mackaycartoons

Graeme MacKay's Editorial Cartoon Archive

  • Archives
  • Kings & Queens
  • Prime Ministers
  • Sharing
  • Special Features
  • The Boutique
  • Who?
  • Young Doug Ford
  • Presidents

endorsement

Thursday July 28, 2022

July 28, 2022 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday July 28, 2022

Stephen Harper says Pierre Poilievre has the best chance to win the next federal election

May 18, 2022

Former prime minister Stephen Harper says Pierre Poilievre is the Conservative leadership candidate with the best shot at leading the party to victory in the next federal election.

Harper’s declaration came in a Monday evening video posted to Facebook and Twitter, in which he described Poilievre’s ability to galvanize support from new members as a critical ingredient for success.

“That’s how we win the next federal election, and in my opinion, Pierre has made by far the strongest case,” Harper said.

Poilievre’s campaign claims to have signed up more than 300,000 members to vote in the leadership race.

Posted in: Canada Tagged: 2022-24, Canada, Conservative, endorsement, leadership, Pierre Poilievre, puppet, Stephen Harper, ventriloquist

Thursday October 17, 2019

October 24, 2019 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday October 17, 2019

Barack Obama tweets endorsement of Justin Trudeau

Former president Barack Obama has tweeted an endorsement of Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and says he hopes Canadians give Trudeau “another term” in office.

March 11, 2016

“I was proud to work with Justin Trudeau as President,” Obama wrote on Wednesday afternoon. “He’s a hard-working, effective leader who takes on big issues like climate change. The world needs his progressive leadership now, and I hope our neighbors to the north support him for another term.”

The endorsement of a former American president is a rare — and possibly unprecedented — event in Canadian politics. But this is the second time Obama has spoken up to endorse an international leader since he left office. In May of 2017, Obama recorded a video in which he endorsed Emmanuel Macron for the French presidency.

I was proud to work with Justin Trudeau as President. He’s a hard-working, effective leader who takes on big issues like climate change. The world needs his progressive leadership now, and I hope our neighbors to the north support him for another term.

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) October 16, 2019

While it remains to be seen what impact, if any, Obama’s endorsement might have on the Canadian electorate, the Liberal party has already touted his tweet to supporters in a fundraising appeal that was sent out on Wednesday afternoon.

March 9, 2016

At a campaign stop in Quebec Wednesday, Trudeau didn’t answer a question about whether he or his team sought out the endorsement, saying only, “I appreciate the kind words and I’m working hard to keep our progress going.”

Asked about the Obama tweet as he campaigned in Montreal, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said he had a lot of respect for Obama but said “in this respect he’s wrong.”

“Mr. Trudeau has really let down people and consistently chosen to help out the powerful and the wealthy over Canadians,” Singh said, replying “no” when asked whether he thought Obama’s move would hurt the NDP campaign.

Hamilton Spectator Endorsement

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer was also asked about the endorsement during a campaign stop in Ancaster, Ont.

“I’ve got millions of Canadians like the ones here tonight behind me. I’m not very interested in what former foreign leaders are saying,” Scheer said. “I’m just focused on finishing this election strong and putting together and putting forward my plan to help Canadians get ahead.”

Asked whether he thought Obama’s tweet was appropriate, he said “I’ll let Canadians be the judge of that,” adding he wouldn’t speculate on why Obama made the endorsement. (CBC News) 

Hamilton Spectator Endorsement 

 

Posted in: Canada Tagged: #elxn2019, 2019-36, Andrew Scheer, Canada, Elizabeth May, endorsement, Jagmeet Singh, Justin Trudeau, Maxime Bernier, Yves-François Blanchet

