Jump to content

Wife of likely Australia PM doesn’t support husband’s opposition to gay marriage


Recommended Posts

I am hoping the polls are wrong, but The Guardian is predicting a forty seat plurality for the Coalition over Labor. It is frightening to see almost all the English-speaking world sinking to the right. In Britain, the Conservatives just barely voted to rebel against Cameron on Syria, and GCHQ is as bad as the NSA. In Canada, Foreign Affairs magazine says that Harper has almost dictatorial control over the Conservatives and is giving the oil companies in Alberta everything they want. He has even decreed that no scientist receiving funds from the government may publicly express support for the evidence for global warming. There was a time when we progressives in the US looked to Canada as a liberal and enlightened haven. Oh well. And, now Australia is set to elect a hateful, vicious conservative member of the misnamed Liberal Party as their new Prime Minister. Even here, where I voted for a liberal Democrat for President, I find that Barack Obama is little better than a moderately conservative Republican. He's basically carrying out George W. Bush;s foreign policy. His abortion of a health care reform is almost word for word the Heritage Foundation's proposed alternative to HillaryCare in 1993. And, he is gutless and spineless in standing up to the NSA and the other fascists in the intelligence community. We might as well have elected McCain or Romney. What in the hell is happening to the world?

Link to comment

See the details here

we vote tomorrow, Saturday. It doesn't look good for the forces of equality and Love.

Well I did my bit and voted for the Australian Sex Party.... :rolleyes:

Seriously, though, this is the first election since I turned 18 where I really didn't want to vote for anyone at all. I just had to hold my nose and vote for the least offensive option :icon2:

Link to comment

With my ear to the ground, there seems to be an astonishing voter reaction to let other issues override the social policies including marriage equality. Given the statistics that a two third majority of Australians is in favour of same sex marriage, it seems somewhat unbelievable that the right wing Liberal party is about to be voted into power, complete with their disturbing ideas of cutting so many government services, and their irresponsible fiscal policies.

The Bush era influences are being ignored which leaves a strong desire in many to hope for a balance of power of the Greens and independents to stop the irrational policies of the major parties.

It's not an ideal situation, but the chances of Australian finding itself in a similar situation to Canada is certainly not remote.

Conservative forces are on a world-wide crusade and the answers they offer are not attractive for the advance of humanitarian policies let alone the economy.

My opinion.

To lighten the mood...somewhat...even though I'm sure some of my countrymen will be appalled that I would post such a video, revealing that we do have a problem with being coherent, please watch this guy spout his feelings on the election. Watch to the end, it gets funnier as his tongue loses the connection to his braincell.

For you edification, I present the Little Aussie Babbler:

Link to comment

Des, I can't think of a single election where my vote has been determined by a single issue. No political party has every presented a range of policies where I agree with all of them. So it becomes a weighting issue. The issue of same-sex marriage is certainly one that influences my vote, but it doesn't decide it. I'm also concerned about economic factors, education and health, as well as labour laws. I'm looking forward to when my sons are old enough to move out of home, and whether they'll have the education needed to do what they want, whether they'll be able to get a job, be able to afford to buy a place to live, be able to get healthcare treatment in a timely manner, etc.

At this election, Labor's policies in the areas I'm interested in outshone the Liberal's. However, Kevin Rudd himself was a big negative for the Labor party - his actions over the last six years did not make me happy to have him as our Prime Minister. Of course, Tony Abbott's actions also didn't thrill me, so they weren't getting my vote, either. I just didn't see anyone else on my ballot that I wanted to vote for, either....

As for the issue of asylum seekers, both major party's policies were appalling. Big negatives on both for that one, but it also means it didn't sway my vote very much because neither party was particularly encouraging.

The coalition has won the election and Tony Abbott is our new Prime Minister. So be it. I'll be patient and wait to see if he stuffs it up by reaching too far to the right. Australian's tend to be conservative, but I'm using that in the original sense, not the political sense. We don't like too much change, and if the Liberal's try to move us too far to the right, I expect they'll get the same backlash that John Howard did the last time the Liberal's were in power. On the good news front, it doesn't look likely that the coalition will have a majority in the senate and will either need the vote of the Labor party or the minor parties to get legislation through. That should block the worst legislation, though it doesn't help enable new legislation.

Also, I'm very interesting in seeing what happens at the Liberal party conference after the election. Tony Abbott said a few months ago that the issue of whether to change the party policy on same-sex marriage will be discussed by the party after the election. I know there are a sizeable number of Liberal party politicians that are in favour of same-sex marriage - I just don't know if it'll be enough to go against Tony Abbott's wishes. It'll certainly make for some interesting politics if he's defeated in this matter and the party changes it's policy to allow a conscience vote.

