I’ve just spent a very unedifying and dispiriting half hour or so reading all of the 342 comments (at the time of writing) on the Kos thread about Howard’s Obama bashing.
In doing so, I was reminded of the fact that two (excellent) books I read recently on the Iraq War – George Packer’s The Assassins’ Gate and Thomas E. Ricks’ Fiasco – [discussed in this post] both signally failed to mention the Australian military contribution when discussing the composition of the “coalition of the willing”.
Given that the second last argument of the desparate from the Dear Leader (before he flicked the switch to Obama vaudeville) was that we had to stick by our “great mate”, Bush, it’s apposite to wonder how appreciated our actual contribution is. Obviously the Kos commentators are not the American foreign policy elite, but still it’s dispiriting to read such ignorance of this country from the Democratic “netroots”.
Though there are some who point out that Howard’s views shouldn’t be equated with Australia or those of all Australians, a large number of commenters (after pausing to make a few weak Crocodile Dundee jokes), jump into their Aussie-bashing mission boots and all. First, the weird belief that a parliamentary system means that Howard should be dumped because the polls are against his policy on Iraq is trotted out. This seems to be a misunderstanding driven by comments in the American media about Bush’s ability to ignore the congressional election results.
But the overall themes are twofold. Both are seen entirely through the prism of American domestic policy. First, many commenters seem to believe that Howard is being pressed into service as a mouthpiece for the forces of Cheney, Bush, and (according to some) Clinton to make racial slurs that wouldn’t be permissible in public parlance in the States. The suggestion is that Howard was referring to Obama’s race and skin colour, and that’s why he was singled out of the Dem pack for attack. There’s also the fact that Murdoch is an Australian, which apparently explains the link between Fox News and Howard’s “talking points”.
This then segues into an incredible sequence of comments which seek to paint Australia as more racist than America, and indeed, a country full of redneck misogynist and racist right wing idiots. Here’s a sample of these comments. There’s heaps more in the same vein, some considerably more offensive.
Aside from those commenters who point out that Americans could rightly resent their country being stereotyped on the basis of the actions of the Bush administration, and therefore perhaps they shouldn’t do the same with regard to Australia, the only attempts to place Howard’s remarks in any sort of Australian context are from, well, Australians. Very obviously, Howard was trying to talk up his own alleged advantages on “national security” and the hook for his choice of Obama was his announcement yesterday. I very much doubt that the “racial angle/secret plot to advance the Bush/Fox/Clinton agenda” explanation has any truth or validity whatsoever. It’s kinda ironic that his comments can only be viewed stateside, it would seem, through a lens of the centrality of American domestic politics, when what he was no doubt doing was trying (in a completely counter-productive and hamfisted way) to strike a blow at Rudd.
Incidentally, having a squizzy at the posts tagged with “Australia” on Kos is instructive (remembering that many aren’t from the front page, but are “diaries” from commenters). Obviously Australia only exists, as far as the American blogosphere is concerned, as a prop for discussing American politics. I’d be interested if anyone is aware of any evidence to the contrary.
There’s a fair bit of good commentary and analysis of American politics, in my view, in the Australian blogosphere. Perhaps that’s because as a country that’s materially affected by the actions of the metropole, we’ve got a real concern to understand what’s going on. It doesn’t seem to cut both ways.
Update: John Quiggin explains the Obama remarks to a different sort of American blogospheric audience at Crooked Timber.
You find it surprising that Australia is discussed on US opinion sites only in terms of US domestic politics? You have a bit of an elevated opinion of Australia’s importance, don’t you?
As for the posters’ slandering of Australia as a country full of rednecks, bigots and reactionaries, can you really blame the rest of the world for perceiving us that way after 10 years of Howardism??
Cast your mind back to 1996 and the emergence of Pauline Hanson and look now at how the public discourse has changed in Australia.
The degree of racism, xenophobia and ugly jingoism in this country has increased exponentially since then. And we can sheet the blame home to one despicable individual.
No, I don’t find it particularly surprising, Mr Denmore. What I do find surprising is that there aren’t at least some people in the American blogosphere who might take a serious interest in this country before writing posts about it – that would seem to me to be a minimum requirement for ethically responsible blogging. I don’t write posts about Russian politics, for instance, even if Putin is in the news (as he is now) because I know bugger all about it.
I do think there’s an irony that the level of informed comment on Australian affairs from anywhere much in the media or the blogosphere from our “great ally” is about zero.
I also think that (some) Americans’ propensity to see everything that goes on in the world through a prism of their own making has also materially contributed to the adventurism and folly that passes for Bush’s foreign policy.
In reference to your second point, perhaps it’s incumbent on those of us who are on the Left and opposed to Howard to spend more time defending multiculturalism and opposing racism and working positively to counter them and less time bemoaning Ratty’s influence on public discourse. I just don’t buy the assertion that Australia is particularly racist, and I hope you don’t either.
Mark,
I just spent some time at Kos reading most of the posts and did not get as dispirited as you appear to be.
Sure there are some posters showing standard ignorance but no more than usual I would say.
And some expat Aussie types and others pointed out that Howard is not the same thing as Australia.
The link to comments that you gave showed a good reaction to the boycott threat in the first of those posts.
