophobia. To top it off, she ended by saying “Happy Hanukkah.”

At the end of the article, Thawer calls on readers to boycott Donnarama and demanded establishments at which she performs issue apologies.

It is his right to be offended. It’s his right to demand action.

None needed.

Muslim is not a race or an ethnicity, nor is Hinduism. They are religions. No religion is restricted to a specific race or ethnicity. You can be a white Muslim or Hindu. So let’s finally dispense with the racism nonsense, shall we?

Donnarama and other drag queens have long used Christianity and, in particular, the Catholic church as fodder for their acts. I have seen numerous performances by drag queens fabulous and tragic simulating priests abusing little boys.

I saw a drag queen years ago don a Barbra Streisand ensemble and invoke the slaughter of Jews in Nazi Germany in a Christmas routine no less.

Crude and perhaps tasteless as these performances may be, they are intended to be provocative in a community that is condemned by every major religion. And, in kind, religion is widely condemned in the gay community.

Would Mr. Thawer have taken the same level offense to those acts? I have my doubts.

But for Donnarama’s performance? How dare someone exploit a religion’s stereotypes and dark histories for cheap entertainment in a local gay watering hole?

Clutch the pearls!

Religions are fair game for satire, scorn or even an over-the-top treatise from a man decked out in a wig, makeup and sequins. No one is required to be sensitive or supportive of another’s faith, though common decency suggest we should be such. Freedom of religion does not protect against what those not of the faith think of the faith, expressed or otherwise.

If Jews and Catholics can be lampooned, why can’t Muslims or Hindus. Why not Buddhists, Atheists or Wiccans?

Gay people should also not be as quick to condemn those who “go there” with them if we feel it appropriate to “go there” with other communities.

Far too many people walk around with the big chip of perpetual offense on their shoulders, which is a sad commentary on our world.

When you attend a drag show, you should hardly be surprised when every taboo known to mankind is ripe for the breaching. That should be abundantly clear by the fact a man is cross-dressing and lip-synching on the stage in front of you.

Donnarama is one of the most creative and fun-to-watch drag queens around. She is never shy about pushing boundaries. Most of her performances hit the mark, others, well, nice try, dear, you can do better next time.

That at least one person was offended by her performance is unfortunate, but hardly a surprise.

Regardless, neither she nor anyone else owes anyone an apology.

On the bright side, there might be more room for others who appreciate her act at future shows.

“Newspapers moving to pay-walls are showing their contempt for democracy and their true driving purpose, which is to make money. Newspapers like the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal among many others are denying the public their fundamental right to be informed voters by denying them access to information through costly pay-walls. Shame on them.”

In my opinion, this perfectly crystalizes how absolutely mad this whole entitlement culture has become.

Perhaps this commenter failed to realize that before newspapers started going online in the mid-to-late 1990s — an absolute lifetime ago — people actually had to buy them. What started out as nickel in the early 20th centuries came to upwards of a dollar 20 years ago. And that was for one day worth of news.

Most people bought the paper for the sports section, the classifieds or the crossword puzzles. The news filled the space around them, usually.

More importantly, this commenter does not seem to care that actual people have to gather the information he feels so entitled to have, put it all together in a package he can understand and put it up for him to click and read.

Yes, they sell advertising. Let me assure you, the money raised from advertising would not fairly pay for quality journalism.

I have been a journalist since 1989. I do not work for free. I suspect this commenter does not, either, though it wouldn’t surprise me if he was the beneficiary of some regular taxpayer-backed cheque.

Every citizen has the right to be informed. Too few exercise that right. But every citizen does not have the right to have some journalist gather information and serve it fresh daily gratis.

If any citizen is unwilling to pay to get their information from any site or service that offers such, they are free to seek out that information themselves, cultivate their own sources, sit in on the council meetings, pour over documents and find out all they need to or want to know.

My guess? They’d quickly think a few bucks is a small price to pay.

Our hearts break with news of a senseless tragedy like that at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Innocent lives, particularly children, taken in a suburban school — or a movie theatre or a shopping mall or a house of worship, shakes us to our core.