Thursday June 9, 2016

June 8, 2016 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Thursday June 9, 2016 Paul Ryan stresses party unity in GOP meeting House Speaker Paul Ryan reiterated his support Wednesday for Donald Trump at a closed door meeting with House Republicans and asked his colleagues to unite behind the presumptive Republican nominee, according to several members who attended the session. Ryan's backing of Trump comes a day after he blasted the businessman's remarks about a federal judge as a "textbook definition of a racist comment.Ó Trumps comments have sparked a fury on Capitol Hill where many Republicans worry that Trump's racially tinged criticism of Judge Gonzalo Curiel could ultimately hurt down-ballot GOP candidates competing in congressional races this year. Though Ryan didn't back away from his endorsement, he said he would continue to speak out when he believed the billionaire businessman makes inappropriate statements. Ryan spokesman said the speaker did not "urge" the party to fall in line behind Trump but stressed the importance of unity. Ryan "just reaffirmed his disagreement with the comment, respecting that the people have elected Donald Trump as our Republican nominee and what we're going to do is we're going to use our position in a positive way to help America out," said Rep. Tom Reed, R-N.Y. Trump tried to quell some of the outrage on Tuesday, releasing a statement saying his past remarks had been misconstrued, and Trump avoided the topic all together during a speech he gave later that evening. Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the largest conservative group in Congress, said Trump needs to "quit spending time bashing judges." He will vote for Trump, he said, but, "I don't endorse people that bash judges -- based on his ethnic heritage.Ó (Source: CNN)Êhttp://www.cnn.com/2016/06/08/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-unity/index.html USA, Donald Trump, conservatives, racism, kkk, GOP, republican, hillary clinton,

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday June 9, 2016

Paul Ryan stresses party unity in GOP meeting

House Speaker Paul Ryan reiterated his support Wednesday for Donald Trump at a closed door meeting with House Republicans and asked his colleagues to unite behind the presumptive Republican nominee, according to several members who attended the session.

Ryan’s backing of Trump comes a day after he blasted the businessman’s remarks about a federal judge as a “textbook definition of a racist comment.”

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Saturday June 4, 2016 Hillary Clinton's evisceration of Donald Trump There's a new Hillary Clinton in town. A speech that was billed as a major foreign policy address instead unfolded as a savage, mocking evisceration of Donald Trump Thursday as the former secretary of state adopted an aggressive new campaign persona designed to repel the unpredictable challenge posed by the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. In one of the most striking speeches of her political career, Clinton dispensed with the sober diplo-speak that has characterized her previous national security addresses and went straight for the jugular, unleashing a series of biting attacks on Trump. In the spirit of President Lyndon Johnson's notorious "Daisy" nuclear blast ad targeting Barry Goldwater's temperament in 1964, Clinton warned that Trump should not be let anywhere near the nuclear codes because he could start a war when somebody "got under his very thin skin." "He's not just unprepared -- he's temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said during the speech in San Diego, California, days before Tuesday's primary in the Golden State effectively concludes the primary season and confirms her as the presumptive Democratic nominee over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Trump fired back while speaking at a rally in San Jose, California, Thursday night. "I watched Hillary today and it was pathetic. It was so sad to watch," Trump said, calling it a "political speech" that had nothing to do with foreign policy. "It was a pretty pathetic deal," he added. The speech marked a significant moment in Clinton's campaign, as it was the first real signal of the tactics and attitude she will use to take on Trump and offered a preview of what are likely to be fierce clashes between the rivals at a trio of presidential debates later in the year. It demonstrated the kind o

June 4, 2016

Trumps comments have sparked a fury on Capitol Hill where many Republicans worry that Trump’s racially tinged criticism of Judge Gonzalo Curiel could ultimately hurt down-ballot GOP candidates competing in congressional races this year.

Though Ryan didn’t back away from his endorsement, he said he would continue to speak out when he believed the billionaire businessman makes inappropriate statements.

Ryan spokesman said the speaker did not “urge” the party to fall in line behind Trump but stressed the importance of unity.

Ryan “just reaffirmed his disagreement with the comment, respecting that the people have elected Donald Trump as our Republican nominee and what we’re going to do is we’re going to use our position in a positive way to help America out,” said Rep. Tom Reed, R-N.Y.

Trump tried to quell some of the outrage on Tuesday, releasing a statement saying his past remarks had been misconstrued, and Trump avoided the topic all together during a speech he gave later that evening.

Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the largest conservative group in Congress, said Trump needs to “quit spending time bashing judges.” He will vote for Trump, he said, but, “I don’t endorse people that bash judges — based on his ethnic heritage.” (Source: CNN)

 

Posted in: USA Tagged: conservatives, Donald Trump, election, endorsement, establishment, GOP, hazmat, Hillary Clinton, kkk, racism, Republican, USA

October 9, 2007

October 9, 2007 by Graeme MacKay

The above cartoon was featured, again, on CBC Radio Canada over the weekend (wait for the 15 second ad to complete and watch the two minute clip where the lovely and sophisticated Sophie-Helene Lebeuf explains my cartoon en francais.)

