Kevin Rudd Wins By a Landslide

Interesting article on the iraq influence (or lack of) in the recent election:
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=23176

And a VERY interesting synopsis why Howard won in Nov 03

�??The simple explanation for the Howard victory in 2004 goes like this. During the past decade, middle Australians have experienced unprecedented levels of prosperity, based partly on improved productivity but also on dizzily high levels of personal debt. This has created a fundamental paradox. The prosperity relies on the permanent maintenance of a low-interest-rate regime. Affluence is shadowed by anxiety. Debt is the ghost at the national banquet.
Howard and his advisers understand all this very well. The pivotal moment of Australian politics this year came as the election was called. Mike Scrafton had proved beyond doubt that John Howard had lied to the Australian public on the eve of the 2001 election over what he knew about the children overboard affair. Howard’s response to this charge was fascinating to observe. He did not - except formulaically - protest his innocence. Rather, he asked the people to answer a simple question: in a choice between the Coalition and Labor, whom did they trust? The “trust” was not about telling the truth but about managing the economy in general and, in particular, about keeping interest rates low.
It now seems clear that in its December 2003 leadership ballot the Labor caucus made an exceedingly poor choice.
As Howard has grown older, his desire for power has become, if anything, more keen. For this reason he answered Labor’s promises on health and education with a catch-up big spending program of his own. This was probably unnecessary. Because fear is a more powerful emotion than hope, because voters were more worried about interest rates than health or education policy and because they trusted the Coalition more than Labor to manage the economy, the Howard Government was handsomely returned.
It now seems clear that in its December 2003 leadership ballot the Labor caucus made an exceedingly poor choice. In part this is because of Mark Latham’s inexperience and doubts surrounding his personal and political past. More deeply, it is because of the fact that at a time when the fundamental political characteristic of Australian society is the tension between affluence and anxiety, the least suitable candidate for Labor leader is an unpredictable adventurer.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Forgive my ignorance of Australian politics, but, didn’t you guys have an election in 2004 in which Howard won? [/quote]

And didn’t you elect Bush in 2004?

Wasn’t the Iraq invasion in 2003?

Yet, the landslide election last year went to the Democrats MAINLY because they promised to end the war.

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Forgive my ignorance of Australian politics, but, didn’t you guys have an election in 2004 in which Howard won?

And didn’t you elect Bush in 2004?

Wasn’t the Iraq invasion in 2003?

Yet, the landslide election last year went to the Democrats MAINLY because they promised to end the war.
[/quote]

Lixy - the ass raping political expert.

It’s been a year. No end in sight. Can we call them liars, yet?

Dems won because the republicans stopped acting like republicans.

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Forgive my ignorance of Australian politics, but, didn’t you guys have an election in 2004 in which Howard won?

And didn’t you elect Bush in 2004?

Wasn’t the Iraq invasion in 2003?

Yet, the landslide election last year went to the Democrats MAINLY because they promised to end the war.
[/quote]

As low as Bush’s approval ratings are those of the Democrat controlled Congress are even worse.

I bet if Bush ran for election today he would win again. That is how sad the field is.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Lixy - the ass raping political expert. [/quote]

Speak of personal experience, ey rainjack?

By all means.

Not only are you assuming that Republicans are a monolithic block, you’re also trying to sell the idea that their ideology is inherently superior to that of the Democratic party.

Take your partisan crap elsewhere. I refuted JeffR’s silly argument, and there’s simply nothing you can do about it.

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Lixy - the ass raping political expert.

Speak of personal experience, ey rainjack?[/quote]

Nope. Just going off what you have said about little girls being sluts. I guess the proper term should have been “pedophilic raping political expert”, huh?

[quote]Dems won because the republicans stopped acting like republicans.

Not only are you assuming that Republicans are a monolithic block, you’re also trying to sell the idea that their ideology is inherently superior to that of the Democratic party.

Take your partisan crap elsewhere. I refuted JeffR’s silly argument, and there’s simply nothing you can do about it.[/quote]

Monolithic? Hardly. Selling out their conservative positions to the highest bidder? absolutely.

Republicans are inherently superior to liberal democrats - if both are true to their beliefs. But that does not happen. Libs run hard to the right to get elected. Republicans are afraid they might hurt someone’s feelings by being tough.

The revolution of 1994 was the last time republicans actually acted like republicans, and…well…those were the best times we have had in recent history.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Take your partisan crap elsewhere. [/quote]

If only you would take your own advice.

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Forgive my ignorance of Australian politics, but, didn’t you guys have an election in 2004 in which Howard won?

And didn’t you elect Bush in 2004?

Wasn’t the Iraq invasion in 2003?

Yet, the landslide election last year went to the Democrats MAINLY because they promised to end the war.
[/quote]

lixy,

I’m going to break this to you gently: Bush lost because he wasn’t leading on Iraq.

Americans like to win. They need to know someone has a plan that is bearing fruit.

Bush lost because he wasn’t leading in 2006. No more, no less. As you can see by the number of your dead pals, he got the message.

I refuse to use polling data as I would become an instant hypocrite. But, as Iraq continues to improve, you will see it become less and less of an issue in our upcoming election.

Translation: If Bush had started the surge in early 2005, I seriously doubt the dems would have gained control of EITHER House of Congress.

You’ll see what happens in 2008. We won’t be completely out of Iraq. However, Republican, Republican, and more Republicans.

JeffR