And we ask why.

It’s the guns, some say. It’s mental health, others say.

These are mere symptoms. The rot goes far deeper.

America has a morality problem.

An artform once considered the “poetry of the street” has decayed to a celebration of gang culture rife with brutal violence and human denigration — particularly of women. These “artists” are idolized and revered not for their craft, but for their vulgarity, time they have spent behind bars and the length of the rap sheet.

Pop culture icons are celebrated more today for excessive and reckless behaviour such as public drunkenness, drug use, rampant promiscuity, drunk driving and police mug shots than for real talent and with little to no consequences. No jail, no price to pay, just PR-based rehab and an even bigger spotlight.

Parents have placed the care and attention of their children in video games that have become not only so incredibly violent and angry, but so incredibly realistic that it’s no wonder young people have a tough time distinguishing between the action on the screen with that of real life.

We spend more time communicating with one another via chat lines or Twitter instead of face-to-face — especially young people. Removed from one’s presence, many feel free to say the most vicious and demeaning things about one another without consequence. Less human interaction breeds less humanity.

Those who have honestly achieved great success in life through skill, sacrifice and hard work and dare to enjoy the fruits of their labour are deemed greedy and evil and seen as an impediment to the quality of life for those less successful. Others seek and make a fortune through corruption, fraud and theft.

Once among America’s greatest role models, sports “heroes” more often reach the pinnacle through cheating, doping and lying. Many have spun their wealth and fame into a form of gang king-pin lifestyle with violent and deadly consequences. Coaches sometimes offer cash incentives for players to deliberately injure opponents. Players are often too happy to oblige. Discipline, skill and fair play have given way to win at all costs and live wild and dangerously.

Family — the backbone of any society — has diminished over the decades. It’s easier to get a divorce than it is to get married. It is no longer “’til death do us part,” but “until I get tired of you.” When marriages end, too often bitterness and anger ensues and too many parents leave their children in the line of fire rather than put their personal differences aside to tend to their most important responsibility — raising those children.

Many women have decided they want a baby — not unlike wanting a puppy — and will seek out sperm donors as though men have no necessary value in child-rearing. Far too many women have babies from multiple fathers rather than choosing to raise a family with one person.

Far too many men sire children and despicably abandon them leaving the child with a void and an invisible scar for which all the love in the world rarely ever compensates.

At the holidays and special occasions, people cannot wait to break free from their families to go line up at a box store for the chance to trample one another for a big-screen TV on sale for less than it cost to make. The desire for stuff trumps quality time with the family.

Violence erupts when Nike or Adidas puts out a new special-edition sneaker endorsed by some NBA star or when Apple releases yet another iPhone or whatever is deemed the toy of the season arrives in store. Oddly enough, those lining up at midnight to get the latest violent video game seem most peaceful.

More than two-thirds of the more than 1.2 million conceived children who are not afforded the privilege of being born each year are deemed an “inconvenience” or an “undue burden.” Simply treat the condition like a wart and be done. Human conception is often treated as more of an unfortunate side effect of sex than what it is — the biological purpose of sex. Many young lives are ended because the parents wanted a little boy instead of a little girl. Many young lives are ended when tests show the child at risk of disabilities like Down’s Syndrome. Medically necessary and justifiable abortions for survival of the mother, post-rape trauma and incest, account for a small percentage of lives terminated. Is it any wonder that a society that seems to have diminished regard for human life inside the womb would have a diminished regard for human life outside.

Until America finds its moral compass once again, violence will not end, people will die, and a nation of angry hearts will get angrier and angrier.

Some sanity needs to prevail in gun laws.

Carrying weapons for self-defence is justifiable given the level of gang-style gun violence that already occurs outside the  law by people who have no regard for the law. History dictates that disarming a citizenry can open the door for corrupt governments to turn standing armies against its citizens to slide into tyranny. Americans are foolish if the believe this could never happen there.

Automatic assault weapons and modified handguns and rifles capable of firing many rounds simply cannot be justified for self-defence or defence of freedom. They should be prohibited. Buying a gun at a gun show also should be subject to the same strict process as through a gun shop.

