Friday, January 27, 2006

The Gerard Kennedy Experiment

I'm still in negotiations with Hellyer's people to try and convince him to run. His following in Vulcan should help him deliver the MacLeod riding (you only really need 4 or 5 instant Trekkies to take it over anyways), if nothing else.

However, should Paul turn down the offer, I think Liberals everywhere should take a long, hard look at Gerard Kennedy. I'm not endorsing him or anything, but at first glance he seems like the perfect candidate. Consider this:

1. He's an outsider, free from the Chretien/Martin battles

2. He's young (42) which is something this party needs as we try to rebuild. Ignatieff and McKenna are in their late 50s.

3. He's bilingual (but, then again, who isn't, these days?)

4. He's got over a decade of experience in government and is considered to be Dalton McGuinty's best Cabinet Minister.

5. He grew up in Manitoba, and went to University in Edmonton so he's got Western roots, which will be useful for a leadership run. And also for reaching out to Western Canada.

6. He made a name for himself setting up Edmonton's Food Bank, and running Toronto's. Try running an attack ad against that.

7. Every single Liberal I've talked to who ever met the guy likes him. One reader sent me an e-mail saying "he screwed me over at the 1984 leadership convention but I still like the guy and might support him". He sounds like a very personable, friendly, sincere guy.

8. He's supposedly charismatic. Never heard him speak, so I don't know.

9. He's clean of scandal.

10. He's left leaning, making him Jack Layton's worst nightmare.

11. He finished second to McGuinty for leadership of the provincial Liberals in 1996, so he must have a bit of an organization in place already.

12. He's got the I mean, at a time when Canadians are cynical of politicians, what's better than a Kennedy? And Gerard is a name which works well in French and English.

Some people say he isn't running. Some say he might. If I were Kennedy, I would absolutely run. Think about it. It's going to be a wide open race, which could go multiple ballots. This might be a Trudeau '68 scenario or a Joe Clark '76 scenario. He'd appeal to the party's left wing, and would be someone Liberals leery of McKenna could rally around. At the same time, he's free of the civil war baggage, meaning both Chretien and Martin supporters would back him. Even if he doesn't win, I'm certain Kennedy would fare well, which could set him up as the favourite next time around, when he'd be around 50.

I don't know enough about the guy to guarantee I'd support him if he ran. But in a field of 20 or 30 rather uninspiring candidates, someone like Kennedy might be exactly what the Liberal Party of Canada needs right now.


  • Dalton McGuinty's government is not exactly popular in Ontario. They have a reputation as promise-breakers and have had their fare share of scandal (although Kennedy was not involved at all). That being said, I agree that he should throw his name in the hat because it can only be good for Liberals to have as many different people with new, and fresh ideas take a stab at the leadership. Healthy debate and fresh faces will show that the Liberals are serious about renewal, and will put more positive media attention on the race.

    By Anonymous Andrew, at 5:51 PM  

  • I just wonder, if he's the bees knees why isn't he Premier instead of Dalton?

    By Blogger A BCer in Toronto, at 6:10 PM  

  • Bart,
    Gerard is an amazing person, who will bring a lot of value to the federal side. I have meet him a couple of times and followed some of his policies because of my involvement with education related projects. There are no questions on his ability, character or values, but his popularity outside Ontario is minimal. He is better off to seek the Parkdale-Hi park federal seat and get into the next liberal cabinet and build up for the next leadership. Most of Gerad's supporters say he is not running and something big has to happen to make him throw his hat in the ring.

    By Anonymous Vijay Sappani, at 6:20 PM  

  • ABCer; Kennedy was first elected in '95. He ran for Lib leadership in '96, one year after being elected and finished a close second to Dalton (he led through the first four ballots). Even after Dalton lost the next election, he didn't try to force him out, which is somewhat comendable.

    I'm just saying I'm intrigued by the guy - nothing more.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 6:26 PM  

  • As a Canadian who loves Canada, I also love our neighbour so don't get PO'd at me, George W., but what possible title could you use to describe this other than ...?


    (Door-to-door tattoo salesman?)