I post at a forum with mainly US and world wide users and this topic was put up by an Australian and we Aussies received sympathy for being represented by little John [as we regularly sympathise with the Americans for 'their' 'leader'].
And really the bottom line is that if the cap fits “we”, as Australians, have to wear accusations of racism and war mongering etc.
After all “we” did vote this mob in TWICE by the accepted rules of the game and Palm Island and Cronulla are factual however the responsibility is spread.
Its just all the more reason to get rid of these nasties and to demand that whoever replaces them changes our record and our image for the better in all the relevant ways.
I think this misconception might have arisen because of the differences between the party systems in Australia and the US. Party discipline in the US isn’t nearly as strong as it is in the US. For a member of the parliamentary Liberal Party to denounce the Iraq war in the same way the Republican Chuck Hagel has, for example, is inconceivable.
The Kos crowd might be thinking that Australian Liberal MPs could/would turn against an unpopular PM the same way some US Republican Congressmen have turned against George Bush and vote against him in a vote of no confidence.
kos is pretty hard-core, no doubt. I found many of those comments to be ill informed and offensive.
Having said that, I think that dead eyed Cheney’s imminent visit has been the catalyst for Howard’s bizarre attack. He’ll certainly go down in history as being one of this country’s greatest ever sycophants.
From the Daily Kos
That’s really funny. That’s really, really, REALLY FUNNY!!! Coming from the States. They’d never meddle in our affairs, NOOOO.
>
>
In John Howard’s defense (I don’t really wanna do this) he’s right about the defense force numbers vs. population ratio. Our deployment’s roughly 10% of the US deployment. Yet our population is somewhat less than 10% of America’s. Not that we should be there in the first place.
>
I like Obama but I reckon he should’ve let it slide.
A minimum requirement with respect to US domestic politics that Australia’s own prime minister clearly doesn’t meet.
Like the Labor Party did under Beazley with Tampa? Your denial that Australia is not inherently racist falls down on the record of our major party of the “left” on these issues in recent years. Running on a platform defending multiculturalism would spell death at the ballot box in this current climate of fear, and anyone with any political nous knows it.
The left’s main agenda – actually I would argue the agenda of anyone to the left of Genghis Khan at this point – should be to rid this country of the pox of Howardism. And we do that by insisting at the minimum a return to proper governance, statesmanship and a re-embrace of basic freedoms like the right to a fair trial and a non-politicised public service.
Labor needs to stop running away from its strong economic policy legacy under Hawke/Keating and attack Howard head on over the economy – record foreign and personal debt, record debt servicing ratio, five years of trade deficits amidst a commodity boom, the use of the commodity windfall to fund middle class welfare, infrastructure bottlenecks, skill shortages.
AND it needs to tackle Howard head-on over his other PERCEIVED strength – national security, although Howard is doing a good enough job of exposing his ineptitude in that area on his own at this time.
As to Howard’s Obama outburst, I think this is really the final nail in his coffin. I was just watching the 7.30 report and the shots of Costello squirming as Howard defended himself were very telling.
Well, I for one, didn’t vote for Labor in 2001 for that reason.
But, really, think about what you’re saying here. Do you actually think that if John Howard exited the scene, this “inherent racism” of which you speak would disappear. That’s contradictory.
I have no doubt there’s a fair element of racism in Australia. I’m not so pessimistic as to think that we have to accept that it should always be that way. Your comments seem to devalue much of the community and other work that many anti-racist people do in this country.
Howard and Hanson may well have allowed the articulation of more racist sentiments. I don’t believe that Howard’s election suddenly transformed Australian attitudes, and nor do I believe that his defeat would.
Those of us who are opposed to racism have a lot more to do than just defeat Howard (important though that is). Your view seems to be a counsel of despair – if Howard is re-elected, what then?
Adrien, the 20,000 number Obama used relates to the number of US troops going over to Iraq under the “surge”. Again, his response is targetted to US domestic politics.
Does not bear thinking about does it? And, yes, mine is the voice of despair.
The fact is Australians have elected Howard four times in a row. What does that say about us??
At least the Americans, through the congressional elections, have sent a message to Bush. And in the UK, Blair is a walking dead man. But not teflon Howard.
In politics – particularly in international politics – perception is everything. And when we turned around that boatload of refugees, I think we sent out a very ugly signal to the world.
Australians may love to think of themselves as lovable, irreverent rogues with an anti-authoritarian streak, but our political choices suggest we are a bunch of frightened, deeply conservative sheep, supplicant to authority and forever willing to believe that big brother knows best.
If we vote the bastard back in again, I’m going to New Zealand.
If you put a hundred representative Australians in a room, Mr Denmore, 47 didn’t vote for Howard in 2004 and 53 did. Think about it for a minute and picture how close to even the two groups of people would look.
If we vote the bastard back in again, I’m going to New Zealand.
Lol. Where have I heard that before? BTW are you (Mr Denmore) saying that anti multiculturism is racist?
No, I’m saying that under Howard’s silent signifier politics, “anti-multiculturalism” is code for racism. It means that if you are a non-Anglo, non-Christian, non-Ocker, cricket-hating citizen, you are not really Australian.
