Posted on 09/23/2004 9:43:08 PM PDT by Hazzardgate
JOHN Howard is in danger of losing the election. If he continues to campaign as badly as he has during the past two weeks, he is a goner. This is a big statement. All the bookies have the Government as a firm favourite and the bookies are usually the best guide. The latest Newspoll says that 55 per cent believe the Coalition will win against 25 per cent who believe Labor will triumph, a number that is growing in the Coalition's favour rather than declining.
Newspoll also showed a jump in Labor's vote, taking it to a winning margin of 52.5per cent. But that rise is within the boundaries of the margin of error of political polls and normally not too much should be read into it. But the problem for Howard is that the 2.5 per cent jump in Labor's vote feels about right as a reflection of how the campaign has gone in the weeks since the debate.
That debate took place two weeks after the campaign began. Those first two weeks undoubtedly went the Coalition's way. Howard in particular performed strongly. He looked good, calm, prime ministerial, confident but not complacent and respectful of the people's judgment. He had the agenda firmly focused on the Coalition's greatest strengths: economic management and interest rates. Latham, hardly surprisingly since he is a novice at campaigning, was reactive and looked uncomfortable and uncertain. Then came the bombing outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta. There was a widespread feeling that this could only help the Coalition.
But Howard's problem was that the so-called great debate was about to take place. In what was one of the more boring political exchanges you'll see, Howard managed to lose comprehensively. But then he always does. He is a lousy debater and no one should have been surprised that he did not do well.
What was surprising about the debate, however, is that he got comprehensively done over on security issues. This reflects the fact that Latham, since Kim Beazley's return to the frontbench, has not only been bolstered by his presence but the weight and quality of Latham's arguments are now sharper and more compelling.
It is said that these debates don't often matter that much. But sometimes they do and this one did. First of all, it made Latham, who is a moody character who rides high on confidence, perform much better. He suddenly realised that he was being treated equally with the PM and could match him in campaigning. He launched his schools policy, an absolute classic of the politics of envy (a school of politics that is highly potent in winning votes) and which also gave much-needed support to government schools.
But what really changed was Howard. He has seemed totally rattled for the past 10 days. He has not been able to get back on his economic message. He has been all over the place.
Witness his ridiculous and confused efforts to get across the message of pre-emptive action against terrorists in other countries. He seemed to be floundering and the more he tried the more he got cranky and impatient with perfectly legitimate questions.
Latham made one big error in that regard in his unjustified reaction to a fair question about where he intended to have his children educated. But Latham quickly recovered his composure. Howard hasn't. He is snappy, irritable and looks desperately worried.
Just in case you think this means the election is all over bar the shouting, there are still a lot of fundamentals on which the Coalition and Howard can draw. Newspoll also showed that the level of commitment of professed Labor voters was substantially softer than that of professed Liberal voters.
For example, 10 per cent of professed Labor voters said there was just as much chance they would vote for someone else, while 33 per cent said there was a slight chance they might. Comparable numbers for the Coalition were 5 per cent and 28 per cent respectively.
And although Labor is doing much better than it was on national security, the fact remains that the Newspoll published only two days ago showed that the Liberals maintain a solid lead on who is best to handle security (50 per cent for Howard against 31 per cent for Latham). More tellingly, the gap on who is best to handle the economy is still huge (59 per cent say Howard, 25 per cent say Latham). These underlying realities make this election tough for Labor.
But the No.1 underlying reality is that what in the end will win over many swinging voters is their overall impression of the two leaders. If Howard continues to campaign as bad-temperedly for the next two weeks as he has for the past two, Latham will be prime minister.
Can you tell me where and when the Labor party withdrew this promise. I've heard it repeated this morning. They have slightly modified their language, and said they will take advice if elected, but as far as I am aware, it is still ALP policy to withdraw all Australian troops (with the possible exception of a small force to guard our embassy) from Iraq by Christmas, if elected.
It's not impossible I've missed something, but the ALP website still says it's their policy.
What you said. All of it spot on.
I know about Howard and his corrupt band.
They are selling Australia down the river, or ocean as it were.
I am not saying whomever his comptetition is is better or worth supporting only that Howard is a weasel of the French Clintonian type.
He has allowed his administration to be a surrogate for the Chinese which is very strange.
I think he is either scared or purely corrupt. Maybe a combination of the two.
When Howard's administration stated that if there were a war involving the US and China that Australia would not back the US and that the mutual defense treaty between the US and Australia is "symbolic" it was noticed.
Just goes to show how the 'slightly modified language' penetrates and in this case, misleads one. Thanks for the correction. Just where did you hear this 'repeated this morning'?
I wouldn't be the only one one mislead, surely? The perception seems to be that the opposition will continue with our support of Iraq.
One question: Is Howard going to throw Downer out on his rear end? Why hasn't he?
