Graham

I couldn't quite follow your thinking in this article.

Making judgments about politicians' appearances often tells as much about the judge as about those judged. So your comments that 'Howard exuded power and confidence' while Rudd 'looked constrained, nervous and uncertain, slightly preachy and vaguely condescending' must be taken with a whole handful of salt.

Perceptions depend just as much on what viewers expect as what they get. So for you, Howard's speech 'touched on all of the issues that our polling says it should have touched on - Australian values, climate change, water, foreign affairs, economy. It targeted Rudd for lack of experience and union connections.' But not a word about his 11th year Aboriginal reconciliation epiphany? Nor anything about Iraq? Nor African refugees? Nor interest rates and housing affordability? Nor nuclear energy? Are they issues the polls said weren't going to work?

In any event, mentioning some issues may be a double-edged sword. Just the mere mention of climate change, for example, might be a big negative for Howard - after all he was brought kicking and screaming to that agenda after a decade of being a climate skeptic, and the electorate do remember.

By contrast you thought Rudd’s performance 'was about as persuasive a marketing tool as “New Coke”' but then concede that when it comes to leadership the polls say that he has got the issue of leadership over John Howard.

So what's your line of argument? That Howard is playing to the polls but has made a blue on leadership? Or that Rudd is a better marketer?

More importantly, who are you going to vote for, and will the next six weeks of campaigning make a scrap of difference to your vote? I think not.

Graham
I struggle with your reasoning on the Queensland vote for Labor. Queensland not only knows Rudd but is closely acquainted with Labor's sorry state of affairs in general. When anyone mentions the Labor states' disastrous management of Health and Infrastructure, problems with Ministers coming up short in the ethics department, or covering up the mess after the event, it rings true for Queensland. The mere thought of Labor in power Federally and across the states would send shivers through the spine of reasonable thinking Queenslanders after Beattie's Council Amalgamations effort before he bailed out. The recent by-election in Brisbane saw the Labor candidate winning only few more votes than Beattie did previously. This despite a mudslinging flyer against the Greens and with no Liberal/National opposition. If I was Rudd I'd be concerned about winning any seats at all in Queensland. He'll need a lot more than a photo shoot with blue backdrop to win this election. Subtle soft sell and an American style campaign doesn't cut it for me.

I was disappointed with Rudd's presentation.

One would have thought that going to air at least 2 hours after run he would have prepared better but he did not.

The same buzz words were slapped together like a quick sandwich and he seemed to rely on these more than enunciate who and what he stood for.

Rudd could have acknowledge from the outset by simply saying

"Well its taken the PM this long to call the election blah blah blah..

But instead he read from some scrawled notes on some old speech he had already used. He nervously bumped the microphones twice and this is not something one does if you want to send over a strong message.
And he never gets any passion in his voice.

And that little phrase he uses "Now let me say this" is overdone.

His minders need to turbo charge him big time. A blonde Mr Bean is not what punters want in this 'grand final type election'.

As for Howard, well what can you say? The Shrub learnt some tricks from the Bush. I was flat and boring and he would not go into discussion about policy.

I can't wait to hear his concession speech for both government and his own seat of Bennelong.

JOHN HOWARD........"RIGHT" leadership.

KEVIN RUDD........."NEW" Leadership.

JESUS of NAZARETH.."BEST" Leadership.

We all know that if the "Coalition" is in power.. the cake will be sliced in a way favorable to the interests which elected/supported them.

If Labor gets in...70% unionists.. the cake will be sliced and divvied up in a differently beneficial way.. again..to vested interests.
(note...Greens and Democrats are totally irrelevant)

IN BOTH the first 2 cases, they will wax eloquent about 'NATIONAL INTEREST'..which of course is code for "I'm looking after my mob and blow you other jokers"

I ask..."How would JH or KR do things differently if Jesus was the one they acted for" ?

For one thing, I doubt that "Black" African refugees would have been slammed.

JH
I doubt there would be so much resistance to the idea of a national apology to Indigenous Australians, and that if such an apology was forthcoming, it would be matched by appropriate practical measures.

At least constitutional recognition is a step in the right direction.