Not to be inflammatory but, so what? That is our excuse too. It still doesn’t change the fact that we are allowing these fear-mongering fascists to continue on does it? As to your complaints about how we view you (Oz) – Given the quote above, with regard to electing a given type of leadership, how are you all any different from us?
Anyway – don’t mind me – I am just irritated that Australia is unavailable as a potential place to emigrate to once I finish my masters degree. I always saw Oz as our sensible, humble, fun loving cousin who didn’t suffer bullshit or bullshitters. I agree with Mr Denmore. I know half of the American people are morons. We have a well documented history of buying into the power elite’s evil and other general idiocy. I just never expected it from you guys.
Mr Denmore you are absolutely correct,I have heared this I am left wing,but hey I didn’t vote for the Labor Party last time crap before.Or my favourite I didn’t vote Labor in the reps but they got my senate vote????
The conservatives,yea like they need all the help they can get!I love to read the comments on L.P. from the so called left,it makes me wonder why the Labor Party is in opposition.
Nice to hear someone sticking up for the concept of multiculturalism. I have never understood why for eg Robert Dessaix started taking potshots at it back in the 90’s. I didn’t take much notice back then though.
So, Mark, you expected a Socratic symposium from a random collection of keyboard jockeys and blog blaggards.
In most of those posts you tagged a voice of reason has pointed out the utter stupidity of earlier comments.
For the rest, I see a sense of relief that liberal Americans can mouth off at another government as much as they’ve mouthed off at their own.
I see more than a little bit of projection in that posters attribute to Australia many of the unattractive characteristics they perceive in their own society.
And yes, I do see ignorance. Most don’t have a clue about Australian history, culture, or institutions. For the sake of the present exercise posters are content to assume the worst. This makes an interesting, though predictable, change from Americans who know little or nothing, but assume the best.
Is this likely to change? No. Why should it? Beyond idle curiosity, what possible use would Americans have for a nuanced and detailed understanding of Australia?
This is good! Can you name the countries about which Americans have had a nuanced and detailed understanding?
What happened to them as a result?
Such comments are the stock-in-trade of the smug, self-superior types of which we have plenty in Australia making equally idiotic generalisations of Americans (the race it’s OK to hate). To see participants on a site dedicated to the left’s never-doubted genius, like some Germania of the ego, wallowing in their own smugness doesn’t surprise me in the least.
To be sure, it’s possible to disagree about a policy without concluding that your opponent it a drooling moron, an evil genius, or least sanely – both. Sadly, that’s how many people see the world.
I am a member of a football club which until lately has been wreaked with politics. Supporters – of the one club – openly abused and derided each other like they were the club’s most hated enemies, and yet they were comrades. Whether it’s football club against football club, or Stalinists vs Trotskyists, some people like to hate and it doesn’t take much to get them going – and every club has one. Scratch an ideologue, and you’ll often see a supremecist.
Yes, indeed, Katz!
How are we allowing it? We’re citizens who are active in opposing the Howard government. We do so by democratic means. What are we meant to do to keep you satisfied? Relive the October revolution or something? Support a military coup? Get real.
That’s what concerns me about this comment from Yank:
And also to a lesser degree the tone of Mr Denmore’s comments.
I’ve never felt that Howard’s ascendacy proves that those who vote for him are rascist or whatever. Perhaps a small percentage are. But I think we may as well give up on politics altogether if we decide to retreat into a redoubt where we pour scorn on those who disagree with us. We need to be out there in the public conversation persuading the swinging voters, not moving to New Zealand (which I’m sure has its own problems anyway).
First, many commenters seem to believe that Howard is being pressed into service as a mouthpiece for the forces of Cheney, Bush, and (according to some) Clinton to make racial slurs that wouldn’t be permissible in public parlance in the States. The suggestion is that Howard was referring to Obama’s race and skin colour, and that’s why he was singled out of the Dem pack for attack.
I don’t think there’s any point claiming that any one country is more or less racist than another, but there are differences in public discourse on race between countries and I do think there’s some validity to the view that Howard would be criticised for racism much more in the US than he is here for his comments about Barack Obama (and other things). I do think there was an element of manipulation based on racism in Howard’s comments – suspicion of someone whose name can be made to sound ‘foreign’ and similar to “Osama” and I don’t think Howard would have dared to make the same criticism of Hillary Clinton, not because she is a woman but because of her more powerful alliance with Bill; I think he probably saw a black ‘novice’ as an easy target. Fortunately he is being taught a lesson on that score.
Yes, that may well be right, suz, but as you note, it’s a very different thing to what Kossites are saying – and race and skin colour have very different valences in Australian political culture than in American.
“Well, I for one, didn’t vote for Labor in 2001 for that reason.
“How are we allowing it? We’re citizens who are active in opposing the Howard government. We do so by democratic means.
I know I am in my dotage,”Please explain”
Well, Gaz, I’ve spent the last eleven years opposing the Howard government. I don’t accept responsibility for it. Howard is the elected PM. He’s not some metaphysical representative of all that’s truly Australian, much as he might like to think he is.
