Voters decide: bad or worse

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:30 am

Via Jeff Jarvis, an inspiring Iraqi election ad:

An old man rounding a corner into an alleyway looks up and sees young, masked militants facing him down. A couple joins the old man. Slowly, more and more people join the old man.

Voiceover: On January 30, we meet our destiny and our duty. We are not alone, and we are not afraid. Our strength is in our unity; together we will work and together prevail.

Those joining the man now outnumber the militants. He nods and they move forward. The militants run away.

Written on screen: Don’t worry about Iraq. We are its people. We will allow no one to deprive us of our rights. For the building of Iraq: Peace, freedom and democracy. The heroes of Iraq.

Sounds good, yes? But not to Paul McGeough:

They are unlikely to vote in the right numbers to legitimise this process. This election will do nothing – things will stay bad or get worse.

True to form, the Americans and the puppet regime they have installed are cooking the books …

… the likely effect in a tribal and religious society is the outcome the Americans didn’t want – many voters will resort to religious and tribal edicts, decrees and urgings on how they should vote, thereby locking in Iraq’s sectarian divide and perhaps setting the scene for the full-blown civil war that some observers now fear is inevitable.

Like the inevitable disasters many anticipated during Afghanistan’s elections (McGeough: “Today’s voting goes ahead amid promised Taliban and al-Qaeda attacks on polling stations … �?), after which McGeough wrote:

Encouraged by the turnout and the surprising lack of violence

As John Podhoretz notes, some folks just don’t want the elections to succeed:

Anti-Bush partisans — both Democrats and Leftist ideologues — understand that if the elections are seen as a triumph, they will be seen as Bush’s triumph, and they cannot stomach it … Maybe what they’re really pessimistic about isn’t Iraq’s future but their own.

Speaking of McGeough, who is of Irish birth, he once vowed to never take out Australian citizenship until we became a republic. Yesterday more than 12,000 other immigrants demonstrated that they don’t share McGeough’s concerns. Paul won’t be joining them any time soon:

Republicans will keep pushing for an independent head of state even though a poll shows support for a republic is at a five-year low.

Posted by Tim B. on 01/26/2005 at 09:35 AM
    1. Notice the wretched McGeough can’t actually be arsed to provide a number he would find acceptable: material goals are not something the Left does well with.  Oh, well, the exploding car bombs probably remind him of home, no wonder he opposes any change…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 01/26 at 10:09 AM • permalink


    1. As someone who voted for Clinton twice and Gore once, I just can’t get over how low leftist like McGeough can sink.  Watching the democrats prostrate themselves in front of idiots like this just about leaves me speechless.
      On a somewhat different note, did anyone notice that while the senate democrats were making asses of themselves during the Rice confirmation, Hillary was tacking to the right.  Let the games begin.

      Posted by jvk on 01/26 at 01:32 PM • permalink


    1. Could someone teach me about Australian government? Why is being a republic so important? I thought y’all were already an independent country.

      Posted by Bill Peschel on 01/26 at 03:09 PM • permalink


    1. I think McGeogh should tell us whether Allawi is likely to go on one of his famous death sprees if he loses the election.

      I don’t know much about McGeogh other than what I’ve read here, his promotion of the Allawi executions story and what has just been said about refusing to become a citizen unless you change your system of government. However it seems to me that he is a cheeky c**t, if he finds your system of government beneath him then why does he not piss off home?

      Posted by Ross on 01/26 at 03:37 PM • permalink


    1. Wait…so Paul McGeough moves to Australia, takes advantage of all it’s benefits, yet sees no hypocrisy in building a career sniping at his new country while also refusing to take the most practical first step towards influencing its direction, i.e., take citizenship and make his vote count? That’s just offensive towards Australians, whom he clearly won’t sully himself by officially joining the ranks of, and immigrants who do go the whole way and become citizens as well. Perhaps he’s afraid John Howard will put him in jail and whack him cold upside his head, Illawi-style.

      This guy is just Merlyn Luck with an expense account and a good imagination.

      Posted by JamesM on 01/26 at 03:43 PM • permalink


    1. Get rid of the smileys. Please. You are in your thirties Tim. Get a new poll. And introduce a search mechanism that works across all your sites – the blogspot, spleenviolle asnd this.