    By Anonymous Chris from Victoria, BC, at 6:34 PM  

  • I wonder what Bush would think of a Prime Minister Kennedy?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:51 PM  

  • Kennedy was the favourite in the 1996 Ontario leadership race, had the whole of the Peterson machine behind him, then screwed it up. Think Kim Campbell-Jean Charest except the Charest character won. Actually, maybe the Charest character was Duncan Doughnuts, and Dalt was the Tom Wappel waiting in the wings. I guess that's a mixed analogy. Oh well. Kennedy was too green. Also had not a few enemies from his bread-not-circuses opposition to the 1996 Toronto Olympic bid.

    Seriously, Dion, McKenna, Cauchon, Ignatieff...that's how you get the high ground again.

    By Anonymous notbobchiarelli, at 7:04 PM  

  • Kennedy's team completely muffed the 1996 leadership race. He didn't get along with his riding executive, which resigned en masse the day the convention started (echoes of Etobicoke-Lakeshore). His team was, shall we say, overly aggressive. Rumours swirled throughout voting day that his scrutineers had challenged every single delegate's credentials - delaying each vote by a couple of hours. As a result, even though McGuinty entered the day in fourth place, he picked up all of the momentum. By the wee hours of the morning, when it was down to the final ballot (it was around 2AM), many people had left Maple Leaf Gardens in disgust. I think that he's learned a lot since then, but it was not an auspicious start to his stint in provincial politics.

    By Anonymous Pample the Moose, at 7:34 PM  

  • I'm from Ontario. I read/scan the Globe and my local paper every day and find I'm better informed than most people I know. I guess I haven't been paying attention as I haven't heard of the guy.

    By Anonymous Omar, at 7:54 PM  

  • Kennedy has definitely matured.

    In '96, I don't think he did anything wrong, per se, so much as it was an anybody-but-Kennedy movement, which got McGuinty elected. He did take over Bob Rae's riding, which is interesting in and of itself.

    His term until 99 was wild. The riding association hated him, as he was more focused on leadership than his riding, waiting for McGuinty to trip up.

    Since then, he's been a patron saint MPP. Tough, but respectful. He's been a very competent minister, definitely the antithesis of a Liberal.

    The thing with Kennedy is, though, they mad do a tad better in Manitoba and Alberta, and probably shore up what they already have in Ontario, but I see him unable to deliver the goods as well, by further splitting the left vote with the NDP. His policies are of that nature to begin with, the Liberals just gave him a hope to win.

    He is a nice guy, but he's not stupid.

    By Anonymous Trev, at 8:56 PM  

  • Calgary Grit, fair assessment.

    In 1996, less than a year after winning a bye-election over David Miller (Harvard-educated, now Toronto mayor) in a riding previously held by Bob Rae and by the NDP for decades, Gerard was the front runner at Maple Leaf Gardens. That day, The Toronto Star ran what many considered a smear article. Gerard won the first four ballots. The fifth ballot was at about 2:00 a.m. Gerard's base was generally in the GTA while his opponent's base was outside the GTA. Those from outside the GTA were holed up in hotels around Maple Leaf Gardens. Some of Gerard's delegates had to go home. That's history.

    If you don't know who Gerard is, read

    Also, as Andrew Coyne suggested, visit

    Readers, please remember that comments can be written by anyone and many times are based on opinion/rumour, not fact.

    By Anonymous MississaugaPeter, at 9:22 PM  

  • He is actually 47 years old.

    By Anonymous Reid, at 11:12 PM  

  • Bart,

    I, amongst others, am from Ontario. Outside of the GTA and the inner circles of the Provincial Liberal Party -of which I get to be an ex-officio executive member of- one would be hard-pressed to find Gerard Kennedy as a household name.

    Sure, he is capable of being a great Federal MP, but, Leader of the Party? Not gonna happen. Just so I put one more spin on that. Apparently Sheila has decided to back him if he runs. That will piss off half the party wouldn't it?

    As for McKenna, Rae and Tobin...There has only ever been one Premier-turned-Prime Minister in the history of Canada. Odds aren't good for any of them becoming PM.

    Belinda, Volpe and Bevilacqua are not gonna be very smart people if they decide to go for it. Maurizio does have lots of money to go though.

    That brings me to the Quebec factor. Dion and Cauchon. Here's why this can't and won't happen. At this moment in time, Canadians are very tired of the Quebec factor in the PM seen. It's been done waaaaaaaaaay too much over the last 40 years. Our base right now as a party is Ontario. Our seat of power must come from there. It is in the centre of the country and garners the most amount of seats in Canada.

