The Grating Debate
What can I say that hasn’t been already by everybody else? Bugger All Really.
Howard was off his game, the prissy little bitch had a good night. You have to give the night to him.
The worm was biased, no question, no contest.
The panel of “undecided” voters had an obvious preference for stupid ideas and union domination of the workplace. Now which party espouses that particular line of thinking?
Overall, nothing was achieved except to raise the profile a little more of the PLB and reinforce Howard as the man of more stature.
I do tend to think of this particular debate as akin to the press conference prior to a boxing match. A lot of bluster, a few psychological points thrown and received but at the end of the day, the real fight is still to come.
The thing i noticed about KRudd was that he kept pulling out John Howard’s record from back in the day, but what he didn’t seem to get was that John Howard has already proved himself, regardless of the record prior to him becoming PM.
I think the public are smarter than most would believe, apart from the polls, i’m still not hearing people on the open lines and elsewhere outlining who they don’t like Howard, apart from the usual left-wing causes and they aren’t going to vote for Howard no matter what.
What does worry me is Peter Costello, he might be a good treasurer but he’s no John Howard and i believe he comes across to some people as being arrogant. I have never heard Howard say or even hint in his manner or tone that he deserves to lead this country.
Being a good treasurer is all well and good but the top job is a lot more than just tax cuts, i may be wrong but i don’t think the public know what his stances are on the US alliance, on terrorism, Iraq, immigration, China, India, Indonesia etc. Heck i can’t confidently say i know myself, apart from assuming he’s a bit like Howard since they are in the same party.
Comment by MK | October 22, 2007