Today Thu Fri
It is forecast to be Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on August 20, 2014
Thunderstorm
25°/16°
It is forecast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on August 21, 2014
Chance of a Thunderstorm
25°/19°
It is forecast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on August 22, 2014
Mostly Cloudy
26°/19°

199 Comments

politics

The Rob and Doug Ford Radio Recap: This is Your Radio on (Alleged) Crack

Every Sunday, Mayor Rob Ford and his brother, Doug, host The City, a two-hour talk show on Newstalk 1010. We listen so you don't have to.

Rob and Doug Ford in the studio. Photo courtesy of Newstalk 1010.

Since his last show Rob Ford has been accused by Gawker and the Toronto Star of smoking what looks like crack cocaine in a video supposedly in the possession of Etobicoke drug dealers. Since then, Gawker has raised over $175,000 of the $200,000 they think they need to potentially purchase the video, Rob was fired from his football coaching position at Don Bosco, fired his chief of staff who reportedly told him to enter rehab, and played the city’s most elaborate game of hide and seek with the media. Brother Doug also made the news, as the Globe and Mail finally released its investigative report into his alleged drug dealing days in the ’80s. There were also awesome photos. So with that said, I wonder what we’ll talk about this week?

1:07: Rob says that no matter what you say, you can’t make the media happy. Doug adds nuance, pointing out that there are some great media folks, like Sue-Ann Levy, Christie Blatchford, and Joe Warmington. Yes, I really thought Blatch’s article was good, Doug.

1:09: Rob calls the media “maggots.” I wriggle.

1:12: Rob Ford, alleged crack user who shows up to work half the time, calls most councillors ‘unemployable.’ Doug, who inherited a successful business, says they couldn’t get a job on their own.

1:14: Rob and Doug discuss how they attended late Toronto Sun editor Peter Worthington’s funeral, and how he was a great conservative. They do no mention how “Rob Ford Mayor” magnets were passed out after the service.

1:16: A Rolling Stones tune plays the Fords back from commercial. Apparently Doug was at the show last night and loved it. No word yet on whether Doug loved Mick Jagger’s jokes about Rob’s alleged drug use. As Jeet Heer said on Twitter, when the Rolling Stones are making fun of your drug use…

1:19: Doug, who wants to run for provincial office, thinks they should increase salaries for MPPs. He and Doug also talk about how they want to cut the size of council in half.

1:21: Doug touts pollster and cartoon villain Nick Kouvalis’s predictive prowess. He does not mention how Kouvalis incorrectly predicted 11 of 12 U.S. election swing states. Mr. Kouvalis, I’ve read Nate Silver’s blog, and you’re no Nate Silver.

1:27: Rob and Doug are continuing to say how awesome their chiefs of staffs are and how they came from the private sector, which shows just how amazing they are. Note: as a freelance journalist, I also work in the private sector.

1:28: Doug Ford alleges that there were a lot of politics being played “at the highest levels” to axe Rob from his football coaching job at Don Bosco. This is a reference to premier Kathleen Wynne, who Doug argued in an interview with the Toronto Sun‘s Sue-Ann Levy was behind the local school board decision.

1:29: Rob makes a point of saying how he’s donating $50,000 worth of football equipment to Don Bosco. This comes on the heels of two sources telling the Toronto Star that Rob wanted to send office staff to the school to take back the players’ equipment that he had donated over the years.

1:35: Rob reads out a list of councillors who opposed a casino at both Woodbine and downtown. Doug is angry, and he wants to call an election, “Let’s go to town…let’s go to the people.”

If you can’t win a casino vote you spend a year of political capital on, maybe you shouldn’t be in power.

1:38: Doug says critics want to run him and Rob over “with a streetcar.” I presume it would be a streetcar purchased on credit.

1:41: Rob recites his favourite talking points. Eliminated VRT. Reduced councillor office expenses. Reduced mayoral office expenses. Reduced travel budget. All of which is to say that he has not confronted the real problems that would move the city forward: transit, affordable housing, homelessness, and more.

1:44: Rob continues to tout his achievements, including transparent and accountable government. Running through parking lots avoiding questions about crack is probably not what people had in mind when he made that campaign promise.

1:48: Doug, alleged former high-level drug dealer, “We love our police…they’re the best in the world.”

1:51: Since the Fords just spent 10 minutes talking about all the really cool things they’ve done for Toronto, here’s a brief list of things Rob has voted against: An LRT for Finch, public street nurses paid for by the province, provincial money to treat pre-schoolers with speech impediments, easier access for people with disabilities to make deputations to council committees, preserving funding for public pools, keeping the Urban Affairs Library open, providing funding for youth workers, oh the show is back, I have to stop this list. What have I missed, Raccoon Nation?

1:56: Caller Joe has kids at Don Bosco, and they’re very upset their coach was fired. Rob said they were upset when his football team was over at his house the other day, and the mayor sounds pretty broken up.

1:58: Caller Trevor says the reporting on Rob Ford has been “worse than horrible” and that, as a university student, he has to cite his sources, unlike the Star and Globe.

2:00: Caller Pam asks Rob if it’s him in the alleged Gawker video. For the first time, Rob gives a declarative answer, saying “the video does not exist.” He does not, however, say he has not smoked crack in the past six months.

2:01: Oh great, Doug Ford is talking about race! He calls comments questioning the mayor appearing with murder victim Anthony Smith racist, saying that he appears in all sorts of photos with young black men with hats and funny signs.

He goes on to say how in the next hour Doug will defend “my Somali community.” Which is interesting, because Doug seems like an unlikely candidate to represent the Somali community.

2:08: Doug is now flying solo on the show, as Rob left to attend his daughter’s first communion. He calls the Globe and Mail accusations “completely, undeniably false” and that the accusations represent “the lowest of the low in terms of journalistic integrity.”

2:13: Now Doug has a retired police officer who worked on drug investigations on the show. Somewhere McNulty is flipping his lid.

2:15 Doug, on the police officer: “The reason he has never heard Doug Ford’s name is that Doug Ford never [dealt hashish].”

2:18 Doug thanks Stephen LeDrew for his CP24 interview yesterday, “He played hardball, he wasn’t soft on me,” he says of the extraordinarily softball journalist. Sample LeDrew comment in the intro to the interview: “No one is without sin…this is gotcha journalism.”

2:27: Doug talks about how his family donates lots of money and has lots of parties in their backyard, so they can’t be bad people. Charity = good. Bragging about it for political cover = unseemly.

2:30: Doug estimates that the media spends $20 million chasing the Ford family doing their “journalism” thing, and that they should just cut back on it and donate the proceeds to a hospital. Okay.

2:35: Now Doug Ford is calling out Global News’s Jackson Proskow for “gotcha journalism” because he Tweeted where the Fords parked their cars. Okay.

