Who are you voting for?

Rafa said:

the whole pamphlet thing has really put a sour taste in many peoples mouths...

whilst most parties do their fair share of dirty tricks, one thing it does highlight, is the fact that the liberals, esp under howard, are never backward in slagging of minority groups and playing on people fears in the name of political gain.

i.e. there is no regard for collateral damage, people outside the political arena are hurt. That is the big difference in tactics. Those in the political system are paid to cop it... not members of the public.

such sort of immoral disregard for minority groups is very concerning, but is not unexpected from the liberals under howard.

Click to expand...

moneymajix said:

HELP WITH DECIDING HOW TO VOTE


http://www.howshouldivote.com.au/

Enter your postcode and dive straight in to our quick twenty question quiz. It will match YOUR answers to the candidates in YOUR electorate and produce YOUR own unique personalised how-to-vote card based on which candidates are most like YOU!

How does it work?
We've asked every candidate in each electorate to answer twenty questions that cover a wide range of issues that are of interest to voters. Now you can answer the same quiz and compare your views to the people you are considering voting for.



I just answered the quizz. The person most aligned with my answers to the quizz is probably not someone I had seriously considered. Interesting.

Click to expand...

Julia said:

Rafa, is that really fair? Let's look at what actually happened. The husbands of two Liberal candidates misguidedly and stupidly printed off some completely inappropriate leaflets and letterboxed them. As soon as it became known, John Howard dismissed the people concerned from the Liberal party and condemned their action in the strongest possible terms.

Your post suggests he - and the rest of the party hierarchy knew and approved of what happened. If that is what you think, then on what basis have you drawn that conclusion?

I know you are a Labor supporter, but usually your comments are fair and measured.

Just look at the situation quite pragmatically. This drama today has been a real blow to the Liberal party. It is politically disastrous not because of any action by the Libs as a party, but because of the stupidity of a couple of their members who will by now be appreciating how dumb they were.
John Howard may be many things but he is not stupid. No way in the world would he condone such a politically stupid action.

Labor, predictably, have jumped all over this, blaming the Liberals as a party.
Of course they would. Just too good an opportunity to ignore the reality and paint that oh so expressive picture which your post mirrors.

Click to expand...

Julia said:

.... As soon as it became known, John Howard dismissed the people concerned from the Liberal party and condemned their action in the strongest possible terms.

Click to expand...

Julia said:

Rafa, is that really fair? Let's look at what actually happened. The husbands of two Liberal candidates misguidedly and stupidly printed off some completely inappropriate leaflets and letterboxed them. As soon as it became known, John Howard dismissed the people concerned from the Liberal party and condemned their action in the strongest possible terms.

Your post suggests he - and the rest of the party hierarchy knew and approved of what happened. If that is what you think, then on what basis have you drawn that conclusion?

Click to expand...

Mr Howard has disassociated himself from the alleged activities of people connected to Liberal MP Jackie Kelly who is retiring from her western Sydney seat of Lindsay.

"The first I knew about this was yesterday morning," Mr Howard told ABC radio today.

"I was told about it by my chief of staff who'd got the information from the NSW party director.

"I said 'look, this has got to be dealt with by the (party) organisation'.

"I condemn it, I dissociate myself from it. It's no part of my campaign and the party has acted promptly to deal with it.

"As far as I'm concerned, that was the right and only response."

Mr Howard would not comment on reports the leaflets were distributed from Ms Kelly's home.

"I don't know. You'd have to speak to others about that," he said.

"I am not in control of the actions of all people who are members of my party.

"I react when I believe something wrong has occurred. I don't think you can mistake the words I have used. I have made my position very clear.

"This is no part of my campaign. It is no part of the Liberal Party's campaign. I don't want anything to do with it."

Click to expand...

chops_a_must said:

It will be particularly interesting to see the voting results in this seat now. It's hard to imagine it being anything other than a gimme for Labor. It reflects incredibly badly on the candidate and retiring candidate for that matter.

Click to expand...

ghotib said:

BTW, Howard didn't dismiss them from the party. He dissociated himself from their actions and told the party organisation to handle it:

Click to expand...

I cut my political teeth in inner Sydney when the ALP right wing ruled it by thuggery, corruption, and voter ignorance or indifference. They held power for so long that they couldn't believe they'd ever be beaten by fair means or called to account for foul. And that's why I passionately believe that "it's time" is a great reason to change government. We usually wait one or two terms over time. Keating should never have won in 1993; Howard should never have won in 2004.

