Oh the pain of bad grammar...I'm sure this was making some meaningful point though.

Of course, Kevin Rudds' appeal to the Christian right was diminished by revelations of his previous activities....and his willingness to lie about them...

A moral compass, a moral anything from labor.

Those who support labor support corrption and peadophiles. FACT

Heiner had been appointed by Premier Wayne Goss’s predecessor, Premier Russell Cooper, in late 1989 to investigate serious allegations of the abuse of children in the state youth detention centre, including the rape of a 14-year-old Aboriginal girl by male inmates in May, 1988, during a supervised bush outing, raised by several youth workers.

Outrageously, this rape is still unresolved.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd was Goss’s chief of staff at the time of the Heiner Affair and shortly after took on the newly-created position of Director-General of the Cabinet Office.

According to Queensland academic Scott Prasser: “Rudd was the de facto power behind the throne. He was Wayne Goss’s closest adviser and the Premier’s Mr Fixit. He was the key man’’.

Was Kevin Rudd the shredder

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton
Fighting for the rights and saftey of the people.

Rubbish. If the latest Galaxy Poll is to be trusted, the strip-club incident has boosted Labor's chances to landslide proportions. The explanation for this is simple. Unlike in American politics, the Australian electorate has the decency to believe that what happens in a politician's personal life has no relevance to their ability to govern the country. Was it otherwise Howard's hypocrisy on family values would have been exposed years ago. Most of our politicians, until recently, to their credit, have refused to use sleaze as political weapon.
There are also more immediate reasons, too, as to why the strip-tease scandal didn't take.A vast majority of Aussie blokes like the idea of a PM with a bit of blood and Bundy in his veins. Women voters were impressed he came clean with his missus right away. And most Christians were impressed with his admission that it was something a married man should never have done. And we all realise he was led astray by a journalist with a bit of a reputation as a bon vivant.
Perhaps the Liberal Party will think again before it once more resorts to sleaze as a political contact. Its certainly backfired on them this time.

For Stuart Ulrich.
And you're running for office, dishing out sleaze on behalf of the Liberal Party.
Independent, my foot!
In terms of personal morality, known to all political parties, even those not currently holding seats in Parliament, and presumably to most of the Press Gallery, there are equally cogent reasons why people should reject the Coalition. I won't go into them because this post wouldn't be published if I did.

And for sane

Dishing out sleaze NO

Only facts. Remember the truth

In my hot little hands.

Those who support labor support peadophiles and corruption and that is fact.

Unless of course the courts are lying and the state labor governments are lying so that leaves the facts.

The truth will be told and i will tell it.

If you want potential labor peadophiles looking after, or making policy for you and your children thats ok.

If you like this sort of action i would find it no problem to send all peadophiles and corrupt MP'S to your electorate.
Also since you support this so much you can have all of australias peadopiles and sexual assaulters.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

Apart from the vomitous fawning over "angel face" Mr Rudd, and the incredibly mashed grammar on display, the most nauseous thing about this article was the straight-forward acceptance that Kevin has to lie and be deceitful to win. What else could Ms Cica mean with her chatter about the neccessity of "getting over the first hurdle", after criticising Mr Rudd's me-tooism?

What we've got here is a transparent display of Labor-supporter thinking. Mr Rudd is saying what he has to say; what will get the voters on side...but Ms Cica knows/prays he'll do far more than he's letting on. And probably do it a lot differently as well!

Throughout the KR hysteria I've had two thoughts running side by side(bear in mind that I have often voted Labor) A) Mr Rudd is truly a Howard acolyte and in agreement with doing much the same as he, or B) He's a bald-faced liar, in the tradition of Richardson's "Whatever It Takes" (a very interesting insight into Labor, from one who surely knows). In the first case, I prefer the genuine article to the cheap import; in the second, I have no idea what the "real" plan is. My main difficulty with this latter is that every already-committed Labor voter I speak to gives me a different version of what this "hidden agenda" is! Talk about "hope" trumping "reality". No thanks.

It truly is Animal Farm, with every farmyard inhabitant "sure" they will benefit from the revolution. Meanwhile the Pigs (ie the leaders; ironic that "KR" Darling Downs is the famous Qld-based brand of pork products eh?) are learning to walk on two legs, all the better to imitate the old masters. Cheers

SANE,
I am not talking about Rudd's general popularity...I am talking about his appeal to the Christian right.