2:37: To defend the Fords, there is now a councillor on the show. Except it’s Carmine Perrelli (Ward 2, Richmond Hill), a councillor from Richmond Hill who defended the Fords in the regrettable “Assgate” incident involving Sarah Thomson in March.

2:39: Doug Ford is now accusing Glenn De Baeremaeker (Ward 38, Scarborough Centre) of illegally using money from Rouge Valley for his campaign. He also derides the media, saying that there’s a lot of coke use there, and they’re hypocrites. Well Doug, I’ve never done coke—I know, boring, right—and I can say with a clear conscience that I think you’re a terrible councillor, with or without drug connections. Want to finally do that interview I’ve asked your assistant about for a couple years now?

2:47: A commercial during the show selling condos along Eglinton extols the virtues of LRT and a walkable, convenient community. The dissonance does not seem to register.

3:00: Doug wraps. “It was a heckuva week,” he says in an understatement. He insists he works for the people and announces that Ford Fest will go on the road this summer to Scarborough. He then blesses Ford Nation, which hopefully will have a better week that Los Bros Ford did.

Well Raccoon Nation, that was the Ford show. Rob did definitively say for the first time that the alleged crack video does not exist, but he did not deny that he has smoked crack, met with drug dealers in Etobicoke, or clarify why he took so long to make a statement. Rob called journalists “maggots,” Doug called critics “racist,” and we all wonder how we got to this point. Regardless of how that might be, this was your radio on (alleged) crack, folks. Five out of five non-denial denials.

Comments

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Walter-Lis/571716919 Walter Lis

    Rob got his job at his family’s business, without graduating from university and without the qualifications. I wish we all could get jobs the same way.

    • Hahahaha

      The multimillionaire Ford brothers who inherited their fortunes and the political niche carved out by their late father are the definition of social elites yet their unwavering supporters eat it up when the brothers slag the lowly rank and file proletariats at the Star and G&M as the sleazy elite.

      It’s rich that guys who are in a position to gift Cadillac Escalades to family members are throwing the word elite around as an attack and insult. If these two didn’t inherit millions and their late father’s name and network of connections, they would probably be in the gutter or dead by now.

    • sammyhung

      The Ford family fortune is a direct result of drug $$$ laundered over the years by Doug through the family business. The illegal drug industry loves the symbiotic relationship they have with the Fords until the recent raids which took the Fords by surprise. This no doubt affecting the Ford’s bottom line though I’m sure Doug will find some way to rebuild as he has the full support of the drug trafficking industry.

  • iSkyscraper

    Jesus, is Rob going to go the entire show without addressing the photo, without clarifying that he has never smoked crack? They are just going to sit there like a couple uneducated gutter mouth boobs and attack the media, tell lies about their accomplishments, and frame everything as a conspiracy against their greatness? And talk sports and stones?

    And where are the callers?

    Never mind the allegations, this show alone is why these two are not qualified to serve in office. What an embarrassment.

    • dannyR

      No callers. Lawyers told them; their hands are tied. No callers.

      Darn those lawyers. Pushing mayors around.

    • Hahahaha

      Exactly why his 3 minute stump speech on Friday wasn’t enough!

      He said he does not smoke crack but has he ever smoked crack in the past 6 months?

      Is that picture real and if it is (it is), what exactly is his association with the dead Anthony Smith and his two associates?

    • Don Rhodes

      They seem to be purposely avoiding the issue. When Global interviewed Doug yesterday, all he did was spin the questions back at the reporter and try and change the subject to “The Fords have done nothing but help this city”.

      Whether or not the video is/was real, whether or not Rob smokes/smoked crack, avoiding the issue completely is not the answer. You know, if it was me in Rob’s position, I would be taking EVERY possible opportunity to clear my name. I’d be going to get a drug test and shoving it in everyone’s face if it came back false. Right now, Rob and Doug are acting like a couple of schoolyard bullies that beat someone up and are sitting in the principals office trying to blame everyone else so they don’t get suspended.

  • Lol.

    Haha, I liked the parts where Rob said (regarding his release from Don Bosco) he was now out of a job… and the part where they talked about people flip flopping on the casino issue.

    • Hahahaha

      It was politics being played at the highest level, good sir!

      It had nothing to do with the Don Bosco parents telling Blob Ford to stop saying derogatory things about their kids!

      • iSkyscraper

        Doug said “you put Don Bosco on the map, all positive things”. These two are completely deaf aren’t they?

  • dannyR

    There are 5 minutes left of Rob. We get a specific denial, a bombshell admission, or…nothing.

    • dannyR

      Bosco question. Is the caller a plant? Running out the clock?

  • dannyR

    No Doug, let Rob answer the picture question.

  • Dave Williams

    He just addressed it. Case closed.

    • dannyR

      He addressed it. He didn’t answer it.

  • dannyR

    He’s out, he sidestepped the question again.

    • Dave Williams

      How did he side step. He takes photos with everyone. The accompishments speak louder than hearsay crap. The accomplishments are factual.

      • dannyR

        He sidestepped the question: “Was that you in the picture?” That’s what he sidestepped. Don’t erect a strawman argument.

    • Dave Williams

      He will win in another landslide.

      • Don Rhodes

        You are clearly delusional.

        • Dave Williams

          Don, you must have a vast collection of UFO videos that you view daily.

          • Don Rhodes

            Bahahahahahahah now that’s funny.
            Come back when you have something relevant to add to the discussion.

          • Dave Williams

            Revevant, I am a voice of reason here. Journalistic fraud is what the next story should be about.

          • Don Rhodes

            So you’re basically saying: “if you don’t think like me and don’t believe what I say, you’re wrong”.

          • Dave Williams

            Don, what I m saying is that this whole story was fabrcated, the video never existed. It should be up to the Star to back up the story.

          • Don Rhodes

            Ok, if the whole story was fabricated, then why are several reporters corroborating the same story? Why are the Fords completely avoiding the issue and sidestepping then throwing out attacks at others? I’m not saying the video exists, I’m not saying Ford smokes crack.

            What I’m saying is the way they are acting speaks louder than their words. Also, why on earth would any journalist with a brain put their career on the line to spit out blatant lies about the Mayor of this city? Not just one journalist either, SEVERAL from numerous publications. Please, think about this for a second…

          • Dave Williams

            Several reporters? Two from a publication that have done nothing but attack the mayor and a one from a tabloid who has attacked the mayor several times. These sir are not credible sources. If they could produce the video it may have given their story some creedence. Until then the story is yet another fabricated attack on the mayor.

          • Don Rhodes

            Outside of the recent “Crackstarter” articles, they have published exactly one additional article about him back in 2011 when he appeared on the cover of Toronto Life in nothing but a pair of boxers.

            Yeah, sure seems like they are doing nothing but attacking the Mayor.

