<< FLANNERY BUSTED ~ MAIN ~ COOL AID >>
KEVIN CAN’T RECALL
Kevin Rudd, March 4, 2007:
I can’t recall Mr Howard ever admitting he’s made any mistakes on issues like taking our country to war on a lie.
Kevin Rudd, 24 September, 2002:
There is no debate or dispute as to whether Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. He does.
(Via Currency Lad)
UPDATE. Tee hee:
“Mr Rudd keeps avoiding, dare I say it, the inconvenient truth,” Mr Howard said.
Id like to stike a suitably piratical tone and say “Hoist by your own petard, arrrrharrr!!”. Whos messing with whos mind now?
Anyone from the labor party approached Kevin and asked how his pancreas is feeling? No sudden little outbursts of rage? Taxi drivers all still driving with both arms on the wheel?
Most importantly has Addams given him the kiss of death yet by declaring him the great white hope for this ellection?Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 03 04 at 03:26 AM • permalinkKevin should get that gunshot wound to his foot taken care of. Seriously, it looks pretty bad.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 03 04 at 03:27 AM • permalinkTim, c’mon now.. Where did Rudd get his information from?
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/01/1078117370031.html?from=storyrhs
If the bet is this; that Rudd is untrustworthy and shifty and Howard has always been squeaky clean, I’ll put 500 quatludes on the newcomer, as they say. I’ve got my problems with Rudd, but good lord help Howard if he thinks people trust him. They trust him like a wealthy uncle. He’ll do when we need the money, but don’t leave him with the kids.
Posted by Wolves Evolve on 2007 03 04 at 03:31 AM • permalinkTim, c’mon now.. Where did Rudd get his information from?
And if you’re going to blame the Americans and British for faulty intelligence, thereby clearing Rudd of all blame, why, let’s not forget the other dupes.
Who does Rudd stand with? Why, the United Nations (remember all those resolutions?), the Clinton Administration and the concurrent sessions of US Congress, not to mention a very famous anti-war activist, who said:
I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program
He said that pre-war, I might add.
And all these naive people foolishly trusted American and British intelligence! For shame, that they should have fallen to such depths of depravity.
Perhaps they should all get together with Rudd for a beer and a good cry, eh?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 03 04 at 03:59 AM • permalinkWolves Evolve, Poor kev should never have come over to WA. There is something in the water that makes labor pollies amnesiac.
Its called carmenitis after poor carmen lawrence. She lost all memory of many things while in court, but found work in a sheltered workshop afterwards.A woman killed herself and carmen doesnt recall.
Still havent seen that paper Carmen was going to write on her “memory loss” though, maybe shes forgotten it?Poor Peter Dowding who also suffered memory loss, and helped usher in native title in WA now works in a law firm specalising in, you guessed it native title.
About 1/3 the way down is interesting, may seem a bit of dejavou.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 03 04 at 04:18 AM • permalinkWait until the public discovers that Rudd is also implicated in meetings with leading ALP dickwads, Steve Bracks, Morris Iemma, Peter Beattie, Paul Lennon, Mike Rann, Alan Carpenter, Clare Martin and Jon Stanhope.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 03 04 at 04:47 AM • permalinkI’ve got my problems with Rudd, but good lord help Howard if he thinks people trust him. They trust him like a wealthy uncle. He’ll do when we need the money, but don’t leave him with the kids.
#5: WTF? So, wealthy people are pedophiles. Or is it only uncles? Or just the Prime Minister?
And is that a premise or a conclusion? Wow, logic that turns upon itself with a snap to kill the very point it was trying to make. I must be missing something here.
“Mr Rudd keeps avoiding, dare I say it, the inconvenient truth,” Mr Howard said.
Best one-liner from Howard in 12 years.
——————————————-
So, Rudd wants an early election NOW while he reckons he can win. Yeah, right Kev. Have a good lie down and keep taking the tablets.Reminds me of an exchange some 13 years ago:-
Hewson: Why won’t you call an early election?
Keating: The answer is, mate, because I want to do you slowly.Howard’d sentiments exactly!
Hey everybody. Remember Margo’s Maid said this:-
Wait until the public discovers that Rudd is also implicated in meetings with leading ALP dickwads, Steve Bracks, Morris Iemma, Peter Beattie, Paul Lennon, Mike Rann, Alan Carpenter, Clare Martin and Jon Stanhope.
Couldn’t have put it better myself Margo.
I’m surprised tho that you also think they’re dickwads.Re 21 and 15: This comment from Boxofmatches in a post 5 below this one:
“And I’m looking forward to the next 6 months where hopefully Rudd will be assuming the Ned Beatty role in Deliverance.”
Ahem.
My point was, and continues to be, that Howard’s public image does not, nor ever has, include a great deal of trust. Dependability in a storm, perhaps, but Australians love to vote for Howard partly because he’s open about what he is; a lover of power. We know the first thing J.Ho did when he got into power - hire Keating’s stylist, and its no accident! Latham’s pretense to be something else was the beginning of his undoing (as well as his madness).
Howard does well to stick to personal attacks on the mettle, rather than the merit, of his opponents. This is because he’s a true survivor of the barbs in national discourse and knows that his image will never extend to that of a charismatic or trustworthy leader of the nation. To his vast credit, he’s managed to conflate the sense of dependability with the image of good governance - precisely the Thatcherite mould he aspires to. Whenever he accuses others of being power-players, you can hear archive searching across the nation’s libraries. So, to return to my analogy; we trust him precisely like a rich uncle. Not to make any connections between the rich and peverted, uncles and sex crime, but a precise corollary between that image and Howard - the black sheep patriarch, the JR of our Dallas. The grand, national guilty pleasure.
If you think I’m an unqualified lefty lunatic, have this for ammo; I don’t think Labour has put up a serious campaign or candidate since Howard took office, and frankly hasn’t deserved to take it from him. This is why it gives me great pleasure to watch Costello prepare his petard and Howard look for the nearest gun; he senses a real fight for once, which is good for the country either way. Aren’t we getting another new cabinet tomorrow?; goodie goodie.
Posted by Wolves Evolve on 2007 03 04 at 05:47 AM • permalinkI am now convinced WE is not an unqualified lefty lunatic.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 03 04 at 05:53 AM • permalinkSo no real replies then? I think I’m being measured; I didn’t mention c-ildren o-erboard once. I know how defensive people can get about that particular lie.
Didn’t Andrew Bolt call Howard a liar on his blog a couple of weeks ago? That is, of course, before he was whipped back into line?
Again; this is actually not a blot on Johnny: he is open about what he is.
And this from the ABC:
Western Australian Premier Alan Carpenter says that is a dangerous proposition.
“It’s pretty clear that what is happening at federal Level is that John Howard, the Prime Minister, wants to keep the spotlight on Kevin Rudd and is prepared to sacrifice his own minister, so far one, to keep that spotlight where it wants it,” he said.
“But if you set the bar at such a high level that virtually no-one can have had any contact with Brian Burke for any reason at any time then you’re setting a very high bar.
“Ian Campbell is the first Government minister to fall victim to that - who knows what else might happen.”
Or is the ABC still full of a left-wing bias? It seems Carpenter is aware of other dealings Burke has had. Looks like Costello shouldn’t be shooting his mouth off so soon. Oh, but what’s this new angle? Campbell got the shunt because he was too much a leftie? Is this seriously the new version of the story?
Posted by Wolves Evolve on 2007 03 04 at 06:26 AM • permalinkAlan Carpenter is against bringing too many Asians to Australia - there might be riots!
Good source, Darwinian Dog.
Wolves, I read your second post and I can’t really see what you’re saying. I THINK you just spent three paragraphs saying “John Howard is a politician”.
Is that right?
Was your next point that he’s in power because we have some sort of unhealthy attraction to aresholes?
Finally, did you attempt to dissuade us of your leftiness by dissing Thatcher Herself?
No, I’m saying Howard is pushing a panic button and Costello put it under his finger. None of this has the cool relaxed Howard measure we’ve come to adore. Does anybody here doubt - for a second - that Costello is going to be shafted by Howard, open-ballot style should the Libs win? Lets get on the record now and see which conservatives think he stands a chance of being PM. Anybody?
I think its moments like this, where Costello’s mouth gets everybody else in trouble, that you begin to see what the Liberal party machine is all about (God bless their little cotton socks.) Where’s Andrew Peacock when we need him?
“Was your next point that he’s in power because we have some sort of unhealthy attraction to aresholes?”
After Hawke (dirty money) and Keating (secret deals) and now Honest John (all of the above plus ideological dementia)? Heaven forfend. You think Howard’s been re-elected because he emits a faint holy glow of trustworthiness? Rubbish. The Howard petard is low interest rates and people love him for it; for now.
I would never try you to dissuade of my leftiness, I’m just not an unqualified lefty. I grew up under Thatcher and saw precisely what a social conservative utopia looks like - and how cheaply people abandon it for the whiff of anything else.
Posted by Wolves Evolve on 2007 03 04 at 09:21 AM • permalinkYep, great situation it was before she got in eh? And really good now, too.
Low interest rates and low unemployment are certainly John’s strong points. Can’t think of anything much beyond that I really want from a government, apart from it to fuck off and leave me alone.
And, forgive my obtuseness here, but what’s ideological dementia?
#35
Does anybody here doubt - for a second - that Costello is going to be shafted by Howard, open-ballot style should the Libs win? Lets get on the record now and see which conservatives think he stands a chance of being PM. Anybody?Shouldn’t that be would be shafted?
That’s your real fear, huh, that the Libs will retain power ...Wolves, I read your second post and I can’t really see what you’re saying. I THINK you just spent three paragraphs saying “John Howard is a politician”.
I think his first post tried to make the same boring point with his “good lord help Howard if he thinks people trust him” strawman. I guess lefties now think Howard is as dumb as they usually think Dubya is?
And ideological dementia, I suppose, is where Howard is in actuality much more of a social democrat than he and his party will claim on the campaign trail (a point that Habib and some others here have also made). However, why a lefty might think that’s a good argument against Howard is quite beyond me, as it contains two crucial holes:
1) It implicitly considers us all to be dumb hicks (not David), whose Pavlovian response to the revelation that “Wot? Howard’s not a rock-ribbed conservative?” ought to be “why, let’s vote for guys even more left than him instead!”, and
2) It makes you wonder why the lefty making the argument dislikes Howard in the first place, if he’s supposedly governing to the left.*
All in all, colour me more amused than convinced, Wolves Evolve.
* (I used to have the same reaction to BDS sufferers who wouldn’t acknowledge that Dubya’s pretty much the Democratic dream President with his former “compassionate conservatism” mantra and his free-spending ways.)
PW: Sorry if there’s any confusion, but time and again I’ve said Howard is a canny political operator and I would never consider him to be dumb as Dubya; thats basically blood libel.
Is it just easier to assume I said what’s easy for you to tear down?
I said that I hope that Howard doesn’t think people trust him. In no way do I mean that to be a straw man, nor do I understand how it could be construed as such. He -obviously- thinks people trust him to some degree, but to what extent will be revealed as this issue plays out.
Ideological dementia is where you forget, conveniently or otherwise, the morals you espouse. I did not mean to say that Howard is more of a social democrat than he says he is - because I don’t believe that for a red hot minute. You used a -classic- straw-man argument on me! Oh, you card! Now I’m having to defend something I never said or believed in!
As for your conversations with BDS sufferers, its a shame nobody took the time to argue with you, or show you the shape of the US budgets of the past ten years.
Posted by Wolves Evolve on 2007 03 04 at 10:45 AM • permalinkIs it just easier to assume I said what’s easy for you to tear down?
Well, you’re remarkably incapable of making your points clearly (I’m presuming there are supposed to be some, anyway), so it’s hard to respond to your posts without making WAGs. You’re trying to tell me that’s not by design? I guess I’d have to change your classification from “mediocre troll wannabe” to “blinkered fool”, then.
As for your conversations with BDS sufferers, its a shame nobody took the time to argue with you, or show you the shape of the US budgets of the past ten years.Oh, they did argue, but there wasn’t much point to it. Just like you (apparently), none of them ever seemed to recall or understand that the vaunted balanced budgets of the Clinton administration were mostly an accident of history thanks to the high-tech bubble, and that Clinton himself had precious little to do with running a surplus, other than the fact that the Republican Congress gridlocked him and the Democrats on most spending bills after 1994. As for Dubya spending like a drunken sailor, surely you’ve managed to catch my disdain in the previous comment.
Thanks for condescending that I wouldn’t be aware of “the shape of the US budgets over the past ten years”, BTW, that matter truly never came up in my five years of studying for two econ degrees.
Next.
Oh, and I forgot to mention Reagan’s 1980s tax cuts laying the groundwork for the 1990s period of prosperity for which Clinton reaped the media accolades, though at least Bill was smart enough not to get in the way for the most part, something I’d doubt for basically all front-runners for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination.
Thanks for condescending that I wouldn’t be aware of “the shape of the US budgets over the past ten years”, BTW, that matter truly never came up in my five years of studying for two econ degrees.
In all fairness, PW, Wolves Evolve may not be familiar with your background, if s/he is in fact a new commenter here (which, of course, I can’t confirm or deny).
OTOH, his/her reading and comprehension skills are atrocious, given that you flat out pummeled Dubya (for good reason) on his budgets. The only reason that he’s gotten away with it were the tax cuts/increased Federal revenue.
BTW, Wolves Evolves, you seem to be chipping away at the trust base Howard has built up with Australians during his stint as PM.
I say that because you are assuming that people don’t trust him (”He -obviously- thinks people trust him to some degree, but to what extent will be revealed as this issue plays out. ”)
May I point that you will need a bigger hammer and chisel? Or maybe a different approach? From an empirical perspective, people do trust him, at least as far anyone will trust an elected official.
Has he disappointed people? Yes, on both sides of the aisle. Will he do so again? Probably. It’s not a failing if he does so; were that a failing in politics, the (American) Democrats would have collapsed as a party 10 years ago.
Truly, the one aspect of Howard that I truly admire is that he makes his own decisions and then sticks to them, regardless of public opinion. In that regards, at least, he outshines Dubya.
And, for the record, I do not swoon at Howard’s feet. I have my issues with him as well. It’s just that I take the good with the bad, as is typical when dealing with human beings.
Rudd, on the other hand, gives all the indications of being another Mark Latham, although I’d bet he’ll have his meltdown before the next elections, instead of after.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 03 04 at 12:57 PM • permalinkHm. New Member of a forum sees that the old members have an idisyncratic conversational style honed over months if not years of back-and-forth repartee. New Member happens to be what we here in the states call a “liberal progressive knowitall” so his competitive instincts, cramped and thwarted by years of socialist/feminist/PC thought control, cause him to think to himself: “Right! I’ll just join in here and show them how it’s really done.” And just like all the other “liberal progressive knowitalls” who have wandered by these parts, New Member proceeds to offer up the same plate of boring political pabulum and heavy-handed innuendo salted with a couple of obsessive (and awkward) analogies (eg., “rich uncle”). Old members proceed to hand him his nuts on a platter.
The moral of the story is: don’t bring a wet noodle to a gunfight, Wolves.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 03 04 at 01:08 PM • permalinkIn all fairness, PW, Wolves Evolve may not be familiar with your background, if s/he is in fact a new commenter here (which, of course, I can’t confirm or deny).
Them’s the breaks when somebody comes in all aflutter with pre-conceived notions of their own über-intelligence and the assumption that there can’t possibly be anybody who knows more about [random subject] than they does. Maybe one judicious application of the biggest cluebat available will be sufficient to convince WE that that’s not a winning approach, but somehow I doubt it. It’s win-win for us anyway…either the result is an insightful lefty, or an entertaining one. :)
At any rate, I wasn’t trying to make an appeal to my own authority…a hundred other commenters here know enough to make the same argument so this is hardly dependent on my holding whatever degree. But it’s always funny to see lame snark misdirected (especially unintentionally) at somebody who literally has to know something about the subject at hand. (I recall being rather amused when some trollbots were trying to argue with you about levee construction after Katrina, to name just one example.)
Other gems from Mr Rudd.
1.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200209/s682112.htm
Iraq’s Foreign Minister is a liar, says Rudd
Labor’s Foreign Affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd has discussed the prospects of a war against Iraq with the British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, in London.Mr Rudd says he was not given prior access to the dossier of evidence Prime Minister Tony Blair claims to have on Iraq’s capabilities, but British diplomats have indicated they want a tighter timeline for weapons inspectors to operate in Iraq.
Mr Rudd has told the ABC’s Lateline there is no doubt that claims made by Iraq’s Foreign Minister to the United Nations yesterday are false, and it is up to the international community to decide what to do about it.
“Iraq’s Foreign Minister is a liar,” he said.
“Iraq plainly possesses chemical and biological weapons agents and there is some evidence that those agents have been weaponised.
“The nuclear question is a much more open one but that bold faced statement that he put to the United Nations is simply untrue.”
2.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200209/s682114.htm
Labor’s foreign affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, has discussed the prospects of a war against Iraq with British Foreign Minister Jack Straw in London.Mr Rudd says Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri, is a liar for stating that his country has no weapons of mass destruction.
3.
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech921.html
in October 2002 by Labor’s foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd where he said this: ‘Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. That is a matter of empirical fact. If you don’t believe the intelligence assessments, you simply read the most recent bulletin from the Federation of American Scientists, which lists Iraq among a number of states in possession of chemical, [and] biological weapons and with the capacity to develop a nuclear program.’
Posted by curious george on 2007 03 04 at 07:47 PM • permalinkBut it’s always funny to see lame snark misdirected (especially unintentionally) at somebody who literally has to know something about the subject at hand.
Oh, yes, PW, very true, and very amusing! I was simply giving Wolves Evolves the benefit of the doubt, and perhaps in vain, given his/her earlier comments, and a condescending attitude to boot. My bad, but them is the breaks, indeed.
In any case, W.E. was pretty much off the mark in most of this thread. I’m hoping that s/he improves their debating skills, else we are going to be disappointed by yet another “LLL” or Bryla.
Lefties who are both rational and honest in their discussions are as rare as virgins at a Friday night frat house kegger, so maybe my hopes are in vain.
So we’re more likely to see an entertaining leftie…..which has almost much appeal as an insightful one! ;-P
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 03 04 at 08:22 PM • permalinkWell you all seem very pleased with yourselves. Ho-ho chums and all that. There’s a lot of fluff and assumption about my position and immediate dismissal thereof, despite the fact I’ve gone out of my way to be complicated and even-handed at time. Nevermind; bread and circuses for all.
I’ll address this to PW, though; congrats on getting two degrees in a field, that shows resilience. I certainly know nothing about economics; until recently I thought Milton Friedman love was a joke played by the right on the left. I was responding in kind to your mean-spirited dismissal of lefties vis-a-vis Bush and certainly didn’t notice you berate him for spending. You’re right; its a joke.
My point was and is that Howard’s public image is not one fuelled by a vast amount of public trust. He is respected and even loved, but very much considered a Lying Politician and has done well to construct a successful career - and a popular government - despite this. My own years working for a media monitoring company may not be the same as two degrees, but in terms of the nuances of political images and their manipulation, maybe I’ve got something to add?
Or not. God knows lefties are resigned to be the jester inside the mannish world of real debate, jingle jingle.
Posted by Wolves Evolve on 2007 03 04 at 09:13 PM • permalinkOr not. God knows lefties are resigned to be the jester inside the mannish world of real debate, jingle jingle.
W.E., it’s obvious that you don’t trust Howard. I accept that, and I’m sure others here will as well.
However, you keep on asserting that that a significant portion of the Australian public does not trust him either. In your words, “not fueled by a vast amount of public trust”.
I say “asserting” because you fail to offer evidence that this is the case. Your tone and phrasing is not unlike that I would get from a chronic sufferer of BDS….except that for you it might be HDS.
Now you toss in the comment that you work for a media monitoring company, which may (or may not) give you an inside look to this aspect. And the you fail to elaborate, other than “...in terms of the nuances of political images and their manipulation, maybe I’ve got something to add?”
That last comment being, if I may be blunt, a personal opinion….which is the basis for assertions.
So if we haven’t been taken you seriously, it’s because you haven’t offered much in the way of being serious.
And if you work for a media monitoring company…..well, I’m not familiar with them, but I wonder just how that might be a qualification to judge the public’s level of trust towards Howard?
I say that because I’ve read surveys demonstrating that the mainstream media, by and large, leans to the left. A lot. So if your sole source of data is the MSM, well, it’s probably a biased source.
And if you use polls as well, I can only say that most polls are barely worth the paper they are published on. That’s my personal opinion, BTW, based on the observation that objective polls tend to be the exception, rather than the rule. Especially when one sees a lot of conflicting polls issued at the same time.
I also repeat what I said earlier:
Has he {Howard} disappointed people? Yes, on both sides of the aisle. Will he do so again? Probably. It’s not a failing if he does so; were that a failing in politics, the (American) Democrats would have collapsed as a party 10 years ago.
I said that because Howard is a politician. Such creatures, IMHO, are not the most trustworthy of people simply because of all the log rolling they must do.
So it’s not that I disagree with you that people do or do not trust Howard; I simply am not accepting your assertion that a “vast amount” of the public doesn’t trust him.
It may be that they trust him more than anyone the ALP has offered up as a candidate (God knows that the ALP candidates of late have set a very low standard for trust, from what I’ve read), in the “Who should I vote against this time?” manner of voting.
But Australia has consistently voted the Liberal party, and hence Howard, into control for 11-12 years. If you think that Howard has put up a shell all that time, well, he’s one damned slick politician, that’s all I can say. He may not be trustworthy, but he is effective.
The bottom line being, I am not required to accept your assertions at face value. That’s a problem we get here, a lot: lefties pop in with their assertions, and leave with their heads in their hands when those assertions are enviscerated.
If you have facts to back your opinion up, put them on the table (actually, it would be a conclusion, not an opinion, but I digress).
I’ve been known to listen; hell, I’ve been known to agree with lefties…when they present a good argument with facts.
Otherwise, you’re just another protestor carrying a sign that says “No more hoWARd!” Entertaining but not insightful.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 03 04 at 11:34 PM • permalinkJeff, thanks for taking the time to expound (not being sarcastic here.)
A media monitoring company is a meta-news service; think of it as a vast RSS feed aggregator with millions of dollars. Basically a MM company will analyse all information in the media, from radio, tv, internet and elsewhere and produce analyse according to any number of methods that people like. In my time there I had corporate clients and jobs for all the major and minor political parties at the federal level and less so state-wise. For example, one job during an election is to give daily reports to the campaign manager of the positive, neutral and negative publicity, analyse the tones of all those variations, etc.
It was precisely a media monitors job, in short, to gauge public opinion. Its an interesting job and you often find political parties co-operating and trading information at this level, even during a pitched battle.
I don’t particularly accept the shortening of mainstream media to ‘MSM’ or the accusation of it being left-wing biased, but I understand that’s a popular viewpoint. What I find interesting is that when people complain about it, its often terms of ‘an inherent left-wing bias’, and not something that could be changed with a Malaysian style cleansing, per se.
I certainly agree that those interested in public life are bleeding hearts, but you know as well as I do that doesn’t always translate to leftism. Anyway, I digress.
My analysis of Howard is not just based on the MSM (ahem) or polls, but please understand if you write those two things off as biased, its sounding a little conspiratorial. Like you say that ‘surveys’ prove the MSM is left-biased, well that’s great for surveys.
I think more to the point is that journalism is full of opportunistic freaks who’ll attack whoever’s in power for a quick buck. Howard cops an extraordinary amount of flak from the press and survives; its part of the poltical discourses HE has set up and HE thrives on. Its to his advantage to have ABC presenters come after him; go back two weeks and see the gloating about proof of the national broadcaster’s bias. Of course its biased! You’re never going to fix that, not with a million Keith Windschuttles. Its a non-story, non-event.