The fact that he went to a strip club and was warned...pretended that the couldn't remember because he was too drunk to know and then came out later and said that he remembered everything and he was a perfect gentleman is not a great start....

I've often found it quite contradictory that Christians would lean to the right of politics. Christ's teachings are (do unto others, give to the poor, etc) clearly are much more "lefty" socialist than free-market capitalist. So I'm often perplexed as to why Christians would default away from the side of politics that typically focuses on support of the needed. I guess they're so focused on the social control and anti-sexuality aspects of their religious dogma that they forget about the true tenants of their faith.

As for Mr Ulrich:

Normally I admire the independent politicians who forgo the support of the major parties to attempt to truly represent their electorate. However attempting to use an unsolved crime to smear an entire political party as pedophiles does little aside from portray the accuser as a lunatic. I can see why even with wide spread dissatisfaction with the major parties, the independents still get a low vote count.

I find it very hard to see anything "Moral" about Rudd. It takes little insight to see that he's lying, every time he speaks.

What is more difficult is to judge who he is lying to.
Is it the swing voter, Howard's battlers, or the rusted on labor lot? I wonder if he even knows himself? I think he's been saying "right thing" for so long, that he probably can't remember what he really thinks.

One thing I'm sure of, is that the labor lot will feel very cheated, within a few months of the election, if he is successful.

Am I the only one who feels covered in slime after watching him on TV?

I merely got into Article Comments to tell Dr Natasha Cica that apart from liking her analysis, I just loved her English expression.

It's a pity that 'Grey' can't recognise this and embarrassing that he advertises his ignorance.

Desipis

Some reasons I suggest that many (not all Christians) lean to the right are:

The absurd notion that it is only those on the left who really have compassion. I would suggest that most Christians give far more of their own money to aid than those on the left who tend to lobby government more than putting their hands in their own pockets.

The left fail miserably when it comes to human rights. They strongly support the right to murder unborn babies in the name of women's (really feminist) rights.

The left tend to blame governments for everything from so called global warming to house prices. A rather ridiculous notion.

While I am convinced that their are compassionate people on both sides of politics this is not recognized by most on the left and some on the right. The right are more inclined to encourage people to take responsibilty for their own actions where the left want to blame everyone else for their own bad behaviour. Just look at the way the left often protest in a violent manner as a case in point and then blame the police. As Christians we are called to respect authority not to see it as our enemy.

ALP will produce a Fresh Approach and it will do alot better in support of your questions Natasha Cica "such as reconciliation, refugees and our place in the region and beyond".

This election is a hornets nest. There can be no mistake in a world of such uncertainty.

We need to put the HUMAN FACE back into Government.

Rudd's ALP will work with and beside the UN. He has a world view on our nations role and I am sure one we will be more able to embrace for positive value and change as citizens.

You are right, the time is now and it is up to each and everyone of us to see through the maze of issues that influence our future, now.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

runner,

I wasn't trying to imply that people who lean to the right aren't personally compassionate. In fact a people's political leanings are probably quite orthogonal to both their morality and level of faith. I was saying that the policies of the left (labour) government typically focus on benefiting the lower class working and unemployed ("poor") people while the right (liberal) government will typically focus on businesses and material benefits to society. Given that Christianity generally focuses on taking care of people (particularly the poor) and discourages materialism, it would generally align better with leftish politics. Both churches and the Family First party have been quite critical of Howard's industrial relations reform.

I think both sides of politics tend to fail on the human rights factor. However human rights in this context refers to the individual vs the state (i.e. freedom of religion, right to earn a living, etc). The abortion debate is about individual (mother) vs individual (unborn child) and hence is more an issue of morality than human rights. And most people think that religion, and hence morality, should be left up to the individual and not dictated by the government.

While we can not reasonably blame the government for our individual predicaments, we elect representatives to deal with the issues that affect significant proportions of the population. The housing 'crisis' is something the government should have seen coming and should take reasonable action to remedy. Blaming issues outside the control of the government, such as global warming, is certainly unreasonable. However just because the government is not part of the problem, doesn't mean it can avoid being part of the solution.

Lunatics who incite violence exist on both sides of politics (we have a right leaning government and hence the left have more to protest about), and to a limited extent in the police as well. Don't let them pollute your view of the reasonable majority.