          • Steve

            Perhaps you don’t know what the word “fabricated” means. Maybe you mean “unproven”, which is a correct description of the Star and Gawker stories. By the way, that’s also the word to describe your allegation that three reporters from two prominent and unrelated publications have conspired to make up a story from thin air.

          • ACMEsalesrep

            No, I think “fabricated” would more accurately describe Dave’s allegations. I can’t imagine he has even the smallest shred of evidence on which to base them.

          • Doug Earl

            So Dave. The question you have to ask yourself is why. WHY would someone do the things they have done?

            So: If the video never existed, then what are we expected to believe here?

            That the head of a US blog site decided out of the blue to completely falsify an account of having seen the video? Just made it up out of thin air for no particular reason? Why would the head of a US blog site even give the smallest hoot about Toronto Mayor Rob Ford? Why would he care about Toronto Mayor Rob Ford to the point where he was willing to throw out his reputation and the reputation of his website just to make up some flimsy accusation that would be disproven in a trice? WHY would he do that? He would have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose on a story that means zero to 99.9 per cent of his audience.

            That the same head of the US blog then compounds the risk to his credibility by going to Indiegogo to raise money to buy a video he knows not to exist? WHY would he do that?

            That the Toronto Star, having read the Gawker account, decides on the spot to replicate the story with a perfectly similar story of its own? That the paper rouses two of its best investigative reporters and orders them to deliberately falsify a lengthy and detailed account of having seen a video that purports to show Rob Ford smoking crack? That the paper would purposely and on the spur of the moment drum up a story that not only had the potential to destroy its credibility but that of its two top reporters? And the reporters, knowing that if caught putting this falsehood together, would never work in the media again? WHY would they do that?

            The answer is that they wouldn’t. Certainly not to “get” Rob Ford. Ford is doing a great job of self-destructing on his own. It defies believability to think that two media outlets, independently of one another, one US and one Canadian, would simultaneously decide to lie about exactly the same thing with exactly the same details. WHY would they do that?

            Or do you think they colluded? If so, what evidence do you have? And do you really think that’s how international journalism works?

            Or does this make more sense that Mayor Ford might have a substance abuse problem given that: Mayor Ford has had a series of alcohol-related mishaps in the past. Mayor Ford has used marijuana in the past. Mayor Ford has recently shown up at a series of public functions totally out of it to the point where he has been asked to leave.

            Does it make more sense to think that, while the Mayor might not be a crack addict, might indeed have been devolved into using crack within the past six months? Perhaps under the pressure of office; perhaps out of a continuation of lifelong behaviour?

            To me that latter proposition makes a lot more sense than the proposition that a bunch of highly experienced reporters would throw their lives away to falsely besmirch a mayor for a day or two.

            Think about it.

      • Mum

        He will always be a landslide in his mother’s eyes.

      • HotDang

        How do Ford supporters continue to deny any substance abuse issues when the Sun reported that Towhey was fired for telling Rob to go to rehab?

        This is his chief of staff, who should know more about him than pretty much anyone, saying that his drug consumption is out of control, as reported by the voice of Ford Nation. Or is the Sun also a member of the Toronto Star and Gawker’s cabal?

        And if you accept why Towhey was fired, the Gawker / Star story is not much of a stretch of the imagination.

        • Dave Williams

          If any of this evidence was presented in an actual court of law, it would be deemed inadmissable as there is no substance to any of it.
          Try to be more open minded to what actual facts are. The whole issue is based on hearsay.

          • HotDang

            So no media, not even the Sun, has any substance to it?

            You can’t trust any media report that concerns Rob Ford whatsoever?

            There’s no proof that the Sun story is hearsay. The sources (probably the two media advisor people who just resigned) are insiders. They most likely had first hand information.

            What they were saying was likely true. Towhey thought Ford should be in rehab. Work that into your reality distortion field.

  • dannyR

    Strike 3, Rob. I was willing to argue the video was fake, the dealers were not dealers but video whiz-kids duping the reporters. I’ve spent the last 3 days arguing that.

    You haven’t denied the claim, you stepped around it.

    I’ve had enough.

    • Dave Williams

      Danny, what more of a denial do you require? Atlest four times this past week since the scandal was fabricated, he denied it and surprise no video.
      The whole story had a bad smell right from the start.

      • dannyR

        He did not. What are you reading?

      • dannyR

        “going after me” is not a denial of the reporters’ claim to have seen Rob Ford in a crack-smoking video.

        ‘ridiculous’ is not a denial of the same.

        being photographed with lots of people is not a denial.

        Almost everyone else in Canada understands what it is that Ford ought to specifically deny.

      • Denied

        Rob Ford Denies Driving Past Open Streetcar Doors: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/07/03/toronto-rob-ford-streetcar.html

        Rob Ford Denies Calling 911 Dispatcher Names: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/10/27/rob-ford-911-call.html

        Rob Ford Denies Lying On The Stand In Conflict Of Interest Case: http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2012/09/05/mayor_rob_ford_denies_lying_on_the_stand_in_conflict_of_interest_case.html

        Also in history: Rob Ford denies being drunk at hockey game, Rob Ford denies having been arrested in Florida in 1999, Rob Ford denies appearing unruly at military dinner party, etc, etc…

        If Rob Ford denies something it is probably true.

        • Dave Williams

          He never denied that is mandate was to clean up city hall, and bring investment into the city. He has accomplished more than any mayor in recent history. He has done a great job in office. Not even the haters can deny that.

          • Denied

            You’re the one in denial.

          • Dave Williams

            I will deny that.

          • Rob

            No. He has not done a great job. He’s done…a job.

          • Dave Williams

            What has he not followed up on?

          • winkee

            Ramming a casino through city hall for one, no increase on property taxes, a scarborough subway, you want more?

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            He’s done half a job.

          • Dave Williams

            Imagine that, he has completed half his mandate in a half a term. That is hard work and determination. I agree.

          • It’s all Good

            What exactly has he done Dave? Stopped one union? Stopped a plastic bag tax? Moved a bike lane from Jarvis to Sherbourne at a tune of how many dollars? And what BIG INVESTMENT to the city has he brought? The Grey Cup? Sorry that’s the CFL. He sure did a great job landing that casino he wanted. I mean even at $55 million for hosting fees it sure would have helped that gravy boat hey! I mean what planet are you defenders on? I watched that dip$hit brother of his on CBC yesterday claiming to have saved over a billion dollars so far. Really dudes? Prove it. Talk about fabrication hey! Wow you saved a cat in a tree. Good for you Robbie. Good. For. You. It certainly can’t be easy being the mayor here. You have a shitty job regardless of what side you fall on but we need a leader. Even you must be able to see that Dave. This man is not a leader. A leader unites and takes charge. He has done nothing but divide and dither. See transit. Oh! That didn’t go his way either? Those big private bucks didn’t show up? Nice promise. Was also the lefts/media/elites/downtowners fault I guess. get over it dude. Look at his track record. Really go look at it. Good grief.

          • Dave Williams

            Review that last 5 city budgets, you will see the leadership, but since it takes time to research anything that is of importance, I highly doubt that you will have the intellect to take the time.
            Maybe if they put it in a video, you may watch.

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            Your Fordmath is showing. Half a job in half a term is a quarter of the total job.

            He’s an utter failure as a mayor, having lost the confidence and control of council just a year or so into his term. About the only things he’s managed to do was privatize garbage pickup west of Yonge and cut budgets here and there by 10% (while cutting services, which he promised not to do, so the two cancel each other out). He’s also cost this city tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in cancelled contracts and wasted time, not to mention our international reputation (even “Where’s Toronto?” obliviousness is better than “Toronto, with the crackhead mayor?” recognition)

          • Dave Williams

            Service has actually improved in the past few years and costs have gone down. Ford has progressed inspite of the council which have been traditional self serving people.
            You may not believe this, but actual educated people internationally actually loock at results not innuendo and hearsay before they invest their dollars. Toronto has not prospered like this in decades.

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            “Service has actually improved in the past few years and costs have gone down.”

            Cite your sources comparing services and service-related costs pre-Ford to post-Ford’s ascent to the mayor’s office.

            “Actually educated people” look at who’s at the helm of the ship before investing. As captain of the City of Toronto, Ford’s got us somewhere between HMS Bounty and Costa Concordia. By all acounts, our AA/AA1 credit rating has more to do with David Miller than Ford squandering the budget surplus.

          • Dave Williams

            I cannot believe that anyone would think that Miller is responsible for our high credit rating. His legacy was to keep increasing taxes to pay for his poor budget management. The city now is a positive place to do business again. Had he remained in office , we would have been in a similar position as many US cities, bankrupt.

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            Moody’s sure thinks Miller was good for Toronto: under him, our credit rating with them went from Aa2 to Aa1; our rating with DBRS (AA) remained stable from Lastman to Miller, and the rating decline with Standards & Poor’s that started under Lastman (AA+) stabilized under Miller (AA). The ratings under Ford haven’t improved: they haven’t changed at all.

          • ACMEsalesrep

            “His mandate was to clean up city hall…”

            It’s now mired in controversy of the Fords’ making.

            “…and bring investment into the city.”

            The current pattern of migration into the city from the 905 started under Miller. The current real estate boom started under Miller. Its most recent growth has been due to the Pan Am Games, negotiated under Miller. Even the current plans to improve transit were negotiated under Miller. Ford has simply coasted on Miller’s accomplishments.

            “He has accomplished more than any mayor in recent history.”

            He squandered $70M/year of revenue by cancelling the VRT. He wasted money ripping out bike lanes. He set back transit by a full year and put the entire investment at risk by demanding subways for which there was no funding. He’s overseen cuts to essential services while increasing property taxes. His only “accomplishment” has been to privatize garbage collection, and it’s far from clear that that will save the city money in the long run. Miller, on the other hand, oversaw a rebirth of the city’s commercial real estate market and massive private-sector investment in public institutions (the ROM, the AGO, a new opera house), negotiated a transit deal with higher levels of government, and generally put the city back on track following years of neglect under Mel Lastman.

            “He has done a great job in office. Not even the haters can deny that.”

            Anyone considering his performance objectively rather than worshipping him as the great “conservative” hope can deny that. The facts simply do not support that claim.

          • Dave Williams

            How is being responsible with a tax payers dollars “squandering”? The VRT was a Miller initiated tax as he could not control his spending. Ford came in with a structure to allow some our tax dollars to come back where they belong IN OUR POCKETS. It is not a liberal/conservative issue, but Miller and his policiies drove business out of the city, not attract new business to the city.

          • Doug Earl

            Clean up city hall: He has done more to bring disrepute to city hall than anyone ever.
            Brought investment to the city: examples, please.

          • Dave Williams

            For one off the top of my head would be Oxford Properties and the Toronto AAA LEED Gold Office Tower Development. That was a direct result of a better Tax managed city. Would you not agree if the Star and Globe did not perform Journalistic Fraud and actually had substanciated evidence before they released their stories more people would actually buy what they are selling?

          • Doug Earl

            That Oxford project was in development before Ford came to the mayor’s office. To my knowledge, Ford had no direct involvement in that project. And you don’t indicate what kind of tax change the Ford’s made that might have enticed a developer to go ahead with a project that was already well advanced in planning. I can’t imagine you are saying that because Ford found a paltry sum in so-called efficiencies that a group the size of Oxford jumped up and said By God, this mayor’s really got it! Let’s spend a couple hundred million on a massive real estate development!

            I imagine the folks over at Oxford are probably more nervous about their development considering that Ford’s behaviour is more likely to drive away business coming to the city than to promote it. He makes our city look like a hick town every time he opens his mouth.

            The Fords spent long minutes on their radio show yesterday listing good things that have been happening in the city and claiming them as accomplishments, for example, that there have been many jobs created in Toronto since they took over. Noticeably missing was any connection to anything they’ve done to bring this about. Couldn’t have had anything to do with the national or provincial economy, of course not, it’s the Ford magic wand. When we foam at the mouth about bicycles, money just rolls into town. When we talk ferris wheels, the wheels of industry turn!

            The truth is that Rob Ford has behaved badly. Very badly. Over and over and over again. There’s nothing to admire in drunk driving or showing up blasted at events. There’s no accomplishment in talking like a warmed-over Don Cherry.

            In this latest incident, the media hasn’t made anything up. There has been no journalistic fraud. There’s no onus on the media to produce the tape anymore than there is for them to produce a person they report having seen leaving the scene of a crime. Reporters report what they see and what they are told by people who sometimes wish to remain anonymous for good reason. Like the ones who brought down Nixon.

            Three reporters saw a tape that they say shows the mayor smoking something out of a crack pipe. Two of those reporters are seriously credible, experienced and award-winning reporters. The third is an American with no connection to the city. None of them have any reason to print the story except for their belief that it is true. Both publications wrote, independently, the exact same story.

            Do I think more people would believe it if they were shown incontrovertible evidence? Yes I do, and that’s because there are a lot of people out there who refuse to add one and one to get two. Who are so sold on the Fords that they simply refuse to take a look at the situation in an honest way and come to the proper conclusion. Whose minds are so closed that they simply refuse to believe anything printed that doesn’t match their preconceived and distorted view of the universe. Their incantation of Ford Good Media Bad is tiring. When they absolutely refuse to even contemplate the possibility that some of the mountain of evidence about Rob Ford’s behaviour is true, they show that their minds are made up from the get go and that nothing will ever convince them otherwise, except maybe Rob Ford running naked down the street with a drink in one hand and a crack pipe in the other. And even then, they’d probably just dust off that old, “Well that Rob Ford, he’s one of a kind–a real guy, you know?”