      Posted by Wog Blogger on 01/26 at 04:06 PM • permalink


    1. Smileys rock. I’m forty-one. Use Google.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 01/26 at 04:15 PM • permalink


    1. Bill,

      Australia is an independent country, however (for reasons that I don’t want to go into) our head of state is the queen of Australia who also happens to be the queen of england.

      Same goes for Canada – same old bag is also queen of Canada.

      Canada and Oz are obviously entirely different entities. Australia is an ally, whereas Canada, although totally economically dependent on the US is an an undeclared enemy

      Posted by jlchydro on 01/26 at 04:34 PM • permalink


    1. Ah, thanks jlchydro. I had forgotten that whole queen of england thing, especially since I would guess that she has practically nil influence on Australia (except when the monarchy and its sprigs do something silly to embarass everyone, sort of like having the crazy aunt around: “Yes, he *does* like to dress up as a Nazi, but, well, what can you do?”)

      Posted by Bill Peschel on 01/26 at 05:20 PM • permalink


    1. This guy writes:
      “True to form, the Americans and the puppet regime they have installed are cooking the books…”

      “True to form?” An unspoken and unspeakable slur, really. The implicit message is Americans elected Bush, therefore they MUST have “cooked the books.” Or that Americans are by our genetic nature, inherently corrupt.

      I’ve got two words for the mottled cracktards that run The Age, and they ain’t “Happy Birthday.”

      Posted by I.F. Stoner on 01/26 at 05:22 PM • permalink


    1. McGeough, who is of Irish birth, he once vowed to never take out Australian citizenship until we became a republic.

      Fenian c*nt!

      Posted by murph on 01/26 at 05:48 PM • permalink


    1. Didn’t this discredited ARSEHOLE make the same predictions about the recent poll in Afghanistan!?

      Posted by Brian on 01/26 at 06:17 PM • permalink


    1. He seems to be salivating at the prospect of more violence and practically willing it to even greater heights. If Iraq’s election is a success on Sunday…and all people of good will truly hope it is…then it will barely rate a mention by this malicious gutter snipe.

      Posted by Brian on 01/26 at 06:22 PM • permalink


    1. G’day Bill,

      Going slightly further than jlchydro – constitutionally the “reserve powers of the crown” [Section 58 of the constitution] are nothing to be sneezed at.  Technically the Queen is entitled to sack the Governor-General or the PM, dissolve parliament and, in extremis, declare war on some third party.

      The convention is that these powers are either used on the advice of the PM or by the GG in executive council (ie. doing what the PM tells him to do).

      We are independent, in real life the Queen couldn’t exercise these powers because we would simply say “No!’ – but at least on paper the powers still exist.

      Posted by Russell on 01/26 at 08:09 PM • permalink


    1. I’ve noticed that some Aussie leftists, including some playwright or other, have tried to turn this Queen situation into some sort of question where PC types get easily offended.

      Posted by ForNow on 01/26 at 08:30 PM • permalink


    1. It’s been a while since I’ve dipped my toe into this pool, and the genes of the commenters are still sparse and “close”.  Good to see some things never change.

      Bill, on the Australian republic, why has the US enshrined in law that only a person of US birth can become President?  That is why we aren’t keen on having the present mob of anglo-germans at the helm.

      Posted by flute on 01/26 at 08:42 PM • permalink


    1. Sigh. Flute: insulting the other people who comment here is a great way to get your account suspended, and then if the grovelling apology email does not arrive in my or Tim’s inbox, deleted. First and final warning.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 01/26 at 08:45 PM • permalink


    1. Flute — We have, in addition to our anglo-germans (not unlike your queen) elected Scots (Jackson), Dutchmen (the Roosevelts), drunken, lecherous micks (Kennedy) and lower primates (Clinton).  Jews, Italians and Czech-Americans have at various times run for the Whitehouse or one party’s nomination.  When Condi decides to run, we’ll have our first African-American.  In short, the US has shown more ethnic variety in its executive office than any European, African or Asian country I’m aware of, and we’ve survived it quite nicely.

      The born citizen provision of our Constitution has served us quite well, all things considered.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 01/26 at 10:22 PM • permalink


    1. Richard, the key word you mentioned there was “elected”.

      Posted by flute on 01/26 at 10:27 PM • permalink


    1. What do Aussie leftists find it offensive even to mention the Queen & why do these one-worlders suddenly start talking emotionally about struggles for regional identities when the Queen is mentioned?