Cheers

Ghoti

Click to expand...

ghotib said:

Keating should never have won in 1993; Howard should never have won in 2004.

Click to expand...

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2004/11/65757
Researchers: Florida Vote Fishy
Kim Zetter 11.18.04 | 12:18 PM
Electronic voting machines in Florida may have awarded George W. Bush up to 260,000 more votes than he should have received, according to statistical analysis conducted by University of California, Berkeley graduate students and a professor, who released a study on Thursday.

The researchers likened their report to a beeping smoke alarm and called on Florida officials to examine the data and the voting systems in counties that used touch-screen voting machines to provide an explanation for the anomalies. The researchers examined the same numbers and variables in Ohio, but found no discrepancies there.

Their aim in releasing the report, the researchers said, was not to attack the results of the 2004 election in Florida, where Bush won by 350,000 votes, but to prompt election officials and the public to examine the e-voting systems and address the fact that there is no way to conduct a meaningful recount on the paperless machines.

The analysis -- which hasn't been formally peer-reviewed, but was examined by seven professors -- showed a discrepancy in the number of votes Bush received in counties that used the touch-screen machines and counties that used other types of voting equipment.

The researchers examined numerous variables that might have affected the vote outcome. These included the number of voters, their median income, racial and age makeup and the change in voter turnout between the 2000 and 2004 elections. Using this information, they examined election results for the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates in the state in 1996, 2000 and 2004 to see how support for those candidates and parties measured over eight years in Florida's 67 counties.

They discovered that in the 15 counties using touch-screen voting systems, the number of votes granted to Bush exceeded the number of votes Bush should have received -- given all of the other variables -- while the number of votes that Bush received in counties using other types of voting equipment lined up perfectly with what the variables would have predicted for those counties.

The total number of excessive votes ranged between 130,000 and 260,000, depending on what kind of problem caused the excess votes. The counties most affected by the anomaly were heavily Democratic.

Sociology professor Michael Hout, who chairs the university's graduate Sociology and Demography group, said the chance for such a discrepancy to occur was less than 1 in 1,000.

"No matter how many factors and variables we took into consideration, the significant correlation in the votes for President Bush and electronic voting cannot be explained," he said in a statement. "There is just a trivial probability of evidence like this appearing in a population where the true difference is zero -- less than once in a thousand chances."

Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/3956129.stm
New Florida vote scandal feared
Tuesday, 26 October, 2004, 17:06 GMT 18:06 UK
A secret document obtained from inside Bush campaign headquarters in Florida suggests a plan - possibly in violation of US law - to disrupt voting in the state's African-American voting districts, a BBC Newsnight investigation reveals.

Election supervisor Ion Sancho believes some voters are being intimidated
Two e-mails, prepared for the executive director of the Bush campaign in Florida and the campaign's national research director in Washington DC, contain a 15-page so-called "caging list".

It lists 1,886 names and addresses of voters in predominantly black and traditionally Democrat areas of Jacksonville, Florida.

An elections supervisor in Tallahassee, when shown the list, told Newsnight: "The only possible reason why they would keep such a thing is to challenge voters on election day."

Click to expand...

Ion Sancho, a Democrat, noted that Florida law allows political party operatives inside polling stations to stop voters from obtaining a ballot.

Mass challenges

They may then only vote "provisionally" after signing an affidavit attesting to their legal voting status.

Mass challenges have never occurred in Florida. Indeed, says Mr Sancho, not one challenge has been made to a voter "in the 16 years I've been supervisor of elections."

"Quite frankly, this process can be used to slow down the voting process and cause chaos on election day; and discourage voters from voting."

Sancho calls it "intimidation." And it may be illegal.

A Republican spokeswoman did not deny that voters would be challenged at polling stations
In Washington, well-known civil rights attorney, Ralph Neas, noted that US federal law prohibits targeting challenges to voters, even if there is a basis for the challenge, if race is a factor in targeting the voters.

The list of Jacksonville voters covers an area with a majority of black residents.

When asked by Newsnight for an explanation of the list, Republican spokespersons claim the list merely records returned mail from either fundraising solicitations or returned letters sent to newly registered voters to verify their addresses for purposes of mailing campaign literature.