These are the only real steps any government can take in the wake of these tragedies. They are only small steps that might make the difference between 27 people being killed by someone intent on violence and a dozen.

The “meaningful action” President Obama spoke of following the Sandy Hook shooting can not come from some legislation or stepped-up enforcement or some form of government programs. It has to come from within the hearts of every American.

Morality is not a religious issue. It’s not a political or ideological issue. It’s a personal, human issue.

Only when decency, respect, honour, humility, honesty, discipline, and a true sense of right and wrong returns to America, will the lessons of Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Oak Creek, Clackamas Town Center change people for the better and therefore change America for the better.

Ford was found to have violated conflict-of-interest guidelines when he voted on the issue of sanctions for his use of city councillor letterhead to solicit donations for his football foundation. Due process has been served and Ford is set to pay a price for his bull-in-the-China-shop brand of governance, pending appeals.

I have been a supporter of Ford’s policies of fiscal sanity at City Hall and getting the city working for the people for a change and not the other way around. I remain a supporter of those policies. However, Ford himself has often left those of us who wanted him to succeed shaking our heads and sighing as he bumbles his way through the job.

His handling of the Toronto Housing Corp. scandal, breaking the iron-clad and often dysfunctional noose of union contracts, and trimming the budget have been tremendous successes for the mayor. His response to this summer’s gun violence (to be fair, everyone screwed this up), Ferris wheels on the Waterfront and refusing to take part in any part of Pride celebrations have been his primary failings.

His critics and foes have been merciless, cruel and brutally personal in their assault on the Mayor. Ford has himself brought much criticism on himself.

As I posted several months ago, those who support Ford’s agenda are better served to find another vessel. With Ford’s ouster, there is little choice but to do so.

Because Ford can run again in 2014, there is still a very good chance he would win. He remains very popular in the growing suburban areas of Etobicoke, Scarborough and North York — the areas that propelled him to a landslide victory in 2010. He also has the benefits of a strong legion of volunteers and a contact list of potential supporters any candidate would kill to have. He’s also very good at retail politics. Now he can play the downtown versus suburbs card that consistently works like a charm for local conservative politicians in Toronto.

And more importantly, even as a stumbling, bumbling councillor, people out there rather like the guy.

Would I vote for him again? Only if no one better in the fiscal conservative column emerges. And, yes it would probably be a “hold my nose” kind of vote.

In the meantime, the most likely scenario is for council to forgo a $7-million byelection and plough through the next two years under the guidance of Deputy Mayor Doug Holliday. Any attempts at a council “palace coup” of sorts would doom the offenders when it comes to their time at the ballot box.

Can they resist temptation? For the sake of the city, let’s hope so.

Under Holliday, the Ford agenda continues without the unfortunate sideshow.

And left-leaning councillors humbled in the last election for the policies of the Miller administration will be loathe to try bringing back the vehicle registration tax (or implement significantly higher taxes) or imposing more of Transit City or contemplating any more bonehead moves like plastic bag bans.

Richard Nixon said in 1962: “you don’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.”

Well, Toronto, for a little while at least, you won’t have Ford to kick around anymore.

The public sent a loud-and-clear message in 2010 and just because Ford will be sidelined, doesn’t mean the public expects any less of councillors and whoever fills the mayor’s chair temporarily to do the job they were sent to do under the guidance of that very message voters sent.

Local politics is surely never boring.

Mitt Romney fell about 350,000 votes short on Nov. 6 in the key swing states of Florida, Virginia, Ohio and New Hampshire. Had this less than one-third of one percent more voters who turned out to cast a ballot for John McCain in 2008 done so four years later, Gov. Romney would be President-Elect today.

This is a serious turnout issue.

All the navel-gazing about appealing more to Hispanics and single-women voters is true to some regard. But with so few votes meaning the difference in direction of the country, the bigger problem is the electorate itself.

Fingers are pointing toward Romney’s ground game, particularly the ORCA technology system used to aid get-out-the-vote efforts. Yes, the reports are troubling and must be fixed for future elections.

