Howard's Hubris.

Definition of hubris: "Overbearing pride; presumption".

It was the only word I could think of to describe Howard's appalling gaff in criticising Barack
Obama announcing his bid for the presidency, because of his statement that he would withdraw troops
from Iraq by March 2008.

It just isn't done among sane leaders - whatever their private thoughts on the suitability of a
candidate running for office in another country, they never, ever make public comment. This is a
matter for Americans, and while everybody's entitled to their private opinions, real leaders keep
their mouths shut in public. Not least because the guy just might elected, and where will the
alliance be then? Remember how Mark Latham had to backtrack on comments he'd made about Bush when
he wasn't even leader?

Of course, the usual Liberal toadies, led by Downer, are today jumping up to defend the indefensible,
but we should all be embarrassed that Howard simply doesn't know how to play the game.

Or does he now think he should be leading the world?

But you have to remember that howard has solidly attached his lips to chimp boys arse for years, he can't try to change track because it would be admitting failure. As for Alexander Conehead defending him, that is more comical than anything.

But it is not surprising really - since Blair had pretty much had it in political capital, Johnyy is charging forward to be Bush's bestest buddy. As per the saying - "The only thing stopping Howard disappearing up Bush's arse is Tony Blair's feet" - and now those feet are removed. It is curious though that Jackboot is making these faux-pas as normally he is more cunning than that. I wouldn't be surprised if his plummeting poll ratings isn't shaking him.

However....The US is not in any position to complain much - remember a little while back when their ambassador was sticking the knives into Labor while patting Johnny on the head for being a good toad and the questions raised by their collection of 'voting trends'?

And as for alliance, it hasn't existed beyond a facade since the mid 90's (if not earlier). All that remains is a servile 'yes man' role providing a reason to get shafted with crap like the 'free trade' agreement, military staging, or even Clinton's stunt with meat imports. It was highly amusing to see on DU'er in the various threads demand that they rethink the trade agreements with Oz.

One wonders whether it has anything to do with Cheney's visit.
You know what I mean. Trying to impress in order to remain
in the loop.
I think he already regrets opining.
He may well now STFU on the US election.

Howard is usually too cunning to make a mistake like this. It may be a combination of the impending
visit by Dead-Eye Dick and Rudd's continuing rise up the polls, but how terribly short-sighted of
him. Unless he knows that the 2008 polls are going to be rigged for a Republican win.

After last week's gaff about carbon emissions, and starting off with a statement that nobody but the
Lib stooges is defending, I wonder what else is in store?

Rudd hasn't put a foot wrong yet, and I think it's getting to him.

They just pat him on the head and tell him he's a good little boy.
He is probably aware of what they do to you if you step out of line.
Saddam decided to step out and ended up doing the Irish bungy jump.

to get some people to rally behind him and the flag.

To a lot of uneducated people this may look like he's standing up to America.

I put nothing past this truly Machiavellian bastard.

but it's possibly backfired. A Herald poll (sure they have a wide margin of error) has 81% of
people clicking on going against Howard.

I also think it's race-based - Hillary Clinton has said the same thing, and he hasn't attacked her.
But hitting at a black with a funny surname - that's his style.

And sure, the Americans tend to butt into our affairs, but they've got some weight behind them. A
puny little toad like Howard can't do that without looking just plain ignorant.

Howard has wrapped his own ego, his own sense of self, in the office of PM. Someone forgot to tell him it was always going to be temporary. Remember he did the dirty on Costello (but who cares) so that he could hang onto the oversize chesterfield. Now he sees himself as facing an election he may very well lose and he's floundering. He isn't a political master, as has so often been said in the press. He has an incredibly thick skin and is a consummate politician in that he will do anything, anything to remain in power. He makes Graeme Richardson look altruistic. This is his way of scaring the mob. It won't work. He has made a serious political error.

I think the electorate here is probably ready for a change. Those that are going to buy the widescreen tv have done so. Now they're wondering about their future and the future for their children and it's starting to dawn on them that they've been conned by Howard and Costello and the fistful of dollars. In South Australia the marginals are looking good for Labor. Rudd can do it, he can keep the confidence of the electorate despite the rodent's panicky attacks.