It’s the eve before voting day in Ontario and over the weekend my paper issued its endorsement of the Liberal Party. Ever wonder who the Spectator has endorsed in past 3 Provincial elections? No? Well I’m going to tell you anyway — Liberal — with the exception of 1999, when we couldn’t decide who to endorse. I say ‘we’ because I’ve been there for the 1999 and 2003 ones. I was out of town for the most recent one. If you’re wondering why the Spec even bothers to endorse it was explained by editor-in-chief David Estok in the Saturday issue.

Ever wonder what we said in past endorsements? No? Well, here they are anyway (without paragraphs).

Despite weaknesses, Liberal platform is the better way to go Election 2003: Voters fed up with confrontation
September 30, 2003

We cannot, in all good conscience, offer unqualified support for the platforms of the main provincial parties seeking to form the next government of Ontario. And we are hardly dazzled by their respective leaders. But on balance we think the package offered by the Liberal Party of Ontario is the better way to go. There are certainly some weaknesses in the Liberal scheme but more on those later. We like their overall philosophy of “trying to live within our means,” and we find Dalton McGuinty’s message that a Liberal government will not cut taxes but won’t raise them either refreshingly direct. Frankly, we think the Conservatives are fudging the provincial debt numbers. And while McGuinty continues to boast that all Liberal promises will be fulfilled by 2007, which we doubt, we are pleased to hear him being responsible enough to suggest some of the big-ticket items in the Liberal plan, like hiring 5,400 new teachers, may have to be “phased in” over a longer period of time. The Liberals have talked about expanding home care, hiring more foreign-trained doctors and killing such callous programs as life-long bans on collecting welfare for a first offence. These things are cheap and should happen. They are fuzzy on hydro, and that worries us, and they escaped a frank discussion of their soapy stand on amalgamation by ducking the paper’s editorial board. We think Ontarians are fed up with the divisive and confrontational politics of these last eight years and want relief from battling teachers, nurses, civil servants and the homeless. Consequently, we think the Liberals have a good shot at healing some wounds while not completely surrendering to pressure groups. Taxes: Yes, we are tempted by the tax cuts being offered by Ernie Eves and the Tories, but we understand that bait comes with a hook. A decrease in provincial taxes over the past eight years also led to the downloading of provincial social services which has driven up municipal taxes and left our social safety net in tatters. We are not interested in more of the same. When it comes to the New Democratic Party, we are frankly appalled at their proposal to raise corporate taxes — rolling back Tory tax cuts to 1998 levels is how they artfully sell it. That’s simply regressive and will undo the business tax reductions Hamilton has been struggling to provide. The Liberals have promised not to raise taxes. We can live with that. Health care: Communities such as Hamilton have been reeling under Tory health-care policies that meant disaster for patients and health-care workers alike. Overcrowding, understaffing and long waits for treatment are the norm. That’s simply unacceptable. We view the Liberals’ integrated strategy as the best remedy for our beleaguered health-care system. That strategy addresses stable multi-year funding; overcrowding in emergency rooms; unrealistic limits on home care; unacceptable waiting times for cardiac care, cancer care, total joint replacements and diagnostic scans; and the high, unfulfilled demand for family physicians. Education: We also believe McGuinty’s Liberals have the best shot at fixing the public school system, which has been ground down since the Mike Harris government took over education funding from the individual school boards. The Liberals have vowed to adopt the report of former University of Guelph president Mordechai Rozanski, who urged $2.1 billion be reinvested in public education. We like the Liberal plan to drop the Tories’ private school tax credit and education property tax break for seniors. Taking money out of the public system won’t fix it. The Liberals don’t plan to ban teacher strikes, as the Tories have promised. But we believe the Tory plan would only worsen the already dysfunctional relationship between teachers and the province. We like the Liberal plan to hire 5,400 new teachers and cap class size at 20 for JK to Grade 3, although we worry about what it will cost to provide physical space to accommodate these changes. We agree with the Liberals’ approach to university tuition fees, which would be frozen for two years, and their plan to place deregulated programs under government control again to reduce costs. We think the NDP plan to abolish tuition within 10 years is simply pie in the sky. Hydro and automobile insurance are hot-button issues for voters, who have been staggered by skyrocketing power bills and exponentially-increasing car insurance rates. Both are highly complex issues for which easy fixes are impossible. Car insurance: All three parties have tried to find solutions to the car insurance issue, with the NDP pushing for a public scheme similar to those in British Columbia and Manitoba. We’re not so sure that’s even doable, although we like the idea enough to dare the Liberals to think about it. We believe the Liberals’ immediate rate freeze, average 10 per cent rate reduction and customized policies are a good start in attacking the issue. Hydro: There is no easy way out of the hydro situation, even though the NDP seems to believe public power is the answer. The Liberals have adopted a more measured approach, with a rate cap until 2006 and a plan to shut down coal-burning plants by 2007.