But the reality is far too many people who supported John McCain in 2008 couldn’t be bothered to go to the polls. If the reason they didn’t show up to the polls is because a database didn’t alert a volunteer to get on the phone and remind them to vote, that’s a stinging indictment of the voter, not the campaign.

Everyone knew when election day was. Everyone presumably knew where they were to vote. Everyone knew the stakes of this campaign. Yet many stayed home — an estimated 14 million fewer people than in 2008, about 4.5 million of those were McCain voters in 2008.

In Canada, fingers were pointing at the Conservative party campaign for allegedly using nefarious robocalls to misdirect Liberal voters to non-existent polling stations. Apparently, some Liberal voters were upset, ripped up their voter cards and went home. If the dubious calls were massive and wide-reaching, we would have heard about it on election day, not 11 months later. Otherwise, that reflects very poorly on Liberal voters and how they value their right to vote.

Any conservative or conservative-leaning voter who is upset or disappointed about President Obama’s re-election and couldn’t be bothered to show up to the polls has no one to blame but themselves.

Mitt Romney may not have been a perfect candidate, but he is a good and decent man who was heavily and unfairly demonized for his success and his character. Any conservative had to know that he as President would have been far more in line with our values and ideals than Obama.

Yet too many stayed home.

Let this be a gut check for conservatives and remember what YOU did in 2012.

Do not make that mistake again.

The second match-up between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was a testy exchange — one Obama (in my assessment and in snap polls since) narrowly won overall, but was crushed on issues #1, 2 and 3 of the campaign: Jobs and the economy, debt and deficits and taxation.

A narrow win on points is not what Obama needed in the debate. He needed to reset the narrative that Romney so expertly blew out of the water in the first debate that the former governor is an evil, greedy, robber baron who wants nothing more than to steal from the poor to give to the rich.

He didn’t even come close to accomplishing that goal.

Romney nailed it on the economy

One African-American gentleman asked Obama what he has done to earn his vote the second time. The President listed off the tired “we’ve created 5.2 new jobs” and so-called middle class tax cuts that virtually no one even notices because they are so inconsequential and end up being taken from the pocket in another hikes.

Romney came back with a calm but blistering indictment of the record, tapping into the most crucial point of all: If things are getting better, voters don’t really feel it. And until they feel it, things are still bad. Ask Jimmy Carter who had a lower unemployment rate and a positive uptick in economic indicators before he was walloped by Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Romney said:

I think you know better. I think you know that these last four years haven’t been so good as the president just described and that you don’t feel like you’re confident that the next four years are going to be much better either. I can tell you that if you were to elect President Obama, you know what you’re going to get. You’re going to get a repeat of the last four years. We just can’t afford four more years like the last four years.

He said that by now we’d have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work. I wasn’t the one that said 5.4 percent. This was the president’s plan. Didn’t get there.

He said he would have by now put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security, because he pointed out they’re on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He’d get that done. He hasn’t even made a proposal on either one.

He said in his first year he’d put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges. Didn’t even file it.

This is a president who has not been able to do what he said he’d do. He said that he’d cut in half the deficit. He hasn’t done that either. In fact, he doubled it. He said that by now middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It’s gone up by $2,500 a year. And if Obamacare is passed, or implemented — it’s already been passed — if it’s implemented fully, it’ll be another $2,500 on top.

The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. He keeps saying, “Look, I’ve created 5 million jobs.” That’s after losing 5 million jobs. The entire record is such that the unemployment has not been reduced in this country. The unemployment, the number of people who are still looking for work, is still 23 million Americans. There are more people in poverty, one out of six people in poverty.

How about food stamps? When he took office, 32 million people were on food stamps. Today, 47 million people are on food stamps. How about the growth of the economy? It’s growing more slowly this year than last year, and more slowly last year than the year before.

The president wants to do well. I understand. But the policies he’s put in place from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank to his tax policies to his regulatory policies, these policies combined have not let this economy take off and grow like it could have.

