I’ve been mulling this over for a day or so and I don’t think I agree with you.

I’m a strong opponent of the death penalty. I also think that Rudd could have finessed the problem much more than he did. I think that while conceding the poor timing of McClelland’s comments he could also have called for calm in a statesman like way emphasising the importance of the whole affair for the Bali Nine.

As for feeling bad about Howard for taking a free kick? Well that’s what politicians of both sides do. I recall getting all worked up about what a meanie Malcolm Fraser was for blocking supply. But the ALP Govt had put it’s head in the noose with its incompetence and then found itself reliant on the good will and ‘principled’ behaviour of its political opponents (and it divined ‘principle’ from things other than its own past behaviour – it had threatened to block supply itself). So it created a narrative in which pulling the lever on the gallows that the ALP Government had been kind enough to build as some kind of convention wrecking, indecent thing.

I fell for it then, but I think it’s bollocks now. Politicians do that stuff for a living. Of course if the issues are sacred enough, then I guess I could get on my high horse, if, for instance Howard’s opportunism involved trying to change the law here, start dog-whistling on behalf of a change and whatever. His behaviour over any number of things I think has been reprehensible – I guess the highhanded illegalities of Tampa, the mendaciousness of children overboard, the Nixonian deniability of just about everthing and above all the cruelty of all those people incarcerated in the desert.

But taking a free swing at the head that Robert McClelland stuck out this close to an election? Well I think any of the PMs I’ve known in the last few decades would have done the same.

So it’s like that Italian who took the dive and got the penalty in the world cup. Not pretty, but part of the game.

On the other hand I fully endorse your dim view of the media especially those who are not so beholden to commercial forces – like Kezza O’Brien – indeed I might go further. They should try to inform their viewers/readers of the relevant facts. But they can’t help reporting on politics as entertainment/spectacle/spin. They may as well put up the headline “Howard has a good day conning you mug readers – again! Shock!”

Hmm. Doesn’t quite have the same punch.

I actually think that Howard will use this as a wedge. And I think this will win him votes. In fact the movements of the GG and the PM seem to confirm that the election will be called soon so he can take advantage of the current events.

(Think of the GG and the PM as the keymaster and the gatekeeper from Ghostbusters.)

As a Howard hater I’m not only gutted by what I percieve to be the damage that J Ho has done to the country, I’m also worried about the long term damage he’s done to his own party.

Howard Disdainer!

The second thing that shits me is that I can’t remember what the second thing that shat me was. But it was good, by gar…

In fact the suggestion is a complete fabrication but don’t expect an apology.

It’s staggering that nobody in the media seems to think it’s worth asking either the government or the opposition about their attitude to the Bush Administration’s apparent desire to go to war with Iran. Somehow this is a piddling non-event compared to something really important like Labor not supporting the death penalty for terrorists.

We live in strange times.

I suspect that in order to fully hate someone with a passion, you need to have experienced the opposite, and have loved them first. And its highly unlikely that anyone in Australia, save Janette and maybe his Mother, has ever fully loved John Howard. Its easy not to like someone, its a much further leap to actually feel hatred for them. The way the term is used in the media, is pretty much on a par with the primary school “I hate you, nanee nah” and then running off giggling.

I hate what John Howard has done to this country, I think his personal ambition has made him evil. However, I don’t hate the man. I couldn’t be bothered wasting the emotional energy on him personally.

But I agree James that lefties such as yourself do emotionally and irrationally hate Howard. The two parties have never been more similar so your preference for Labor could not be based on rational analysis of policy differences.

The hypocrisy in your position is manifest. You identify the awful behaviour of Rudd in condemning his Shadow Minister for restating Labor policy but attribute sins only to the other side of politics.

Rudd validates the Liberal attack with his grotesque ‘me-tooism’ – not much integrity as Rudd keeps his gaze steadily on that ballet box. How does this kind of dishonesty differ from ‘points scoring’ by the other side?

It’s gibberish but it’s going to win him the election.

Those who don’t have the time to look at the issue deeper will come to the conclusion that the ALP are apologists for terrorists who willfully went out of the way to spit in the faces of the relatives of the Bali dead.

Those who will look at the issue closer will be turned off by Rudd’s pragmatism whether it was required or not.

A double wedge in other words.

Howard can call the election now.

He has this one in the bag.

“There are some striking changes in the second edition of the
Anholt-GMI Nation Brands Index. Australia, a new entry in
the NBI, has replaced Sweden as the strongest nation brand
in the world. America has moved from fourth to eleventh
place, and Sweden has moved down to fifth place.
However, these changes are not the result of any dramatic
shifts in global public opinion during the last three months;
its mainly because the list of countries tested is more complete.
The NBI now covers 25 countries, and some important
gaps have been filled: France, Canada, Spain, Australia,
Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, New Zealand. (We
have also included several more developing countries with
interesting brand profiles, like Brazil, Mexico, Egypt, Poland
and South Africa). The main reason why the US and Sweden
have fallen lower in the list is as a result of several additional
countries being ranked higher. The bar has been
raised.”

In response to a question about the possible remission of the Bali bombers’ death sentences, Howard is quoted on ABC on-line as having said: “I think that would be very, very bad, I accept that many people will think it is inconsistent of me to say and I’ve acknowledged this before… I personally don’t support capital punishment in Australia. It follows from that whenever an Australian is sentenced to death overseas I’ll argue for the remission of the sentence.”

The question that now should be put to Howard is: if an Australian citizen committed a terrorist act overseas and was sentence to death, would he argue for remission of that sentence?

The problem with Howard is that he is basically a decent human being. But being a politician for too long has warped this decency and has toxically mutated into an effective but very negative tool for political survival.

I wonder whether he realises the damage he is doing to Australia sometimes. When he sends the SAS to stop a tanker with refugees, or when he allows a minister to implicate a ethnic minority as a ‘problem’ he probably thinks that he is doing the proper thing for Australia.

And there lies the reason why Howard is such a negative figure in Australian politics. Because he really believes he is doing the right thing, and he is oblivious to the damage.

But what is even more depressing is that in the last decade the majority of Australians appeared to be oblivious too.

We all get the politicians we deserve.

It is not strictly so, of course. Howard owed a lot to Thatcher and Reagan’s agenda-setting styles. And in recent times he seems to have leaned heavily on the Karl Rove-Dubya songbook. But Nixon does come back.

I think of Dick Tuck’s description of the Nixon style:”Deny what isn’t accused; and accuse what cannot be denied.”

Seems to fit the Rodent perfectly.

But Mr. Howard has now gone one big step further. He was asked today on Southern Cross Radio how he would react if the Bali bombers were not executed as a result of a challenge in Indonesia’s Constitutional Court. His response was that “that would be very, very bad” – although adding that whenever an Australian is sentenced to death overseas he would argue for remission of the sentence.

Mr. Howard is effectively pleading to the Indonesians to execute the Bali Bombers but keep their hands off our boys. This could be seen as blatantly inconsistent and ethnically discriminatory. It is not a good look for Australia, coming so soon after the comments by Mr. Andrews about African refugees.