Hi Molly
well, if it was down to personalities, I'd probably choose Kim, than John, they are both quite decisive actually, apart from his occasional drifts into 'pragmatic politics' John Howard seems to have much more than just his own political career at heart. Kim also does. I don't find much to separate the leaders themselves. Mark Latham .. enuf said, and people like Lindsay Tanner -He used absolute gutter politics by raising a sexual abuse matter in the public forum with timing that a boxer would be jealous of, to cause the maximum damage to the GG and by proxy to Mr Howard, his friend. That particular case had been around for a LONG time, but he suddenly latched onto it and you could read behind the smoke and mirrors A)Let me get my name in lights B) let me damage the Libs and HOward C) Let me look more like a crusading potential leader.

So, Mr Howard AND Mr Beasly strike me as men of principle and integrity as far as politicians go.

I don't think Howard is offering us a "Christian" way, he is offering a climate more suitable for us, on balance, compared to the Labor approach to many things. I'd prefer to see the libs use some of the GST excess for a public dental program as labor had years back and my family benefited from it.

When Jesus was quizzed on political matters "Should we pay the temple Tax to Caesar" ? he took a coin and asked who's image etc.. 'To Caesar that which is his, to God that which is his'.. that was a comment on the sociopolitical times of the day, and a principle of do what you are expected to do. I don't find "keep politics separate from religion" in that. I find "do your duty and obligations"

We can only legitimately reflect on the revealed Jesus, not the one who may be a projection of our own desires. The real one is the one we read about.

Y'know Boaz many christians believe in evolution over creationism - I find it strange that you don't. Also I don't understand how you can put so much faith into the written word of the bible -given how and by whom it has been written. Many christians I know prefer the underlying philosophy rather than the literal word.

Howard, I think, appeals to the literal minded - he appeals to those who don't wish to look below the surface. He is, most definitely, a career politician and I agree, so too is Kim. Wouldn't vote for either of them.

Given my profession and knowledge of environmental issues as well as believing in equal rights for all (read gays, single parents, refugees, aboriginals - anyone who doesn't fit the big white hetero male image) - y'know the usual looney fringe, I guess I am part of them too. So call me a bleeding heart if it makes you feel better. Rather be a bleeding heart, than heartless.

'God under Howard' really is a bit of a misnomer - Bush is playing the 'god' card a lot more heavily. Howard is just surfing on the wave of the neo christian movement. He'd better watch out for the under tow.

;-)

BOAZ_David,

interesting that you had a go at Lindesay Tanner - presumeably you would also think the same of Bill Heffernan when he raised the lies about Justice Kirby.

I seem to remember that Howard appeared to back Heffernan by reading in parliament, a letter from Heffernan which made allegations against Justice Kirby.

only when heffernan was proved to be wrong (even through the NSW police had considered Heffernan's documents and said that there was no case) did Howard sack him and tell him to make an apology. A decent person would have made heffernan investigate and should have had the documents checked out - which appears not to be too difficult as Labour was able to dis-credit them as well as Heffernan very quickly).

In my opinion, i think Howard's action in this and other matters shows that he is sadly lacking in principle and integrity even as a politician

With regard to David's earlier comments about "what goes on in the Labor side", he's obviously never been to Western Australia. The Noel Crichton-Browne (an admitted adulterer, no less) faction madness that has plagued WA Liberal politics for the last 20 years or so has claimed the careers of several sitting Liberal Federal and State politicians (including friends of Howard's) for short-term factional gain, and, along with the Shave faction and others, ripped apart the State Opposition to a point where it can no longer effectively function. Faction madness is alive and well in both parties, and most probably destroyed the Democrats as an active force in politics. It's hardly a basis on which to launch an attack on the Labor party specifically.

Order and PGJ I think I've given you guys the wrong impression.

The points you raised about WA and Heffernan, I fully take on board, as evidence of the dirty nature of carnal politics. [Post edited here for legal reasons] Perhaps you have been understanding my apparent defense of the Coalition/Howard as meaning I view them as the squeaky clean pure example of all things political and acceptable for this country.
... I don't. What I do feel is that the coalition will give a better chance to our democratic interests than labor. There is a huge difference. At the same time, I find extreme difficulty with some aspects of coalition policy, such as the privatization of key government responsibilities, such as corrections and detention centre management. The idea that these facilities can be run 'for profit' is repugnant in the extreme to me. But when all is said and done, I find the labor side having less to offer. I'm tending toward Families First at the moment, as a means of expressing this feeling, and perhaps obtaining a better deal on those key issues by means of balance of power possibilities.

My position is as always, 'renewed people will make just about any system work' and only Christ can renew at the deepest level.

Boaz: "Teresa, if your Christian, I'd like to see more about Christ in your posts. Lets face it, HE is the only remedy for all the ills you have described"

Why should Teresa bang on about christ in her posts? Why do you always have to? Referring to christ all the time in an attempt to win an argument falls on deaf ears for those who either do not share your brand of faith or are less evangelical. It is possible to conduct a debate without the references to jesus - you give the impression that this is the only way you can make a point.

I take your point that you don't necessarily approve of Howard - but as Labor are just as capable of economic management (just ask the Reserve Bank) I believe your reasons for rejecting Labor is your fear of a softening on gay rights, detention of refugees and other 'bleeding heart' liberal ideologies.

Therefore, god does indeed appear to be working for howard, because despite the lies, broken promises and obfuscation you are less concerned about him than you are about a Labor fed gov.