Hi Desipis..welcome.. you seem to be quite new here.

Just on the issue of 'appeal to the Christian right' of Labor due to its emphasis on caring for the lower socio-economic segment of the community.... yes, that aspect does appeal..with reservation.

1/ We don't want to see over spending on well mean't but unaffordable causes.
2/ We don't want the COST of such spending, even though responsible, to be accepting the usual 'left' agenda relating to:
-Abortion
-Homosexual related law reform.
-Migration with political intent.
-Lax refugee policy/Border control.

You probably know most of the issues and there are more than I've listed.

I would rather harrass and harangue and annoy a 'Christian values' (supposedly) government which stands against the 'progressive' agenda above, and bug them till they took more action where they should in social responsibility, than simply acqiuesce to a 'progressive' party which did those things without being bugged about it.

Hence.. politically I reside in the 'centrist' position, where I view the Right of Labor and the Left of the Coalition would probably make a good party if they married.

BOAZ_David,

Thanks for the welcome, been reading OLO for a while. Your post pointed out a few points that influence the Christian communities political leanings. I can see now how their views on those issues would lead them to the right. What I can't see is how Christianity leads them to those views. A few comment on those issues though:

-Abortion
A whole other can of worms, but I can see how Christians would default to a pro-life argument.

-Homosexual related law reform.
The bible consistently demands punishment by death for all men who commit homosexual acts. If Christians accept homosexuality is a sin, why are they so against the death penalty?

-Migration with political intent.
Most on the left would be against any sort of invasion/conquest through migration. While I don't think any of us want Australia becoming an Islamic theocracy (or any significant shift in our society's core values: i.e. freedom, democracy, etc), there are plenty of us that don't want it to become a Christian theocracy either.

-Lax refugee policy/Border control.
So did I mis-interpret the parable of the Good Samaritan. I must have missed the pro-xenophobic moral to the story.

Politically I guess I'm usually socially liberal and economically moderate.

Stan1. "how might Mr Rudd turn his angel face...into concrete action". Was this one of the wonderful uses of English you were referring to? A double murdered metaphor atop a load of gushing schoolgirl cliche?

Miacat. Good that Rudd will WORK alongside the UN instead of just letting the girls do the work, on his lap, alongside the UN. Also good to hear that you know all about Mr Rudd's fresh approach. Assuming it isn't something like "hey babe, have you got a bit of Australian in you?" then I'll guess you know much more of his policy details than anyone else outside the Rudd household. Where did you discover them? At least Ms Cica was straight enough to say SHE didn't have a clue.

As for the Christians being on the Right, well where else can they be? Since the average Christian believes in Individual Salvation Through Christ, and an Individual enterring Heaven due to their actions on earth (ie we are all personally responsible for our fate), it doesn't seem to leave much place for collectivism, does it? Since every self-respecting lefty also knows that religion is the opiate of the masses (though few have the guts to mention this down at the local mosque), I s'pose that would alienate a fair few of Christ's flock too. Or am I missing something?

Anyway. As I said yesterday, the most alarming thing about this article is the way Ms Cica excuses Mr Rudd's obvious lies, with the observation that because it's not hurting him in the polls (it "hasn't stuck") it doesn't matter. Read the last two paragraphs and you'll understand why this amoral lady is desperately "in search of a moral compass". Cheers.

punter57

You say “how might Mr Rudd turn his angel face...into concrete action". Was this one of the wonderful uses of English you were referring to? A double murdered metaphor atop a load of gushing schoolgirl cliche?

Cica actually said "The key question is: when and how might Rudd translate his angel face - the one that suggests there is life and value beyond the economy - into concrete action?"

1. You misquoted badly
2. It doesn’t sound too bad to me
3. Out of the whole article is this the best example of poor English expression you can come up with?
4. This is not a metaphor, neither single nor double murdered
5. If you want to give the author a title, why not use the correct one of "Dr." rather than "Ms."? Possibly this would not fit with your “gushing schoolgirl” insult?

Desipis,
regarding the christian 'right', you're probably overlooking something called the 'protestant work ethic' [see Max Weber].
Howard referred to the parrabel of the talents in his 'Australia Rising' speech - "he who has will be given, he who has not it shall be taken away". If you understand this, you understand where Howard and the christian right are coming from. Welfare for the corporate/ middle-class and punishment for the disobedient sinners, which paradoxically include people like christian anarchists, quakers, and Catholic Workers!

