There is a sensible editorial in The Australian today on the case for voting for Kevin Rudd. Rudd does not have a clear political position, his policies lack substance but he can lead.
'...the proposition on offer from Mr Rudd is to vote for him not on the strength of his policies but on the strength of his leadership in the hope that the single-mindedness and determination he has shown in getting elected can be turned effectively to running the country. It is a pitch for voters to take him on trust'.
Fair comment.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Harry ,
if you voted for john Howard in 1996 then you are a hypocrite of the highest order.
In all your articles on the election if you take out Kevin rud and 2004 and replace them with john howard and 1996 then there is little difference
Do us a favour and don't insult your readers. Or are you just singing to the choir?
There are clear policy differences on WorkChoices and Kyoto for a start. And Rudd will be less inclined to serve the interests of big business against those of the nation and its working class. Surely that's substance enough to begin with.
He's either a big scary bogey man or he isn't. Make up your mind.
slim,
There is no substance at all in Kyoto. John Howard realises that, and so does Ruddski, but he's pretending that there is.
Slim
You ignorant twat. He isn't insulting is readers. All Harry is doing is explaining what a Rudd victory would look like.
It's a fact.
Signing Kyoto gets Australia a seat at the next round of negotiations - that is a significant enough reason, given that Howard claims we are already meeting our Kyoto targets (if so, what's the problem?)
And apart from WorkChoices where the hell is the substance in Howard's policies?
Enough subatance to continue the 16-year economic expansion we've already had, and which will be threatened with an abrupt termination when new employment is substantially curtailed by anti-employer legislation.
You can't make any inference about Rudd's substance from his time as opposition leader. What he has done is run a brilliant campaign to get himself and his party elected. That is his job. What Rudd is craft a brilliant narrative that has earned him the trust of more than half the population, and done it at a time of great economic prosperity. It has been a brilliant performance.
As Homer says, Rudd has done no more and no less than what Howard did to get himself elected. What substantial things did Howard say prior to the 1996 election?
"I want Australians to be relaxed and comfortable".
"I will never ever introduce a GST".
John Hewson, on the other hand, was full of substance as opposition leader. And look what happened to him.
You'll have plenty of opportunity to judge Rudd's policies after he becomes Prime Minister.
Apologies for the excess brilliants. I should edit before I post.
Well, it's lovely to see the Government Gazette (aka the 'Stralyun) realize that the government of the day is changing and that therefore, in the interests of Mr Murdoch's businesses, so should its loyalties.
But I'm surprised to see you having nice words for Rudd. Homer's right, Harry. If you want to keep your readers entertained you need to stick to the party line that he's a crypto-Stalinist who'll set Isalamofascist green union thugs on us.
in 1996 I did vote for Johhn howard but in 2007 I will be voting for Maxine.
The same reason inboth instances.
Actually I didn't intend this to be a partisan post - most of you know my politics anyway. I was simply saying that Rudd is a good leader but short on policy substance. I think that is accurate and perhaps inevitable given that he is coming from opposition and that no-one is particularly upset by the status quo.
Harry, Harry, Harry. You are so, so, so naive! Rudd is deliberately doing "me too" to avoid the wedge. Howard is an accomplished scare-mongerer, and the way to beat him is to copy him. Smart people figured this out six months ago and more.
Here we are, Harry. I told you so.
And all this time, on this blog, you have provided much amusement and mirth, defending Mr Howard and for that I am very grateful. But now you are out of step with the rest of us. We are the mainstream and you are a deviate. That's the way the political cookie crumbles.
Still, you haven't been alone on this journey to the political cliff with Johnny, riding shotgun with you on the lurching runaway stagecoach have been the Devine family, La Albrechtsen, Catherine Overington, Dennis Shanahan, Glen Milne, Piers Akerman, Alan Jones, Christopher Pearson, the Bolter (who has jumped and cut and run), and of course, Gerry Henderson - the looniest and flakiest of them all.
By the way. Howard's and Costello's brand of insulting populist explanations of how the economy works they have been retailing surely must have been personally galling to you, I imagine, while you kept mum out of loyalty. (How else can we explain it? What made you stay silent hearing that preposterous shite?)
As it became the stuff of such vicious satire in myriad of YouTube vids, the like of which I have not seen before, I imagine the notion of changing your name and occupation must have crossed your mind...
As Labor will now govern for the next 12 years, you will be too old to care when your side, if it still exists, becomes competitive again.
This is your swan song (as a partisan minor player) as much as it is John Howard's. Sad but true.
Steady on Sir Henry! Rudd hasn't won yet.
Jack,
I am discouraged by all politicians. I think Howard would have done better by being the responsible established leader. The main promise of both parties are the tax cuts which amount to returning expected bracket creep so no drama there.
Basically we are doing well as a society. If I could only get my golf handicap down to about 12 I would be totally blissed out. Why change?
Most of Rudd's claims - a laptop for every kid, an 'educational revolution' and his repeated chatter about 'working families' are twaddle. He won't substantially alter WorkChoices during the course of the current parliament and the respective policies on greenhouse issues (after Garrett's gaff) are equivalent. Why change?
Answering my own questions I think the reason people want change is that they want a change in leadership. That simple. Rudd is a good leader even if the nitwit does not have a coherent, non-crap idea in his head. That is the point of my humble post.
It is not my swan song.
Enemy Combatant sez...
Mornin' H. Just popped by to pay my respects before Saturday. You've been flogging a dead horse, mate.
"It is not my swan song."
Of course not, Harry, just a few feeble quacks from a demonstrable political wood duck who for curious reasons, for an obviously intelligent bloke, backed ideology uber alles.
Your loyalty to El Rodente has been exemplary but it's ok to let go now 'cos it's all over for the Coalition. Been so for quite a long time,actually. At least you've declined the offer of going down into the bunker with him. There is always hope, Harry.
Post a Comment