A "Give Your head a Shake" Moment

I’ll concede that when I wrote the piece in The Hamiltonian entitled Candidates Who Won’t Answer Questions Are Telling Voters Something, it was born out of frustration.

The source of that frustration? A genuine “give your head a shake” moment as I contemplated what true leaders are—and, perhaps more importantly, what they are not.

They are not those who hide behind carefully crafted campaign strategies designed to answer questions only when it is convenient.

They are not those who are unwilling—or unable—to handle difficult and complex questions. They are not those who engage in verbal gymnastics to avoid answering a question, revealing more about themselves in the process than a straightforward answer ever could.

If you are seeking to be our mayor, one of our city councillors or one of our school board trustees, step up and be heard.

Hamiltonians do not suffer fools easily, and they have had enough of political craftiness—and I use that term loosely. They want authenticity. They want people who are unafraid to lead and who do not hide behind their campaigns. They want people who understand that endlessly repeating the mantra “I’m listening” is no substitute for eventually standing up and saying what you actually believe.

Leadership requires having a position. It requires defending it. It requires answering difficult questions when the timing is inconvenient and the answers may carry political risk.

So, let’s hope that when Hamiltonians cast their ballots, we elect leaders—not merely politicians.

 

Behind the Scenes

Sometimes I wish I could share some of the things that happen behind the scenes at The Hamiltonian—particularly when we reach out to candidates with questions. Without identifying anyone, here is a small glimpse into that world.

Some candidates perform remarkable verbal gymnastics to avoid answering a simple question they believe may not reflect well on them. In doing so, they often fail to recognize that the avoidance itself creates a far worse impression. If someone cannot answer a straightforward question during a campaign, what does that tell voters about how they might respond when facing difficult decisions in office? Do we really want elected officials whose first instinct is to evade rather than be forthright?

Then there are the truly bizarre responses—most of which never appear on The Hamiltonian. Every so often we receive an answer that leaves us wondering how the individual concluded they were ready to seek public office in the first place.

Occasionally we encounter candidates who are unexpectedly combative. The hostility seems disconnected from the question being asked and difficult to understand. Once again, it naturally raises questions about temperament and whether the individual is well suited to represent the public.

We also receive submissions  with spelling mistakes, poor grammar, or careless errors. We do not edit them. We publish them as submitted because they tell voters something important. Attention to detail matters. Care in communication matters. If a candidate cannot be bothered to carefully review material they know will be published, voters are entitled to draw their own conclusions.

Running The Hamiltonian requires constant judgment. We generally err on the side of providing Hamiltonians with information rather than withholding it. Sometimes that information arrives polished and professional. Sometimes it does not. Either way, it offers voters a window into the people asking to earn their trust.

Our role is not to protect candidates from the consequences of their own words or actions. Our role is to provide Hamiltonians with the information they need to make informed decisions at the ballot box.

Cal

In a Past Life

A Drink with Then Premier Mike Harris

We Can Do Better Than This

It often pains me to read the nature of some of the comments posted on Facebook in response to articles shared by The Hamiltonian.

A few recent examples illustrate the point.

When we published our review of Mayor Andrea Horwath's first four years in office, we expected mixed reactions. The Mayor has both supporters and detractors, and healthy debate is part of any democracy. What troubled me, however, was not the disagreement—it was the volume of deeply personal and, at times, cruel attacks directed at her.

To be clear, I am not on anyone's side in this mayoral race. Had those same comments been directed at any other candidate or public figure, I would have felt exactly the same way.

Another example arose when we shared mayoral candidate Ejaz Butt's interview in our Before the Ballot – Questions for Hamilton's Next Mayor series. While many readers engaged thoughtfully with his responses, some comments were unmistakably rooted in racism. There is simply no place for that in our city—or in our humanity.

The final example undermines what could otherwise be meaningful discussion. We often receive insightful, thoughtful, and well-reasoned comments. Then, in the final sentence, the writer adds something like, "I'd never vote for that fool," or another unnecessary personal insult. In that moment, the value of the entire comment is diminished and never appears in The Hamiltonian. 

Political campaigns are, by their nature, passionate. People care deeply about the future of their community, and they should. But there is a profound difference between challenging someone's ideas and attacking their dignity.

We can disagree vigorously without demeaning one another. We can criticize policies without ridiculing people. We can expose flaws in an argument without resorting to racism, insults, or personal attacks. If we want better politics, we must also model better citizenship.