Ah Stan1. "As John Howard's 11 Years in power opened" the very first words. Should this be "as John Howard's 11th year in power began"? or "at the beginning of JH's 11th year in power"? Or did she really mean when the "11 years in power opened" That is 1996. Which did she mean? Such clarity!

No metaphors? Rudd really has the face of an Angel? Gabrielle or Lucifer? who knows; it's only a metaphor. Had she said "A face like an Angel" this would be a.....what? (starts with "s") And "Concrete" action; made of sand and cement mixed with water and a little gravel? hmmm. That's only a metaphor too! It's like the "Man of Steel" Stan1; John Howard is NOT really made of stuff produced by Bluescope at their steelworks! Duhhhh!

Anyway, you don't understand grammar. But we won't dwell on that.

The real crux is that once again, you have failed to reply to the key criticism; Ms Cica (half my mates have got doctorates in something or other; they are Mr Smith or Mr Jones to almost everybody except pompous twits) has advocated dishonesty as the best policy. Read her comments about getting over the first hurdle(he has to lie to get elected), then those last two paragraphs, and weep.

Jcoll. I made it as clear as possible. Giving a man a fish may make you feel like a caring bloke, but giving him the means to fish for himself is not "punishment". It frees him....for life.

Also It has been clearly shown that in Australia, every person earning less than $45K p.a gets more in services than they pay in taxes. This is lower(lowest?)class welfare, not "middle-class". cheers.

punter57,

I didn't read the article as advocating dishonesty. It's pointing out that Rudd is focusing his policies and comments on the issues the public (or more correctly the media) is focusing on at the present, and on these issues Rudd frequently has a similar stance to Howard. It also identifies and speculates that there are plenty of issues where their views are different, and that it may not be until later on that significant attention is given to these issues and hence Rudd become differentiable.

As for actual dishonesty, the Howard government has been caught out plenty of times. Rudd is ahead on the honesty issue which I think is one key factor behind the polls.

While any opposition party has a certain role in playing devils advocate and providing a meaningful alternative, it would be folly to do so on every issue, simply for the sake of it. It is quite widely accepted that the coalition's stance on the economy is what the public 'wants'. What Rudd is doing is accepting that, and in retaliation to the coalition's claims to the contrary, clarifying that he plans to run the economy in a conservative way.

While it may be true that a person earning less that $45k per annum receives more tax dollars in services than they pay, I believe that Howard has gradually reduced that positive ratio while focusing the tax relief on those who earn significantly more. It is the direction that he is 'reforming' the tax system that identifies what type of welfare system he supports.

It's my understanding that many people view free-market capitalism, irrespective of its efficiency, does not fairly distribute the nations wealth (e.g. Public disgust at CEO vs worker pay levels). Hence shifting towards a user-pays government services system, as Howard seems to be pushing, does not give the lower class the Australia fair-go.

In the context of your fishing metaphor, isn't shifting the universities to a user-pays, up-front high-cost system essentially like charging that hungry man a weeks worth of fish for the fishing lessons?

for Runner

If I feed the poor you call me a saint - if I question the structures that cause the poverty (and lobby governments to change those structures) you call me a communist (or a lefty in the very least).

after Helda Camara

Maybe those lefties who lobby and work- often part time or voluntarily- in the community sector don't have enough spare cash to give big to charity and maybe some of those people who do, do so to assuage their own guilt so they can continue profligate lifestyles that are a factor in the problematic structures that cause poverty. Ever heard the one about the camel and the eye of a needle?

You know you can say whatever you like but in the end what i have said is true.

You just dont like it.
At least i have what it takes to stand and fight and not just cock the leg and pant.

Also you said those that carry out certain acts should be by god sentenced to death does this also include those from within the church or doesnt that count just like the labor party.
If the ALP had to put in a resume, after their checks nobody would touch them with a 40 foot barge pole,

But then again their are those who deny the facts.

As for Mr Ulrich:

Normally I admire the independent politicians who forgo the support of the major parties to attempt to truly represent their electorate. However attempting to use an unsolved crime to smear an entire political party as pedophiles does little aside from portray the accuser as a lunatic. I can see why even with wide spread dissatisfaction with the major parties, the independents still get a low vote count.
Posted by Desipis, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 11:47:03 AM