This has strong tones of when Beazley started making ridiculous gaffes towards the end of his leadership. Hopefully Howard's on the fast downward spiral too.

At this rate, it would not surprise me at all if Howard isn't even PM by the election time!

I want to see him defeated and driven from office. I don't want him to
have any chance of going gracefully.

I want to see Janette dragged kicking and screaming from Kirribilli
House by the feet, with her fingernails making tracks along the carpets.

the prospect of handing over to Costello before APEC is inconceivable. His ego wont allow it. That being said he is truly rattled. The climate change gaff, Obama, the Murray-Darling policy on the go initiative. He/they are now reverting to their usual SOP of playing the person, not the ball and resorting to the politics of the personal.

I would like to see him squirm for the next 8 to 10 months then lead his party to defeat.

Tony Jones had Brendan Nelson on Lateline last night - a great interview, with Nelson tying himself
in knots trying to defend Howard and getting it terribly wrong.

Nelson had that deer in the headlights stare as he tried to remember what he'd been told to say while
sidestepping Tony Jones' questions, but Jones kept bringing him back to the point again and again.
Nelson was trying to look like future PM material and failing dismally, and Jones had a little smile
as he kept twisting the knife.

If you missed it, here's the link - it's worth reading:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1846174.htm


or view the interview to get the full effect:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/

not actually answering the questions he was asked. Jones was very good. Kept on getting him with logic.

From today's Sydney Morning Herald:




This has been a very good week for Labor - I hope Howard keeps it up!


Edit: typo

I think this time he's picked the wrong topic on which to fight Labor.

The Australian electorate by and large are not fools, and I think the disdain in which George W Bush is held is more widespread than Howard and Downer would EVER admit. Perhaps if Labor advertising were to start (slowly at first, gradually building) tying Howard to Bush and Bush's disaster in Iraq, it just may get some traction.

Howard's opened the door - we may as well walk in and trash Howard's little castle - as a prelude to kicking him out whenever he decides to call the election.

It’s been falling on deaf ears for a long time and no one’s buying it. You’re right, Labor really needs to step up and drive home Howard’s role in Bush’s ILLEGAL war.

Taking pot shots at a US presidential candidate to bolster his war on terrorism pre-election chest thumping has exquisitely backfired. Keep it up Johnny. Even though you’re an embarrassment to us all, it’s worth it if it means you’re finally done and gone for good. And you can take your smarmy front bench with you on your way out.

As Paul Keating said last week: “He’s become an old desiccated coconut, hasn’t he, and he stayed too long.”

Everyone here (including journalists who should know better) is claiming Obama supports an unconditional withdrawl.

Obama's "timed CONDITIONAL phased withdrawl" is really not all that disimilar to the Bush/Cheney plan.

Obama has also bought the crap about Al Qaeda and Iran and every other military/corporate talking point. Can not understand for the life of me why he's not considered a colleague by Howard.

Howard and Obama are both empty vessels willing to say anything and everything, willing to throw away every long held belief in order to simply be in government.

Neither have a SINGLE principle which is more important than winning elections. They are BOTH aprt of the problem.

which Alexander Downer praised in an interview with Kerry O'Brien when it was released:

"... I’ve had a look at the report. I haven’t got on top of every detail of it, but I’ve had a quick look at it during the course of today. I think it’s a good piece of work. It will make a useful contribution to the Americans consideration of their strategy, particularly in and around Baghdad. It draws all the right conclusions about the ultimate objectives of ensuring that the democratic government and the democratic constitution can be sustained by the Iraqi forces." (7th Dec. 2006).

Obviously now that Bush and Cheney are backing away from it, so is John Howard, little Sir Echo.

I think Rudd is letting himself be led by Howard into a straw man argument about which scenario would
be worse, staying or leaving, which is rather academic since it's a choice between a rock and a hard
place.

Rudd should be hammering the point that the war was illegal, and it was the invasion that took the
lid off the box. Labor's safe there, because unlike the Democrats in the US, they never supported
the war. It's not leaving that will give "comfort to the terrorists", but going there in the first
place that gave them their golden opportunity. I'd love to see Rudd hit Howard with that.