You might say, “Well, you got an example of one that worked better?” Yeah, in the Reagan recession where unemployment hit 10.8 percent, between that period — the end of that recession and the equivalent of time to today, Ronald Reagan’s recovery created twice as many jobs as this president’s recovery. Five million jobs doesn’t even keep up with our population growth. And the only reason the unemployment rate seems a little lower today is because of all the people that have dropped out of the workforce.

The president has tried, but his policies haven’t worked. He’s great as a — as a — as a speaker and describing his plans and his vision. That’s wonderful, except we have a record to look at. And that record shows he just hasn’t been able to cut the deficit, to put in place reforms for Medicare and Social Security to preserve them, to get us the rising incomes we need. Median income is down $4,300 a family and 23 million Americans out of work. That’s what this election is about. It’s about who can get the middle class in this country a bright and prosperous future and assure our kids the kind of hope and optimism they deserve.

Romney won to taxes

What came down to a “soak-the-rich” vs. “give everyone a break and broaden the base” tax argument, Romney came out on top, while potentially setting himself for a “read my lips” moment four years ahead if elected.

Obama’s entire tax plan is “asking millionaires and billionaires to pay a little more” (otherwise known as people making more than $200,000 a year) or “pay their fair share.”

To someone who is  not a millionaire, that might sound like a great idea. “Yeah, stick it to em!” The trouble is, most people know that the men and women who sign their checks are in that bracket, and the more you take away from them, the less chance they’re getting a raise, much less keeping their job. Tenured professors and union-protected public employees don’t have that anxiety.

Romney’s proposal to cap deductions (he threw out a possible $15,000-$25,000 figure) sounds ultimately reasonable. Pick any of the deductions available up to that amount and you’re set. Middle class families don’t come close to those limits, generally, but wealthy families far exceed it. And let’s face it, they don’t need those deductions.

I would prefer we impose a flat-tax and get rid of deductions altogether and not use the tax code to drive behaviour — particularly when it’s guaranteed to be abused — but that has proven a hard sell.

Obama did the right thing on Libya, while Romney missed his opportunity

Moderator Candy Crowley’s intervention notwithstanding, Romney missed a chance to hammer the president on the absolutely gong-showesque handling of the post-9/11/12 attacks on the consulate in Benghazi.

It’s a tricky play right after the President takes responsibility for what happened the day the U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans were killed in a terrorist attack, but one he will have a stronger do-over next Monday.

Because Crowley intervened in the conversation on a debatable point of whether Obama called the Benghazi attack an act of terror from the start (he alluded to terror, but not explicit … in the two weeks that followed, the Administration and the State Department were not calling it an act of terror), it gives the messy response more days in the spotlight. That can’t be good for Obama.

Questioning the questions

It’s understandable that conservatives are upset over the questions Crowley selected for the debate. They clearly steered sharply into Obama’s wheelhouse.

The question on immigration was handled well by both candidates, particularly with Romney reminding voters that Obama had control of the house and senate for the first two years (even if no Republican supported him, he should get everything he wanted passed), yet did not propose immigration reform in his first year as promised. Instead, Obama blamed Romney in a bizarre manner, saying the “Republican Party’s standard bearer was against him.” Romney could hardly have been called the standard bearer after bowing out of the GOP primaries early in 2007.

The question of equal pay was at best, pandering. The focus of course is on the average pay for women being about 20 per cent less than that of men. Unfortunately it’s not that simple. Men are more typically drawn to higher risk, higher paying positions. Women are typically drawn to service, caregiver oriented positions that are generally lower paid. Men are more likely to work overtime than women, meaning less income. Men are more likely working night shifts which often come with premium pay. The way men and women engage in the workforce overall is different, and to focus on the baseline average is false. It’s a complicated topic that involves fundamental shifting in the way people work and the way they are paid. Neither candidate was particularly good on this subject.

By far the most insulting and unnecessary question was addressed to Romney asking him how he would be different than that horrible George W. Bush. Perhaps it would have been fitting to ask Obama how he was better than Jimmy Carter since his presidency is so closely mimic Carter’s one-term with a whole lot more phoning it in. This kind of question has no business being a question in a debate — a shot taken between candidates, sure.