Posted on 11/24/2007 11:11:40 AM PST by cool2007
John Howard, a staunch ally of the U.S., has been soundly defeated in the election for prime minister of Australia. Howard, the second longest serving PM in Australia's history, was expected to lose, but not by as large a margin as he did.
Kevin Rudd will be the new prime minister. As Michelle Malkin observes, the differences between Howard and Rudd are not likely to be great, especially when it comes to foreign policy and relations with the U.S. However, Rudd almost surely will not be the heavyweight in the global war on terror that Howard was.
Michelle is correct that the American left will read this election as a referendum on President Bush and the war in Iraq. However, such a reading is silly, and would be even if Rudd were anti-American. The lesson of this election, as with the election of pro-American leaders in France and Germany and with the replacement of Tony Blair in England, is that in politics nothing lasts forever.
That sounds right, but one can't rule out a lurch to the left now that Labour's back in.
from Malkin
user level: Rookie posted 1:12p, 11/24/07this user’s public profilesend private message to useredit this replyobject to this reply
Australian elections have become increasingly presidential, and Labor cast this one as a two-man race: Kevin vs John, youth vs age, the future vs the past. A vote for Rudd was a vote for someone new. But not too different. Cartoonists drew Rudd as a mini-Howard. A satirical video on YouTube cast the Chinese-speaking Labor leader as Chairman Mao, with subtitles reading: “Rudd unnerve decrepit Howard with clever strategy of ’similar difference.’” Rather than attacking Howard’s strengths, Rudd appropriated them. “I am not a socialist,” Rudd insisted. “I am an economic conservative.” On issue after issue, from federal intervention in dysfunctional Aboriginal communities, to national security, to the expansion of coal and uranium mining, Rudd adopted the government’s line.
The new P.M. is likely to go Howard’s way on foreign policy, too. What he described as “fundamental differences” with Howard — his vows to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and pull troops from Iraq — are largely symbolic.
None of the countries that signed the Kyoto Treaty have succeeded in doing anything to meet the promised requirements. Billions have been wasted, sensible ways of solving the energy crisis have been put off limits, and they have accomplished nothing. The US reduced emissions more than Canada or Europe. I suppose you can call that symbolic. But it's a terrible waste of energies that should have been directed toward solving real problems.
ttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.