On Kennedy, Part Three
I am going to simplify my questions. Does he have good policies, or have the potential to make good policy? In the past, Gerard has performed well as a Minister in the Ontario government. I am not convinced that he has the federal experience, or, quite frankly, the federal perspective to create valuable policy for the nation. Experience is important, not necessarily the end all be all, but important nonetheless. Is he qualified to be the leader of a national party, and the country? There are several qualifications that I think are required. One is that you have had some type of political experience. Gerard has that, and, by all measures, has done a good job. As I said before, federal experience is not necessarily required, but encouraged. Will he be able to present his views in a cohesive, substantial manner that will appeal to Canadians both with the method of presentation, and by the substantive content? This is, sadly, where a promising candidate falls apart. He has not demonstrated an ability to present policy, particularly innovative policy (like his GST elimination on hybrids), in a manner that is can appeal to people. To be frank, he doesn't seem to have presented that policy at all. I don't think he and his team are giving people enough credit - they will understand policy. He needs to put it forward.
I believe that I have presented a balanced and constructively critical post that presents both the strengths and weaknesses of Gerard Kennedy. I am biased, but I have arrived at this bias through thought, not through mindless following. Gerard has some favorable attributes, but he, until now, has presented himself in a manner which I found overwhelmingly unappealing.
I believe that I have presented a balanced and constructively critical post that presents both the strengths and weaknesses of Gerard Kennedy. I am biased, but I have arrived at this bias through thought, not through mindless following. Gerard has some favorable attributes, but he, until now, has presented himself in a manner which I found overwhelmingly unappealing.



4 Comments:
Matthew; Your posts have been fair on Gerard. I know a few anonymous posters pretending to be Kennedy supporters will come on this thread a smear your guy to make GK look bad but I think your analysis is pretty good.
To be honest, I'm a little confused by what you mean about "selling his policies in an appealing way". None of the candidates have really sold their policies convincingly but we're not in an election campaign so I'm not sure that's neccesary. Most of the candidates have laid out general themes - Dion the environment, Ignatieff foreign affairs, etc. For Kennedy, he's talked about Canada as an international country.
If Kennedy's message didn't personally appeal to you, that's fair enough, although pretty subjective. He's got a good track record as education minister and a phenomenal electoral record as an MPP so he's obviously been able to sell his policies in the past. And I think that in an election campaign he certainly could as well as anyone else, if not better.
I thought you live in Calgary. If so, how can you presume to judge Kennedy's performance as Education Minister? It really wasn't spectacular one way or another.
As a teacher I agree that the work Gerard did in Ontario is 10 times better than the Tories "manufactured crisis" days of education.
I do not claim to have first hand experiance of Gerard's time as Minister, but I have heard very little bad about it, and, in the interest of fairness and balance (my previous posts have been very critical of Gerard) I have given him the benifit of the doubt.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home