What would you say about a newly chosen party leader who was generally a kinda swell fellow but who, after a nice honeymoon period in the media, was polling lower than his party had done in the last election? Even though his party was re-viled when it was booted out of government and had turned to him as the new leader to renew the party?
What would you say about his leadership abilities if you knew an election was imminent but he had not put out any policy to speak of, remaining content to just attack the current government? Even though he campaigned for leadership on a new direction for his party and the government has been all about policy and new direction?
Wouldn't you say that that leader, and his party, were kinda more than a little bit in trouble?
And no, I'm not talking federal politics here.
Welcome to John Tory's world, folks.
The thing about John Tory that strikes me is that he just doesn't inspire me. At all. Now mind you, I don't think people know him. I don't know him very well. The tv ads about him were supposed to help people get to know him better, but the more I watch the ads, the more I think he's as bland as I think he is.
"So he's bland", you say with a shrug. Bland isn't a sin-- not morally, anyway. No, it's not a sin, but if a leader is bland, it tells me we don't know what he stands for. He's neither cold or hot. He has also failed to distinguish himself from the Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals. What the heck is the difference between the two? And just who is on his team? The whole PC team is an amorphous mass of nobodies with no distinctive vision. You get the feeling that whether you elect one or the other, you would basically get the same kind of government, the same kind of policies, more or less.
Cerberus: Ontario Liberals "surge"; Tory in trouble