          • Dave Williams

            Good to see that you have got that off your chest. The Oxford Project is a direct result of responsible government. As an investor, I was aware of this investment in early 2011. If the media took the time to get a credible NAMED source, maybe the open minded populas would be swayed. But the Star and Globe have used yellow journalism to attempt to have closed minded readers to accept their stories.

  • dannyR

    ‘ “For the first time, Rob gives a declarative answer, saying “the video does not exist.” ‘
    That’s Rob either calling the reporters liars, or he had the video concocted himself and then had it erased (to make fools of the reporters), or it is a meaningless statement. “does not exist”? What does that even mean?

    None of this answers the specific question.

    • Dave Williams

      It does not exist as he was never in a video. That is how he could state that point with confidence.

      • winkee

        There never was a video and it does not exist are hardly the same thing. It never existed would be a declarative and emphatic statement, it doesn’t exist comes close to implying it existed and is no longer…

        • Dave Williams

          The story is yellow journalism period.

      • tyrannosaurus_rek

        Hahahahaha.

  • doubting in Toronto

    There is no video because he paid for it to be destroyed.

    • Dave Williams

      If there was a video, do not think that more than one copy would exist? There is no video, because the story was fabricated.
      The Star created the story, it should be up to them to validate the story. They cannot validate it as no video neve existed.

      • andrew97

        Then why didn’t he say that when the video appeared? “The video is a fake and a fraud.” That’s it. Eight words.

        The simplest explanation for the delay is that the video is real, and Ford was having a hard time concocting a lie that was consistent with the known facts.

        And don’t say, he didn’t respond because the lawyer wouldn’t let him. What kind of idiot lawyer would stop an innocent client from proclaiming innocence? (Well, maybe one who uses hotmail to send cease-and-desists. The Fords sure know how to pick ‘em.)

        • Dave Williams

          A quick denial would actually lend creedence to the story. If he addressed every fabricated hate story, he would not have time to proceed his mandate. Kudos to the mayor for having thick skin. If someone could validate the Star/gawker story with atleast some actual evidence than THAT would be the story.

          • Steve

            Really, how much time does it take to say: “I’VE NEVER SMOKED CRACK?” Or, if he has a couple of extra seconds to spare: “If a video is out there that shows that, it must be fake, because I’VE NEVER SMOKED CRACK.”? He spent more time talking on this show today talking about hockey than he has answering questions about what are very serious allegations.

          • Dave Williams

            He addressed the drug “allegations” several times. He does not do them. Maybe your mind wants to spin this, but his denial is clear. His political record is meticulous.

          • Steve

            Do you really not see the difference between “I don’t smoke crack” and “I have never smoked crack”. He had days to work on that statement, with the help of lawyers and staffers” and that’s as clear as he can get? The way he has answered the allegations amount to an admission that he HAS smoked crack. If he has, he should admit it then let the people decide if they think that’s a reason he shouldn’t be mayor. If they still want him, great.

          • Don Rhodes

            Coincidentally, Ford’s statement was made around the same time that Gawker claimed they could “no longer reach the person holding the video”.

            Not saying anything either way, but that is one heck of a co-incidence.

          • Dave Williams

            There is nothing to address, he does not smoke crack or anything else, he addressed this topic. The voters will address it at election time. I suspect the smart people will vote him in another landslide as he is following the mandate that he was first elected on.

          • Don Rhodes

            Nice veiled insult there Dave.
            “I suspect the smart people will vote him in”

          • Dave Williams

            Don, you must be a special person.

          • Guest

            Blah blah blah Dave. I’m done with you. It’s clear that you are either delusional or just a troll. You have no interest in having a civil discussion.

          • Steve

            I agree, Don.

          • Don Rhodes

            It’s actually kind of entertaining watching him grasp at straws though… lol

          • Dave Williams

            I sure hope that you never are requested to be on a jury. The person will be guilty based on what the prosecution states. Produce the video and let the voters decide. Not that difficult of a request.

          • Don Rhodes

            Blah blah blah, Dave.

          • Steve

            This is not a trial. This is a situation where some allegations have come up that may never be “proven”, but they are serious enough and have enough of an air of reality to them that the public expects a clear, transparent, unequivocal response. You seem to think the mayor gave that. Many people, including those with no axe to grind against the mayor, disagree.

          • Steve

            But I’ll ask again: do you really not see the difference between “I don’t smoke crack” and “I have never smoked crack”?

          • Dave Williams

            The mayor said he did not smoke crack cocaine. That means he does not smoke it. Pretty clear. It is a definate answer.

          • Steve

            So you won’t answer a simple question, either.

          • Dave Williams

            Steve, spin it any way you want to convince yourself. He addressed the issue, the onus is now on the media to support their claims. If this was a legal issue, Ford would be exonerated as the hearsay defence has not been valid since the 1700′s.

          • Steve

            Or, how about this, Dave: do you really not see the difference between “I don’t smoke crack” and “I have never smoked crack”?

          • Dave Williams

            Steve they are both definate answers. I agree that the are equal in weight.

          • Steve

            Thank you. That tells me all I need to know about where you are coming from on this.

          • http://twitter.com/candleflame3 PlantinMoretus

            But he DID smoke it in the past.

          • Steve

            Dave seems to think that saying “I don’t” means “I never have”.

          • Dave Williams

            Which planet are you on? He stated he did not smoke it. That implies past and present tense.

          • http://twitter.com/candleflame3 PlantinMoretus

            Um, that’s not how the English language works.

            E.g. Jerry Sandusky can claim he does not molest young boys.

          • Dave Williams

            The difference in the Sandusky case, there was evidence against him. In mayor Fords defence, it is all hearsay.

          • http://twitter.com/candleflame3 PlantinMoretus

            In the Sandusky case, it was all oral testimony of eyewitnesses. You can be sure that the Star reporters would stick to their story in court, so it’s essentially the same evidence.

            Try again.

          • Dave Williams

            It is sick that you even attempted to draw a parallel between a sexual predator and a unsubstanciated allegation of an inncocent man. Low class.

          • http://twitter.com/candleflame3 PlantinMoretus

            Same quality of evidence in both cases.

          • Dave Williams

            Not even going to justify your comment, dude you are in serious need of a couch.

          • Steve

            Plant’s point was this: the man that most people agree was a sexual predator was found guilty based on oral testimony, with no hard evidence such as a video. While it was more direct (i.e. “this guy did this to me”) than what the reporters have on Ford (i.e. “I saw a video of this being done”), it was nonetheless the word of what somebody says they saw or experienced. It’s quite common for convictions in criminal court to be based on oral testimony alone with no physical evidence.