Cal

Coincidence?

 Interesting terminology. Probably just a coincidence?

And it Begins....

As I predicted, it has already begun: the dirty—and at times absurd—side of municipal politics.

Over the past few days, social media has once again reminded us how quickly context can be discarded in favour of ridicule. A video clip (the socket puppet one) involving mayoral candidate Scarlett Gillespie has been selectively presented to invite mockery rather than understanding. Anyone who views the full context should recognize it for what it is: a manufactured controversy that deserves no attention.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to be the last time we see this kind of campaigning. As election day draws closer, expect more edited clips, misleading narratives, half-truths, anonymous posts, and personal attacks designed to generate clicks rather than inform voters.

Hamilton deserves better.

Our city faces serious challenges—housing affordability, public safety, infrastructure, taxation, economic growth, and the future of our neighbourhoods. Those issues should define this election, not schoolyard-style political gamesmanship.

Voters should be skeptical of sensational social media posts, verify information before sharing it, and judge every candidate on the strength of their ideas, their leadership, and their ability to govern—not on contrived attempts to score cheap political points.

The campaign is just getting started. If this is any indication of what lies ahead, voters will need to be as discerning as ever.

Why You Should Read Before the Ballot- The Candidate's Guide

When Teresa and I first discussed the concept behind the Before the Ballot series, our goal was simple: to create a fair, non-partisan forum where every candidate would have an equal opportunity to answer questions. Those questions would not always be easy, but they would always be fair.

As our discussions continued, they naturally evolved into another important topic: candidate readiness. Over the years, we have watched many well-intentioned people seek public office only to fall into avoidable traps. Some of those pitfalls become obvious once you stop to think about them. Others are far less apparent and are only understood through experience and an appreciation of the good, the bad, and the ugly realities of running a municipal election campaign.

That is why Before the Ballot – The Candidates' Guide became an essential companion to the interview series. Its purpose is to help candidates present themselves at their very best by sharing practical insights, lessons learned, and strategies that can make a real difference during a campaign.

At The Hamiltonian, we want Hamilton to be led by the strongest possible representatives—not simply by those who happen to be the most experienced campaigners.

If you are running for office, or if you are supporting someone who is, I encourage you to take the advice offered in Before the Ballot – The Candidates' Guide to heart. Even experienced candidates can benefit from stepping back, considering a different perspective, and learning something new. Our hope is that this guide will contribute, in some small way, to a stronger and better-informed municipal election.

Cal

Photos Ops and the Years between

I understand why candidates for political office attend community events, shake hands, meet people, and have their photographs taken. Campaigns are, after all, about introducing yourself to voters.

But does it impress me? Not particularly.

What often strikes me is how carefully staged many of these moments appear. A candidate standing with volunteers at a food bank, smiling with seniors at a community centre, or posing beside a local charity can sometimes feel more like a campaign photo opportunity than a genuine act of community engagement. Voters are perceptive. They can usually tell the difference between someone who showed up because an election is around the corner and someone who has been showing up all along.

It also raises another question. Where were these candidates during the previous four years?

Were they volunteering in the community long before they decided to seek office? Were they attending neighbourhood events when there were no cameras? Were they advocating for causes that mattered, helping local organizations, and building relationships simply because they cared?

The most meaningful photographs are rarely the ones taken during an election campaign. They are the ones that reflect years of consistent involvement, quiet service, and genuine commitment to the people and communities a candidate hopes to represent.

Campaigns come and go. Character is built in the years between elections.

Pic of the Moment

 

Jeb Bush and I, after having lunch. 

And Now, for Something Completely Different…

Recently, someone running for office asked me if I was a political junkie. In that same exchange, he admitted that he was still trying to figure The Hamiltonian out, and  that he found it fascinating.

I don't consider myself mysterious, but after hearing those comments, I thought perhaps I should share a little more about myself from time to time. Most readers know me through my interest in Hamilton politics, community affairs, and the various roles I have played over the years. What many do not know is that I am also a professional songwriter.

When I say "professional," I mean that the music I have written or co-written has been placed on television programs and other media channels in Canada, the United States, and beyond. Songwriting has been a lifelong passion of mine and, in many ways, it has shaped how I see the world.

For those interested, here is an example of a piece I co-wrote with my long-time friend and songwriting partner, John Schick. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1173721467127790

Note: This song was written, produced and played the traditional way. Real people, real instruments- No A.I. 