* * * * * *

THE HARRIS YEARS: A ROOKIE TERM REPORT CARD
May, 29 1999

Still no endorsement. We remain sadly unimpressed by this election campaign. Name-calling, negative advertising and cynical strategizing have supplanted meaningful debate and discussion. To date, no party has proven itself worthy of the sacred trust Ontarians bestow through their vote. We continue to hope that, against all odds, in the few days remaining, one of the men who would be premier will experience an ethical epiphany and demonstrate real leadership. Failing that, we’ll join the growing multitude of voters on June 3, holding our noses all the way to the ballot box and supporting our personal lesser-of-evils choice. Meanwhile, we offer our subjective assessment of the last four years under the Mike Harris government. Please note, this is our take on the term prior to the election. For this campaign, we grade all the players the same: F. TAXES: Say what you want about the Harris agenda, on matters of taxation the Tories have been as good as their word. They pledged a 30 per cent cut on average, and they delivered. They promised to replace an arcane property tax system, and they did so with market value assessment. They lose marks for shoddy implementation and for not moving fast or far enough on business taxes. But we have to credit this government for tackling thorny tax issues their predecessors wouldn’t touch. Grade: A. – ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT: Lower taxes have contributed to job growth, although not to the extent Mike Harris would have us believe. Ontario’s growth rate is twice the rest of Canada and unemployment, at 6.4 per cent, is well below the national average of 7.8 per cent. Tax cuts and a welcoming business environment get credit, as do a buoyant U.S. economy and vibrant trade market. On the spending side, the Tories don’t fare so well. Harris likes to portray himself as a cutter, but the opposite is true. The Common Sense Revolution promised 20 per cent cuts in “non-priority” spending areas — $6 billion. Instead, spending this year is higher than it was in 1995. The Tories also added $22 billion to the debt. Although they haven’t balanced the budget, their commitment was to eliminate the deficit by 2001, and they’re on track to do that. Grade: B–. – EDUCATION: Standardized testing — good. Revitalized curriculum — good for the most part, but much greater preparation and consultation is required. Equalized funding formula so that, in effect, every student gets the same funding — conceptually good, but damaging for students if the formula isn’t adequate and without provisions for special needs, like language training and special education. The Tories promised to contain spiralling education taxes, and they did. Overall, though, most of the good they’ve accomplished in education is negated by botched implementation, hideous disorganization at the ministry level and a demeaning, confrontational approach towards educators. That’s an inappropriate way for Ontario’s government to behave, and it runs counter to the the Tory mantra of providing the best possible education for our children. Grade: D, with mandatory remedial action. – HEALTH: This is the most difficult area to assess because it remains a work in progress. The government says health care spending is up over 1995; the opposition says that, adjusted for inflation and population growth, it’s down. Either way, it’s at roughly the same level as when Harris was elected. But health-care adaptability, responsiveness and accountability are as important as money. Credit the Tories for taking action on health care where previous governments ran for cover. The system was burdened by bureaucracy and unwieldy infrastructure, was too slow to respond to changing trends in health and, in general, didn’t provide the best service for reasonable public cost. Unfortunately, the Tories were less successful in the way they went about their task. They appointed a panel of experts to decide what should close and what should open. That should have been the government’s job. The decision to reform by decree led to some painful mistakes, like the loss of so many nurses that a critical shortage now exists. The Tories moved with such haste on big-ticket hospital health-care reform, other equally important areas were left behind, in particular, the evolution from institutionally-centred to community-based care and long overdue primary care reform. Grade: C. On Monday, we continue our appraisal of the Harris government’s first term.