I’m asking thar we remember history; we threw out Keating because he was a smart-arse. What a remarkable testament to our sense of character. We just genuinely put governance second to the quality of a person, and I think that’s something to celebrate, even if I mourn Keating’s loss. (Costello is ‘all tip and no iceberg’, oh lord have mercy!)
Howard didn’t get voted out after children overboard. Fact. So don’t take my words here to mean that people don’t want him as leader, they do. But you can be leader without the public having any trust. That’s why he’s stopping making promises and grand statements; he chimes in on public debates, lets cabinet ministers get in trouble (Costello, Abbott, Coonan) and swoops in from on high to moderate. Berlusconi did a similar thing in his second tenure with far more bombast; he knew people didn’t have a great love for him so he let the Forza machine move into the public eye.
So my analysis of the Burke issue is that Howard is doing himself serious political damage on two fronts; insisting on integrity when it isn’t part of his own public image and shanking Campbell as a sacrificial lamb when it wasn’t called for. Every passing hour this sticks to the front page is traction, air-time, and opportunities for Rudd when he needs them. Latham was decimated by Howard months prior to the polls and we all saw why. Steadiness and subtle needling. Why the change of tactic if he thinks Rudd is the same? Never ever give the political machine the smell of blood; Kennett learned that.
Posted by Wolves Evolve on 2007 03 05 at 12:30 AM • permalinkTRJS
“... years working for a media monitoring company ... nuances of political images and their manipulation ...”Somehow your knowledge, expertise, accepting of arguments with facts, et al, do not appear to measure up to WE’s aptitudes germane to perceptive evaluation of arcane political realities. Note, also, his polished references to military engineering paraphernalia. However, if he quotes Infidel, my admiration for his perspicuity will be sadly diminished.
Chers
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2007 03 05 at 12:49 AM • permalinkG’day Wolves Evolve,
Part of the problem with the points that you are trying to make is that they are mostly non-sequiturs - you say that people don’t trust Howard as if you are contradicting repeated assertions that he is trusted. The point is that there is little to respond to in your posts.
It is not a question of whether people trust Howard - it is simply a question of whether they vote for him. Since 1996 they have. This makes a lot of people very cross - but the poor temper does not change the facts on the ground.
Thanks for the expanded reply, W.E.
My major shortcoming here is that I am not Australian, so I don’t have the context of Keating, and I get my data strictly through the news.
So, I’m at a loss to see how Howard changing tactics is necessarily a bad thing, if in fact that’s what he doing (that long distance thing, y’know). I’m not saying your analysis is wrong; I noting that there could be an alternative strategy here.
OTOH, even good generals screw up. Karl Rove demonstrated that in the last Federal elections here in the US, when he misread the level of discontent amongst the conservative voters….and why.
So your argument has merit. I can’t disprove it, of course, so I won’t dismiss it. However, a few points are in order:
1. “Integrity” is sometimes a value laden judgement. If your values match up with another person, you might complement them for their integrity. If not, then the opposite may apply.
For example, I see Senator Ted Kennedy as one of the most untrustworthy and self-serving critters in Congress today (and that’s saying a lot); I would never dignify his name by associating it with “integrity”. However, there are people who think Senator Kennedy is one of the leading lights in the Senate for ethics, and are prepared to say so under oath.
So an analysis involving integrity could be biased. Is Howard infused with integrity? We’d have to set up an accounting system to find out, since we can’t see into his soul. ;-P
Thus, I expect that we’ll have to agree to disagree on this aspect of your analysis. Ultimately, only the elections, and eventually history, will show who had the right analysis.
2. This comment:
Every passing hour this sticks to the front page is traction, air-time, and opportunities for Rudd when he needs them. Latham was decimated by Howard months prior to the polls and we all saw why. Steadiness and subtle needling.
Well, there’s a good side to this, from Howard’s perspective: if that air-time is not positive for Rudd, it could be a win for Howard, especially if Rudd inserts his foot into his mouth all by himself. Kerry did exactly that on multiple occasions during the 2004 Presidential elections (you might recall his really lame attempts to associate himself with the “common man”, like the faux duck hunting trip). Kerry, in some ways, was Bush’s best campaigner.
Of course, this requires Rudd’s cooperation. I don’t know the ins and outs of Australian politics, so this is just a guess on my part. I merely point out alternative strategies.
3. I did not say that I read surveys that “proved” media bias. I said, to wit:
I say that because I’ve read surveys demonstrating that the mainstream media, by and large, leans to the left. A lot.
I tend to be pendatic in my phrasing (except for snark), and I was most careful here, since it *does* approach the “conspiracy theory” level.
