Who won the debate?
Several commentators have stated that Sarah Palin won the vice presidential debate simply because she exceeded expectations. While Palin may not have committed anything like the excruciating gaffes she made in the interview with CBS’s Katie Couric, her performance was anything but convincing. Others have said Palin won by being more ‘likeable’. While her folksy language and mannerisms might endear her to some, anyone who can muster a few thoughts would surely dismiss her posturings as nothing more than cheap populism.
Palin managed to avoid making more monumental bluders with a novel strategy; she simply avoided the issues, and the questions in favour of well rehearsed campaign rhetoric. Joe Biden came across as approachable, human and credible. His detailed answers on foreign, domestic and economic policy gave a firm impression of an experienced statesman who knows what he is talking about and knows what he is doing.
Biden has a right to feel aggrieved by analysis which awards a win in the debate to Palin just because she made few mistakes. His was a solid and credible performance. Palin’s performance did little to change the perception that she has recently established: she is a political airhead.
Poor Malcolm’s deprived childhood
“I do not come to the leadership of the Liberal Party from a lifetime of privilege. I know what it is like to be very short of money…”
“I know what it is like to live in rented flats. For a time daddy and I had to rent a dingy penthouse in Double Bay…”
“Daddy even had to drive the Rolls Royce himself for a time when we couldn’t get a chauffeur; good help can be hard to find…”
“The other boys at Sydney Grammar laughed at me when I drove my new MG to school; they all drove Porsches and Maseratis…”
Ok, this may be bending the truth just a little and Malcolm Turnbull may well not have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He is however, a very rich man; Turnbull’s wealth is estimated at $120 million. Turnbull is the quintessential Eastern Suburbs silvertail. He will always struggle against the perception that he is arrogant and out of touch with the so called ‘battlers’.
Turnbull’s gaffe on football further underlined this perception. Asked in a radio interview to nominate which football teams he supports, Mr Turnbull said: “I have to confess I vote for, I support, in Australian Rules the Roosters, who of course aren’t in the Grand Final sorry the (Sydney) Swans”. (The Eastern Suburbs Roosters of course play rugby league). This might seem an inconsequential mistake, but football is religion to the average battler.
Just as the Australian electorate will never elect anyone with the title ‘Doctor’ (ask John Hewson or Brendan Nelson; we respect them but just don’t trust them) they are just as unlikely to elect someone with arch silvertail status. At least the Liberal party in electing Turnbull as leader is leaving little doubt as to which end of town they really represent.
“Alcopops? That is the sound you get when you open a bottle of vintage Veuve Clicquot, isn’t it?…”
Biotek Kevin’07: Obama’08?
Can any parallels be drawn between the Australian elections of 2007, (the Kevin’07 campaign) and the current U.S. presidential elections? There are some similarities and some obvious differences. For a start, America is a super power and its political trends have far reaching global implications while Australia is by comparison an inconsequential backwater (the arse end of the earth to use the phrase coined by ex prime minister Paul Keating). Australia’s political system is fundamentally different to the American system and is based on the British Westminster system. Despite the fact that in Australia and Britain votes are cast for one party or another rather than the leader as head of state, both have moved closer to presidential style campaigns in recent years. The personality of leaders is ever more important and campaigns are carefully planned in response to polls and demographic analysis.
In both the 2007 Australian election and the 2008 American election, long serving conservative governments faced off against an opposition claiming to represent the winds of change. Despite McCain’s efforts to distance himself from the Bush administration and present himself as a ‘maverick’, years of alignment with Bush’s policies will make any distancing difficult. Howard described himself as a ‘climate change skeptic’ and refused to sign the Kyoto protocol. McCain is also seen as weak on the environment.
Both Howard and McCain are older men and both struggle to represent themselves as men of the future. Both Rudd and Obama are younger men and have found it much easier to present themselves as a breath of fresh air, despite lacking any truly revolutionary policies.
Perhaps the greatest similarity between the Australian campaign and the U.S. campaign is the advent of the internet as a potent political force. Howard was slow to employ the web to his advantage and his use of it showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the medium. Howard’s YouTube videos were stiff and conventional, much a like a party political broadcast on tried and true TV. Howard’s YouTube received numerous negative comments and users were outraged when their comments were promptly deleted. It also quickly became a spam magnet. Rudd primarily used MySpace and his tone was much more casual and relaxed. The majority of comments were positive but negative comments remained on the site. Rudd’s savvy use of the web medium made it easier for him to be portrayed as future friendly and helped his campaign resonate with younger voters.
John McCain claims not to know how to even use email and has all but admitted he is technology illiterate. Obama’s campaign seems to be using the web much more effectively. The reasons for this are quite simple; the Obama camp spends way much more on advertising. Obama’s web site is much more popular McCain’s site; it is visited monthly by 4 times as many people as McCain’s one (2.2 million vs. 583 thousand). Obama is also much more popular with various social media sites as well.