      Posted by ForNow on 01/26 at 10:28 PM • permalink


    1. Why did the Americans not keep good King George as a consititutional head of state at the end of the war of independance?

      Posted by flute on 01/26 at 10:31 PM • permalink


    1. He was a lousy king & anyway we did not take offense at the very mention of him. Also in the fighting for our independence we did not simultaneously seek to form a United Nations & to dissolve ourselves into it. The left sounds like it simply has its scripts out of sync, soever emotionally though it recites them.

      Posted by ForNow on 01/26 at 10:36 PM • permalink


    1. ‘Elected’ is never a key word with the Left, Flute. They spend their lives disputing democratic election results except when it’s a landslide victory in which case they simply flee the country (BTW, are they all out yet?).

      Posted by ilibcc on 01/26 at 11:30 PM • permalink


    1. The right and left have both had their fair share of despots ilibcc.

      Posted by flute on 01/26 at 11:32 PM • permalink


    1. Flute — Because Good King George was crazier than three waltzing mice, for starters.  And what’s your hangup on the word “elected?”

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 01/26 at 11:51 PM • permalink


    1. Richard, as far as i know, americans take a bit of pride in electing the head of state, whether it be of anglo-german, dutch etc.  We are saddled with them through accident of birth.

      Posted by flute on 01/27 at 12:00 AM • permalink


    1. Flute, if you like the idea of electing a head of state, maybe you should migrate to the US?

      Posted by ArtVandelay on 01/27 at 12:18 AM • permalink


    1. Is this going to be a “well if you don’t want to move then don’t complain” type argument Art?

      I’ll leave America to the Americans thanks.

      Posted by flute on 01/27 at 12:25 AM • permalink


    1. Not at all. I was just pointing out the irony.

      Posted by ArtVandelay on 01/27 at 12:41 AM • permalink


    1. Flute,

      The Australia Act 1986 (Clth) untied the final constitutional string to Britain. Our head of state is therefore the Governor-General, who last time I looked, was one kick-arse former SAS trooper.

      As for formalising the republic, it’ll happen in it’s own time, most likely between the Queen’s eventual passing and the coronation of King Charles III. How it will make your like or mine any different is a question that the Australian Republican Movement singularly failed to answer in 1999.

      Before you brand me a conservative monarchist, I voted fore the Real Republic delegates to the Constitutional Convention, not Eddie McGuire’s and Steve Vizard’s celebrity team with token aboriginal Michael Long (only the greatest footballer ever to play for my beloved Bombers) in an unelectable 12th spot on their ticket.

      If you don’t know the way to the airport, I’ll show you.

      You know it makes sense.

      Posted by steve68 on 01/27 at 12:44 AM • permalink


    1. TYPO ALERT: my previous comment, second paragraph . . . I meant to say:

      How it will make your LIFE or mine any different is a question that the Australian Republican Movement singularly failed to answer in 1999.

      Posted by steve68 on 01/27 at 12:46 AM • permalink


    1. Funny, I thought the PM had to formalise the G-Gs appointment with Lizzo.  But it seems that you prefer the elected HoS too, so we agree.

      Posted by flute on 01/27 at 12:50 AM • permalink


    1. …anglo-germans…

      Eisenhower was an Anglo-German President, wasn’t he?

      Why did the Americans not keep good King George as a consititutional head of state at the end of the war of independance?

      Actually, they nearly did. Many prominent elements wanted to keep the King as head of state. If George III hadn’t been so pigheaded and point-blank refuse to meet them, the whole thing might have turned out differently.

      Actually, there’s a consensus now that if he had a better PM and government at the time (say William Pitt rather than Lord North), the Revolution would not have happened, and the US path to independence would have been more like Canada’s.

      Funny, I thought the PM had to formalise the G-Gs appointment with Lizzo.

      Technically, but the monarch has ALWAYS approved which ever choice is given to him by the PM. George V didn’t actually want to approve Isaacs, but did anyway.

      Now they give the monarch a list with a single name on it.

      Posted by Quentin George on 01/27 at 12:57 AM • permalink


    1. But the attitude “flute” displays in this thread is the main reason for the spectacular failure of the 99 referendum.

      Here’s a hint: People aren’t going to vote for something if the only reason you give them is, “You’d be an idiot not too want to change, you monarchist toady! Nah Nah!”