            For Rob Ford, there would never be a prosecution, let a lone a conviction, based on what the reporters saw alone, as it’s too indirect. But again, this is not a courtroom. This is the “court” of public opinion. An unproven but plausible story has surfaced which, if true, puts the mayor’s judgment in serious question. He has issued a carefully crafted statement which does not deny the allegations unequivocally, which suggests that there is truth to them. The voters can decide how they feel about that.

          • Dave Williams

            Sad, justifying it is just as bad.

          • Steve

            Well, it does “imply” that — which is probably why the mayor said it that way, so that his supporters might have something to hang their hats on. But it implies without actually commiting to it clearly. With all the time and effort that went into the wording, and his refusal to take a single question to clarify, this imprecision had to be intentional.

            I was a pack a day smoker for 20 years until I quit a year ago. If somebody says they saw a video of me smoking from two years ago, I can honestly say “I do not smoke cigarettes, nor am I am addicted to cigarettes.” Does that imply I never did? Maybe if you want it to.

          • Testu

            Playing semantic silly-buggers doesn’t really make any sense either though. There is no situation where a technically accurate but misleading denial is better than outright stating “I do not and have never taken crack cocaine and the alleged video is a fabrication”. If the video comes out (and the allegations are true) he’s toast either way, very specific wording in his denial won’t help him any.

            I honestly have the feeling he either wrote the denial himself or he doesn’t have any competent media advisers left.

          • Steve

            I thought about that point, too, Testu. All I can figure is he’s thinking that if it comes out, he can say, “I did it once and it was wrong, but I’m not an addict and it doesn’t affect the job I do. And by the way, I never lied to you.”

          • Testu

            Yeah, that makes a certain amount of sense. It’d only work on the core, dyed-in-the-wool, Ford supporters but by that point they’re the only ones who would be listening to him.

          • Imelda Marcos

            Well, with the media following him around now the way they are, I’d suspect he never WILL smoke crack ever in the future, lol.

          • Dave Williams

            The media has followed him for years, very strange that they have never seen him in the vicinity of a crack house.

          • Steve

            Right, because they have had someone tailing him 24-7 ever since he’s been in office. Do you have any idea what’s involved in that?

          • Steveinto

            Smart people know that less then 50% does not equal a landslide. Smart people also know he deviated from much of his mandate.

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            “or anything else”

            He was busted for pot in Florida.

          • ACMEsalesrep

            No, he didn’t. He skirted around them, and only made public comments after Gawker reported that they’d lost contact with the person selling the video. Had he addressed the issue before that, he might have some credibility. As it is, he seems only to have grown bold once it appeared the video might not come out.

          • MrKanyo

            Meticulous political record? You mean outsourcing garbage collection in the west end? or cancelling that silly transit city plan? or creating 10,000 good paying union jobs with a new casino entertainment complex? or the bag tax cancellation? or fixing the gardner? or building a subway to scarborough? Or donating equipment to football programs?

          • andrew97

            Great idea, Dave. The mayor should keep his mouth shut about his crack habit. Which is what he did. And the story totally went away. Nobody is talking about the mayor smoking crack. We are not having this conversation right now.

            Anyhow, you’re a lot of fun, but it’s a nice day outside, and like I said we’re not even talking. So, see ya.

          • Dave Williams

            How insightful, way to add your two cents.

          • Nilan25

            Hey Dave Williams,
            If all these accusations are slanderous and untrue why aren’t the Fords suing? Knowing their natural aggressive nature, I would think they would want to clear their name.

      • gloomygrrl

        The Star created the story? Then how exactly did an American website unaffiliated with The Toronto Star also see it and report on it before them. The Star knew about it since May 3rd, and didn’t report on it until after the Gawker story ran, because Gawker forced their hand. They had been sitting on a massive scoop, and once Gawker blew the lid off of it they had to jump into the fray.

        • Dave Williams

          The Star had to let the US tabloid “break” the story. That way they could distance themselves from any legal issues down the road. Do you not find it particulary strange that The Star released their story a mere hours after Gawker released their version? It was a good ploy by the Star, but they knew that a video did not exist and now they can also state that they had no intention of buying it and be free of any justification on it. This is a clear case of journalistic fraud unless the Star can validate its claims.

          • gloomygrrl

            The US tabloid also claims that they had seen the video for themselves, so how exactly would Gawker have anything to report on if a video didn’t exist? What you’re suggesting is that the Star was just sitting back, waiting for another news organization to report on a fictitious video! Either a video exists and 2 separate organizations saw it and reported on it or it doesn’t, and somehow the Star convinced Gawker (a US tabloid website with no reason to meddle in Toronto politics) to lie about a fake video to screw over the Fords. Take off your tin foil hat for a moment and think about what you’re saying.

          • Dave Williams

            So collusion and journalistic fraud have never occurred? Quit believing every tabloid story and try to follow a publication that can factually back their stories.

          • gloomygrrl

            It certainly has, but Gawker has ZERO reason to work with the Toronto Star on anything. What exactly would their motivation be for making up a story about the Fords?

          • Dave Williams

            Gloomy, the Gawker site gets about 30% of their traffic from Canada. The more views the more they can charge for advertising. It comes down to money. The Star is down 16% of their year to year advertising revenue, crap stories on Rob Ford bring readers to their site and sell papers. Honey, follow the dollar and you will find a reason.

          • gloomygrrl

            Gawker is worth $300 million “honey”, so I think they were doing just fine before the Rob Ford story broke. Nice try.

          • Imelda Marcos

            You’re funny.

          • Dave Williams

            Nice well thought out reply.

          • vampchick21

            You might want to adjust the fit of your tinfoil hat.

          • Imelda Marcos

            The Star (and Gawker) don’t have to “validate their claims”. They are reporters, they are reporting on something they did (they met with drug dealers) and something they saw (they saw a video of the Mayor of Toronto, smoking something that made him extremely high, from something that looked like a crack pipe. The end.

          • Guest

            Obvious troll is obvious.

      • gloomygrrl

        Also, don’t you think if the Fords paid for the video they would demand that all other copies be destroyed? Even the most simple minded blackmailee would insist on that.

        • Dave Williams

          Do you think that if there were other copies that the extortionists would actually tell the Fords that they have destroyed all copies? Would the Fords even know how many copies were made? Are you sure that the drug dealers would follow such a demand? These are very trustworthy people, you must associate with many if you know how they think.

          • gloomygrrl

            I personally don’t know how drug dealers think, but I’m sure Doug does so I’d imagine he’d have taken that into consideration.

          • Dave Williams

            So you do not know how your drug dealer thinks? PS There is no way that Gawker is worth $300 million that would have been the stock purchase of the century if its worth climbed that high so fast..