But people working towards a common goal, and feeding from a data source, will tend to react in similar manners. That’s a major premise in training military forces, what’s called “initiative” and “decentralized execution”. It doesn’t require a group of ragged revolutionaries whispering around a guttering candle in a ruined mission, just a lot people going in the same direction, executing similar tasks, with the same values. About the way Western civilization works, now that I think upon it.
Thanks for the response: Your analysis makes sense and is “insightful”, even if I don’t agree with it.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 03 05 at 01:28 AM • permalinkI would also add that Glenn Milne’s writings in The Australian are so vile, so corrupt, they actually may be producing Labour voters out of thin air due to the second law of thermodynamics. He is the most craven and shallow political commentator this side of Laurie Oakes, and quickly catching up to him in that regard. I dare any of you to defend Milne’s writing today (5th March).
I’ve never been inside a press gallery but as Darwin is my witness I could do a better job.
I am still confused how The Australian (Government Gazette) leans so right but is read mostly by social lefties. This jester’s getting old-fashioned, I fear.
Posted by Wolves Evolve on 2007 03 05 at 01:34 AM • permalinkIt is not a question of whether people trust Howard - it is simply a question of whether they vote for him. Since 1996 they have. This makes a lot of people very cross - but the poor temper does not change the facts on the ground.
Thank you, Russell, I meant to include this as well, and just skipped over it. It’s a valid point, even if the reasoning is, “He’s a bastard, but he’s our bastard!”
J.M.—that’s cool, W.E. is simply looking at Howard from a different perspective, and me as well (note the “conspiracy” comment). At least W.E. is being gracious enough to explain their position, unlike other lefties who get pissed when we asked them to explain their assertions.
Wolves Evolves did just that, and even if I don’t fully agree with the premises, I can’t fault all of the logic.
Perhaps others can find errors (like ignoring the repeated return of Howard to the PM office), but s/he at least offers an explanation for that as well. That may be wishful thinking, or it may be that W.E. has access to data that we don’t. *I* certainly can’t offer a counterargument beyond empirical data, trusting that the linear trend will continue.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 03 05 at 01:36 AM • permalinkJeff, the media monitoring job taught me within days just how shallow the left-right descriptors are, how damaging the divide has become. Its useful for the political machine and improves the lives of not a single person outside of it. Which is why I am here, on a right-wing blog, trying to speak reasonably but passionately. I want to know how this particular machine is working and even take part in it.
So I’m a lefty, but I have an interest in the political machine first, and want good government first. I have my pet subjects (abortion, gay marriage, freedom of speech) but they come second, they have to.
Kerry and Latham were similar in a lot of ways, and not to profit personally from their demise, but the second they were nominated/voted into opposition leadership, I felt it was over for them. Lefties are furious (livid, really) that we haven’t been offered a chance at good governance. That may be hard to swallow, but you want the root of Howard-hate, its more to do with that any real zeitgeist. My contempt for Kimmy B. when he folded on Tampa is complete, absolute, without mercy. It was a sad day for politics across the board and I think political discourse suffered as a result.
Russell, good point. I don’t think there’s been too many people saying Howard’s trustworthy, and you’re right, it ultimately doesn’t matter. I hope I’ve been clear on that fact, too. In short, I think that Howard needs to remain dead silent on issues of integrity, as he usually does, and this week shows a terribly risky shift of tactic in that regard. That’s all I’m saying.
To characterise it as a Rudd freakout or him avoiding questions is fine as a surface analysis for now, but the broad political climate is that Howard looks scared and weird once again, and hasn’t since.. well, the wake of Port Arthur, perhaps? Howard watchers may disagree here - but:
Skim the blog comments and letters pages of the Herald Sun, Age and Australian today. Okay, not the fairest read, but have a look as I just did. I think my analysis is at least partially vindicated; the spin has met ‘drag’; a somewhat uncommon media parlance for people having an opinion. As in ‘oh, that’s a drag.’ The government assault appears to have stalled in the public eye and all we got out of it was a new cabinet.
Posted by Wolves Evolve on 2007 03 05 at 02:09 AM • permalinkAddendum: does anyone remember the Herald Sun poll in 2004: “Should paedophiles be given tougher sentences? Yes/No.”
The fact that question was allowed to go to print tells you everything you need to know about the polling companies and strategies. Worthless, divisive, stupefying.
12 people, by the way, voted no.
Posted by Wolves Evolve on 2007 03 05 at 02:13 AM • permalinkI’m asking thar we remember history; we threw out Keating because he was a smart-arse.
Rubbish. We threw him out because he destroyed the economy. Don’t you remember unemployment over 10%, record high interest rates and budget deficits?
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2007 03 05 at 03:10 AM • permalink#54
W.E,
These would be offset x1000 by the likes of Adams, Prices, Ramsay, Margo and Grattan.
Add another .5% swing every time Keating opens his trap.