    In that respect I think we should be looking to someone that is representing us there. Ken Dryden and Michael Ignatieff are to of the most brilliant speakers I've ever witnessed. For those of you that haven't had the pleasure, I've posted both their speeches on my blog.

    To that end, we need one of these guys that share LIBERAL values, can speak French and have presence, or someone like them to come forward.

    Thanks for the vine

    The What Do I Know Grit

    By Blogger James Curran, at 12:10 AM  

  • James!

    Sheila would be just one of many Liberals who may be encouraging Gerard. So what? Does that make him a bad candidate? No, it means someone who was born more Liberal-red than probably you or I, sees in Gerard the potential to be a great Liberal leader and prime minister.

    If Paul supported Gerard, would he be a bad or good candidate?

    By Anonymous MississaugaPeter, at 12:27 AM  

  • First of all...I Love Sheila. I was at her nomination farce. I like to read her stuff. And, sometimes I don't. But!!!!

    But here's the thing. Many of the Liberal bloggers have been crucifying McKenna over The Board's support of him. Now, many will crucify Gerard over Sheila's support. Yes, he's done us very well on the Provincial level. Yes he has a good machine to organize for him. Yes I heard rumblings that Peterson's machine is behind him.

    But, that my freind, does not mean he is the RIGHT fit for the leadership of this party.

    Tony Clement showed us a very good lesson in how hard it is for a Provicial star to win a leadership convention.

    I was in St. Catharines when KEn Dryden deliverd his "Great Endeavour" speech. You could have heard a pin drop. No less than 7 people asked me -in the middle of a national election - "why isn't he leading this party?"

    I was also present for Michael Ignatieff's address at our national convention. And, again, you could have heard a pin drop there.

    When I attended one of the candidates debates in Micahel's riding, I expected wild outbreaks from the crowd. Shouting was surely going to be the case. So I thought. However, when Iggy spoke, the whold audience was silenced.

    These gentleman have a knack for getting people to listen to the message. I think they can have a profound effect in our party. I think they could mend fences and build bridges that most others can't.

    The What Do I Know Grit.

    By Blogger James Curran, at 1:11 AM  

  • I hope we're not going to do the Tories job and start cutting down candidates before a race has even started? The better list of serious and intelligent candidates we have, the better. Kennedy, Rae, Dryden, Cauchon, Dion, Bennett, McLellan, Tobin, McKenna, the more the merrier at this point.
    Discussing the strengths and weaknesses of potential candidates is fun, but i'm hoping we aren't sending negative rays across the ol' wire and giving (playing) into Conservatives' wet dreams.
    Let's save some of the vitrol for Harper's sad crew.

    By Anonymous danny-o, at 1:48 AM  

  • "Let's save some of the vitrol for Harper's sad crew."

    In the past two months the Liberals have channelled Kim Campbell, Stockwell Day, Joe Clark, and now Carole Jamieson.

    By Blogger Patrick, at 2:08 AM  

  • James,

    The past 10 years, Gerard has visited and spoke in probably every riding in Ontario. When he speaks, like with all politicians, everyone listens. Trust me, if Gerard decides to run, his supporters will walk over coals for him. Think about it, how did he almost win the Ontario Liberal leadership with less than a year in political office? He is the nightmare challenger: charismatic, positive, decent, honest, true. The number of Gerard supporters has swelled since he became Minister of Education (teachers/parents all across the province will come out to support him). He has roots in the Prairies.

    Gerard does not require additional time as a federal cabinet minister: the annual budget of the Ontario Ministry of Education exceeds that of a few provinces. That's my opinion and if Gerard decides to run you will hear from many others who also share this opinion!

    By Anonymous MississaugaPeter, at 2:52 AM  

  • No. No. No. No. No.

    The Liberals are the federalist party in Canada. That is their "brand". In Quebec, in the last election, they finished third, behind the Bloc and the Conservatives.

    That means in the next election, which could come in less than a year, federalist voters in Quebec who backed the Liberals last time will switch to the Conservatives to block the Bloc. Goodbye to the prospects of the Liberals winning more than half a dozen ridings in Quebec. Hello to a chance for a Conservative majority.

    The overriding priority for the Liberal Party is to stop this from happening, that that means picking Stephen Dion as their next leader.