As James says "Faith without works..is dead" just so.. 'sorry' is just a word...and without works..is just as much a verbal corpse.

KR would move AWAY from the politicized 'Sorry 2 Stolen Generation' and TOWARDS a 'Sorry for the horrific actions of some early Australians to Indigenous people for EVERYTHING'

KR would also avoid like the plague pandering to 'Union' interests and seek a better situation for ALL Australians.

JH and KR would probably withdraw Australia from many idealogical UN conventions..and seek much higher moral ground in Biblical principles which assure national sovereignty, Border security, political,cultural and social independance and a bright future for all Australians.

Hi Rainier

You might have to endure his retirement speech in Parliament before you hear those other speechs...

Holy cow a turbo charged mannequin ... running on natural gas?

Everybody seems to have forgotten the issues that saw Goss lose that election. Not the issues in Townsville, nor was it hospitals or traffic or economics or arrogrance but it was the issues affecting large chunks of Brisbane's Southside.

Toll roads and the Koala Highway to the Gold Coast.

That cost Goss swags of seats in an area Rudd claims he's now 'standing up for'...
I can recall the angst in the community in not being given a choice in the matter of toll roads and that highway and I don't think those people have forgotton.

One thing I have noticed about Kevin is he adopts habitual practices, statements and positions and he seems unable to adapt easily.

I suspect if he is elected he'll behave as the Goss government did and you can be sure when he loses it won't be his fault.

Now, just a moment there, Boaz.

>>I ask..."How would JH or KR do things differently if Jesus was the one they acted for" ?<<

But they do, Boaz. Apparently.

"Christians gathered in 700 churches from Nhulunbuy in the Northern Territory to Ulverstone in Tasmania to watch the two men duelling for the prime ministership outline their Christian credentials" ABC News, Fri Aug 10, 2007

"I do... state it to be the fact that my party and the National Party has [sic] within its ranks a very significant number of people who are extremely active members of various Christian denominations." John Howard, from the above telecast.

"From a Christian perspective, we are custodians of the planet, [w]e have a responsibility to ensure that those who come after us have a planet which is habitable." Kevin Rudd, in the same telecast.

"The Opposition Leader also came to the question of how governments should treat the poor and underprivileged... Around a dozen times in his speech, Mr Rudd said his Christian beliefs gave him a unifying vision for the nation" ABC News Fri Aug 10, 2007

I'm not sure what else you would want, Boaz, with two committed Christians fighting it out for the chance to lead you into a bright new Christian future.

>>JH and KR would probably withdraw Australia from many idealogical UN conventions..and seek much higher moral ground in Biblical principles which assure national sovereignty, Border security, political,cultural and social independance and a bright future for all Australians.<<

The thing that puzzles me about this statement is that one of the two you mentioned, JH, has been in office for eleven years. How come he hasn't yet had time to create all those outcomes? And if he hasn't addressed them yet, what makes you think either he or Rudd are going to do so in the future?

They're only politicians, you know.

Albeit Christian ones, of course.

JOHN HOWARD........"RIGHT" leadership.

KEVIN RUDD........."NEW" Leadership.

JESUS of NAZARETH.."BEST" Leadership.

Come on David, we're waiting with bated breath. Which one - JH or KR - is getting JN's second preferences? It's a long time to wait for perfection. We've all got to vote on 24 November - unless you're one of those Exclusive Brethren who don't believe in voting but try to influence eveyone else's votes.

Can't help it, but every time Howard now comes on TV, switch him off because reckon he's had his day, just like Georgie Boy Bush.

First thing I want to ask right now, does he support Cheney and Bush on the coming attack on Iran?

Further, apart from the severe drought problem, reckon it does not make much difference who's in charge, seeing that we have Chinese need and the subsequent pitstock politics to look after us for a long time to come.

Only wish Howard wouldn't harp on it so much as if the whole idea of exporting iron ore to China was completly his original plan. Also the subsequent great demand for
labour brought on by our quarry economy has never been mentioned by our dumb public, which only gets Howard carrying on his everlasting spin about how good he's been for jobs.

