Rick McGinnis comments on John Barber's suggestion that David Miller will likely serve three terms as mayor:

Barber: Although any reasonably good mayor can expect at least two terms in office - count on Mr. Miller to serve three - the 2003 election has written the new book on how power will change hands in the future.

McGinnis: Barely twenty-four hours into his term of office, and Barber already has him twice an incumbent. This is where journalistic "objectivity" wakes up to find itself locked in the trunk of a sedan, heading out to a secluded spot.

I don't think that John Barber's point here had anything to do with his fondness for David Miller. In this race for mayor we saw a new dynamic in municipal elections in Toronto. Many millions of dollars were spent, and 5 candidates were working 7-days-a-week for ten months. We're not going to go through this every third year.

When you combine this with the strong advantage that incumbents have -- in municipal politics more than anywhere else -- it points to the conclusion that the mayor elected yesterday is going to be hard to beat unless he does a very poor job. This would have been just as true if John Tory won. Maybe even more so.

As for John Barber's column, no it is not objective. However, I don't have a problem with opinionated columnists, so long as the paper's reporters are objective. Barber's column has never been objective, but for many difficult years it was a prime source for information and analysis about how the Harris-Eves Tories were mistreating the City of Toronto.

-permalink-