    Plus consider that the Liberals are the natural party of government in Canada. That is their other "brand". So they choose as a leader someone who has never been in the cabinet, never participated in federal politics, who is most well known for losing a race for nomination for provincial premier? I'm sorry, that is someone who the NDP would choose as their leader. Choosing this guy would be an announcement to the Canadian public on the lines that "I'm sorry, but everyone we have put in the cabinet over the last ten years (and that also means you, Belinda), is completely useless."

    And provincial pols have historically done poorly as federal leaders.

    And if Harper is smart, he will call an election right after the new Leader of the Opposition is installed (as Chretien did), and roll over an inexperienced Liberal team. And on the federal level, this guy is definitely inexperienced.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:12 AM  

  • It doesn't matter who is leader Harper will win the next election with a majority after he cleans up the government, reduces our taxes, doesn't cut programs, and keeps doing what he does best being the brilliant strategist that he is. Also for those of you who have been criticizing him already for not hugging his kids ... the guy has a cold and is on antibiotics. What caring, loving parent would want to infect their child!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:48 AM  

  • I agree with Anonymous (that brave, brave man!) that the question of who assumes leadership of the Liberal party is largely irrelevant, but not for the reasons he lays out.

    The fact is that the Libs could run with a hamster as party leader and still garner about 30% of the popular vote. It's like the colour red hypnotizes people...

    Hammy in 2007!

    By Blogger freshly_squeezed, at 11:18 AM  

  • To anonymouse at 8:48 AM:
    As the late John Lennon said, "Whatever gets you through the night!".

    By Blogger JD, at 11:31 AM  

  • Conventional wisdom has it that Kennedy lost to McGuinty because an "anybody but Kennedy" movement emerged out of fear that the party would drift too far left under Kennedy. At the time Harris was in a honeymoon and people loved balanced budgets. In hindsight, a lot of people realized that they probably could have won in 1999 with Kennedy as Leader.

    I'd be excited to see Gerard enter the race. He really does have qualities that none of the others have. First off, he's a hugely popular success in his Ministry - he's proven you can be a passionate progressive idealist AND run things. Secondly, he's young. Third, he's, um, handsome.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:56 PM  

  • He's left-leaning, making him Stephen Harper's early Christmas gift. Let's just baste Mr. Kennedy and serve him on a silver platter, drop him off in Calgary and see what happens.

    Liberals win in the radical centre, let's try and keep it that way.

    BTW-remember western roots don't mean western votes. Western votes comes from western values. Taxation, crime and justice, smaller government, free markets, economically viable natural resource policies and a real person approach to politics.

    CG-you should know better.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:04 PM  

  • I think your analysis is bang on, Kennedy would be a wonderful addition to the race.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:04 PM  

  • I agree with Omar, I am political, work as a consultant, lived in Ontario and Quebec for 7 years and I haven't heard of this guy. Who is he?

    He would have a lot of work to do in the West and B.C.-not sure our Blue Grits would be especially excited by his lefty leaning ideas.

    Where are all the Blue Grits? Forgot Dion, Kennedy, Keith, Copps, Volpe, Dryden. Give me a strong independent policy thinker. I could care less if they kiss babies.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:12 PM  

  • Baffled by statements of "he would have to do a lot of work..." Let's face it, other than Sheila, John, Stronach, Brison, and Martin (Keith), no one else has a national network at this time. Gerard, like Dion and McKenna, need to create a national network. I suspect Gerard may get Sheila's backing (that would definitely help) and may get some help from John's (I attended one Gerard fundraiser with John Manley as guest).

    If you read behind the lines: if there is a repeat of 1968 Trudeaumania, sweeping across Canada's college campuses (including Calgary's and Edmonton's; Gerard was a U of A Liberal), sharing pragmatic idealism and decency, exciting people by his charisma and his speeches ...


    By Anonymous MississaugaPeter, at 1:50 PM  

  • Ken Dryden a great speaker? Are you kidding me!? He is notorious for being an overblown, boring, verbose windbag. He was essentially booted out of MLSE with his tail between his leg is to his credit is actually embarrassed to go on the radio to talk because he knows how poor of a speaker he is perceived to be. ... Should have joined the Dippers, he would have fit right in.

    By Anonymous Clark, at 1:51 PM  

  • The Liberals have moved in twenty years from being a national party, to effectively a party concentrated in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.

    Rural and western Canada has said "see ya later".