          • Steve

            Per Wikipedia, with a source cited: “In 2009, the corporation was estimated to be worth $300 million, with $60 million in advertising revenues and more than $30 million in operating profit”

          • Dave Williams

            Wikipedia, is not driven on fact. Anyone could adjust any story.

          • Steve

            Or $100 million. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2010/10/11/huffpo-vs-gawker-which-is-worth-more/
            I think her point was, they don’t need to make up stories about Rob Ford to make money.

          • Don Rhodes

            I saw that as well. Keep in mind that article is from 2010.

          • gloomygrrl

            I think we were probably typing at the same time :^)

          • gloomygrrl

            Thanks Steve! I was just about to point that link.

          • exeng

            Can you do one to show us?

          • http://www.MysteryHistory.TV/ Julius James III

            The wikipedia article is actually sourced based on a speculation from another blog called 24/7 Wallstreet, and that was their estimate of Gawkers operation. No real numbers are used and is pure speculation from 24/7 Wallstreet bloggers. Entirely estimated as the article says itself at the beginning of it. The article even says its worth more than HuffPost which is over 100 points closer to being #1 on Alexa rankings.

            Regardless, Gawker is tabloid journalism, sensationalizing every headline and article it can to gain viewers. Its a business based on story telling speculation and rumors with wild headlines, & it appears to be a very good business for them.

            Putting ego’s aside on all fronts from Fords, to our own, to councils, to everyone’s.

            The Mayor, as big of an embarrassment as he may be to some of us, has actually ran *pun intended* true on his campaign platform to cut & save as opposed to previous administrations of tax and spend. Hate him (many if not all of Torontoist commentators seem to) or love him (not so many here do, 0 in fact) he has done what he campaigned to do.

            If anything, without a video coming forward, which seems highly *pun intended, nobody cares, I know* likely, these stories may even lend him sympathy and more votes in the next election.

          • gloomygrrl

            I don’t have a drug dealer as I don’t use any drug beside coffee (but nice of you to try and slip in an accusation there), and if you want to know how much Gawker is worth you can look for yourself on their wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media

          • Dave Williams

            Hopefully you can read Forbes magazine someday and not reference wikipedia as wikipedia is a good resouce, but not accurate in many ways. PS you answered your drug accusation as Rob Ford did, but somehow he is guilty, but you are innocent. Do I sence a double standard?

          • Imelda Marcos

            Wikipedia is not strictly speaking a “resource”, it is a gathering of resources. See that place down at the bottom where it says “References”? – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media#References – THAT’s where you go for the actual info, to decide the merits or non-merits of an essay.

          • Dave Williams

            Attempt to hand in a paper at the U of T referencing wikipedia. You would have to transfer of possibly be laughed out of the school.

          • Imelda Marcos

            Like I said, Wikipedia is not a resource. The resources are at the bottom of the essays.

          • Dave Williams

            I apoligize, you did say you are an avid Gawker reader. That speaks for itself.

          • Imelda Marcos

            I didn’t use the word “avid” anywhere. No wonder the Ford brothers’ novel use of English works with you.

          • Imelda Marcos

            All I know is, I can’t wait to see it. I believe the reporters who said they have seen it. I’ve been reading gawker.com for years, and I believe John Cook as well. :p

          • Dave Williams

            I see that is all you know. But try to bring some level of class to the discussion.

          • https://paul.kishimoto.name/ Paul Kishimoto

            —Starts with the ad hominem “you must associated with many [drug dealers]”
            —”bring some level of class to the ‘discussion’.”

            Right.

      • tyrannosaurus_rek

        “The Star created the story”

        Memo to Ford Nation (and paid astroturfers): The Star did not break the story, Gawker did.

        • Dave Williams

          If you believe that Gawker created the story, you are on better crack than the stuff they claimed Rob Ford was on. They released the story, but it was created by the Star.

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            Prove it. Where’s the evidence? Show us a video of the conspiracy being hatched.

          • vampchick21

            For that to happen, brain surgeons have to create technology to show us our thoughts or the thoughts of other.

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            Dave here is all about evidence, so I’d like him to produce evidence – I suggested video, but any sort of documentation will do – of this Star/Gawker conspiracy he insists exists.

          • vampchick21

            You’ll be waiting a while is all I’m saying.

          • Dave Williams

            The evidence would be the original phathom video that this story was fabricated on.
            Have your mighty Star actually back up a story, this yellow journalism is and has been weak from the start.

          • vampchick21

            You know, there is excellent therapy out there for whatever it is you are suffering from. You might want to stop in at CAMH and see what’s avaliable to you.

          • Dave Williams

            I suppose that is where you are residing. A high school student would fail if they submitted such a weak report.

      • ACMEsalesrep

        Gawker broke the story, not the Star.

      • Doug Earl

        Let’s not go down the road of “the video never existed”. It existed. Two Toronto Star reporters saw it. The Gawker guy saw it. Contrary to idiotic belief, reporters don’t just make things up. If you believe they do, they you know nothing about how journalism works. So there was a video. Not Rob Ford, after a week of hangdog silence, finally says “No such video exists.” Draw your own conclusion, but mine is that the Fords bought the video, or beat it out of whoever had it, and have subsequently destroyed it. If the video didn’t exist yesterday, it didn’t exist a week ago, but it’s only yesterday that the mayor made that claim, with a very different demeanour than he has been showing all week.

    • https://paul.kishimoto.name/ Paul Kishimoto

      That was my first thought. Here’s another: Ford had the police kick people off two TTC buses so they could be used by his (former) football team. He also has a way of contacting his crack dealer. Either the dealer or someone close to him shot the video. So, couldn’t he just ring up his dealer and say, “I will send the police to your front door unless you delete the video”?

      Alternately, he could have used the same threat to get a discount on the $200,000 price that Gawker was facing.

    • Dave Williams

      It would be simple for this theory to be destroyed as the government monitors any wire transfers or withdrawls of over $10,000 to ensure the cash is not used for crime. Unless Ford received a huge discount this theory is moot.

      • asdf

        hahaha, so your saying no one has ever paid cash for anything over $10k? You think drug dealers accept wire transfers? Foolish. The theory is hardly “destroyed” by your weak argument.

        • Dave Williams

          Weak? No video ever existed, the Star has fabricated issue after issue, if they validate this claim I will consider myself wrong. But it is hard to purchase a video that never existed.

          • asdf

            Video or no video, your argument in the statement above is still weak. It’s OK to admit it. I can admit I don’t know if a video exists or not but I choose to believe the hearsay of 3 people who have supposedly seen “it” versus Rob Ford, who’s family members unequivocally have had past issues with violence and crime related to drugs.

  • mlwjones

    “The reason he has never heard Doug Ford’s name is that Doug Ford never [dealt hashish].”