So what about this Cameron Thompson bloke and the “fundamentally evil” comment? I found that far more offensive than anything the little leader or Downer have managed to spout. Who threw the Iraqis into “the abyss” in the first place, ffs? No-one seems to have even commented on it. Is that just because he’s a nonentity?
“He’s not some metaphysical representative of all that’s truly Australian, much as he might like to think he is.”
That’s the problem Mark,unlike you,I do believe half the electorate believes he’s some sort of metaphysical representative.
“I don’t accept responsibility for it.”
Well who would?
No end of dills commenting on that daily kos site without having a clue what they are talking about.
Sort of like LP really.
Cameron Thompson defeated Pauline Hanson for the seat of Blair, phil.
Actually, steve, I think LP and a lot of other blogs do a lot better than Kos in terms of quality of comments on the whole. It was mostly partisan bullshit and argument and evidence free.
Adrien, I hate to be picky, but I think you might want to run that through your calculator again.
1,400 is — 1% — of 140,000, not — 10% –.
I agree with you that we shouldn’t be there in the first place.
Adrien, you’re not a mathematician are you.
Frankly Howard’s comments were almost on the same level of stupidity as Bob Brown’s coal plan. And Obama is about as flaky and as credible as Bob Brown – except his bitch slap was better.
I’ve only ever dropped into Kos sporadically. Badly designed, hard to navigate, little actual wit, and no reasoned argument. Much like Steve’s pub I guess.
John Sundman described dailykos as “lots of people violently agreeing with each other”. But, it has a huge audience and raises non-trivial amounts of money – it cannot be ignored by the democrats.
It also is scoop based, so if you want to correct some of the misconceptions, get an account and write a diary. Anyone with an account can publish there.
SatP, I wouldn’t even try to have an Iraq war debate on DailyKos like the recent one that spanned 3 separate posts and over 400 comments here.
Here I got (metaphorically) yelled at a lot. I’m sure that DailyKos would close debate down before it got even that far. Credit where it’s due.
I think it’s more a matter of establishment politician vs fringe politician. Howard regards (correctly I think) Clinton as a shoe-in for the nomination, wheras Obama – for all his qualities (“cleanliness” according to Joe Biden!) – is a fringe politician appealing to his party’s fringe. He has almost as little chance of being elected president in 2008 as Howard Dean had in 2004.
What would be interesting is Howard’s reaction to a strong Republican candidate holding the same policy. Somehow I doubt we’ll see one.
I completely accept that it would have been wise of Howard to play the ball as he usually does, and not the man. He isn’t Keating – he can’t fight those kinds of battles, and Latham has proven that you’re better off not starting them.
And while we’re going to motive, is it asking too much to consider that Howard actually believes the current policy is the least worst, and that he also believes that “Move ‘em on, head ‘em up Rawhide”-style policies need to be criticised?
Chuck Hagel?
John Quiggin explains the Obama remarks to a different sort of American blogospheric audience at Crooked Timber.
Kos is one of the reasons a lot of US feminist bloggers complain about the “A List”!
Good point David. Though I gotta concede that a lot of the comments on that daily kos site are ..er.. outta this world. Some of them are downright unhinged.
Christine: The pub becomes progressively more difficult to navigate as the night wears on. It is not however some imagined “bad design” which is the cause of this
Yeah, I have to apologize for the commenters at Kos (and LGF, too). It’s mostly just a bad college-drama-club production of Marat/Sade over at dose jernts.
See? You guys don’t know how good you’ve got it here! Thanks for not kicking me out… I’d sure hate to have to paddle back over there and try to converse with the great seething mass of witless, charmless, angry shriekers that makes up so much of the large-scale US blogosphere. It’s hard enough to have anything resembling a conversation on blogs with such size and scope, but it’s even harder when so many of the people there don’t even try. So much is either a lot of quick-tempered sniping at each other, or mutually narcissistic monologues ignoring one another; ’spoken into the void,’ in Adolph Loos’s wonderfully apt phrase.
Some of the large American blogs are good for picking up bits of information, or a certain disposition towards the informtion, that you couldn’t find elsewhere. But the art of conversation there is sadly underdeveloped (or rather, it’s probably regressed in recent decades, due in part to the relentless coarsening of American civic and public culture).
As to Americans’ general ignorance of Australian history and culture, it’s certainly a pity but then again you shouldn’t necessarily chalk it all up to the cliched reasons. For instance, aside from the general outline of history, most people in say Pennsylvania wouldn’t even have a nuanced view of the history and culture of, say, Idaho or Mississippi; it’s a big world, there’s a lot to keep track of, and there’s a ferocious amount of noise to cut through, much of it generated from within here, which makes it that much harder to perceive clearly. And in any event, I’d wager that most Colombians or Malaysians don’t have a terribly accurate perception of the US, and still fewer would have any informed opinion of it at all, if the place weren’t influential. I’ve had many many amusing conversations with immigrant cab-drivers who were shocked by the reality of experience in America as they found it; you wouldn’t believe how many of them said they had formed their idea of this country from the movies. I’m betting that John Cassavettes movies weren’t the ones they were watching.
I found this Kos poster particularly amusing…
“I ended up checking out some totally unrelated stories [in Australian media] too. I was shocked at the volume of anti-diversity, anti-multi-culturalism, etc, comments after many of the stories.”