      Posted by Quentin George on 01/27 at 12:59 AM • permalink


    1. And for flute – you might say that after 99, the Queen is our elected Head of State.


      Posted by Quentin George on 01/27 at 01:01 AM • permalink


    1. Good point Quentin. It’s also a part of the reason why the ALP is currently unelectable.

      Posted by ArtVandelay on 01/27 at 01:31 AM • permalink


    1. My personal position on the republic debate was I don’t really care one way or the other. The republican movement couldn’t show me why becoming a republic would improve my life, or make government of the country better.
      As soon as they can come up with the goods I’ll vote for a republic, but the petty “ooh other countries are subtle enough to understand our system” arhuments lost me.

      Posted by Pauly on 01/27 at 03:04 AM • permalink


    1. I’d still like to know why Aussie leftists care in such a grim and resentful way about this Queen & monarchy symbolism, wailing about struggling for regional identity even as they propagandize for world government by the UN. And who are these playrights that I hear about who get so offended by mention of the Queen?

      Posted by ForNow on 01/27 at 03:21 AM • permalink


    1. Seems like one poster here cannot accept the vote on the republic. While on that subject, (doing it again and again until we “get it right”)why is it a one way street? Will we be able to agitate and bitch about the republic later and ask for a return to what works so well now? Don’t think so.
      Any comparison of the roles played by our Queen and the US President for the purpose of arguing the republic is futile. They are and will remain quite different roles.
      Also, electing a President only makes sense when he is actively involved in the political system, not when he is a holder of reserve powers and largely a figurehead.
      It is more of a constitutional role.
      Meanwhile back at the original thread, McGoo is welcome to remain a non-citizen forever. His negativism deserves a regular fisking – his role model must be Fisk, after all.
      I could mention two wars since WW2 that were lost by lack of will, political interference, and in the case of the lesser one, what I now see as a shameful press and TV campaign to sap the will to win from the US public.
      The world is still dealing with those failures. If the current and ongoing battle with the ideologues now on the march is not fought long and hard I can guarantee that neither McGoo nor any other nay sayer is going to enjoy their lifestyle for very long, and the “I told you so” will taste bitter in their mouths. Check out Blackfive’s site – “Aiding and Abetting the Enemy”

      Posted by blogstrop on 01/27 at 04:40 AM • permalink


    1. What do you want: tradition, the innocuous and beneficial consequences of an alliance which is no more dynamically important than the FTA – but nevertheless remains a vital generational glue drawing several generations of Australians (deny it though you might); the English system of law and justice underpinned by Judeo-Christian values (which left-wing ALP leadership contender J. – single/feminist Gillard – was just this Monday extolling, must have had a good weekend, or a bad one) …

      … Or the EU?

      Because that’s what a modern-day bureaucratised republic is.

      Posted by ilibcc on 01/27 at 06:58 AM • permalink


    1. Don’t be so high falutin -pipe down.He who pays the piper calls the tune!

      Posted by crash on 01/27 at 10:30 AM • permalink


    1. What do Aussie leftists find it offensive even to mention the Queen & why do these one-worlders suddenly start talking emotionally about struggles for regional identities when the Queen is mentioned?
      It’s because they have apron string problems.

      Posted by Janice on 01/27 at 05:50 PM • permalink


    1. The Herald Sun reports today that another Australia-Abuser,Pixie Skase,has been tipped out of the country because her visa has expired and she can’t get an Australian passport because of her anti-Australian ravings despite the fact that she had previously held one.Perhaps the grub McGeough could be put on notice that the same rule will apply to him if he ever does contemplate Australian citizenship under a Republic or whatever.In the meantime the rule could be expanded to enable the refusal of visitors visas to such vermin.While Immigration are on the Skase case they might check on the passport status of a few others of the same ilk starting with the geriatric Australia-Hater,Germ Greer.

      Posted by Lew on 01/27 at 07:43 PM • permalink


    1. of course mCgeogh wants a republic. he’s IRISH! they hate the frikkin queen and the brits! it aint a good enough reason to get rid of lizzie though…

      Posted by Deo Vindice on 01/28 at 08:12 PM • permalink


  1. Of course the record of countries that have abandoned the monarchy is a shining example. The list includes:


    Perhaps dumping the Monarchy (which is what this is really about, Australia is a republic in all but name) isn’t such a hot idea.

    Posted by Sheriff on 01/29 at 06:06 AM • permalink