* * * * * *

Governing the province
The best option for Ontario
June, 03 1995

As Ontarians look to find a sense of inspiration in an election campaign that has become more emotional and polarized, the vision of an ideal government has no doubt crossed the minds of many voters. It would be a government which delivered quality public services within stable finances and fair taxation, strengthened job creation, encouraged investment and governed with prudence and concern for all. The government would bring people together rather than dividing them, taking care not to create new problems in solving old ones. It would have decisive leadership with the courage to tackle Ontario’s serious fiscal problems. Neither Liberal leader Lyn McLeod nor Conservative leader Mike Harris has fully captured the imagination of voters in terms of dynamic leadership qualities and personal appeal. The Conservatives, however, appear to have gained by more clearly spelling out their vision for smaller, less intrusive government in response to interventionist NDP economic and social policies. The Liberals have not been as effective in staking out their position, so far. The Liberals, however, have presented their middle-of-the-road agenda for change in a more responsible way than the Tories. There is cause for concern that a party which proposes to govern in a more moderate way than either of its rivals is being overshadowed by shrill voices on the left and right. Our preference is for the Liberals over the Conservatives as the best choice for a new government. On the basis of the Liberal program and style of campaigning (not the efficiency of the campaign), Ontario is more likely to be governed in a more pragmatic and sensitive way than the Harris-led Conservatives. Mr. Harris has developed a stronger leadership image than Ms McLeod, but has been prone to discussing issues in a harsh and intemperate tone. If he were to become premier, he would quickly need to steer a mainstream course and show that he can govern in the prudent fashion of his Conservative predecessors. After 4 1/2 years fractious years of a government driven by a left-wing ideology, Ontario would be ill-served if more unnecessary upheaval were created by a leader whose message of a “revolution” based on a right-wing ideology raises the spectre of confrontation. In a more positive vein, both opposition parties have issued detailed policy programs and are philosophically attuned to the essential priorities — economic growth and more responsible management of public finances. While they approach the issues with significant differences in style, both parties recognize a flourishing private sector is fundamental to making Ontario more prosperous. We share the doubts among voters as to whether these parties are capable of delivering on ambitious promises. Even financial analysts, normally supportive of tax reductions, are concerned that tax cuts at this point could drive Ontario into deeper trouble. In any case, the Liberals and Tories say that Ontario can do much better — with balanced budgets, lower taxes, and more efficient services than offered by the big, bureaucratic programs favored by the NDP. Mr. Harris has certainly capitalized on two issues of concern — rising welfare costs and the NDP’s unpopular employment equity legislation. But as a would-be premier, he has a responsibility to present the case for reform with more sensitivity in a pluralistic society. Mr. Harris should also be reminded that a premier must represent all of Ontario. The feasibility of his deficit reduction plan remains a major question mark. Mr. Harris, committed to the largest tax cuts, would take five years to balance the budget. Even that schedule is far from certain. Mr. Harris’ reliance on tax cuts to produce an army of jobs has a dogmatic leap of faith to it. His own survey of 500 people, released this week, indicated that he may be too optimistic in estimating the job creation impact of his plan to cut the provincial income tax rate by 30 per cent over three years. Only 35 per cent of those surveyed said they would spend the extra money, as opposed to investing or saving it. Ms McLeod, for her part, hasn’t boxed her party in with tax reductions as large as those of the Conservatives. Largely because of that, most analysts — if they had to choose — prefer the Liberal plan as the more reasonable route to a balanced budget. There is widespread concern, however, that none of the three parties has a program that’s disciplined enough to correct Ontario’s precarious finances to protect health, education and the social safety net. New spending commitments in the Liberal plan — totalling almost $3 billion over five years — have prompted criticism that the Liberals would actually spend more than the NDP. The Liberals continue to bear the burden of the high-spending Peterson government, which enjoyed a major economic expansion but allowed spending to run out of control and didn’t pay down the debt. The Liberals, under Ms McLeod, must demonstrate quickly and decisively that they have learned that lesson. Although she has a fuzzy image, Ms McLeod should not be underestimated. Her career in public life has been characterized by caution and consultation, which are solid values for a politician — especially in these troubled times. She is described by associates as a person who takes a lot of time to make a decision, but once her mind is made up , she sticks to it. In contrast to the ‘General Bullmoose’ image that Mr. Harris often displays in the legislature and along the campaign trail, Ms McLeod shapes up as a chairman of the board with good consensus skills in the premier’s office. In our view she should be given the chance to govern.