    That has not been the leader, as much as it has been the policies the Liberal party has put forward.

    The Liberals have to decide for themselves, are they in competition with the NDP for the left, or are they in competition with the Conservatives.

    Those arguing over which leader are, in my opinion, arguing over who should steer the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.

    It is not the leader.

    It is the policies.

    It was 13 years in power where too many Liberals became too used to their sense of entitlement.

    Right now, it will take a lot more than a "Kennedy" to fix what is wrong.

    It is so typical of today's instant world for people to figure there are instant fixes for everything.

    The Liberals need a policy process, where potential leadership candidates can start the process of setting future directions.

    It took 13 years for the Liberals to end up deep in the swamp.

    Instant fixes won't fix the problems.


    By Blogger The Infozone, at 2:15 PM  

  • North Korea is rumbling about nuclear war today.

    What would the Liberals suggest?


    By Blogger The Infozone, at 2:17 PM  

  • I feel like a kid in a candy store - so many choices, but not so sure I can actually afford any of it!

    By Blogger Senator Catalyst, at 3:30 PM  

  • Gerard Kennedy should run. We need a progressive, inspiring leader. He is really a moderate liberal and not "left-leaning".

    By Anonymous anothercalgarygrit, at 4:09 PM  

  • By Anonymous Chris from Victoria, BC, at 8:43 PM  

  • Imagine the contrast you would see in a Harper/Kennedy debate.

    Kennedy starts food banks for the poor before entering politics.

    Harper lobbies for upper class tax cuts before entering politics.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:52 PM  

  • For a quick definition of EVIL, click the link below.

    Click here.

    The astounding thing is that such nobility and goodness can be produced in that awful 'container'.

    By Anonymous Chris from Victoria, BC, at 5:14 AM  

  • Regardless of the guy at the top, the Liberals need to support some decent ethical reform to show they aren't just "the party whose purpose is to govern, so they can hand out the patronage".

    That, combined with good underlying policy choices to answer charges they want to be all things to all people, will help them.

    Otherwise, they're left hoping that the Tories screw up.

    By Anonymous Craig, at 7:51 AM  

  • I heard Kinsella on the radio yesterday in Toronto pushing Kennedy as a potential candidate.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:28 PM  

  • Kennedy would be a great leader of the federal opposition. He may have a great political surname but his Harry Potterish preppy looks will not endear him to middle-class Canada. He's also been known to tout public education for all here in Ontario, while he himself being of the silverspoon set and sent to private elementary/secondary school(St. John's Ravenscourt - Winnipeg). How will THAT play with middle-class and urban Canada exactly?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:35 PM  

  • Gerard Kennedy actually comes from a middle-class family in rural/northern Manitoba. With the exception of two years of high school in Winnipeg on a scholarship, Gerard grew up as a proud northerner and rural Manitoban. There is nothing elitist about that.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:51 PM  

  • I was talking to someone fairly high up in the Liberals on Friday (albeit someone backing Anne MacLellan's possible campaign), and she said that most of the people she's spoken with want someone free of the Martin/Chretien battle...if Kennedy really does have Kinsella on his side, that could be like the kiss of death.

    Also, Tobin is definitely running...he's assembling his campaign leadership right at this very moment. I know because I know some of the people he's asked.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:02 PM  

  • I heard he has a former rock organiser from Manitoba working in his office....could that just be a coincidence?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:57 PM  

  • coincidence?

    Well that would really depend on the kind of music.

    If it is easy listening, I doubt it is a coincidence.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:11 PM  

  • Try crunching the numbers.

    The 2000 election was the last one where the Liberals won a majority government. They won 178 ridings in that election. Over the next two elections, they lost 74 ridings, net. The next leader has to get back as many of these ridings as possible.

    Of the 74 lost ridings, 46 were in Ontario and 22 were in Quebec. The Liberals lost only have a dozen ridings, net, outside those two provinces.

    In Ontario, the Liberal share of the popular vote fell by 11%. The NDP share rose by 11%. This is not coincidental. The CPC in 2006 got about what the combined PC and Alliance got in 2000. Now the Liberals held on to about two dozen ridings under Chretien only because of the disunited right and those are gone forever. But they lost about a dozen ridings to the NDP directly and another dozen to the CPC because of Liberal votes bleeding to the NDP.