Also his reminder about how interest rates were so high before he took over eight or nine years ago from Keating. He never let's know it was well before, however, and were going down fast when Keating lost power, and in fact were well on the way down all over the globe.

Finally, with his further spin about how much money him and Howard have stowed away in the Future Fund, never says that it might be a good idea to put more cash into education as well as into medical care.

Heavens, nearly forgot about our foreign debt which has now nearly reached the half trillion, with Costello telling lies about getting congrats from the IMF about his abilities.

Yep, no wonder I want to shut Howard off. Don't vote for Labour, either. As a matter of fact, was thinking of just signing in on election day.

All that's needed so they tell me.

Cheers, BB, WA.

Keith, now did you have to go and give me more nightmares than i already have?

Yes those are the issues in thsoe electorates where the toll road is now, but factor in the huge population increase (from across the border) and they won't know about this history. So I don't think it'll have an impact.

Yes Rudd is not unlike a thunderbird puppet delivering prerecorded sound bites. He is very mechanical and I can't believe we grew up the same rough town in the 60/70's, perhaps its because he did?

He must have stayed home reading the works of "Dietrich Bonhoefferon" on weekends and after school.

As for Swan, i think he just stayed home. LOL

"Strangely, the economy and the Iraq war came at the end of the speech, almost as an afterthought."
Both these items will be the unmentionables in the upcoming elections.
"Forced to put my money on a result this election, I’m backing Rudd."
So are the financiers, bankers and media moguls as the discussions of war with Iran is being ratched up in Washington. What is holding them back is the phony pretext required for intervention. Like the non existing "weapons of mass destruction" or bringing "democracy to Iraq." Athough most people saw through these lies and understood the war was about looting the oil and US domination over that section of the world. The term that is often used in political circles is American hegemony - America dominating the world. Detailed US plans have already been drawn up and military resources are in place for a intervention into Iran. We live in very dangerous times, and the politicians deliberately obscure the important questions in the elections to catch people unawares and unprepared.
Rudd will probably get in, adding new spin to old treachery, surpassing Howard and his dirty work. The Labor leaders were correctly described a full hundred odd years ago, which still stands as "the Labor liutenants of capitalism."Moreover, Labor has always been promoted in every crisis by the ruling elite, particularly for upcoming wars. After the Labor party are squeezed dry by all their treachery, they, more than anyone, open the door for the hated liberals to get back in. What people have been voting and fighting all their lives is the right wing and their reactionary political progam; be it Liberal, Labor, Greens, or the Democrats.

"What people have been voting and fighting all their lives is the right wing and their reactionary political progam; be it Liberal, Labor, Greens, or the Democrats."
Posted by johncee1945, Monday, 15 October 2007 8:04:21 PM

ABSOLUTELY agree!

Yep Bushbred I share your disgust. I just cannot get in the slightest bit enthused about trying to analyse the nuances of Howard and Rudd’s personalities or policy-difference minutiae.

They are all but identical in every way that is at all significant.

You can’t vote for either of them if you believe in the urgent need to quickly establish a genuine sustainability platform for our society, as a large and rapidly growing section of our society does.

In just about every case, you can’t vote for anyone other than Howard or Rudd without your vote counting for one or other of them!! Even if you specifically don't want your vote to count for either of them, you CAN’T, short of putting in a null (and technically illegal) vote. Such is the incredible rort of a voting system that we have: the compulsory preferential system.

So I guess I’ll be doing the same as you on election day by just getting my name crossed off and submitting the only vote that I can possibly live with – an unmarked ballot paper.

Well both are surveying their own interested. and again, by looking at my last post, the triangle, is a carefully designed smoke screen. Its like a game of tennis. I have made enough money! its your turn.

TO LATE HOWARD. I feel you have had the best oportunity to listen but you chose DENIAL until now. Much of what you are now onto is interesting and I credit you as a person for the recent growth.

My distrust however is not in you, as with your MINISTRY. I DO NOT RESPECT YOUR MINISTRY. The NO RESPONSE from people within your departments, the "politics as usual" approach.

I also (as a highly dedicated citizen) who has put her money where her month is, have been seriously abused by men in your ministry, loosing business, career and reputation because of the dirty party politic's at regional levels.

I honesty know you would prehaps care personally about this but there is no way to explain this unless someone in your party is interested. I left so many messages over the years it is nullifing.

I believe the Liberal Party needs time out to revise and rebuild it's civic polices.

Rudd and his team on the other hand I believe has a head start. He understands hardship, poverty and the economic gain of building grassroots enterprise. The ALP is intent on providing the infrastructure and engagement we need to surivive at community levels.

I wrote you Mr Howard an OPEN LETTER on this forum, and I have partly explained the problem I am having with CANDOO NGO and I have left clues about the glue required to enhance the unity of our citizenship especially in ethic and indigenous affairs.

No one took any interest or replied.

http://www.miacat.com/Open%20Letter_Sept_14th.htm

http://www.miacat.com/Media_Pan_One/WorldSystemsOfHealing/Candoo_NGO_Allied_Health.html

Lastly I know you and others have been loosing my material and though I don't mind, it is the insult of no recognition and being treated like this by the Liberal party that will loose the votes.

I want things to change and I see social cohesiveness as a central issue to overcome the difficult problemsat ground levels.

This is in most of my own material and in the OPEN LETTER which I wrote to you and Mr Rudd.

http://www.miacat.com
.

Bushbred and Ludwig, I appreciate your disillusionment with the compulsory preferential system, but there is an alternative to throwing your vote away.

Albert Langer advocated the 1-2-2-2-2 vote as a means of protesting the hegemony of the Big Two. He went to gaol, but you might want to investigate exactly what a valid vote currently involves.

Likewise in the Senate, I aways vote below the line. it gives me great pleasure to vote from 1 to 176, savouring the decision of who to put at 176. Put the major parties below 100 or so and your vote will be extinguished long before they get your preferences.

There are plenty of alternatives to avoid letting the major parties get your vote. You just need to get creative.

Pericles... you always help fill in the gaps :) good 4 u.

The point you make is quite spot on.. yes.. JH HAS has all this time to produce those outcomes.. but hasn't......

Further.. the Coalition..with a majority in both HR and SENATE had the power and opportunity to SHUT DOWN the mail order porn from their very own city Canberra.. much of which I'm SURE went or goes to the Aboriginal groups they are all in a fuss about now..."We have to clean up the porn and the grog" HAH! they could have cut the supply anytime they liked.....but the CHOSE not to do it, and I have a letter from Ruddock confirming as much....

NOW..perhaps..they will face the prospect of a political wilderness.
So.. those quotes you gave are quite illuminating.. they show how the Coaltion wishes to portray themselves to a 'Christian' audience..but the reality is..... different.

FRANKGOL....that was a reasonable post mate.. I don't have any recommendation.. I do vote.. will probably go FF but not sure.
My vote is for the Lord.. and my prayer is for the nation.. I can see why the EB don't vote..the choice is pretty much a lesser of evils.

I wish I had not seen the pattern of populist appeal through sensationalization of controversial issues..but I have.
My ideal party would be the left of the Coalition married to the right of Labor..and BOTH of them separate themselves from the vested interests which drive them.

A government "from" the people should be for ALL the people.. but when have you ever seen that ?

My post might have seemed like a bit of a cheap exercise in evangelistic zeal..but it was very honest I assure you.

Boazy: "I can see why the EB don't vote..the choice is pretty much a lesser of evils."

But of course your Brethren cult cousins aren't above funding political advertising to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dealers in order to support the Howard government.

"My post might have seemed like a bit of a cheap exercise in evangelistic zeal..but it was very honest I assure you."

I agree with the "cheap exercise" bit.

My recollection of the Goss years was a bit different. As I recall, Goss got elected when the Nats proposed the Wolfdene dam. The opposition was so fierce it got the Nats chucked out. Then Goss tried to fix the road between the Gold Coast and Brisbane - ie upgrade what is now known as the M1 parking lot. And he got chucked out.

Its all very fashionable to blame the pollies on both sides for not doing the right thing, but from what I can see they did try. The reason those infrastructure projects didn't happen is sad and simple. We, the voters, didn't want them.

rstuart

Gee good to see you've such a good memory but haven't you forgotten about ... what was his name?... oh that's right Macgerald and his witch hunt.

Have plenty of sleepless nights Rainier John's coming back for 'three more years' well nearly three more years

Both my wife and I have been feeling confuse about who to pass our first preference to. We knew that the Nationals candidate would be above Liberal but would they be placed ahead of Labor?

After watching the 7:30 Report on the ABC(Monday, 15 Oct.) where Howard was gunned down by dishonest journalism by Kerry O'Brien. Howard dealt with this journo and gunned him down amazingly.

When Kerry O'Brien interviewed Kevin Rudd, he was reading from a script that one can only ponder if it were handed to him by Rudd's minders. If Rudd cannot cope with cold questions, he won't cope as Prime Minister.

Rudd helped my wife make her decision in leaving the ALP down the bottom of her vote when he directly accused Johh Howard for giving Saddam Hussein money to buy weapons to kill Australian soldiers. This is dirty politics at its best.

Rudd's interview was appauling with many lies which he was never picked up on. Not that a biased journo would have picked on Rudd's deceit when he was reading from the Labor script.

This Ruddy Boy cries like a 4 year old at the slightest hint of criticism. Such people could not cope with the pressure placed on governments by the National Farmers Federation, Chamber of Commerce, other nations, etc. This walk in the park for Rudd is no way to test his abilities to handle stress, or would he cry to mummy each time?

The interviewing process during the lead-up to an election is pretty straightforward, when you think about it, Spider.

The incumbent party's set of questions would concentrate on the events of the past eleven years.

Promises made and broken. Things that were done badly, things that didn't go to plan, things that the public became upset about. The material available to the journalist is pretty much factual - it would be a pretty sloppy journo who pretended that the last eleven years didn't happen, when setting questions for the guy who had been Prime Minister for all that time.

The opposition's questions, on the other hand, wouldn't get very far if they concentrated on the past eleven years - and going back further is only of slight interest, since things have changed significantly in the world since 1996. So it is not entirely surprising that the questions, which could only deal with Rudd's intentions, sounded as though they had come from the party play-book. After all, they would be pretty much the only possible set of questions to ask, would they not?

It's just one of the challenges of being the man on the spot. You are assessed on your track record, while your opponent - who doesn't have one - gets pretty much a free hit. It has nothing to do with bias. I remember Keating getting similarly roasted when he was in the same position.

But I do understand the frustration. It's pretty much the same when I'm watching football, I invariably see things differently to the umpires - as do the rest of the crowd as they bellow "Ba-a-a-a-a-all" every time one of the opposition hangs onto it in a tackle for more than a nanosecond.

keith,

No, I haven't forgotten about Fitzgerald. But neither have I forgotten that one of the major planks under the Goss campaign for Queensland was to put a stop to Wolfdene. Its probable he would of won without it, but having it increased his chances of winning. But then of course made it impossible for him to push for new dams later on.

Yes, it was a bad decision, although the magnitude of the error wasn't apparent at the time. But I find attacking a politician for making a promise before the election and then keeping it a perverse think to do.

As for Fitzgerald being a witch hunt, I guess it was. It was a rather unusual witch hunt though, as it was instigated by the witches themselves. Perhaps even more surprisingly, it found real witches and burnt them - an atypical outcome for witch hunts that are usually more about finding "someone to blame other than me" rather than "finding the real witches".

Johnj

If you vote 1,2,2,2,2, your vote is null. You are required to number boxes sequentially. Yes, you could register a protest vote in this way. But it would be just the same as marking only one box or submitting a blank paper. It wouldn’t be noted as a protest vote, just as a vote for no one.

“There are plenty of alternatives to avoid letting the major parties get your vote. You just need to get creative.”

Really? Please explain (:>\

It makes sense that John Howard is doing poorly in NSW since the electorate don't have the nous to distinguish State and Federal issues.NSW is reeling under the State Govt taxes and bloated Govt bureaucracies created by the Iemma/Carr debacles and Kevin'07 is trying to cash in on the pain felt by those who are victims of a Labor philosophy.

This is where the Coalition must drive home the reality of a Labor philosophy that encourages people to under achieve and let mediocrity reign supreme.

Kevin is going to pour another $2 billion into a health system that is basicly flawed and this will be another Labor distaster.Kevin presided over a health system in QLD that absorbed 60% of the health budget just in bureaucrats,rather than providing front line health services.We have a similar sham happening in NSW at this moment.

As the electorate becomes more focused on the reality,the Labor margins will diminish and this will be a very close election.

There is something not quite right about Kevin who talks at an accelaterated pace to gloss over the detail and the reality.He pretends to presume that all his logic and facts are self evident,yet is short on detail.

I would trust Kim Beasley by a country mile than this pretender to the throne.

BOAZ_David,

You raise an interesting and valid point, what would they do if they truly had the heart of Jesus? Well of course they don't, who does, or can really?

With regard to JH in particular and KR to a lesser degree, my thoughts often turn to the scripture, "What you did for the least, you also did for me". What has JH done for the least exactly? It stikes me this man cares for the likes of big business and big mates who attack defenceless countries far more than the under privileged.

Would Jesus have left starving refugees sitting in a boat off the mainland when he could've let them in?

Would he then have sent them off to detention centres to live like criminals for up to 3 years, going insane?

Would he leave someone, with no legitimate evidence of committing a serious crime, sitting in a jail to be tortured under circumstances we would never permit in our own country, and then to finally be tried under a court of law that would neither be permitted in Australia?

Would he allow the health system to crumble under his nose whilst diverting $3 billion into private health care?

And neither do I believe that Jesus would create a state of fear of others amongst us, forever alluding that the rights of Australians are for some reason more important than those of anybody else in this world, coining the phrase "aspirational nationalism".

I'm sorry but I just don't come across those kind of values in the Bible. It disgusts me that JH has presided over and perpetuated this kind of mentality for the last 11 years. Yet so many Christians, my mother included, continue to vote for him/them because they are supposedly conservative, as if that's all that matters.

For myself, I'll be voting for the Greens as they seem to be the only party that have an ethical grounding, though I hope KR does win ultimately.

After all, wasn't Jesus considered the radical of his day?

Hi Josied...

I have to agree that much would be done differently if our leaders had the heart of Jesus... but looking at how Jesus approached many situations.. I don't think any of us can truly predict how He would have reacted.

For example.. lets take the issue of 'refugees' sitting in a boat off shore.. starving?
If they were in serious medical or food need, whether or not they were accepted here, we should clearly ensure they had enough to eat, and had some kind of access to medical help.

Remember how Jesus reacted to the trap "Should we pay taxes to Caesar"?
He responded "Pay to Caesar that which is Caesars" (he had taken a coin in his hand.. and Caesars image was on it)
In other words.. he deferred to 'authority' in so far as it has the legitimate interests of state in mind.
The issue of refugees and those portraying themselves as such.. is an emotive issue, which divides many of us. Rather than express a strong view either way, and in so doing bring down the real focus which is the Lord Jesus, to partisan politics, let me just say.. 'there is much to do' on all sides of these questions.

I am re-assured by the Lords own words "My kingdom is not 'of' this world.."...

But I do know one thing.. when a society is overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit..and a nations turns its heart to the Lord God in humble repentance.. He will indeed heal their land, and their community.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Chronicles+7:14

An example of the above is found here.
http://www.welshrevival.com/lang-en/1904history.htm

"A century ago Wales experienced the last National Religious Revival, a revival that brought in an extra 100,000 new converts according to the estimates of the time, and a movement that quickly spread to the 4 corners of the World."

The Lord does not support any particular party...He supports the concept of 'righteous authority'.

Unfortunately, most of us get the polticians we deserve...and vote for..and out vote is often based on very self serving reasons...