Republican state campaign spokeswoman Mindy Tucker Fletcher stated the list was not put together "in order to create" a challenge list, but refused to say it would not be used in that manner.

Rather, she did acknowledge that the party's poll workers will be instructed to challenge voters, "Where it's stated in the law."

There was no explanation as to why such clerical matters would be sent to top officials of the Bush campaign in Florida and Washington.

Private detective

Democrat Congresswoman Corinne Brown says watches a private investigator film voters
In Jacksonville, to determine if Republicans were using the lists or other means of intimidating voters, we filmed a private detective filming every "early voter" - the majority of whom are black - from behind a vehicle with blacked-out windows.

The private detective claimed not to know who was paying for his all-day services.

On the scene, Democratic Congresswoman Corinne Brown said the surveillance operation was part of a campaign of intimidation tactics used by the Republican Party to intimidate and scare off African American voters, almost all of whom are registered Democrats.

Click to expand...

ghotib said:

II cut my political teeth in inner Sydney when the ALP right wing ruled it by thuggery, corruption, and voter ignorance or indifference. They held power for so long that they couldn't believe they'd ever be beaten by fair means or called to account for foul. And that's why I passionately believe that "it's time" is a great reason to change government. We usually wait one or two terms over time. Keating should never have won in 1993; Howard should never have won in 2004.

Cheers

Ghoti

Click to expand...

Aussie2Aussie said:

And you dont think the same guys are around anymore!!!! Why do you think WA is going Liberal, they know these same guys you refer to as those that "ruled it by thuggery, corruption..." are still with us.

Having lived not that long ago in WA for a few years, I can guarantee that those thugs and the corruption still exist.

What really turned me aginst Rudd was his trip to WA to get the blessing of those very same thugs for his run against Beazley.

Click to expand...

So if Howard should never have won in 2004, you would have been happy with Mark Latham as Prime Minister?

Click to expand...

And you dont think the same guys are around anymore!!!! Why do you think WA is going Liberal, they know these same guys you refer to as those that "ruled it by thuggery, corruption..." are still with us.

Having lived not that long ago in WA for a few years, I can guarantee that those thugs and the corruption still exist.

Click to expand...

Ghoti, and did GW Bush ever win really? - I mean if the votes had been correctly counted even. Off topic I guess, except that this is the bloke (GWB) we've been REALLY following ever since.

Click to expand...

Racial pamphlet a re-rerun: candidate
Sid Marris | November 23, 2007

A WESTERN Sydney Labor candidate subjected to a racially-charged bogus pamphlet at the last election says Liberals have "form" on this behaviour.
Ed Husic a union official who ran against the Liberals Louise Markus in the seat of Greenway in 2004 said he was disappointed that the conservatives had again resorted to such divisive tactics.

He said it was time to put it to an end.

Mr Husic believes the attempts at divisions did not work in 2004 and the ‘’scare campaign’’ on interest rates were a bigger issue than race.

The union official also doubts it would have much effect this time.

‘’It was a pretty confronting pamphlet and just like in this Lindsay case it offends the sense of decency that people think that this is a legitimate campaign technique,’’ he told The Australian.

"I was disappointed with Jackie Kelly’s take on this, I know it was someone close to her, but I don’t think it does her well in suggesting it was a prank instead of saying this is what we did and it was wrong.

"And I think the people involved in this will regret it, not just from a political perspective but a personal one as well, they will feel the shame of trying to bring certain parts of the community against each other.’’

On the eve of the 2004 election, a pamphlet was distributed that took Mr Husic’s official material an inserted text saying "Ed Husic is a devout Muslim’’ and that he was "working hard to get a better deal for Islam in Greenway".

He said electors received phone calls asking whether they would vote for a churchgoer while boothworkers were telling electors as they arrived they should vote for Ms Markus because she was ‘’a good Christian.’’

Mr Husic said while there was no official complaint to the Australian Electoral Commission, his case was raised in both the federal Senate and the NSW Upper House as well as laid out in a public address to the Sydney Institute.

Senior Liberals would have known such activities had gone on, he said

Mr Husic said urged Mr Howard to ‘’work harder’’ to quieten the divisive elements in his own party.

"I don’t think these tactics play or give any advantage to the perpetrator, all it does is just create this division as it has in this case and offends people’s sense of decency,’’ he said.