    In Quebec, the Liberal share of the popular vote fell by 22%. The CPC's share rose by 14%, the NDP's by 5%, and the Bloc's by 4%. In other words, the Liberal vote in Quebec collapsed and former Liberal voters scattered everywhere, mostly to the CPC because they established themselves as the other viable Federalist party.

    In the other provinces, the only place where there was a significant drop in the Liberal vote was in, interestingly, Alberta, where it fell by 5%. Elsewhere, the Liberals held on to their 2000 vote or even gained support.

    Well what does this mean about the leadership contest? First, forget about any candidate who does not come from Ontario or Quebec. Those are the two provinces that will need the most repair work.

    Second, the Liberals need to push the NDP back down in Ontario, and to reestablish the credibility of federalism in Quebec and their credentials as the go-to federalist party. Right now they are in danger of losing that identity to the Conservatives. So this argues for either a left-leaning politician from Ontario, or an articulate and committed federalist from Quebec.

    I think the latter would be better for them, because the electoral situation is more dire in Quebec. If they lose any more support there, they are in danger of the NDP of all parties overtaking them.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:46 PM  

  • Anonymous,

    To avoid the Liberal Party from having to run another Negative campaign to save their skin, all Liberals need to unite together. That means, going into the next election, that Liberals who felt disenfranchised (Kinsella, Copps) are back to the fold, and those who had vested interests with Paul Martin (Guarnieri, Mahoney) are not treated as pariahs.

    This kiss of death if Kinsella or Copps supports Gerard is a statement of immaturity. I do not think you are immature. Just spend a little more time contemplating before commenting. We want you in the fold as well.

    By Anonymous MississaugaPeter, at 8:57 PM  

  • I am willing to bet Gerard learned a lesson during his failed Ontario leadership campaign. He won't be looking to make enemies, as the Ontario campaign should have taught him of the importance for delegates of other leadership hopefuls supporting him during the latter rounds. Especially if he wishes to beat the likes of Frank McKenna and Brian Tobin.

    Kinsella really should put his ego aside and stop leaching on to Kennedy. He really isn’t doing Kennedy any favors. There is much animosity towards him in the Liberal party, if he really cares he will step aside so that the healing can begin. Unfortunately I doubt Kinsella’s ego will let him walk away, a little too much of Chrieten sprit in him.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:43 PM  

  • Never say never...

    By Blogger toasted, at 2:26 PM  

  • Kennedy is an excellent speaker. Paying his dues politically. Experience in cabinet and as a critic for important departments.

    An old saw in Canadian politics is that if voters have a choice between pseudo-Tories and real Tories, the real Tories win every time. True. Here in Manitoba, under Charles Huband the Liberals turned right. Result? Ed Schreyer and the NDP won the 1969 election. The Grits recovered under Sharon Carstairs in the 80s but, despite solid leadership, we're at two members. Saskatchewan? Linda Haverstock formed the Official Opposition in 1995. Tories fleeing their scandal-filled party move en masse to the Liberals. Result? The Liberals disintegrate.

    B.C.? Well, really just another incarnation of the Socreds. Had the NDP of Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark not had their hands on Bingo games, perhaps they'd remain in the wilderness, too.

    Kennedy is good but will he run? Will someone emerge from the current opposition group? Ignatieff? Dhalla?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:18 PM  

  • There is a "draft kennedy" petition at urge ya'll to sign it. We really need him.

    By Anonymous mgk, at 10:27 PM  

  • I joined the Liberal Party in order to support Gerard Kennedy. The movement has to start somewhere.

    By Anonymous Left Coast, at 10:13 PM  

  • Roll up your sleeves.The announcement is coming.Then we shall all get on our high horses and work to beat hell for Gerard Kennedy.C'est un homme qui va sauver les liberaux.

    By Anonymous mgk, at 1:01 AM  

  • I see there has not been much interest after the 50th comment.Last Wednesday , Kennedy stopped over in Winnipeg on his way from Calgary.There was merely a 48 hour notice given that he was going to stop. In that short time , it is rather difficult to inform many people. Yet, as a result, 150 plus turned out for the lucheon reception. As an observer, I must say the atmosphere was electrifying.One could see Trudeau-ites, Chretienitesand Martinites in the crowd.Kennedy was well received. His speech and comportment garnered many ,many positive comments.Many of those present were talking about the "breath of fresh air" that is needed in the party.This they thought was one such example.

