Sunday, November 09, 2008

Change: The Other Choice

In 2004 the Liberals lost seats, in 2006 the Liberals lost power, in 2008 the Liberals suffered their greatest defeat since confederation; the Liberal Party does not just need a new leader, just a different face on the same old divided organization, the Liberal Party needs change. Real Change.

As of right now the Party is already polarized, not between the status quo and a new order, not between the past and the future, but polarized around two candidates whose old party campaigns' only appeal are that they aren't the other guy. Instead of a new organization, instead of real change, this race is only promising more of the same, division at the most fundamental level. Instead of those wanting a leader for the sake of his vision, there are only those who want a leader to avoid the other.

And though these two campaigns, bloated with those same old organizers that have controlled the Party throughout its decline, continue to impress upon Liberals that they are the only two choices, the only two choices for Liberal leader, I ask you to choose change. Change from this type of organization where Liberals had their power and ability to act stifled. Change from this type of Party that preferred Liberals to be followers instead of leaders. Change from this type of a leadership choice that isn't actually a choice.

This leadership does not have to be between two polarized campaigns of the status quo; this leadership can be about change, but it begins with you. Real change will never come from one person, it can only come from the people. Liberals must take the lead of their Party for the first time in a long time and choose change, choose Gerard Kennedy.


RayK said...

"In 2004 the Liberals lost seats, in 2006 the Liberals lost power, in 2008 the Liberals suffered their GREATEST DEFEAT SINCE CONFEDERATION..." let's elect another leader who can only speak one of Canada's two official languages!

I'm sorry. That's unfair. DION could speak both official languages--if with some difficulty.

Mushroom said...

You also have Dominic Leblanc, a Harvard Law School grad who can speak both languages well and more Parliamentary experience in Ottawa.

I understand your point. The Grits may not need another Obama, they need another David Cameron. A fresh face who seeks to end twenty years of bitter divide.

I was with Gerard in 2006. I am even contemplating him again despite my initial misgivings. But I would prefer he be more specific as a "NOT Rae, NOT Iggy" candidate. One that dares to seek a rupture with the past, whatever the cost.

Anonymous said...

Hey RayK you know what would be nice is if you didn't just make up an account to leave lies. It's a fact GK can speak French, the Globe and Mail debunked that idea in 2006.

I wouldn't be proud of myself for purposely pretending to be someone I'm not to leave a comment I know to be false; but that is typical of the old campaigns.


Anonymous said...

Mushroom: I left out LeBlanc because I've been informed he has no chance not to mention his familiarity with the old ways of the Party.

But I should note, I feel the exact same on every point you made.


Mushroom said...


I went to school with Dom at the U of T in the late 1980s. Bright enough, but oozes more Peter MacKay than a so-called renewal candidate.

If I am handicapping the Grits now, Gerard's appeal is that he can be a Jim Prentice type leader. This means that he needs to make overtures to the disgruntled left and present a much more appealing version of Rae. I know him well enough to the point that he is a good listener and loves focus groups. A good cure for an arrogant party, but again the Grits need to stand more than that.

SteelCityGrit said...

Saying "Change" in front of the mirror three times doesn't conjure Barack Obama. Change isn't enough. It needs to be backed with substance. Sarah Palin would've been a change too. Change is not a good enough reason to choose a fluffy candidate who can speak for an hour without saying anything. You have to do better than "change". C'mon.

Northern PoV said...

in 2008 the Liberals suffered their greatest defeat since confederation


1984: 40 seats (out of 282) or 14% of seats
2008: 77 seats (or 25% of 308)

OK so the 2008 popular vote was down a couple of points from 1984 - but J. Turner had neither the Greens or the Bloc to deal with

Anonymous said...

Steelcity: I've had this discussion with others, Gerard ran in 2006 on change, you can look at a youtube video I made then and it was all about change. This isn't conjuring up Obama this is conjuring up Kennedy.

And it's funny how you imply that my post was content-less other than a promise of change, yet you're comment is content-less. You fail to address the Party has declined for the last 5 years. You fail to address that Rae and Ignatieff are steeped in those Liberals who organized for those 5 years.

And maybe Steelcity should realize Kennedy hasn't even decided to run yet, this is just one Liberal wanting change. I find it odd you are already attacking Gerard and he hasn't even entered the race. Even more so considering this is my post and not his.

But I'm not surprised, some people are afraid of change.

Anonymous said...

Northern Pov: You answered your own question. Getting less votes ie the lowest support is the largest defeat since confederation.


Dr. Tux said...

"Liberals must take the lead of their Party for the first time in a long time and choose change, choose Gerard Kennedy."

Dion offered change. The policies he put forward would have put Canada in a leadership role on climate change in global politics. The policies he put forward on women's equality, poverty reduction, and a green economy, would have meant deep change for Canada.

Your statement about "liberals taking the lead of their party for the first time in a long time," is simply crap.

Want to learn something about politics of change? Stop alienating people who might be sympathetic to your point of view by needlessly creating divisions.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Tux: First you're free to use whatever language you want, however I suggest you grow up and don't use profanity to stress your points. Use reason instead of emotion.

Dion didn't win because he wasn't representative of what Canadians wanted. Dion won the leadership because his organized used deceitful methods at the Convention.

I'm advocating change. If that's divisive so be it.


tell it like it is said...

I see Yappa Ding Dong has gone to work on the Globe and Mail to diss Gerard Kennedy. Very, very dangerous Yappa considering the considerable dirt on how Rae treated Kennedy. Shall we start?
Here is Yappa's post:

I Yappa from Waterloo, Canada writes: So much of the discussion of Liberal leadership is about spin and optics. But more important are qualifications and competence... and I don't think Kennedy qualifies for leader and potential PM based on his basic intelligence. He has a 3-year BA and an inflated resume (his work at the food bank was mostly as a media spokesman) followed by a somewhat lackluster career as an MPP and provincial cabinet minister. He's good looking and connects well with voters (especially young men), but that's not enough. We have to be more responsible when we choose a leader and make sure we get someone who can do the job.

Anonymous said...

I only spoke against Rae and Ignatieff's organizers and their general campaigns, not the men individually. If Yappa wants to act like some juvenile I'll let her.


Mushroom said...

"Dion won the leadership because his organized used deceitful methods at the Convention."

This quote shows what your so-called intentions are. You are supporting Kennedy while at the same time throwing Dionistas such as Jamie Carroll, Denise Brunsdon, and Mark Marrissen under the bus. One petty group of political backstabbers to be replaced by the Scott Ross of the day.

"I'm advocating change. If that's divisive so be it."

The Iggy and Rae people want to have a bloodbath. If you want to be open about knifing certain Grits, then be my guest. In the end, we are merely foot soldiers in this political game.

Anonymous said...

Mushroom: I'm not advocating any such thing. I don't even know how to respond to what you are suggesting. First I am not advocating cutting out those people, or even ignoring them. I don't even know on what basis are you naming them.

Second I'm not using anybody, I supported Kennedy in 2006 because of the change he ran on then.

Third I don't want to be an organizer. I don't want anything of the kind.

For you to accuse me of anything of the kind, of using people etc. You are suggesting I am a liar and that I wrote multiple posts just for my own ends. I believe the Liberal Party needs change, you can read into that as much as you want, but don't suggest I am using anyone or that I don't believe what I write.