I'm starting to get confused about who John Tory really is.
I've seen two completely different versions of the man, and I don't know which one to believe.
On one hand, we have the good John Tory. This is the man that I observed speaking in several debates throughout this year's long election campaign. He described himself growing up as a nerdy kid, interested in politics and dedicated to the public interest. He seemed to value many of the things that I value, although we differed in opinions about why City Hall is in such bad shape.
Now, we are starting to see a bad John Tory.
This is the John Tory who was in charge of the Kim Campbell election campaign when it ran TV ads making fun of Jean Chretien's face. He now has a website where he has altered David Miller's face to look like a criminal.
The bad John Tory is also the one who was in Mel Lastman's "kitchen cabinet". These backroom boys were responsible for how the city has been run over the past 6 years. As co-chair of Lastman's campaign, Tory has more responsibility for the present shape of the city than any other candidate
Now these power brokers are popping up in stories about Tory. Harold Peerenboom was a go-between for Tory and Nunziata in a bid to have a single business-community candidate. He's guilty of saying untrue statements in the MFP inquiry. Another man guilty of the same crime is Jeffrey Lyons. He's a Tory supporter, too -- although, to be fair, Tory at least had the sense to deny knowing anything about it.
I want to know who's running in this election. If the good John Tory is the real John Tory, then he might make a decent mayor. However, if the real John Tory is the bad John Tory, then we should all be very concerned.
DISCLOSURE: After a serious decision-making process, I joined the Miller-for-mayor campaign a few weeks ago. However, all comments on this website are my own, and do not necessarily represent the views of David Miller or his campaign. My role in the campaign is grunt-level and I haven't even met the strategists.