    By Anonymous mgk, at 7:40 PM  

  • I actually went to school with Gerard Kennedy back in the early 70's, and although I don't remember him that well from those days, I honestly believe that he is the answer...period.

    For those who don't know him yet, you are going to be in for a pleasant surprise. He doesn't come across as a "suit", and he isn't a blowhard like Jack Layton. He truly impresses with his sincerity, and he can definitely relate to everyone on some level or another. He looks like he could be from ANY province in Canada, and he doesn't "preach".

    My only fear is that the Libs will go back to the 'loyalty royalty' system where they choose someone who is deemed to have earned 'their turn'. Unfortunately, none of them (with the exception of Brian Tobin) has the potential to ever be Prime Minister. Dion, Cauchon, Volpe, ain't gonna happen. Ignatieff might impress in Toronto, but the rest of the country isn't going to heave Harper for a weak John Kerry clone.

    As bold a statement as this might be, I honestly believe that if there is enough wind pumped under Kennedy's sails, we could all witness the second coming of Trudeaumania - the guy is THAT good...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:14 AM  

  • Neurolinguistic Programming

    In the early 1970s in America Richard Bandler, then a young college student studied the work of Fritz Perls and later Virginia Satir and found that he could reproduce their high-level therapy skills to a degree that even surprised him. Bandler seemed to have a natural ability to mimic (model) the language patterns by Virginia and Fritz.

    At the University of California at Santa Cruz, Bandler who was well versed in the teachings of patterns in mathematics and computers teamed up with a college professor, John Grinder to help him understand the processes that were at work. Soon Bandler and Grinder, who used what he knew about patterns in linguistics, created a new model for personal growth called NeuroLinguistic Programming.

    Bandler and Grinder had set out to model the hypnotic skills of Milton Erickson. They had astounding results. They built a communication model about human "thinking" and "processing" and used that model of how we see images, hear sounds, reproduces smells and tactile experiences in our mind to track and model the structure of subjective experiences.

    Sounds very complicated but really it works very simply. Here is an example as used by Paul McKenna - probably the best & most successful hypnotist in the world.

    Close your eyes and think of a negative memory. Become involved in the situation as best as you can. Feel the emotions that you felt, see the things you saw and hear the things you heard.

    Now take that memory and project it onto a mental screen seeing yourself in the picture. Put a frame around the picture and view it as if it is an old photograph. Next drain all the colour from the picture and shrink the screen to the size of a matchbox.

    Have the feelings associated with the picture decreased in any way?

    Another good example of NLP involves Anchors. Have you ever smelt a certain perfume or aftershave and had it remind you of a certain person or situation? Gone to a certain place that brings feelings long forgotten flooding back? Or been in any situation that creates emotional responses that would not normally be associated with it? Well if you can answer yes to any of these then you have experienced anchors. Some anchors are associated with positive feelings and some with negative emotions. However, you should be aware that anchors can be consciously installed or already existing ones altered. Here is an example:

    Think of a time when you were really happy. If you can't think of one then imagine something that would make you feel really happy. See what you would see, hear what you would hear and feel what you would feel. Really get into the picture and try to experience it as though it were happening now.

    Now brighten the colours and make them richer. Increase the volume. Make the picture bigger, brighter, louder. That's it and more and more....

    Now press your first finger against your thumb and fully experience your happy feelings. Do this everyday for 2 weeks and you will create an anchor that will instantly recreate these feelings. Whenever you want to feel like that again just press your thumb and first finger together and wham the feelings will come flooding back! Don't believe me? Just try it and see!!! hypnosis

    By Blogger Personal Development, at 4:30 AM  

  • The personal development industry has never been bigger! It consists of a myriad of authors basically telling us how to improve our lives. We are constantly being told self help and self improvement has never been easier. New techniques, gadgets and potions adorn the shelves of new age shops and the 1 billion dollar industry, that is personal development, offers many different approaches to help better our lives. They offer ways to increase our bounty and ultimately alter our own reality. A great example of this is how to develop a Prosperity Consciousness. But does this state really exist and if it does will it bring the effortless unlimited wealth promised?
    A lot has been written about prosperity and how to attain it. We have been told by many religious traditions and every personal development guru that the Universersal Source (God, Spirit, Cosmic Mind or whatever label you chose to give it) is boundless wealth. We are also told that abundance, wealth and prosperity are our birthright! Why then are so many people ill, broke, frustrated and unfulfilled? Can a person really develop a prosperity consciousness and effortlessly attract wealth? Well as with everything in life there is only one way to find out. Test it for yourself!