Sarah Palin’s use of her personal email account to conduct public affairs in Alasksa, which allowed a hacker to gain access to her account does little to negate the perception that the Republican camp is technologically challenged. McCain may have chosen Palin as running mate partly because of her youth. Despite getting a temporary boost after the convention, Palin’s inexperience now seems to be doing little more than making McCain look old.
Effective use of online media may not be the deciding factor in this campaign, nor was it in the Australian election, however, it is undeniable that the political importance of the web is now much greater. This is also a particularly telling factor when candidates attempt to promote themselves as agents for change and leaders for the future.
McCain is looking more and more like yesterday’s man, as did John Howard.
Panther sightings: urban myth or smokescreen?
New NSW Premier Nathan Rees has told the press that sightings of a large, panther-like cat in Sydney’s western suburbs might be credible. “I don’t think it’s necessarily an urban myth, there are too many people reporting sightings.” Mr Rees told reporters. Sighting of big cats – dubbed either the Penrith Panther or Lithgow Panther – have been part of local folklore in Sydney’s west and the Blue Mountains for decades. Rumours persist the big cats escaped from private zoos or a circus in the area years ago, and even the local football club is called the Penrith Panthers.
As recently as last month Mr Rees dismissed panther sightings as just another urban myth, so why the sudden turn around? The answer is likely to be quite simple. Any story which deflects attention from the woeful state of affairs that exists in NSW is welcome to the government. The poor financial state of affairs, crumbling infrustructure, inadequate public hospitals, unreliable public transport, the electricity privatisation debacle and the general public perception of mismanagement have made the Labor government highly unpopular. If we all start worrying about ravenous mystery panthers perhaps the other problems will just go away.
Of course, big cat sightings are not confined to Sydney’s west. Numerous sightings of large, panther like cats have been reported in the UK and in the USA among other places. Although paw prints have been photographed and cast in plaster, no one has actually produced hard evidence of such a feline. Perhaps goverments in those parts also wanted to deflect attention from their management records.
Reporting a recent sighting of the Penrith panther, a western Sydney woman described the animal as a large black cat, about the size of an Alsatian. Panthers and jaguars are usually quite a bit larger than Alsatians. The cats sighted are much more likely to be large feral cats that have grown a dark Winter coat. It is quite conceivable that over several generations feral animals have grown a good deal larger than domestic moggys.
Nathan Rees has made a good impression in his early days as premier (with me any way). He has a direct and straightforward manner and actually answers questions instead of skirting around them as so many politicians do. He has had the courage to admit to his government’s past problems and to accept responsibility for them. I believe he deserves a fair go as new leader but only time will tell if he can turn around public opinion before the next election.
Whatever the case, it will take more than a few panther sightings to save the NSW government from political oblivion.
I love your blog too
iWalk has nominated me for this award, for which I am very honoured. I encourage you to read her blog; it is a fascinating record of her travels around the world and includes her wonderful photographs of memorable sights.
I nominate:
The award comes with easy rules:
- Link to at least 7 other blogs you love.
- Link to the person who gave you the award.
- Let the 7 bloggers know that you have tagged them.
Palin: a very ordinary person
Apparently Sarah Palin has attracted a great deal of support because people identify with her; because she appears to be an ordinary person, “just like you and me”. The truth is, successful politicians are not ordinary people. They have highly specialised skills, knowledge and experience. Such qualities are kind of necessary when managing a national economy or facing a potential global crisis. Anyone who disagrees with this should consider running for office.
In response to questions on Palin’s foreign policy credentials, supporters have said that she must have a good grasp of foreign policy as Alaska is close to Russia. Perhaps she also has a strong grasp of space policy; Mount McKinley is in Alaska and quite close to space.
The New York Times called her “a tyrannical woman who pursues vendettas and fires people who cross her.” She made an ex schoolmate director of the State Division of Agriculture after citing her childhood love of cows as a qualification for the job. She has also had her office ring to berrate bloggers who posted material that offended her. Perhaps I’d better be careful as to what I say about her. No matter what your opinion of Palin’s ‘pro choice’ pro NRA evangelism might be you’d have to admit her leadership credentials are a bit shaky.
The U.S. and the world now faces an economic crisis, possibly of the dimensions of the great depression. A McCain/Palin adminstration would only continue the distastrous economic policies put in place by George Bush. Ill advised tax cuts, a highly expensive war and mounting levels of private and national debt have brought about the current crisis. China is one of America’s largest creditors and seems set to become the new global super power.
Now is surely not the time to elect an ‘ordinary person’ with little economic or foreign policy experience. Only an extraordinary leader has any chance of dealing with the challenges which loom on the horizon.
The dogs of democracy
Politicians must be aware when they enter politics that they have a use by date. Sooner or later, due to scandal, party machinations or electoral rejection the time comes when there is no option but to make an exit. If politicians are aware of this, why do so many of them feel the need to publish memoirs subsequent to political demise which are intended to be highly damaging to their own side?