Posted in: Ontario Tagged: 2007 Election, commentary, endorsement, Hamilton Spectator, Ontario

Saturday November 11, 2000

November 11, 2000 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday November 11, 2000

Our endorsement is a call for dramatic change; The Spectator’s opinion

At the outset of this municipal election campaign, this newspaper argued there was an urgent need for meaningful change in local political leadership. We argued for a new political style that would help heal the rifts created by amalgamation. We called for political leaders who have a fresh vision, not rooted in parochialism or tied to the stale, unproductive political culture that has hobbled Hamilton and diminished its reputation and potential.

Now, in the final days of the campaign, we renew that call. It is more apparent than ever the new City of Hamilton needs and deserves a new mayor, someone who stresses collaboration and consensus and can make citizens from all corners of the new united city feel like they belong and have a role to play in making our community a better place to live and work.

Among the credible candidates for Hamilton’s mayoralty, Bob Wade best fits this bill and, in The Spectator’s view, is the best choice for mayor.

We make this endorsement in the full knowledge that public opinion polls, including our own, suggest incumbent Bob Morrow enjoys a significant advantage over Wade, Fred Eisenberger, John Munro and the rest of a crowded field. If the municipal election were held today, Morrow would probably emerge victorious.

The reason Morrow remains the choice of most voters, up until today at least, is that he is far and away the best known of the candidates. How could he not be? Morrow has been mayor for 18 years and in public life for nearly 25. He is a fixture. Ask 100 Hamiltonians if they’ve ever met him and chances are most will say yes. He’s a tireless participant in the symbolic and ceremonial aspects of the mayor’s job. Some people have said his campaign this time around is a shambles, but we beg to differ. The reason Morrow’s campaign isn’t better organized is that it doesn’t need to be. The man has been campaigning since the last time he was elected.

Let us also say this about Bob Morrow: In no way are we attempting to diminish his contribution to this community over his many years in public service. He deserves credit and respect for his civic patriotism. He is Hamilton’s longest-serving mayor, and the fact that he is not the best choice to lead for another three years does not tarnish his legacy of loyalty and love for his community.

But what about Morrow’s record? According to him, it’s fine. Yes, Hamilton has a few problems, he’ll say, but is headed in the right direction under his capable stewardship. Like many politicians who have a similar nature, Morrow loves to take credit but isn’t equally keen to take responsibility. Point out the lack of progress on downtown redevelopment, and he’ll deny that’s true and label you unfairly negative. Lament the damage caused by crushing taxation inequity, and he’ll blame the provincial government. Criticize him too much and you may find yourself on the receiving end of one of his infamous near-hysterical tirades, which are usually followed by apologies. In the end, you either see things his way or you’re wrong. And after 18 years in the mayor’s office, Bob Morrow says everything is fine.

We don’t agree.

Hamilton is at a crossroads. To begin with, the Hamilton of 2001 will be an entirely different city than it is today. The store clerk in Stoney Creek, the realtor in Ancaster, the truck driver in Dundas, and the farmers in Flamborough and Glanbrook are equal partners in this new city. They need and deserve a leader who is credible, trustworthy, team-oriented and, above all, endowed with common sense.

When Wade was mayor of Ancaster, he spoke out against amalgamation because he felt he had to reflect the prevailing will of his constituents. When it became obvious that one-tier government was inevitable, he quickly accepted reality and was among the first suburban politicians to declare his determination to make the new city work. Along with his council colleagues, he has helped make Ancaster one of the most prosperous communities in Ontario.