Translation: “Great Googly-Moogly! I couldn’t believe that there are people in the world who disagree with my views! Can’t they see that I am right, because to disagree with me makes them EVIL?!”
As the saintly Margaret Hamilton used to say, “What a world, what a world…”
Ahh… the “sensible moderate” view eh?
http://sadlyno.com/archives/5063.html
The problem is, at least here in America, one can no longer rationally play the role of sensible moderate. When it comes to most of our “policy” there are not two, let alone more, fair and sincere sides from which to choose. There is right and then there is far right. How does one choose a sensibly moderate position between full on torture and just a little torture? What precisely is the moderate position when given the option of either pre-emptively striking a sovereign nation (who has done nothing to us) with conventional weapons and invasion or simply use our nukes? How does a sensible person find a way to have a conversation with those that call you a terrorist because you think that allowing an elected public servant to piss on the constitution and break the law whenever he feels like it is probably a bad thing?
Actually Mark when I said half of the American people are morons I was being kind. Only one quarter are true morons. The other quarter of that half is just plain evil. I blame the entire half though of course. As for moderates? They are potentially the worst of the lot. Believing in and seeking to find the middle ground of an issue that ranges from crazy stupid to patently evil does not a moderate make. Understand?
As an aside – I know zero about the racism accusations and wasn’t referring to any of that with my post. I was merely pointing out that the same argument of “well, half of the country doesn’t agree with conservative policy, we didn’t vote for it and therefore we can not be held responsible” is horseshit. You guys handle it however you need to handle it. You want to vote, lobby, petition, etc? Fine. I do not know enough about your situation to say it will not work out for you. As for us? We should have been burning things to the ground long ago but we have lost our ability to know right from wrong. We are morally bankrupt. Irrevocably so.
hopefully the US democrats will wait for the election campaign here in Australia and then interfere in our politics, making it clear howard will get short shrift in washington under a democrat congress and presidency, and state clearly that howard has undermined and demeaned ANZUS with by supporting for reckless wars of aggression
So Yank thinks that half the people of the USA are either morons or evil.
I hope Yank doesn’t think this sort of thing is left-wing or progressive. Hating and mistrusting half the people of your own country is a profundly right-wing attitude.
Perhaps it won’t be long before Yank completely sinks into a neo-Lovecraftian world where the Elder Horrors rule all, all rebellion is doomed before it begins, and the ’sheeple’ are too dumb to know anything.
On an international discussion list I belong to, an American man posted this:
Does anybody else find it strange that the PM of Australia, that oasis of racial harmony, should choose to attack the only African-American presidential candidate in the United States?
Does the man have no shame?
I thought that the USA was diplomatically backward!!!
Sigh. An all too common thought. Criticism of black man != racism. However, not criticising a black man, because he is black, would be racism – of the patronising kind.
David, Not wanting to digress, but are you seriously suggesting that right wingers have the monopoly on hating one’s own countrymen?
“Criticism of black man != racism”
I’m sticking with that one. Ta.
Gerard Henderson’s headline in today’s SMH: Howard is undiplomatic but correct.
Greg Sheridan in today’s Aus: Rhetoric is wrong but substance is right.
Leftist groupthink, I tells ya! Leftist groupthink!!
(Er, sorry, did I say leftist…?)
SatP, ‘reactionary right-wing’ would have been a better phrase, to distinguish between the reactionary right and the progressive right.
I think that being left-wing means, by definition, that you have some hope that people can work things out – plenty of people who are commonly thought of as ‘left’ are actually expressing reactionary pseudo-left http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191 opinions, like a profound distrust of people, and the thought that nothing can ever be changed.
Of course, if we use the more common definition of ‘left’ then yes, many people who fit that definition hate their own countrymen. Humphrey McQueen gave a good seminar about this last year at the Brisbane Social Forum:
http://letstakeover.blogspot.com/2006/05/humphrey-mcqueen-says-we-must-confront.html
Sigh. An all too common thought. Criticism of black man != racism.
Targeting of black man for criticism = racism.
“Targeting of black man for criticism = racism.”
Cool! Even better than before! Sign me the fuck up.
Spot on Mr. Mugabe. Black men must be beyond criticism.
I actually agree with the view that Howard’s comments were racially based, though I think unconsciously so. If Obama was white, Howard would have thought twice about being so disrespectful and dismissive in his language. It’s just the way he’s wired. I also agree that Howard is playing the attack dog for Bush (in his own mind at least). Howard views politics through a very ideological and gladatorial prism and does not want the Republican party to lose in the US. He can’t not be biased about it and sees nothing wrong with that. His own political survival depends on it. This was too good an opportunity for him to score points against both the Democrats and Kevin Rudd by ratcheting up the old terrorist scare campaign a few notches (particularly to take attention off other issues) and we can expect more and more of it as the year progresses.
Prime Minister Howard yesterday raised the issue that I had earlier in this post on 6 February 2007 at 11:09 pm
IMV, the swinging voters of the Australian and US electorate will not avoid the major questions arising from the latest US National Security Estimate. These questions will be pointed out over and over again in the coming very long election periods.