The Latham Diaries, published in 2005 were unashamedly spiteful. The same can be said about Peter Costello’s recent memoirs which abounds with attacks on his political colleagues. Michael Costa recently added his name to a growing list of disgruntled politicians taking the opportunity to damage their own party after being shown the door. Did these people enter public life with no ideals of serving a cause? No matter how disgruntled you are, why not make a dignified exit rather than become a wrecker? Such indulgent expressions can be seen as nothing more than rampant self interest.
Sometime during his career Peter Costello acquired the nickname ‘dog’, mostly for his looks. Now more than ever his behaviour deserves the same title. Costello has no excuse for the venom contained in his new book. After years of waiting for the Liberal leadership to be handed to him on a silver platter he now refuses it when it is laid at his feet. Perhaps a deep self doubt lies behind Costello’s ‘captain smirk’ egotism. Perhaps he realises that when push came to shove, he never had the ability to win an election in his own right or lead his party through a bleak period of opposition. Costello’s behaviour since losing the 2007 has been mysterious. Perhaps it is true, (as has been suggested in the press) that his current position on the leadership is just a way of promoting sales for his book.
Costello’s memoirs are nothing more than the culmination of a long period of sulking due to John Howard’s refusal to hand him the leadership or have him and his wife over to dinner. While many might now decry Howard’s mishandling of Kyoto, The Republic issue, the children overboard affair, refusal to apologise to aboriginal people, the industrial relation debacle etc. his refusal to step aside for Costello now seems his most astute decision.
Howard no coward: the eyebrows have it
Former prime minister John Howard believes he would have been seen as “a coward” if he had stepped down voluntarily for Peter Costello but would have quit had a delegation of senior ministers demanded him to. Mr Howard’s views and those of other key figures are contained in a recent essay by Sydney Institute executive director Gerard Henderson.
John Howard has been described by some as “Australia’s greatest Prime Minister”. History might well see him in a different light. Despite almost equaling Sir Robert Menzies record as the longest serving Prime Minister, the Howard years have left a string of bad memories. Among them: the draconian 1998 waterfront dispute lead by then industrial relations minister Peter Reith, the infamous ‘children overboard’ 
controversy (later found to be untrue) which secured Howard the 2001 election, mandatory detention of illegal immigrants and their children and the wrongful deportation of Australian citizens and of course the ‘Work Choices’ debacle which put the final nails in Howard’s coffin. Voters might have forgotten many of the previous sour memories but were not so easily fooled when their working conditions and pay came under attack. Perhaps Howard never really realised that a wholesale attack on unions was not just an attack on the Labor party but an attack on Australian workers themselves.
Staying on as leader might well have been described as “a courageous decision” by Sir Humphrey Appleby (of Yes Minister fame). In actual 
fact, it is unlikely that after Work Choices anyone in the Liberal party could have done any better than Howard. In fact, Peter Costello might well have incurred even more wrath from voters as the principle architect of the highly unpopular Work Choices policy. Current speculation about a Costello return from the backbench is unlikely to worry the Labor Party very much either. Memories of the Work Choices betrayal are much too fresh in our minds. Having lead his government to a landslide defeat and the ignominious loss of his own (formerly blue ribbon) seat does little for the Howard legacy.
Perhaps John Howard’s best claim to being a great Australian Prime Minister is his development of a fine set of owlish eyebrows in the 
tradition of other notables like Menzies, Whitlam and Hawk. Such a fine set of eyebrows seems to imbue a Prime Minister with an air of knowing wisdom. Howard’s eyebrows may well go down in history as his greatest achievement.
Paris Hilton’s bid for The Pinkhouse
John McCain has released a television commercial that likens Barack Obama’s celebrity status to other celebrities like Paris Hilton. The comparison was not meant to be complimentary. It targets Obama’s youth and inexperience with the catch phrase “Is he ready to lead?” Paris Hilton has released a commercial in response. Her parody calls McCain ‘the oldest celebrity in the world’ and likens him to figures such as the Golden Girls, Colonel Sanders, Larry King and Yoda from Star Wars.
Paris Hilton states that she is not from ‘the olden days’ and that she does not stand for change; she’s just hot, “so thanks white haired dude”. She does actually put foward an energy policy involving tax incentives and limited offshore oil drilling. She ends saying that if elected she might paint the Whitehouse pink.
McCain’s response is that Paris Hilton has a better energy policy than Obama. It’s quite surprising that Paris Hilton has actually made a coherent political statement, albeit inadvertently. John McCain’s age, the perception that he is rooted in ‘the olden days’ and out of touch with the future is at least as much of a negative than any doubts about Obama’s youth and inexperience.
In fact, it may well be much more of a negative than he realises.
Liamalexander's Weblog 