Wade is not charismatic. His political persona is best described as steady, calm and low-key. If he has a considerable ego, it’s not obvious. Wade’s strength is in his track record of efficiency and cohesive leadership and in his ability to bring people together. His platform stresses communication and consultation more so than any other candidate’s. There is little doubt that Wade would put the unity and progress of the new council and city ahead of his personal political ambition and parochial preferences.

Paradoxically, the same qualities that make Bob Wade the best choice for mayor at this time in Hamilton’s history make him a somewhat lacklustre campaigner, which may explain in part why he is lagging in opinion polls. But to be fair, that is also due in part to his team’s decision to make their big push in the very final days of the campaign, which means all election polls including our own were completed before Wade’s major thrust was launched. For the record, we’re not sure that was the best strategy, but that’s another discussion.

What of the other candidates?

John Munro has spent more time condemning all the incumbents than setting out his own vision. He wants your vote because of his history as a federal politician with a track record of securing benefits for his city. He says he can be as effective at getting money from Ottawa and Queen’s Park now as he was then, but offers few specifics. And his style of hyper-aggressive, angry criticism is an unseemly throwback. Notwithstanding his commendable record of public service, Munro’s platform is more about what others have done wrong than what he’d do right.

Fred Eisenberger’s candidacy has been one of the few pleasant surprises of the campaign. Although he presents as somewhat aloof, Eisenberger is the most intellectual of the candidates. His policy ideas, such as offering taxpayers the option of speeding the cleanup of Hamilton Harbour if they’re willing to pay more for water, are creative and direct.

Perhaps because he was a dark-horse candidate from the start, he seems the most fearless. He is also the most individualistic, and that has a good and bad side. As mayor, he’d be less likely to take part in the sort of backroom cronyism and deal-making that have been such a part of Hamilton’s political culture on Morrow’s watch. But we wonder if his track record and personal style would limit his ability to bring the new council together, to build bridges and reach consensus.

In the end, Eisenberger’s strengths and weaknesses are, regrettably, academic. He has been hobbled by a relatively unsophisticated campaign organization and limited money. Much as he is eminently worth hearing and considering, it’s unlikely his message has been widely heard or understood. Eisenberger has a lot to offer and given his relative youth, we hope he remains in the public arena because he clearly has much to contribute.

In many ways, Bob Wade is Bob Morrow’s opposite. Morrow is smooth, fast on his feet and prone to rambling responses to direct questions. He frequently substitutes his well-honed politica l instincts for substantive discussion and policy. Wade is not as eloquent, but he’s not prone to overblown hyperbole and bluster, either. He’s calm, rational, thoughtful, reflective and focused.

These are qualities that can bring unity and productive action to the first government of the new City of Hamilton. And that’s why Bob Wade is the best choice for mayor. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial, A1, 11/11/2000)

 

Posted in: Hamilton Tagged: Bob Morrow, Bob Wade, election, endorsement, familiarity, Fred Eisenberger, Hamilton, John Munro, mayoral, rain, status quo

Click on dates to expand

Please note…

This website contains satirical commentaries of current events going back several decades. Some readers may not share this sense of humour nor the opinions expressed by the artist. To understand editorial cartoons it is important to understand their effectiveness as a counterweight to power. It is presumed readers approach satire with a broad minded foundation and healthy knowledge of objective facts of the subjects depicted.

Social Media Connections

Link to our Facebook Page
Link to our Flickr Page
Link to our Pinterest Page
Link to our Twitter Page
Link to our Website Page
  • HOME
  • Sharing
  • The Boutique
  • The Hamilton Spectator
  • Artizans Syndicate
  • Association of Canadian Cartoonists
  • Wes Tyrell
  • Martin Rowson
  • Guy Bado’s Blog
  • You Might be From Hamilton if…
  • MacKay’s Most Viral Cartoon
  • Intellectual Property Thief Donkeys
  • National Newswatch
  • Young Doug Ford

Your one-stop-MacKay-shop…

T-shirts, hoodies, clocks, duvet covers, mugs, stickers, notebooks, smart phone cases and scarfs

Brand New Designs!

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets
Follow Graeme's board My Own Cartoon Favourites on Pinterest.

MacKay’s Virtual Gallery

Archives

Copyright © 2016 mackaycartoons.net

Powered by Wordpess and Alpha.

 

Loading Comments...