If I Ran to Become Mayor of Hamilton

If I were thinking of running to be Mayor of Hamilton, the first thing I would do is humble myself.

I would begin by recognizing a simple truth: for far too many Hamiltonians, life has become harder.

Families are struggling with the rising cost of living. Seniors worry about paying their bills and remaining in their homes. Young people wonder whether they will ever be able to afford a house in the city they love. Small businesses fight every day to survive. Many residents feel unheard, unseen, and disconnected from the decisions being made at City Hall.

I have been listening to Hamiltonians for a very long time. I know that many are bewildered. They look around and ask -How can things keep getting worse while our voices keep getting louder?

I would not insult them by pretending that another round of consultations and listening sessions alone will solve our problems. Of course I would listen. Listening is essential. But I would also understand something equally important: Hamiltonians want leadership that gets to work. They want action. They want results.

My vision for Hamilton would be ambitious and unapologetically aspirational.

Why?

Because Hamilton has everything going for it except the kind of leadership that can unlock its extraordinary potential.

We have world-class healthcare institutions. We have brilliant entrepreneurs, skilled workers,

Is it Time We Talked?

I am delighted that the individuals who have declared their bids for Mayor are spirited, energetic, and out there attempting to win hearts and minds. But is enthusiasm enough?

I suppose one of the essential characteristics of being bold enough to run for Mayor is that you have to believe in yourself.  That confidence is a good thing. But it cannot cloud the realities of the playing field.

And what does the playing field look like?

First, you have an incumbent Mayor with a wealth of political experience. While she certainly has her critics, and while there are files on which she may be vulnerable, aside from the cyberattack—which no mayor could have reasonably anticipated—she has not fundamentally dropped the ball. Fundamentally…

What does that mean?

It means that anyone seeking to unseat Mayor Andrea Horwath enters the race against an incumbent who remains  viable, should she seek re-election.

It also means that no matter how well a challenger campaigns, they are likely to encounter a

Listening Is a Mistake

Now that I have your attention with the title, let me explain.

I am always skeptical when candidates emphasize that they mainly want to listen to constituents or when they make listening a pillar of their bid.

My immediate reaction is: Is that all you've got?

Have you not been reading the newspapers, The Hamiltonian, The Hamilton Spectator, The Public Record, Facebook, and the countless other places where Hamiltonians have been expressing their concerns for years? In many cases, they are not merely speaking; they are practically pleading for relief.

Of course listening is part of campaigning. But to me, it is like a mechanic saying, "First, I'm going to look at your car."

Well, of course you are.

I expect you to.

Why are you telling me that?

Tell me how you're going to fix it.

In political terms, I want to hear your vision for Hamilton. More importantly, I want to know whether you possess not just a good understanding, but an exceptional understanding of how to turn that vision into reality.

Listening is not the destination. It is the starting point.

The candidates who will earn my attention are not the ones who tell me they are listening. They are the ones who demonstrate that they have listened, have understood, and have a credible plan to act.

Then, perhaps, I'll be listening.

A Virtual Campaign Advisor?

Am I acting as a virtual campaign advisor of sorts on The Hamiltonian After Dark?

Not really. At least, that is not the intent.

Teresa and I have always said that the only side we are on is the side of everyday Hamiltonians. That remains as true today as it was when we first started.

Part of serving Hamiltonians means wanting them to have meaningful choices when they walk into a voting booth. Ideally, those choices should be among the very best candidates our city has to offer.

Over the years, I have seen campaigns succeed, campaigns fail, and campaigns make avoidable mistakes. If there is something I can share that might help someone become a stronger candidate, run a better campaign, or avoid a costly misstep, I think it is worth sharing.

That is not an endorsement. It is not consulting. It is not taking sides.

It is simply an effort to contribute to a better election and, ultimately, a better city.

So take the advice or leave it. Agree with it or disagree with it. Either is perfectly fine.

It comes from a good place.

— Cal

The Side of Municipal Politics Nobody Likes to Talk About

There is a side of municipal politics that rarely appears in campaign brochures, candidate debates, or smiling social media posts.

It is the dirty side of politics.

I sincerely hope much of it belongs to the past. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that it does.

Over the years, I have witnessed some of these tactics firsthand while providing guidance behind the scenes to municipal campaigns. Most candidates are decent people who genuinely want to serve their communities. But every election seems to attract a few individuals willing to cross lines that should never be crossed.

Consider the sign wars.