ALP boosters here at LP avoided the issues but the swing voters won’t. It would be a rewarding exercise for supporters of the ALP to attempt to deal with the issue. If you can’t deal with the issue, (and shooting the messenger will not count other than among the already welded on ALP vote) then don’t assume that Rudd will do any better as the swingers start to focus on the two big issues (Iraq and Carbon).
In the US the Democrats are about to blow apart as they deal with the consequences of the National Security Estimate.
BHO’s policy, in light of this NSE, of pulling out all US troops regardless of the situation early next year avoids the issues and he will therefore not be an acceptable Democrat candidate by the end of this year. He is already the walking dead. Clinton will not attack him yet but they are clearly not singing in tune and she will not support his legislative proposal. The coming Democrat attack on BHO will expose him as a foreign policy dolt. Avoiding these issues is not possible for a US president so BHO will not be the one this time. His policy is plainly wrong and would be devastating to the ME and all progressives.
Naturally it is supported by the pseudo-left and liberals in the ‘anti war’ quagmire.
I believe that voters will draw the correct conclusion that no matter how this war started ‘we’ are in it now and the only way out (that would not draw ‘us’ back in later in a far larger way) is through the defeat of the enemies of modernity that are Baathism, Jihadism and Shia death squads.
If people think this war is bad then try to imagine what a full blown regional conflict would entail.
Irony much?
There is absolutely no evidence that the PM’s attack on Senator Obama was motivated by race.
I look forward to Senator Clinton being called a racist as she competes harder and harder with Senator Obama for the Democratic nomination.
Oh: President Mugabe, you are a nasty, undemocratic dictator.
There is absolutely no evidence that the PM’s attack on Senator Obama was motivated by race.
Motivated, no. But filtered through the prism of race, quite possible.
I look forward to Senator Clinton being called a racist as she competes harder and harder with Senator Obama for the Democratic nomination.
I doubt that will happen. She isn’t a racist and is unlikely to say or do anything to that effect. So who would accuse her of being one? You (and other commenters here) seem to assume that anyone who enters into a contest with a black person will be called a racist just for competing or disagreeing with them, which to me indicates a lack of understanding of the basis for any such criticisms.
“Gerard Henderson’s headline…”
Someone writes the script and then all the stooges go and do what they are told to do. Simple. Let’s see who also follows the script. Even on this blog. On the other hand, it’s getting a bit boring. We know wo you are.
I believe that voters will draw the correct conclusion that no matter how this war started ‘we’ are in it now and the only way out (that would not draw ‘us’ back in later in a far larger way) is through the defeat of the enemies of modernity that are Baathism, Jihadism and Shia death squads.
Ha, Ha, bloody, ha. The only conclusion the American voters are going to conclude from this,is that approx half of them are full on barking mad.I mean voting Bush in once was an aberation, twice my God what were they thinking?Well that’s the frigging kicker they weren’t thinking their rotten to the core media was doing the thinking for them.This group of social mis-fits sometimes referred to as the goverment, will go down in history as the biggest bunch of wankers, since the Mayflower left Plymouth.
“If people think this war is bad then try to imagine what a full blown regional conflict would entail.”
What planet are you on?the Bush administration is ginning up another crisis in the Middle East, like, right now and just with a little bit of luck, saner minds in the U.S. administration may just,be able to put a leash on this meglo maniac until he goes back to Texas picking fruit or what ever the fuck he does there.
I was surprised that Kerry O’Brien didn’t ask Bush the obvious question. Since the odds are very good that the next Preznit (Democrat or Republican) will pull out of Iraq, won’t the US by his own logic be responsible for a win for the terrsts, etc?
I think Megan’s right – Howard relies on the GOP to bolster all his US alliance, WOT stuff.
His “national security” advantage is starting to collapse because public and political opinion in the US has turned against the war.
I don’t think that the terrorism scare has much left in it. He looked far from a “safe pair of hands” and a statesman in Parliament today – more like a cornered pollie ranting and raving in desparation.
What does that even mean?
Howard has criticised someone whose views he disagrees with. What on earth does race have to do with that?
What?
I am saying that you are smelling around for racism where there is none. If you think Howard is racist for criticising Obama, then, logically, so is anyone else who criticises him. If you disagree, please tell me what makes Howard different from others who criticise Obama.
I don’t think Howard is racist, nor do I think anyone else who criticises Obama necessarily is racist.
Agreed.
Sir Henry; I posted first. PS everyone can see that you are running from the issues and shooting the messenger.
Gaz: Remember Tony Blair? All three countries returned their governments.
How is it you do not recall the nice Liberal, Mr Kennedy, who did his best to prevent free and fair elections in Vietnam? Millions died from the ‘nice’ war started by Mr Kennedy.
How do you want to fight Baathism, Jihadism and Shia death squads?
Tony Blair just scraped home, and everyone’s conclusion (including that of Labour strategists who forced him to name a date for retirement and had Gordon Brown at his side at almost every campaign event) was that Iraq was the major reason for the swing against the government. The Republicans lost the midterms convincingly – with 57% of voters supporting Democrats in the Senate in a year when many of the seats being contested were in “red states”.
Here’s a position you might want to ponder – it is not the responsibility of Australians to fight Baathism, Jihadism and Shia death squads (which are pretty indistinguishable from many elements of the allegedly democratic “government” of Iraq).