I have seen this matter previously discussed on FR, the conclusion I reached was the Aussies and the US are playing good cop bad cop, keeping the door open, with your Admin sagely nodding in approval. All's not black and white. Diplomacy. Tactics, etc.
There is absolutely no question of which side Australia would support in a US/China war. Australia would support the United States - the precise amount of support would depend on the precise situation - it could be full military support, it could be diplomatic only. But Australia would support the US over China.
This is a simple and clearly understood fact in Australia.
Now, because it's clearly understood that Australia is closely allied to the United States, some sections of the media (generally left-wing sections) attempt to suggest that this is a blank cheque arrangement - that Australia would automatically, without thinking, support the United States in any situation. Some of these people have attempted to frame questions in such a way as to try and get Mr Downer (as our Foreign Minister) or Mr Howard to say publically that we'll automatically rubber stamp US requests for help. And that is the type of question that was asked in this case.
What Mr Downer pointed out is that there is no treaty between Australia and the United States that automatically commits Australia to assist the United States, in any situation, except an attack on US soil. That does not mean that Australia would not assist the United States in a war. It doesn't even come close to meaning that.
The clearest example of this is Afghanistan and Iraq. Because there was a clear connection between Afghanistan and the September 11 attacks, Australian troops went to war in Afghanistan under the auspices of the ANZUS Treaty.
In the case of Iraq, no clear case was made prior to the invasion of Iraq that Iraq had a clear connection between the September 11 attacks. Because that connection was not made, ANZUS was not relevant. Nonetheless Australia went to war, not under ANZUS, but under a separate agreement specifically drafted to deal with Iraq.
ANZUS only covers a very specific situation. Mr Downer pointing out what the treaty says, does not, in any way, shape or form, indicate that Australia will not go to war to support the United States if needed.
Since ANZUS was signed, Australia has gone to war beside the United States in Vietnam, in the first Gulf War, in Afghanistan, and last year in Iraq. In only one of those cases, was ANZUS relevant to the decision.
The ALP has made a commitment to continue some support of Iraq if they are elected - just not military support, not troops. Rather they have pledged to support other means of assisting Iraqis - helping to rebuild infrastructure, etc. All together, it comes to a special aid payment of around $75 million. It's not actually a bad plan, on some levels - that type of support is needed. But even if Labor planned this from the start, they should never have made the commitment they did to withdraw troops in the way they did - you don't promise to withdraw troops by Christmas, in April - you make the decision at the time it seems appropriate. If Latham had said, 'Provided the security situation is stable, we'll withdraw by Christmas', I'd have a lot less problem with him - but he painted himself into a corner, by making a commitment to do so, whatever the circumstances. That's not sensible.
As far as this: Australia would support the United States.
I believe that. I don't necessarily believe Downer and Howard would though.
Howard's administration has already moved against US strategic interests solely on behalf of China acting as China's surrogate.
I disagree. Appreciate your honesty.
But Australia ain't going to have a bed if that's who they getting in bed with.
That's why I disagree.
Hello Naturalman! Thank goodness you are around to clear this up, I was starting to feel as grumpy as Howard! Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Vietnam, the first Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq; what more could one ask?
It depends. If Australian troops were attacked in Sarawak, would the ANZUS Treaty be in effect?
The treaty states:
For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.
An attack on US forces in Japan would constitute an attack on the armed forces of the United States located in the Pacific - so in that situation, ANZUS would be invoked. Automatically.
However, if, hypothetically, Taiwan was attacked by China, and the US went to war with China over Taiwan, ANZUS would not be invoked. Australia would almost certainly go to war with China, in support of the United States and Taiwan, but it would require a vote by parliament, and a special agreement to do so formalised by the signing of a separate undertaking.
This is what occurred in both Gulf Wars. It's a normal practice and procedure.
It's obvious you don't understand how these things work. I have been involved in the Australian Defence Force, and I have been involved in Australian politics. The current Australian government is the most likely we've had in a long time to support the United States on any issue, and John Howard is the most pro-US Prime Minister we've had since Holt.
But we're not a US vassal. And if you expect that as a condition of frienship, the only friends the US can expect to have will be spineless cowards.
Yes, he painted himself into a corner when he said he would have the troops home by Christmas and ever since, he has been trying to wriggle out of it, because the statement was not generally well accepted by the public. All the promises re education and health spending have that question of Iraq hanging over them and the question remains; who can we best trust on the matter of security?
The answer is Howard, naturally.
It was pure horse manure put forth by Downer as simple appeasement.
One should expect more intellectual honesty from one in his position.
Nor should it be. But why is it a Chinese vassal?
Acting as China's surrogate in relation to Papua New Guinea and Kiribati is acting as a vassal state.
It is very troubling and in the latter case directly worked against US straegic interests.
I believe so. Why would it not be?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.