Gee Fancy that the zealots would only vote for another Christian.

Perhaps you could bring back the inquisition if family first very get up. Australian politics is very simple most of us are disengaged form the issues and don't form opinions unless it directly effects you. Most peoples views are fixed (Boaz_david and co) and will vote for their party come what may. So what do the people in the middle do well when times are good the vote liberal and when times are bad they vote labour.

Poor people give money to charity more readily then rich people ask anyone who has ever door knocked. Arjay if your happy to have our polly’s lie to you then that’s your issue I don’t. The idea that’s ok to lie because they somehow know best is stupid. I like Kim but I think he makes a better number 2 then number one I think they should have picked Jenny or Julia. Given us the chance to vote for a women, but then again it wouldn’t have worked because we have to many people trapped in the fifties who think a women place is serving her man and looking after the family

FOR KENNY
"So what do the people in the middle do well when times are good the vote liberal and when times are bad they vote labour."

"we have to many people trapped in the fifties who think a women place is serving her man and looking after the family"

Kenny, its not the 50s we are in, and we are not 'trapped'. It's Gods Word we are in, and that expresses husband wife relationships in the most committed, caring and self sacrificial terms that u may do well to read it :) YES.. a woman is allocated a position under the care of a man "Wives, obey your husbands" but a man is also in a position of great responsibility "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself up for her". The filial structure of marraige conveyed by the bible is one of 'COMPLEMENTARY' cohabitation, not COMPETITIVE. i.e. there is WOMANS work and there is MENS work. wow.. shock horror. Did this mean that woman could not achieve positions of influence and respect ? duh.. read the letters of Paul and u'll find out.

I make no apology for the 'relative position' of male and female. I dont have to. You only need to 'observe' the natural world and examine tradional societies to see how 'it works'

If it were not for the current 'peace' regime we have (which is, it should be noted a result of the 2 worst wars known to man, where millions of MEN spilled their guts to decide the outcome) we would resolve ourselves in terms of the tribalism and communalism which can only survive with the 'male protector' pattern of social organization.

Perhaps your comments are based on some (misguided) view of 'social evolution' ? "we dont think like that now, we are historically and socially past all that".. what absolute undulterated garbage !!!! excuse my passion here.. but its only been what.. a generation or 2 since WWII. And my description of 'tribalism' etc is being played out as we speak in Dafur etc. OOOPs.. sorry.. I forgot .. "they are primitive undeducated savages" right ??.. WRONG.. Kenny.. you should go and live among some of these societies and while they may not have the 'formal certificate' you would easily recognize those who have the capability to achieve the highest a standards of education.

The world that you seem to suggest is there.. IS there. for sure.. in a few isolated coffee shops in lygon street where Journalists indulge each other in mutual intellectual masterbation about ideas they picked up along the way while socializing with small groups of similarly minded idealists in school or somewhere.. and think that 'ah..this is how the world is"

I am reminded (by the above) of the stupidity of the Jews just before the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. But I'll save that message for a different post when I have more time. But it would be enlightening to read Josephus on that period (do a search).

Now, 'what we should do' in terms of our vote, is vote on PRINCIPLE. But that will inevitably mean dissappointment, because polies are a slippery bunch. So, perhaps its better to vote for the KING of kings and LORD of lords :).. by ur life and behavior.. and heart condition. Thats what changed the Roman Empire.. and its the ONLY thing which will transform ours.

do I hear an 'amen' from any brother or sister ? :)
keep it up Kenny.. I always appreciate your comments which facilitate mine
BOAZ

Howard has a common touch, which Beazley lacks, and the results of the next election are probably forgone if the current leaders face off. However, for me, Rudd has many of the qualities which marked out Howard as future PM material, atleast fifteen years ago.

With reference to the term RODENT as applied to Prime Minister John Howard, Mungo Macallum explains in his book "Run Johnny Run" (Duffy and Snellgrove, Sydney 2004, p 1-2), as follows:

"Over his thirty years in parliament John Winston Howard has attracted many nicknames: many of them scatalogical, a number pertaining to bodily orifices, others involving the lower genera of the animal kingdom, some ironic and a few merely insulting. A couple of them have even reached the general public: Little Johnny became a disparaging soubriquet during the Hawke years, even when his supporters insisted that Howard was really above average in height, at least as tall as the next man, especially if the next man was Bob Hawke; but of course, those who used the nickname were not referring only to physical dimensions. Then there was Honest John, a name first bestowed in irony back in the 1970s after Howard as treasurer had reneged on the promise of tax cuts after what became known as the "fistful of dollars" election. During the long years in opposition he managed to parlay the insult into a positive; for a while people actually believed in his honesty. Interestingly, once he returned to government the name reverted to its original context. More recently, the Rodent, originally bestowed on Howard for his endless gnawing away at Andrew Peacock during the 1980s, has gained popularity, the more so when teamed with the adjective 'lying'. Behind the scenes there have been many others, some quite unsuitable for repetition within the family circles Howard claims to espouse."

And as Mike Seccombe reported in the SMH on Sept 2, 2004:

"Liberal Senator George Brandis does not deny routinely referring to the Prime Minister as "the rodent". He does, however, deny ever calling the Prime Minister "a lying rodent". He believes John Howard is a truthful rodent....According to a statutory declaration signed three days ago by a former senior official in the Queensland division of the party, Russell Galt, Brandis "unambiguously referred" to the PM as "a lying rodent", in relation to the children overboard affair at a meeting in May last year. That's pretty serious, given that the PM's integrity has been challenged over the matter, and that barrister Brandis has led the defence of Howard in the Senate inquiry into the issue. Galt swore that "while referring to . . . hearings of this committee, Senator Brandis made the following two remarks: "He is a lying rodent" and "we've got to go off and cover his arse again on this". Well, Brandis immediately responded with his own stat dec, denying having made any such statement, and swearing he believed the PM's account of the events to be "truthful and honest"....George Brandis does not much like John Howard, and, judging by the efforts of the Howard faction to undermine Brandis in the past, the feeling is reciprocated. Yet ironically the two men were forced into reciprocal endorsements of one another's integrity yesterday, as journalists asked gleefully loaded questions like: "Prime Minister, do you back George Brandis when he said he never called you a lying rodent?" Howard: "Well, George Brandis has, on oath, denied those allegations and George Brandis is to be believed." But remember, George Brandis calls Howard "the rodent".... He privately says a lot of people in the Government regularly refer to Howard in the same way. And it lives on among Costello supporters, although it's a fair bet it will be used more discreetly in future."

Hello. As author, I should have disclosed in the article that I am a member of the Liberal Party. I apologise for not having done so.

That said, the points I make in the article aren't really answered by a tirade against John Howard. Like any other politician (indeed like any of us) he is a flawed being, but he is undeniably successful. The questions remain: "Why do people regard him as a safe pair of hands when the reality of his record shows him up as a failure?" and "Why does Labor refuse to see that it has to move past the Hawke-Keating glory days?"

GRACE...thanx for the background. But a para or 2 from "you" would be nice sometimes.
BOAZ