EDITORIAL: Tomorrow, We Will Still Be the City of Guelph

After nearly 10 months, the next four years of the City of Guelph, and the direction they may take, will be decided by voters. At my polling station today, I encountered something unusual: I had to wait to vote. About 10 minutes. Now 10 minutes is a small price to pay for democracy, but the question now is what impact does a higher than expected voter turnout have on the race? Is it a sign that Karen Farbridge supporters have got our the vote, or a sign that people are anxious for change and going out to their polling station to get. One thing is certain though, despite the polarizing campaign, tomorrow morning, no matter who wins, we will all have to find a way to work together for the good of the city.

A Different Reaction to Thatcher's Death

Your grandmother probably once told you not to speak ill of the dead, and if you've seen the media coverage of the death of Margaret Thatcher, then you know they're working very hard to do grandma proud. Not so much in Brixton.

More Mail From Dick

I wonder if this is going to be a regular Thursday thing. You may remember that last week I was e-mailed by a man named Dick Chapman, who said, among other things, that I was a mouthpiece for the Toronto Star, neither a writer or journalist, and was someone without honour. Apparently, that hasn't stopped him from offering me further advice:

Adam;

Now that the election is over and the decision has been made there can be a time of reflection about why you did not receive any replies to your requests! The main reason was as a reporter for the Mercury the committee had nothing to say as the newspapers anti Marty stance! It was obvious that Frank Valeriote was the favourite of the paper and Marty's views and information were twisted and misreported constantly! So why should anyone answer your questions! As far as I am concerned the smear campaign that the Mercury and Valeriotte [sic] carried out worked somewhat, but a lot of people supported Marty! A true Canadian Hero!!!

I responded again to Dick, but I think this time I was a little more snippy. (I didn't pause to take a "chill pill" to borrow a phrase from Marty Burke.) The Catch-22 of this Conservative argument, one tried and tested by their ideological brethren in Republican Party south of the border, is that the media always has a liberal bias, so why bother interacting with them by giving them fodder for the fire, or "smear campaign" as Mr. Chapman says. Here's my response.

Hi Dick,

I respectfully disagree. You might not believe me, but I was eager to meet with Mr. Burke and talk to him about the issues and his candidacy. If I, or the Mercury for that matter, were conducting a "smear campaign," as you say, why would we expend so much time, effort and energy in trying to get Mr. Burke on the record. If it was a smear campaign, why try and talk to him at all.

And again, I point out, that the six other candidates and Mr. Valeriote made themselves available to press no matter their perspective of so-called press bias. Why should anyone answer my questions? Because it's the responsibility of political candidates to answer questions, both from the media, and from their constituents, and in Guelph, I am both. And as far as I'm concerned Mr. Burke lost, in no small part, because of his refusal to be open with the public beyond those whose support he already secured. He missed several debates, and only responded to press inquiries through e-mail or his communications director.

A lot of people supported Marty Burke, yes, but how many he more could he have won over? And please, I realize that Mr. Burke served his country with distinction in the military, but that hardly qualifies him for office. He may be a Canadian hero, but most people in Guelph decided that that wasn't enough for them to elect him as our Member of Parliament.

Again, I appreciate your passion, but if the Burke campaign wanted better coverage, they should have made themselves more available to the press.

Thanks for reading,

Adam