The Great Debate
October 22nd 2007 07:27
Aloha,
The worm turned, tempers flared, questions went unanswered and, there but for the grace of God go us, Kevin Rudd won. It's surely time to invest in a Kevin '07 bumper sticker. For those of us who have watched Rudd tentatively navigate through his first election campaign as Opposition Leader, it was a pure delight to watch him confidently and convincingly wipe the floor with an evasive rambling and cantankerous John Howard.
Rudd has a good 18 years on Howard, but Howard can chalk that up as 18 years more spent in the cauldron of Federal politics. Yet Rudd positively oozed youthful, energetic zeal as he presented himself to the nation as well-versed and switched on. To be sure, it was painful to watch Howard endure such a drubbing and joyous to reveal that Rudd was a man of real substance. Rudd will pick up the experience on the job one imagines.
Almost right from the word go Rudd had Howard's measure and he always had the facts to back up his views. Howard, conversely was dithering and stammering, often flailing around and hitting the microphones in the process. He seemed to be this back-footing, unholy mess and the worm, once again, spoke volumes to the worm-hater Howard. Howard was often in the red and we can't wait to hear his response to the worm this time.
The people spake, 65% of the Channel Nine sample group awarding the debate to Rudd, 29% to Howard, 6% probably waiting to side with Rudd when they came to their senses. It WAS that clinical and clear cut. It was more a case of what Howard wasn't than what substance he had. He was caught up in rhetoric and attempts at profundity and he failed to bridge the gap between sounding intelligent and communicating to Middle Australia.
So many times it crossed this writer's mind, the chant of the children in Lord Of The Flies: "Kill the pig, spill his blood!". Get it over and done with, put the short, balding nitwit out of his misery and watch Rudd rise. That's what it felt like all the way through, that Howard should be euthanased and the whole election called off. Issue by issue fell by the wayside and Rudd took on, point by point the very measure of a Prime Minister.
Did you see the two shots at the start taken of Peter Costello, grinning like an idiot somewhere up the front? I wonder how long he had to fake that grin for? He was probably thinking, "Next time it will be me up there". Yes, but you'll be in opposition leading a spent force to nowhere at a hundred miles an hour and Rudd will probably do you over too! Howard even did his best to get all matey at the mic about all his front bench chums, but he came across as uncomfortable and insincere.
Howard's general approach left him trading in vague facts while Rudd outclassed him with arguments, reeling off stats and choice bits of information. One wonders how many people didn't know that John Howard once presided over an economy that had four deficits and 22% interest rates? Probably none of us, but man wasn't it riveting to find out! Rudd did this constantly too, barely putting a foot wrong while Howard's worm suffered from Brewer's Droop.
Howard made the crucial mistake of treating it like a day in Parliament, while Rudd treated it like a High School debate on steroids. Howard consistently went over time, preferring the sound of his own bleating voice, probably thinking he deserved the extra time. The arrogance it takes to assume that everything you say is worth hearing is what ultimately, but not solely, drives Howard down. Rudd was just the better man on the night, but he wakes up everyday a better man than John Winston Howard. He proved that last night.
Cheers
Michael
The worm turned, tempers flared, questions went unanswered and, there but for the grace of God go us, Kevin Rudd won. It's surely time to invest in a Kevin '07 bumper sticker. For those of us who have watched Rudd tentatively navigate through his first election campaign as Opposition Leader, it was a pure delight to watch him confidently and convincingly wipe the floor with an evasive rambling and cantankerous John Howard.
Rudd has a good 18 years on Howard, but Howard can chalk that up as 18 years more spent in the cauldron of Federal politics. Yet Rudd positively oozed youthful, energetic zeal as he presented himself to the nation as well-versed and switched on. To be sure, it was painful to watch Howard endure such a drubbing and joyous to reveal that Rudd was a man of real substance. Rudd will pick up the experience on the job one imagines.
Almost right from the word go Rudd had Howard's measure and he always had the facts to back up his views. Howard, conversely was dithering and stammering, often flailing around and hitting the microphones in the process. He seemed to be this back-footing, unholy mess and the worm, once again, spoke volumes to the worm-hater Howard. Howard was often in the red and we can't wait to hear his response to the worm this time.
The people spake, 65% of the Channel Nine sample group awarding the debate to Rudd, 29% to Howard, 6% probably waiting to side with Rudd when they came to their senses. It WAS that clinical and clear cut. It was more a case of what Howard wasn't than what substance he had. He was caught up in rhetoric and attempts at profundity and he failed to bridge the gap between sounding intelligent and communicating to Middle Australia.
So many times it crossed this writer's mind, the chant of the children in Lord Of The Flies: "Kill the pig, spill his blood!". Get it over and done with, put the short, balding nitwit out of his misery and watch Rudd rise. That's what it felt like all the way through, that Howard should be euthanased and the whole election called off. Issue by issue fell by the wayside and Rudd took on, point by point the very measure of a Prime Minister.
Did you see the two shots at the start taken of Peter Costello, grinning like an idiot somewhere up the front? I wonder how long he had to fake that grin for? He was probably thinking, "Next time it will be me up there". Yes, but you'll be in opposition leading a spent force to nowhere at a hundred miles an hour and Rudd will probably do you over too! Howard even did his best to get all matey at the mic about all his front bench chums, but he came across as uncomfortable and insincere.
Howard's general approach left him trading in vague facts while Rudd outclassed him with arguments, reeling off stats and choice bits of information. One wonders how many people didn't know that John Howard once presided over an economy that had four deficits and 22% interest rates? Probably none of us, but man wasn't it riveting to find out! Rudd did this constantly too, barely putting a foot wrong while Howard's worm suffered from Brewer's Droop.
Howard made the crucial mistake of treating it like a day in Parliament, while Rudd treated it like a High School debate on steroids. Howard consistently went over time, preferring the sound of his own bleating voice, probably thinking he deserved the extra time. The arrogance it takes to assume that everything you say is worth hearing is what ultimately, but not solely, drives Howard down. Rudd was just the better man on the night, but he wakes up everyday a better man than John Winston Howard. He proved that last night.
Cheers
Michael
| 97 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
Of course, reading your post it helps that I too loathe that rodent encumbent, "The Prime Miniscule"!!!
What amazed me however, was the worm going into the positive area when Howard talked about the quickly bundled together constituion idea, and the climate problems.
Anyway, the pundits and the advisors will be perusing it in detail, and we are set for another five weeks of rhetoric, defamation, and false promises, by that repugnant moral pygmy!!
Cheers...and here is to a Kevin win!!!
fog