Comment 40801

By highwater (registered) | Posted May 18, 2010 at 11:19:25

The difference maker was that Eisenburger was already known and that DiIanni was despised in Dundas.

That is a very simplistic analysis. The main thing that pushed Eisenberger over the top was the fact that he refused to accept corporate and union donations, whereas DiIanni made the surprising decision to accept them even after the illegal contribution fiasco of the previous election. Not only did the Spec endorse DiIanni, but from the minute the illegal contributions came to light, they waged a concerted campaign to minimize them and absolve DiIanni of any responsibility, which Dreschel continues to this day. Clearly the citizens of Hamilton were more repulsed by the inordinate influence of sprawl developers on the politics of our city than the Spec and DiIanni had calculated.

Much is made of the relative narrowness of Eisenberger's victory as though this diminishes his mandate, but we forget that DiIanni went into the election with the enormous bully pulpit of incumbency, a significantly larger war chest, and the clear support of our only daily print outlet. Yes, Eisenberger's political experience gave him the gravitas that our media require, but the fact that he squeaked out a victory at all is an enormous achievement and a clear rebuke to politics and spin as usual.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds