Part-Two

I work for ALL Australia.

I am not a Clone or Silo of a particular citizens party. I care about who and what we as a nation Stands For. A nation made-up of diversely cultured organizations and peoples. Without the tolerance of our “pluralism” we loose our way completely.

Mr Howard this election was about WHO WE ARE POLITCALLY AS A NATION and WHO WE CAN STAND WITH, when it comes to MINISTERS.

I demand your former Ministers each look at themselves hard in the mirror.

My statement points to the stubborn, appalling, inexcusable ill-fated misrepresentations. The behavior that was highly incredulous.

This 2007 Liberal Election campaign cost Millions. It was a Filthy Fabled Bashing Distasteful Campaign. A Shocking Circus Show by a government Ministry in Piety. A gang that had lost it’s essence. A people. A political team-working damming All of Australia.

As a constituent Mr Howard, I say you lost government because the people in your Ministry lost the integrity required to a) stand up to you and or b) maintain a open and transparent government in principal. While I have much to say about economics’, the point is you can’t share knowledge when the people you are debating with present material that is selectively baseless and presented half-rotten-to-spin at the core.

As seen by this election, (the Queensland election before it) and others... the people of Australia are a wise bunch when not distracted by fowl means, fear and poor governance.

For the record: Mr Mark Latham is a valuable Australian Citizen, as is Mr Mal Brough. Both up standing people rejected, by a mire of political events regardless of what they offer us, through debate in their own right.

Your governments treatment of people, added with the “airport marshals” distraction(s) (clumsy) the “TAMPA, Children Overboard” (dishonest, severely heartless) and the irreparable guidance delivered on policy importance, cost your official loss. All that could be inferred as good, undermined by the unashamed, brazen mirror we saw screened for its deceptiveness.

htpp://www.miacat.com
.

Howard's defeat could be attributed to a variety factors however it is important for the future to note Rudd's campaign was notable for the following.

1. Being able to portray Howard as deficient while copying many of his policies.
2. Reliance upon emotive catchphrases e.g. "education revolution" which had no actual meaning or detail or in fact revolutionary qualities.
3. Making demeaning personality descriptions of Howard as a "liar" "sneaky" and "clever" while simultaneously changing his position on a number of issues and denying he had done so.
4. Avoidance of certain aspects of critical examination.(eg carefully selecting who should ask questions and what TV programs hew should appear on).
5. Being able to sell his idea of the future without stating what it actually was.
6. Running one of the greatest fear campaigns ever in Australian politics about Workchoices while simultaneously claiming the Libs were using "fear tactics".

Rudd is expert at avoiding scrutiny and specifics. He does this by cutting short TV interviews when the questions get tough, favouring certain journalists and TV shows over others and most interestingly uses the "I'll take advice on that" to avoid answering about policy detail.

Rudd's win was more about feelgood statements than substance,the leader who waits to see how the public react and then takes up the most publicly acceptable idea not most effective idea. Time will tell.

I take issue with the statement that the anti-Workchoices campaign was a "fear" campaign. Workchoices genuinely affects or will affect all working Australians to their detriment, through the loss of rights to fair behaviour from employers. Pointing out that fact is not promulgating a "fear" campaign. Telling lies about WMDs and about the hordes of non-existent refugees swarming to come to Australia - those were "fear" campaigns. Remember whose febrile mind they came from?

When you do, you have some clue as to why the dishonest little toad and his corrupt cronies were booted.

John Howard lost because he is a liar. His ministers joined him in a series of statements which the smarter public knew were lies, and about which they were not going to be gullible.
Telling lies casts scepticism about every further utterance.
Coupled with John Howard's sneaky obfuscation comes the question:"who do you trust?"
John, Peter,- certainly NOT you!

[[[[… the Liberals’ vicious attacks on single mums’ benefits in their fourth term reflected a deep-seated misogynist moral conservatism.]]]]
No they reflected the fact that parasites, of whatever sort, are parasites, and accordingly that single mums ought to not come into existence in the first place, but should be loving, respectful, faithful, wives instead.
.
.
[[[[Rudd convinced voters he was a safe pair of hands who could manage the economy. ]]]
No-one was convinced, for no convincing was provided. “Trust me…I can manage the economy”, gets no marks.
.
.
[[[[…Howard was clearly past his prime as a politician.]]]]
I get it…..3 years made him more experience than he was at 1 year, 5 years made him more experienced than he was at 3 years, 8 years made him more experienced than he was at 5 years, and over a decade made him less experienced than 8 years.
Your logic, Ms Johnson, is something like your politics.
.
.
[[[[Nonetheless, the It’s Time factor went beyond a Coalition government that had been in office too long and had no plan for the future.]]]]
As if our plan for the future should somehow be of a fundamentally different nature than our plans in the past for now.
.
.
[[[[….Rudd’s exhortation…..that it was now time to roll up the sleeves and get to work.]]]]
What he meant was ‘get to work’ on making Australia more socialist. It was no reference to spending energy.
.
.
[[[[Undoubtedly this will be a socially conservative Labor government in many respects (although much less conservative than the Howard government). It will also be a fiscally conservative one that will want to keep business on side. ]]]]
Yes that is the mark of Fabians. Slow tactical change, spiralling the idealogically-ignorant proletariat into socialism.
Bit by bit, little by little, not rocking the boat too much at any one time. Yes, Labour learnt from Mr Gough ‘gun-hoe’ Whitlam. Gough was a dum socialist; modern Labour are clever socialists. But in the end, both groups are dum, for both groups are socialist.

"Single mums...should be loving, respectful, faithful, wives instead"...from a poster called "Liberty"?

Do we have any rules about trolls on this board?