"But there is something wrong with someone thinking this is an okay or legitimate campaign technique and it needs to be stamped out.’’

What was needed was acknowledgement of a problem and a promise to deal with it, he said.

Click to expand...

Julia said:

Rafa, is that really fair? Let's look at what actually happened. The husbands of two Liberal candidates misguidedly and stupidly printed off some completely inappropriate leaflets and letterboxed them. As soon as it became known, John Howard dismissed the people concerned from the Liberal party and condemned their action in the strongest possible terms.

Your post suggests he - and the rest of the party hierarchy knew and approved of what happened. If that is what you think, then on what basis have you drawn that conclusion?

I know you are a Labor supporter, but usually your comments are fair and measured.

Just look at the situation quite pragmatically. This drama today has been a real blow to the Liberal party. It is politically disastrous not because of any action by the Libs as a party, but because of the stupidity of a couple of their members who will by now be appreciating how dumb they were.
John Howard may be many things but he is not stupid. No way in the world would he condone such a politically stupid action.

Labor, predictably, have jumped all over this, blaming the Liberals as a party.
Of course they would. Just too good an opportunity to ignore the reality and paint that oh so expressive picture which your post mirrors.

Click to expand...

noco said:

Julia I would dearly like to know where these inappropriate leaflets originated from; with modern tech.today they could have come from anybodies computer includind perhaps a Labor supporter. Was it in fact a trap set for a couple of inexperienced and naive Liberal People who thought they were on to something to their advantage. Maybe they should have checked the origin of it first. Come what may, an AFP investigation might bring out the truth.

Click to expand...

ghotib said:

They're always around in every party. My point is that leaving a party in power for too long lets them get entrenched.

I also think parties need a bit of time in opposition to clean themselves out and to review their policies and their procedures in relative privacy so they don't get locked in to their own pasts.



Ghoti

Click to expand...

Rafa said:

and the fact is, whether endorsed or not, whether deliberate or accidental... has enough anti muslim sentiment been stirred to cost labor votes???


PS: and for the other issue of corruption and thuggery and rouge elements (like jackie kelly's husband, or the WA union thugs), etc... Any govt that has been in power for too long will develop such elements. All govt's need to turnover every 6-10 years... It makes for a healthy balanced country. I hope some of the states start being run by liberal govt's in the near future...

Click to expand...

Julia said:

Rafa, I doubt that any anti muslim sentiment would have genuinely been stirred on the basis of this behaviour. Honestly think most people will see it for what it is.

Jackie Kelly when interviewed should have just said she was appalled that her husband could have been involved in any such thing. Instead she really made the whole thing worse with her silly suggestion that it was all a bit of a prank! Made herself look almost as silly as her husband.

Click to expand...

Much more dramatically, the bogus islamic pamphlet saga has exposed a deep and worrying element that has been evident throughout Howard’s career. He may not condone racism but his political behaviour has encouraged it. From his refusal to condemn Hanson, to his refusal to say sorry to our indigenous community, to his ‘we will decide who comes here’, Howard has encouraged insularity and resentment.

Now this tragic failure of leadership has returned as farce to stain his last days in office. In fact, Jackie Kelly will bookend his prime ministerial career from the triumphant victory of a heartland labor seat in 1996 to a piece of grubby stupidity aimed at exploiting racial tensions.

Howard’s lifelong ambivalence to the use of racism in politics has been a betrayal of the Liberal Party’s better instincts and one that will have major repercussions for the party’s future and for future interpretations of the Howard legacy.

Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/22/2097666.htm
..... Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett says the situation in Lindsay shows it has now become acceptable in Australian politics to play the race card.

"I've got no doubt the Prime Minister, as the person who takes ultimate responsibility, has fostered an environment where these sorts of things are seen as acceptable or worth a shot within the Liberal Party," he said.

Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/21/2097484.htm
The fake pamphlet says: "we gratefully acknowledge Labor's support to forgive our Muslim brothers who have been unjustly sentenced to death for the Bali bombings".

It called for more mosques to built and also says: "Labor was the only political party to support the entry to this country of our grand mufti reverend Sheikh al Hilali and we thank Hon. Paul Keating for over-turning the objections of ASIO to allow our grand mufti to enter this country."

Click to expand...