    Before we can attain and then test the effectiveness of having a prosperity consciousness we need to understand some basic truths. Let's start by explaining three fundamentals of personal development namely; 1. The Universal Source is all wealth, abundance and prosperity; 2. Prosperity is our birthright; 3. You get more of what you focus on.

    1. Why are we told that the Universal Source is unlimited wealth? - Because the Universal Source is the consciousness of the Universe - a universe that is still expanding. It is the driving force behind physical reality. It created everything you see, hear, touch and smell as well as all that we are unaware of (microwaves, radiation, air etc.). It has been stated in religious and metaphysical traditions that this intelligence is not only the Source of everything but that it is also the substance of it! It creates the Universe from itself! It is omnipresent (everywhere present). That means that the entire seen and unseen aspects of the universe are a part of this Universal Source. Science reaffirms this theory as it states that nothing is solid and everything is just one mass of pure energy that vibrates at different frequencies and gives the illusion of separateness.
    So we can now claim that the Universal Source is unlimited wealth, abundance and prosperity with some belief. For if this Source is the very substance of everything then it is all the wealth, abundance and prosperity that exists at this very moment!
    Ok so far? Now lets look at the second point - prosperity is our birthright.

    2. If this Universal Intelligence is the source and substance of all things then there can be only one intelligence in the Universe. Jesus said to his disciples "know ye not that you are the temple of the living God?" Buddha attained enlightenment and "oneness". The list of these religious teachings are too numerous to mention but their message remains the same - God (Universal Substance) resides within and around us. It's very substance makes up our physical body and the world around us - "For in him we live, move and have our being" Acts17:28. Therefore, if this Universal Source is at the very core of our being and is the substance from which we take physical form then it stands to reason that we are connected to everyone else and in fact everything else around us - we are a part of all the wealth, abundance and prosperity of the universe. Just as your hand or foot is a part of your body, so every grain of sand, blade of grass, wisp of wind, bar of gold and brick that is laid in a mansion is part of you. The unlimited wealth of the universe is yours for the claiming. It is already yours, always has been and always will be. It is a part of you.
    Ok let's go the third point - you get more of what you focus on.

    3. "It never rains but it pours", is a saying I have used myself in the past. Have you ever wondered why such a statement appears to be true? Well metaphysics and religion tell us that "as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he" or as Job cried out to God "For that which I greatly feared has come upon me". What we focus our conscious attention on increases! Don't believe me? Test it for yourself! If you can muster up the strength to do it then think in negative terms for a week. Judge everything that happens to you in negative terms and think only of a negative outcome and watch what happens in your world!!! This is a relatively easy experiment as we are conditioned to think negatively by the world. A word of warning though - once you prove that your focus determines your reality stop thinking negative thoughts as best you can.
    I will not go into the 'hows' of why our focus has such a profound influence on our lives (that would be the subject of a book or perhaps a future article) just prove to yourself that it does. A clue can be found in the teachings of Jesus when he said "The Kingdom of heaven is within".
    So now we have the three principles of the prosperity consciousness explained let's put it to work. The attainment of a prosperity consciousness is relatively simple - just think on the first two principles until you fully understand them and integrate them into your consciousness. As you focus on them you will discover that your feelings of lack disappear and you begin to feel a connection with everything around you. It is really just an attitude shift - nothing metaphysical or mystical about it at all. You begin to consciously realize that everything is a part of you. Your focus changes from poverty to wealth.
    If it helps make a list of affirmations that correspond to the two principles outlined e.g. "God is the Source and substance of everything", "I am at one with everyone and everything around me", "I am a part of all the wealth, abundance and prosperity of the Universe" etc. Don't just rhyme them off in a parrot like manner, think on them and realize the scientific or spiritual truths behind them.

    Will it work? Well I can say now that if you follow the above instructions a real change will happen in you. You will start to see the beauty of the world and the unlimited resources that are available within and around you. Will you attain wealth, abundance and prosperity? Test it for yourself! subliminal

    By Blogger fish, at 10:33 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home