    Never, ever trust someone who refers to themselves in the third person.

    • http://twitter.com/Sabocat Sabocat

      Sabocat agrees with this statement.

    • The Rock

      If you smell what the rock is cooking?

  • Imelda Marcos

    I’ve never listened to this show before, on purpose, and all I’ve got to say is Holy Crap. I had no idea. The righteousness-fueled stream of consciousness, the innuendo, the whining, the bragging, the slander (Doug said right out loud that a Toronto councilor used illegal funds for his campaign? I can’t wait until tomorrow). Holy Crap.

    • http://twitter.com/candleflame3 PlantinMoretus

      It was my first time too. They might as well just have 69ed each other, what with all the mutual stroking going on.

      • Don Rhodes

        They gotta stroke their ego’s somewhere… lol
        All jokes aside, today was the first time I listened as well.. If this is the kind of show that goes on every week, all I have to say is WTF. They way Doug and Rob behave is BEYOND embarrassing.

        • Imelda Marcos

          Just to clarify, I didn’t listen, I just read this recap (thank you, Torontoist!). I can. not. bear. to listen to either Ford brother’s incoherent, boastful ramblings.

      • Imelda Marcos

        I’m glad you said it first!

        • Dave Williams

          Both of you are sick.

          • Don Rhodes

            Is that all you have left Dave? Insults for people who don’t share your point of view?

          • Dave Williams

            Don, I am open to a good debate, but when a person brings a convicted pedophile into a debate, or even suggest an incestuous comment because that is the only way they can express themselves. The debate ends. I amy not agree with some points, but these two examples are definatley a low way of making a point.

          • Imelda Marcos

            Convicted pedophile? What are you talking about?

      • walrusaurus

        Oh god. It will take all the bleach in the universe to erase that image from my brain.

    • Testu

      I’m pretty sure this is exactly the reason Rob’s former press secretary
      is trying to distance herself from him now
      (http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/25/whos-advising-him ). I’d be
      surprised if we don’t see more of this sort of thing from former staff
      of the Fords. Anything to do with these guys is going to be a resume
      stain for PR or Comms people.

  • sdvdsf

    Brilliant!

  • Mr universe

    2 biggest, most repulsive maggots In the media;
    Rob Ford and Doug Ford

  • Testu

    For someone with provincial level political ambitions and an eye on the lead seat in the PC party, Doug Ford sure is taking every opportunity to antagonize the press and potential campaign contributors (the fabled “moneyed elites”) rather than address the allegations against him.

    It’s sort of like he has no clue what he’s doing and hasn’t even considered that there might be future consequences because of what he’s saying.

    • https://paul.kishimoto.name/ Paul Kishimoto

      “Sort of like”?

      • Testu

        Weasel words. I’d hate to be caught off guard by a masterstroke of political manoeuvring by Doug Ford!

        Alternately, I was being diplomatic.

  • Violet

    Did he say that it doesn’t exist because he had someone buy and destroy it for him?? That is the ONLY reason I believe that it doesn’t exist anymore!

  • Steve Fleck

    Did not listen today, nor have I actively seeked it out in the past. However, A few weeks ago by chance stumbled on the Ford’s 1010 show and listened for about 20 minutes. I was shocked at the complete and total incoherence of it all. Nothing they said or talked about made any sense. David Hains weekly follow-up and fact-check, confirms that.

    The Mayor was talking to a caller, who was having power outage problems in their neighborhood. The Mayor said to the caller that the CEO of OPG was a “good friend of mine”, and he(the Mayor) would get him to call(the caller) about this right away! Who believes this nonsense??

    • Testu

      People who believe that the mayor’s job is retail-level customer service rather than building political consensus to achieve his/her vision for the city.

      People who are low info voters who don’t understand the function or operation of the municipal system and only follow local politics as far as cheering for their “team”.

      People who voted for Rob Ford.

      • Steve Fleck

        Exactly.

        The Mayor goes on and on about all these phone calls – in and out that he makes all day, everyday – acting like some form of Call Center for the city. While I’ll admit it’s an honorable pursuit, It raises some obvious questions/issues:

        1. Why is the Mayor of the 4th Largest city in North America, spending so much time on this activity? Is this part of his job description/role? Is this what Mayor Bloomberg and Mayor Emmanual, spend much of their days doing?

        2. That’s assuming that all these calls are being made! There is suspicion about what the Mayor is doing during the significant amount of time he is spending away from City Hall during work hours. If the Mayor is spending all that time on the phone, perhaps he could share with us the phone records, to put this suspicion to rest?

        3. Finally, even if the Mayor is making all this contact with constituents and citizens, if the content/outcome of those calls, is like the example I previously stated from his radio show, then it’s next to useless! The CEO of OPG, is not calling people about power outages!

        To your second point, it’s clear, that many people and in particular Ford supporters have a massive misunderstanding of the way the Mayor in Toronto needs to operate given the physical set-up at city hall. The Mayor needs to be a able to build consensus, negotiate and mediate, meet people half-way, to give and take, to step back and see the bigger issue and the greater gains, to put personal agendas aside, and so on . . . Note that the Mayor is the polar opposite of that sort of person. While he may be “popular” amongst his supporters, he’s been terrible, at the actual role, that he needs to play at city hall, and that’s why other than a few minor accomplishments, on the bigger issues, he’s been an abject failure, and will never be able to fulfill, the real role and job description of Mayor of Toronto.

  • PabloYYZ

    Newstalk1010 should be ashamed for calling this radio show “The City” –
    it sounded more like “Ford-Pravda”. Anyone else have suggestions on a new name?

  • Michael Irvine

    Newstalk 1010 is an enabler.

  • TD2323

    This was great. I was indignant at pretty much every point you mentioned. Thanks for this. One thing to add is that I’m pretty sure Doug Ford called the Pam caller a racist. THE CALLER.

    • RALPH

      not sure about Douglas, but Rob sure did.

      quote:

      “Its sad that she’s a racist.”

      cool, slandering a caller.

      what planet are these guys on?

  • ACMEsalesrep

    It was Nick Kouvalis who hired someone on Rob Ford’s behalf to call John Tory’s show and attack him before he could enter the race against Ford, wasn’t it? Though with him gone, I can’t imagine the Fords would eeeeever think of doing the same thing themselves.

  • LG

    I hear that Etobicoke high school football players have their hands on an interesting video…

  • Jing Li

    Tsk tsk tsk… you missed something… 1:35 Doug announces that 24 people voted “against jobs” and then Rob proceeded to name off 25 Councillors. Good math.

  • Jing Li

    Another miss. 1:56 – Caller Joe. Doug and Rob both insinuate that Rob does more for the school than the teachers do. “They’re all burning out of that parking lot at 3:30pm. You’re their all evening.”