Link to comment
Guest Dabeagle

I am hoping the polls are wrong, but The Guardian is predicting a forty seat plurality for the Coalition over Labor. It is frightening to see almost all the English-speaking world sinking to the right. In Britain, the Conservatives just barely voted to rebel against Cameron on Syria, and GCHQ is as bad as the NSA. In Canada, Foreign Affairs magazine says that Harper has almost dictatorial control over the Conservatives and is giving the oil companies in Alberta everything they want. He has even decreed that no scientist receiving funds from the government may publicly express support for the evidence for global warming. There was a time when we progressives in the US looked to Canada as a liberal and enlightened haven. Oh well. And, now Australia is set to elect a hateful, vicious conservative member of the misnamed Liberal Party as their new Prime Minister. Even here, where I voted for a liberal Democrat for President, I find that Barack Obama is little better than a moderately conservative Republican. He's basically carrying out George W. Bush;s foreign policy. His abortion of a health care reform is almost word for word the Heritage Foundation's proposed alternative to HillaryCare in 1993. And, he is gutless and spineless in standing up to the NSA and the other fascists in the intelligence community. We might as well have elected McCain or Romney. What in the hell is happening to the world?

It seems to have become more popular to consider that Romney may have been a better choice than he seemed then, and that somehow President Obama has failed. I do not think he has failed us, or embarrassed us, but I do find that he is imperfect. Would I wish for him to take a different stance on the NSA? Yes. I'm not sure what the answer is in Syria. I try to keep in mind that each step a politician takes is, in theory, calculated for a result - good will, good of the people, good for themselves - whatever. I do think he's done a decent job, and I think he's a decent guy who has been obstructed at every turn by the Republican House. I will never agree with any president on everything, but I do have to disagree on the assertion of Romney and McCain. I might have considered McCain, although my first choice was Hillary. However he kept appearing crass, and any progress he'd made was wiped out in his choice of running mate. Then of course dear Mitt was running around the globe offending everyone and promising to run it like he did Bain - in which case we might have seen parts of the US purchased by China by now.

The problem is that there is no balance and exchange of ideas and debate. Republicans are following a line of 'purity' and as such go further and further to the right, so that a 'moderate' has no place. More and more the Democrats are the big tent pole party and any politician with a streak of cooperation and moderation is forced to be a Dem. I am not against conservatism, as an ideal, but what is presented as conservatism now is really nothing more than lies. The party of small government, that wants to outlaw gays. The party of job creators that spent most of it's time regulating women's uterus's. I think that we are in a unique time in history, with the devolving, ever more right leaning Republican's swirling the drain until they push the far right out, or the folks with conservative ideals but who aren't zealots form a third party. More than ever, with the tea party and the religious folk pushing people - hell, maybe Obama would have been a repub.

But he's still better than Romney, in spite of the things I wish he'd do better.

Link to comment

My statement that we might as well have elected McCain or Romney was sarcasm. I would still vote for Obama, despite the cowardice and lack of judgement he has shown in dealing with the Republicans. In the health care debate, he compromised away the public option and the single-payer option right off the bat in an attempt to get Republican support before he even began. He was governing then not as a President or a leader, but as a community organizer seeking to build consensus. That doesn't work in the White House. A President has to lead.

Even worse, he gave legitimacy to the Republican tactic of holding the economy hostage on the last debt ceiling vote by agreeing to negotiate. He should never have strengthened them by doing so. He should have said, "The United States does not negotiate with terrorists," which is precisely what the Republicans were acting like. You do not threaten to destroy the full-faith and credit of the US Government over cheap political tricks and he should have said so. He has shown very little backbone in standing up to them and that is more the point I was trying to make with my sarcastic remark about McCain and Romney.

I, too, supported Hillary over Obama for the nomination in '08, though I wonder now who among the Democrats I trust in 2016 to stand up to the intelligence community. I have absolutely no faith that Hillary will and she is too cozy with the big money people her husband courts. She is almost like a Republican-- well, the way Republicans used to be before they drank the Kool-Aid and lost their minds.

As for Australia, Abbot and the Coalition won. I am sorry for Australia. I can understand the disillusionment with Labor over the constant leadership battles between Rudd and Gillard. I just hope by 2016 and the next election they sort it out. And, I rather hope Abbot, as one commentator suggested, goes too far to the right and the country rebels. That's my hope for America, as well, that the Republicans go too far and nominate someone scary such as Cruz.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...