I am not referring to the friendly competition over who can place the most signs throughout a ward. I am talking about vandalism, theft, and deliberate destruction.

Many of these incidents occur under the cover of darkness. Signs disappear overnight. Others are damaged, torn apart, or dumped in remote locations. Entire streets can be stripped of campaign signs before sunrise.

On one occasion, I witnessed something even more brazen. In broad daylight, a pickup truck carrying several individuals pulled up to a neighbourhood. The occupants jumped out and began collecting an opponent's signs from private properties before driving away.

Then there are the public property games.

Election rules are clear. Campaign signs are generally not permitted on public property. Yet every election seems to produce candidates willing to ignore the rules. This is not limited to newcomers. Incumbents have occasionally been accused of the same behaviour.

Campaign offices often report such violations to the city. The response is sometimes less than inspiring.

Other tactics are more deceptive.

I have seen campaign offices receive telephone calls from people claiming to be homeowners who insist they want a candidate's sign removed immediately. Volunteers rush out to comply, only to discover that the homeowner never made the call and is bewildered to see the sign being taken down. This sometimes happens where a property owner has a prime location, where a sign would get a lot of attention. 

And sometimes it becomes much uglier.

I have seen threatening notes.

I have witnessed threats directed at political opponents.

I will not say where those threats originated. If I did, some readers might be surprised.

I have witnessed what campaign veterans call "door hanger wars." One campaign distributes reminder literature the night before election day. Shortly afterward, another team follows the same route, removing the material or covering it with their own.

I have even seen individuals volunteer to join a campaign team, only for it to become apparent later that they were never truly supporters at all. Their purpose was to gather information and report strategy back to another campaign.

Another area that campaigns should pay close attention to is activity at voting locations. Election rules generally prohibit candidates from campaigning or attempting to influence voters at or near voting places. This restriction applies even if a candidate is present in the capacity of a scrutineer.

Over the years, I have personally witnessed situations that raised concerns. I have seen candidates intentionally engaging voters with smiles and gestures immediately before ballots were cast. I have observed candidates appearing to signal their position on the ballot to voters prior to voting. I have also seen candidates meeting with voters near the voting location moments before they entered to cast their ballots.

Whether such actions constitute violations depends on the specific circumstances and applicable election rules. However, they underscore the importance of vigilance.

Every campaign should ensure it has well-trained scrutineers at voting locations. Good scrutineers understand the rules, know what conduct to watch for, maintain detailed notes, and understand the proper procedures for reporting concerns to election officials when necessary.

On another note, submit your real address to the election office. For those who submit inaccurate information to make it appear as if they live in the ward they are running in, when they do not, this is a recipe for disaster. One way or another, you will be found out and it may destroy your credibility beyond repair. 

On Election Day, protecting the integrity of the voting process is every bit as important as persuading voters during the campaign itself.

The point I am making is simple.

Politics can bring out the best in people. It can also bring out the worst.

The depths to which some individuals are willing to go can vary widely. Occasionally, they can become volatile.

That is why my advice to every candidate is straightforward: never engage in dirty campaigning.

Not only is it unbecoming of someone seeking the public's trust, but certain actions may also violate election laws or even cross into criminal territory.

A well-organized campaign is still the best campaign.

Strong volunteers. Consistent messaging. Meaningful engagement with voters. Respect for opponents. Discipline. Integrity.

Those things may not always generate headlines, but they build something far more valuable: credibility.

Take the lessons shared in Before the Ballot: The Candidate's Guide seriously.

When the campaign is over, your reputation remains long after the signs have disappeared.

The Hamiltonian and the Missing Donate Now Button

Once upon a time, The Hamiltonian had a Donate Now button.

It lasted less than an hour.

We simply could not do it.

So down it came.

Since 2009, The Hamiltonian has never asked Hamiltonians—or anyone else—for money. We have never operated behind a paywall. We have never sold subscriptions. We have never passed the hat.

That does not mean The Hamiltonian is free to produce.

There are real costs associated with publishing. More significant still is the investment of time, effort, research, writing, editing, and the occasional late-night debate about whether a piece is ready to see the light of day.

What we can say with confidence is that we have never been interested in filling pages simply to fill pages. Every article represents a conscious decision that it is worth your time to read.

Would we refuse a contribution offered in good faith? Probably not. Would we refuse other forms of recognition, encouragement, or support? Certainly not.

But asking for it has never sat comfortably with us.