Posted by curious george on 2007 03 05 at 03:29 AM • permalinkJeff, the media monitoring job taught me within days just how shallow the left-right descriptors are, how damaging the divide has become.
I’m with you on that, W.E. I’m officially an “independent” here the States, which simply means that I am not affiliated with any party. I view myself as “center right”, but I do have a lot of sympathy for some so-called leftie causes.
And I used to vote for candidates. Of late, though, I’ve had to take Heinlein’s advice, and vote against many candidates, largely because I wasn’t sure exactly where they stood, or because I didn’t accept their intentions as valid.
The problem being, of course, just what is the difference between (say) Republican and Democrat here in the States? It generally comes down to one or two issues (but that’s another story).
I suppose we could list the idiots on either side of the aisle, but really, all the last elections did was to swap out the bastards in charge.
Even back in the Jimmuh Cahtuh days (and those were bizarre times, believe me), Congress was not so divisive. “Grid lock” was unknown. Today, it’s factionalism and self-promotion, with delays in important legislation while Congress fritters away their time on frivilous crap or stupid junkets.
I would prefer not to use the term “leftie”, as I used to lean in that direction myself. But it is very clear that there is a divide in the political spectrum, one that I will not cross. Some of the things that the “progressives” champion truly sicken me, although I am less than happy with some “conservatives”....Blair’s Law has been demonstrated many times, alas.
What caused this all factionalism (in the USA, at least, I can’t say that about Australia) is a matter for much discussion. But I think the heart of it started with the “polarization”, probably as far back as the Vietnam War…..and may be the fall out from World War II.
In the meantime, we do have a definite split, however shallow, with elements of the “left” (and the “right”, to be fair) allying with the acknowledged enemies of the West. Since I prefer Western civilization to remain intact, and to continue to grow, I’m firmly on this side.
Thanks for the insight; it truly was.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 03 05 at 03:32 AM • permalinkBTW, I view polls as counterproductive to the democratic process, if not the mental facilities. Your example is a case in point for both.
They may be useful to survey for product markets, but for political decision making, I’d rather wait and see the groundhog sees his shadow or not.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 03 05 at 03:35 AM • permalinkIf wolves can evolve, why can’t leftoids?
The essential reason Howard will win his fifth successive federal election (apart from the economy, national security, experience, character, incumbency etc etc) is because the regressive elites, like W.E., are so utterly clueless.Lefties are furious (livid, really) that we haven’t been offered a chance at good governance.
why do you suppose that might be? to paraphrase Howard himself, its not (just) the personalities, it’s the policies. why on earth would an optimistic, growing nation want a party whose philosophy is mired in negativity, self loathing and double standards, who would cosy-up to islamosocialism – the very antithesis of what most Australians are about? We just plain don’t want you!
Part of the problem with the points that you are trying to make is that they are mostly non-sequiturs - you say that people don’t trust Howard as if you are contradicting repeated assertions that he is trusted. The point is that there is little to respond to in your posts.
That was pretty much what I was trying to get at earlier, too.
It’s almost an in-joke among conservatives that right-wing governments get voted in to improve the economy, and once they’ve sufficiently done so, the voters get restless and in the mood for free stuff (i.e. social programs) and vote in a left-wing government - which proceeds to wreck the economy, until people are fed up enough to beg the right-wingers to fix it again. That repeated claim that “the voters don’t trust Howard as much as he might think” indicates that either
a) the writer is a bit dense because he thinks that’s any kind of revelation around this blog, when it’s not, or
b) the writer thinks that the rest of us (including Howard) are a bit dense and haven’t figured out that pattern on our own already.
Either way, it comes across as somewhat patronizing.
At any rate, the fact that Howard didn’t get voted out in 2004 despite his government getting quite long in the tooth is quite obviously more an indictment of the shoddy ‘04 Labour Party than it is an indication that Howard has some kind of potential for president-for-life. WE’s argument implicitly assumes that Howard doesn’t understand that - I highly doubt that’s the case.
WE’s argument implicitly assumes that Howard doesn’t understand that - I highly doubt that’s the case.
Thank you, PW, I had a problem expressing that succintly, but you did that nicely.
W.E.‘s analysis is decent (not brilliant, but at least an honest effort), but his/her premises—such as you note—are not solid, in part because s/he holds Howard in low regard. And there may be more than a little wishful thinking involved as well.
The last thing you want to do is to underestimate your opponent, and I do believe that is exactly what W.E. is doing.
In any case, I’m not concerned that Howard/the Liberals will lose the next Australian election. It’s a possibility, and I’m sure that Howard realizes that.
After all, he has the fine example of how the American Republic party went down the toilet last November.
But then, the ALP seems unable to get its act together. Might be all that rage at not having “...been offered a chance at good governance” , eh?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 03 05 at 09:34 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Poor ol’ Ruddle is muddled and befuddled ...
What else do you get when you ruffle the feathers of a plastic turkey?