Lentern
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,980
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
That you did not swallow the "whatever he stood for, you gotta respect Howard was a conviction politcian" narrative has meant an enormous increase in my respect for your analytical skills. On everything else though I still think you're dead wrong. I'll be relatively genuine now.How do you so effortlessly misinterpret peoples's posts and opinions in general, Lentern? I don't even like or respect Latham, yet you've based your entire rant there on the premise that I do, that people remember and care about Latham, and that who a politician allied with 5 years ago for one reason or another is an accurate measure of his intelligence. Your attempt at equating Gillard with Latham is also highly amusing.
I know you read my posts, so I'm left wondering how you manage to avoid actually understanding them.
Because Rudd had more powerful allies to appease? Come on Lentern, keep up.
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm an economically centrist, social liberal who supports the welfare state and thinks Howard was a manipulative and often callous bastard and you somehow manage to take that and interpret it as some kind of admiration for him. Seriously Lentern, WTF?
Honestly(as opposed to some less genuine although carrying meaning comments, eg "if it comes to Ferguson being the best man left for the job they should just abolish the positon of treasurer") I think Latham and Gillard although having different politics have like views on the art of politics. That is, amongst other things, this idea of proving you are "tougher" than the other guy. The belligerence in parliament, the passion shown in public addresses, the hatred they seem to demonstrate for the other side; its all so militant and most swinging voters reasonably content with life don't like what that kind of fierceness could do if it got into the lodge.
As I also mentioned before there are people who voted for Latham like Crean and people who supported Latham like Fitzgibbon. The former were foolish, but the latter I have grave concerns about. To me it says they honestly believed that robust demeanour Latham cultivated(intentionally or otherwise) was political dynamite. Those who closely advised Latham once he became leader are even more worrying and the fact that one of them was Fitzgibbon, another Laurrie Ferguson says alot. Thankfully I don't think Julia was in Latham's inner sanctum but she certainly was a supporter not a voter.
As for Rudd appeasing the factions, surely a Latham relic like Fitzgibbon didn't have more clout in the party than the former ALP National President? And its not as though anyone with an iota of common sense would try and take on an elected prime minister anytime in his first five years. And if they did that person would be Julia Gillard, who would absolutely need the support of Faulkner to beat Rudd.