Entering into a contest with a black person is not necessarily racist eh Suz? Just competing with, or disagreeing with a black person doesn’t make one racist?
However, John Howard making a criticism of a policy point of a black person is “through a racist prism”?
Bit hard to claw back remnants of credibility from that…..
Er.. Hilary Clinton “isn’t a racist”? How on earth do you arrive at THAT conclusion? Some reliable source such as she “said so” perhaps?
“Millions died from the ‘nice’ war started by Mr Kennedy.”
Well hello, aren’t you making my case?
Look if you are trying to tell me that the Bush administration is in Iraq for benevolent reasons,and to save us from a future “Caliphate” or some other airy fairy reasons o/k fine.,lets say I believe you.
If you think killing thousands of innocent victims and ruining the whole infra structure of a country is the price then sorry that is bollicks.Easy to say from the comfort of my own home,if I had to pull my children out of the rubble that once was my house,I would kinda just get a little pissed off.
Now where’s my gun it’s pay back.
How do you want to fight Baathism, Jihadism and Shia death squads?
That’s just it I don’t.I saw what Viet Nam did to my brother.I could give a fuck if they want to kill each other, if and when they come to Oz like you I will be on the front line.The yanks will pull out of Iraq and when they do after a little more blood letting things will return to business as usual.The west went in there about five hundred years to early,make of that what you will.
The “yeah, but whose head have you cut off lately?” syndrome is real, but it’s only ever one Beslan away. I’d love to think that islamist terrorism will just quietly disappear, but if it does I’ll suspect it’s because quiet, hard men in the night made it do so.
There is another, vaguely similar, strand of criticism of DailyKos here at Field Negro, who picks up on claims by Francis L Holland that DailyKos is very much part of the ‘Whitosphere’ in an apartheided blogworld.
Interestingly enough, one of the assertions is that DailyKos is more ‘liberal than thou’ and dislikes Senator Clinton and her supporters, although the black US bloggers in this discussion claim that Clinton is by far and away the most popular Democrat amongst blacks in the USA.
The Nation considers the race aspect of Howard’s attack on Obama.
The apt description “withering criticism” The Nation article quotes, was delivered by NSW Greens MLC Sylvia Hale, whom many acknowledge, from across the political spectrum, is the most powerful political orator on the left in NSW.
Excellent link, suz. Howard’s attack on Obama was racist, but he couched his message in such a way that he could deny he was racist – as he has always done – because he knows just how stupid Australians are, and that they will not take him to task.
and
Excuse me? Who’s the racist bigot here?
I don’t think Howard was being racist. What he said about Obama was monumentaly stupid to be sure but he singled Obama out because thats who he was asked about, not because he’s black.
As I said before, I think the context in the US is very different from that in Australia. In the US, it’s being seen (in some quarters) as Howard piling on Obama because he could openly come out with the insinuation that Obama is “really” a Muslim (cf his middle name Hussein and all the stories about madrasses) that mainstream pols won’t say. His comments are read as Obama = Osama. But I still think that Howard’s targeting him was just a result of him being the latest runner to enter the race. Having said that, Howard may either consciously or unconsciously believe that Obama is the least likely of the contenders to win, and thus a soft target. That may or may not be related to considerations about race. But the debate in the States, as I’ve been arguing, is all about American politics and Howard’s just a useful fool and a cypher for it.
If he doesn’t know that consciously, he’s lost all his political smarts.
Even laughing-boy VP Dan Quayle had been in the Senate for 12 years before getting his shot at the VP slot.
Senator Obama will not get anywhere near the Presidential or VP nomination this round. If Howard was indeed looking for a soft target, he picked the right one. And let’s remember that Howard was asked specifically about Senator Obama – not surprising, given that it was less than 24 hours since Senator Obama’s announcement:
Yes, he was asked about Obama, but it wouldn’t have been too hard for him to deflect the question.
Obama’s response to Howard wasn’t very presidential.
Sneering “why doesn’t HE put 20,000 more troops into Iraq then?” at one of the USA’s staunchest, most loyal, & most long standing allies, shows him to be still … er… developing as a politician. Statesman material currently he ain’t.
For this reason alone he will not be selected by his party to run for president.
Perhaps the leading US psephologists taking a sabbatical at the Woop Woop Inn from whom SATP got this gem:
haven’t been keeping up with news from Stateside:
Now, Obama may not gain Democratic selection. But slappin’ the Rat seems to have done him no harm at all.
We’re just a sociopathic fringe group here at the Woop Woop Inn.
This puts us waaaaay behind the smart girls at the Soy Extract Latte Coffee Shop, who are up to date on all sorts of overseas stuff.
Meanwhile, the Wingnut basement of the blogosphere produces this:
Memo to SATP. This is a real poll only in the realms of gun-oil soaked keyboards and drool-sodden national flags.
However, the Oz did publish the results, demonstrating their touching faith in sympathetic magic.
But it is good news for Ratty. He could run for VP of Cyberspace.