Perhaps it is stubbornness. Perhaps it is pride. Or perhaps it is simply our belief that fierce independence is one of the things that gives The Hamiltonian its character.

What is The Hamiltonian After Dark, and How is it Different from The Hamiltonian?

The Hamiltonian is our public square.

It is where we cover Hamilton's politics, civic affairs, community issues, and the stories that shape our city. It is intended to inform, challenge, question, and occasionally provoke. It is where we do our journalism.

The Hamiltonian After Dark is something else entirely.

Imagine pulling up a chair at the end of a long day. The coffee is still hot. The lights are low. The city is quieter than usual. The conversation drifts from politics to life, from headlines to the things that really matter.

You know the kind of discussion. The ones that happen late at night when the world

A Quick Note About Feedback, Criticism, and The Hamiltonian

Every now and then, someone contacts me or staff at The Hamiltonian because they disagree with something a candidate, councillor, community leader, or other contributor has said in one of our interviews or articles. Sometimes, it's a comment on Facebook. 

That is completely fair.

People are entitled to disagree. Healthy disagreement is part of what makes democracy work.

What some may not realize, however, is that The Hamiltonian's role is not to referee every debate or investigate every claim made by every person who appears on our platform. Our role is to provide a space where people can speak, share their views, and engage in the public conversation.

If we attempted to go back and forth with everyone who objected to something that was said, we would spend all of our time debating the content and very little time producing it.

That does not mean we are dismissing criticism. Far from it. We welcome thoughtful feedback and appreciate hearing different perspectives.

But there comes a point where readers, voters, and residents must be trusted to do what thoughtful citizens have always done: listen, question, research, compare viewpoints, and draw their own conclusions.

I don’t see our role as telling people what to think.

Our job is to help ensure they have something worth thinking about.

Cal

My Choice for Mayor

Do I Have a Choice for Mayor?

Of course I do. But if I am being candid, what I have right now is less a firm choice and more a leaning. My decision is far from made.

In fact, I am watching the Before the Ballot – Questions for Hamilton's Next Mayor series very closely.

I am not a critic of Mayor Horwath, nor am I an enthusiastic supporter. The truth is that I remain largely indifferent at this stage. I am keeping an open mind and waiting to be persuaded.

What am I looking for?

Two things.

First, vision.

Second, a credible understanding of how to transform that vision into reality.

It is easy to look at Hamilton today and focus on its problems. Indeed, that is necessary. Any serious candidate must be prepared to confront the issues facing our city. But leadership requires more than identifying what is wrong. It requires the ability to rise above the immediate challenges, imagine what Hamilton could become, and inspire others to move toward that future.

The vision itself must be the right one for Hamilton. It must be practical, ambitious, and grounded in the realities of our city. History has repeatedly shown that visionary leadership accomplishes far more than simply managing the status quo.

Hamilton does not need more of the same. It needs ideas, direction, and the courage to pursue them.

For now, I remain open-minded.

Let's see what happens next.

Nine grass cuts versus twelve. Potholes. Long grass- Short Sightedness

Nine grass cuts versus twelve. Potholes. Long grass.

I am not suggesting these issues are unimportant. They matter to residents and they deserve attention.

What is concerning is that so much political discussion seems focused on relatively minor operational issues while far more significant matters receive comparatively little scrutiny.

In round numbers, Hamilton taxpayers spend approximately $2 million annually on the remuneration of the Mayor and the fifteen members of City Council.

According to the Ontario Sunshine List, Hamilton City Manager Marnie Cluckie received compensation of $318,852.77 in 2025.

Yet, despite the magnitude of the responsibilities associated with the position, the City

Things That Candidate's Say and Do That They Probably Shouldn't

You may have guessed by now that The Hamiltonian's Before the Ballot – The Candidate's Guide has a deliberate purpose behind it.

I recognize that incumbents enjoy a significant advantage over first-time candidates. 

That imbalance has never sat particularly well with me, nor had it with Teresa. 

The Candidate's Guide is a small attempt to help level the playing field. If you are running for office for the first time, I genuinely believe it may become one of the most valuable resources you encounter during your campaign.

But let's leave the formal tips and advice to the series itself.

Instead, allow me to share a few observations from behind the curtain. These are things people tell us, submit to us, or do during campaigns that often reveal more than they realize.

In no particular order...

"I am not a politician. I'm just an ordinary person."

I hear this all the time.

Now, I am not suggesting that statement is right or wrong. In fact, voters often appreciate