I TOO, AM A HOWARD CRITIC, BUT I'M NOT LETTING HIM DRAW MY VITRIOL BY SPLITTING VOTERS TO "LOVERS OR LOATHERS" OF HIMSELF!THE LABOR PARTY IS NOT RIGHT TO GO ALONG ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND THE TASSIE PULP MILL. BUT THAT'S MY OPINION!I FEEL, A WILY OLD POLLIE LIKE OUR JOHNNIE KNOWS HOW TO RUN AN ELECTION. A STRONG LEADER APPEALS TO THE FLOCK.I'D TELL HIM TO MIND HIS OWN BEESWAX! WHEN HE SAYS TO RUDD,"I'VE SHOWN YOU MINE, NOW YOU SHOW ME YOURS!I'D REPLY. "I'LL SHOW THE PEOPLE , AFTER THE ELECTION, WHEN WE'VE DONE OUR SUMS WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT TAX CUTS!"REMEMBER YOU'RE THE BLOKE WHO SAID "NO G.S.T.EVER EVER!"IF THERE'S 43 BILLION TO SPARE WE'LL MAY BE BETTER YOURS! HOWARDS SPEECH GIVES HIM AWAY, CONTRAST HIM WITH MENZIES, HE'S DESPERATE! I LOVE HIM LIKE THAT!

All this speculation about "what would Jesus do" is interesting.

>>but looking at how Jesus approached many situations.. I don't think any of us can truly predict how He would have reacted.<<

From the stories told about him, it would appear that he never actually took responsibility for anything - in a terrestrial sense, naturally - which would qualify him perfectly as our Prime Minister.

He also big-noted himself, with all that son-of-God routine. Ideally suited.

However, he never seemed to boss anyone about, or tell them what to do. Instead, he dished out plenty of advice, most of which was straightforward "motherhood".

So all in all, Let's think. No responsibility, plenty of gratuitous advice... no, he wouldn't have been a politician.

Jesus would have been a consultant.

And if proof were needed:

A surgeon, a civil engineer, and a consultant were arguing about the oldest profession in the world.

The doctor observed, "Well, in the Bible, it says that God created Eve from a rib taken out of Adam. This clearly required surgery, and so I can rightly claim that mine is the oldest profession in the world."

The civil engineer disagreed "Even earlier in the book of Genesis, it states that God created the order of the heavens and the earth from out of the chaos. This was the first and certainly the most spectacular application of civil engineering. Therefore, Monsieur doctor, you are wrong: mine is the oldest profession in the world."

The consultant leaned back in her chair, smiled, and then said confidently, "Ah, but who do you think created the chaos?"

With the Libs now gaining a little on Labour, we might expect to see that fanatical look coming back on certain prominent politicos, with Howard playing the part as he performs his morning walk, yet more befitting the need for a stiff-armed salute from passers by rather than the casual backhand to brow of the Aussie digger.

Yes, one is starting to feel a little sympathy for that half-scared look in the eyes of Rudd, wondering if it could mean a better political future with him than those with eyes as cold and confident as those of the leaders of the Exclusive Brethren

Certainly it is strange that nervousness can be more human and heart-warming than machine-like ultra-confidence will ever be

Hi BOAZ_David,

Point taken, it is likely that they weren't 'starving' refugees, but destitute none-the-less, or at least should've been treated as such until proven other wise, in my opinion.

You make a great point when you say "most of us get the politicians we deserve...and vote for". This is very true, hence where we are today. Howard's actions say so much about our identity as a nation and how we think collectively. I also accept that Howard's position on refugees is such, sadly, because he already knew that this is how Australians as a whole think and feel. His thoughts were correct, as proven by his subsequent re-election. It this part of our Australian identity that disturbs me most, as it perpetuates fear and racism. "God did not give us a spirit fear, but of love, power and a sound mind", and he teaches us to love everyone equally, doesn't he?

The point I'm trying to make is that I question Howard's ethical positions. I don't genuinely feel that he his a Christian in the full sense of the word, and it frustrates me that he has sold himself as one. Equally, I'm frustrated that the ethical position of so many Australians seems to support his views. For those don't support his views, this may well be their only "Christian" representation. The man is a great politician, but a great man...? Not to me.

Never the less, I doubt much will change, regardless of who we ultimately elect, our laid back Australian way has led us down the garden path of complacency. More than terrorism, climate change and a failing economy, that is the greatest thing we have to fear.