“Gun soaked keyboards & Drool Soaked National Flags”
No doubt just another “sociopathic fringe group”
Being small minded enough to want John Howard as president, instead of being broad minded enough to call him by snide juvenile nicknames (such as “ratty”) would qualify them as “gun-totin’ patriots’ (Definitely a sociopathic fringe group, not real americans at all eh?)
Also Greg Sheridan, so long as he could find an episode of the West Wing to support the poll’s findings.
No SATP, I wouldn’t be surprised if some bed-wetters (for example) voted for Howard in the Instapundit poll as well.
You see your logical error SATP?
You’ve taken two examples of a Howard supporter and turned it into a definition of a Howard supporter.
But, the grown-up interesting thing about this story is why the Oz would waste space printing it.
I couldn’t care less about definitions or other wankery you wish to waffle on about Katz. You are talking through your hat, which I suspect is what happens when you aren’t making snide juvenile comments about “ratty” or “the rodent”.
I was taking comments by Barack Obama, and commenting on them. No absinthe before commenting please.
satp, you have a recent history of making racist (and sexist) comments here, so it is not too hard to imagine that you are getting some kind of racist glee when you denigrate Obama.
silkworm what sort of glee did you get by saying:
which is just as racist as anything SatP has said.
Racist AND sexist eh? Gosh, I am becoming downright friendly in my approach to my fellow man these days, no Homophobia, Islamophobia or Class Oppression worth mentioning eh? I had better restore my old self, perhaps by getting straight down to sucking lemons, pronto!
Tell me dear Silkworm, my “racist glee” at picking on poor little Barack Obama, do you think it is his black half, or his white half, which would be the target of my racist ire?
But let’s not forget that Ratty turned his pop-guns away from Barack and then trained them on the entire Democrat Party:
Barack Obama wasn’t being singled out here. In Howard’s ever-wedging mind, Obama was simply an example of a larger category — the Democrat Party, the majority party in both houses of Congress.
In other words, Ratty thought that he was being an effective shil for the entire Right side of US politics.
How wrong he was.
Howard lost his political bearings.
Just found a bitterly anti-war, anti-Howard (and also anti-ALP) review of Howard’s criticism of Senator Obama at the World Socialist Web Site .
The word ‘racism’ is never mentioned.
You tell me.
Begging your pardon Silkworm, but it is YOU who has made the accusation, it is not incumbent upon me to explain YOUR allegation.
You said it, now BACK IT UP.
DJ’s cited article above points out a very interesting element of the current parliamentary debate in Australia over Iraq.
Howard points out accurately that Rudd supported invasion on the basis of crediting reports about WMDs.
But this is bizarre. Note that this debate revolves around not what should happen next, but what has got the COW into the sorry atate it’s in.
So why doesn’t Rudd say: “It’s immaterial how we got here. The important thing is what should happen next.”
DJ’s reference comes up with a clear but depressing answer. The ALP is itself so deeply implicated in the US project that the ALP cannot criticise the aims of the US. The ALP is therefore restricted to criticising means.
In two years’ time a Democrat may sit in the White House. That Democrat may or may not repudiate Bush’s aims as well as Bush’s means.
But the depressing fact is that unless and until that happens, the ALP is trapped into an academic critique of US performance rather than a repudiation of US ambition.
This is firm proof of the dependency relaitonship between the US and Australia.
satp,
I would not hold my breath waiting for silkworm to answer a question.
The fact that you have called him “poor little Barack Obama” is evidence of your racism. The fact that you have divided Obama into coloured halves is further evidence of your racism.
Keep it up, satp. The hole you are digging for yourself just gets deeper and deeper.
From the article:
Bollocks. Here is Kevin Rudd yesterday:
Sounds like a good summary of Howards propaganda to me.
If the writer means there should be a Senate inquiry or a royal commission into why the US invaded Iraq thats just silly, since a hell of a lot of US personnel would have to appear before any investigation for it to be adequete.
If it is being alleged that there has not been debate in Australia about why the US invaded Iraq then that is simply not true. One suspects that the writer is simply displeased that many an Australian commentator has declined to conclude that it was all about Teh Oil.
You’ve been called Silkworm, and you have been found wanting.
Am I racist against Barack Obama (your words) because he is part black, or because he is part white?
Idiot.
Give it up, Silkworm.
Denigrating a black person is not racist unless that’s the basis of the denigration, which it was in neither Howard’s nor Steve’s case.
You’re as much an embarrassment to anti-racism as you are to atheism.
That’s not what the writer alleged.
S/he alleged that there was no parliamentary debate over this point, i.e., within and between the governing classes in Australia.
I agree with Chris that an enquiry about the causes of the war would be bizarre and pointless, given the fact that all the decisions were made by US public servants and members of the US Executive.
However, it would be interesting for an appropritately empowered Royal Commission to quiz Australian liaisons with US decisionmakers about their perceptions of the decisionmaking process as it related to Australian dispositions towards Iraq.
Such a Royal Commission would not be possible until the Coalition is voted out of office.
Am I racist against Barack Obama (your words) because he is part black, or because he is part white?
He is black. He has one white parent and one black parent and he’s a black person in the world. And that’s what appears to trigger your wording and your response.
Suz, you are saying that I am somehow “racist” against Barack Obama because he is black?
Why would that be? You will have to explain yourself better.