The view from here

Rob Ford - ignoramus or idot savant?

Neither, and both. Start with the basics. He was found to have been in conflict of interest over using official stationary to solicit donations for his football charity. Let us assume he simply thought he was using his charm, personality, and good looks to encourage people he met, who probably had money to spare, to give some of it to a cause dear to Rob's heart. So far, so simple. But, how did the 'johns' see the pitch? As one journo has it, either stiff up and be in a preferred bidder situation for future conracts, or don't, and always wonder if you don't get the contract because you were light in the favour department.

In any case, he was rightly called on it and told to cease and desist. Also to return the money to the donors. Apparently this was not possible, or not completely possible (apparently some money sloshed its way back to Woodbine Racetrack) and council decreed that Rob, himself, had to pay it back. Here there would be a glimmer of hope for the Ford man - perhaps a hint of remorse, a move to compromise, an offer to pay the money to a charity of Council's choice. A bit of give and take and everyone is not unhappy. Mr Ford might even get a bit of grudging respect. But no, he stalls and prevaricates until he is top dog, big cahoona, large cheese when he can bring the issue back to a place where he has some clout and ability to smother it in gravy. OK, he is the boss, it is really a point of principle, and if council has no principles who would be surprised? I give him a bit of a break, he can speak to council to argue why he should not have to pay back the money. But why, in the name of decency, did he have to cast a vote? Had he left council after his empassioned plea for clemency and let his sycophants smarm there way to gain his benifience, there would be little the world could do about it.

That vote is what should bring him down. Along with his delight in indicating that he had no idea what conflict of interest meant, other than that he had been associated with politics since he was knee-high to a duung heap and therefore knew instinctively how to act. What does that mean? That he was incapable of acting dishonestly? That he expected, and trusted, underlings to tell him he was out of line? Can you imagine how he would react to an underling suggesting anything of the sort? Said underlings career would be short. Well, accept this at face value. An underling (the ethics commish) says he was in conflict. Therefore, by Fordian logic, he should accept and comply with ruling. But no, without any inkling of the rules, he argues he did nothing worng and refuses to take his medicine. Consider, for a moment, the import of casting a vote. It means that you think that, in the event of a tie, your opinion is right. How would that have looked in the court of public opinion? In the light of common ethical principles?

Consider also a moment the consequences of an argument that we voted for the man, we knew what he was like - a common man with common values just like ours - and we should allow him to call it as he sees it. If he says there was no conflict of interest and all is above board. If he claims he would not allow a donation to bias his judgement and his ability to get the best for the City of Toronto. Should we not just say 'Yes Rob, works for me.'? As do his supporters in Ford nation, vociferously. Well say I, we voted in Mr Miller, we knew what he was like, and we say 'Yes Mr Miller, works for me.' And we cannot complain about that, can we? Logic and Right Wingers just cannot co-exist can they?

Goodbye, Mr ford. Not adios, just goodbye. Seven yeasr out of public office should maybe be long enough.