Coming into the final straight now, which means its time for each of the big parties to do what they can to squash the potential Greens vote with some last-minute smears they won’t have time to counter.
But there are so many contradictory lines to choose from!
Please help out your local Liberal/ALP campaign by nominating the lines below that are most likely to frighten you off voting Greens.
- The Greens are too idealistic/The Greens have sold out.
- The Greens are in bed with the ALP/The Greens are in bed with the Liberals.
- The Greens care too much about climate change/Voting against the ETS, even if it was a step backwards, shows the Greens don’t care enough about climate change.
- The Greens are too inflexible to negotiate/The Greens will compromise with the big party you dislike the most.
- The Greens look after the interests of rich elitists/The Greens look after the interests of poor no-hopers who don’t deserve our sympathy.
- The Greens are new and scary/The Greens are just another party no different from the rest.
- Bob Brown is old and will probably be replaced/Bob Brown rules the Greens with an iron fist.
- A vote for the Greens will make no difference/A vote for the Greens risks whichever big party you dislike the most.
- ADDED: The Greens are all taxes and punishing the wealthy purely out of spite/the Greens are outrageous spendthrifts who have no means of paying for the public services they advocate.
Please remind me in the comments of any I’ve forgotten.
And thank you for doing your part to defend the status quo.
ELSEWHERE: Isn’t it nice to see what the miners’ continuing pro-Liberal anti-ALP advertising campaign has bought them in promises of public money by the Liberals?
UPDATE: And GetUp! presents a scorecard for the parties on issues that actually make a difference to people’s lives:
I suppose now they’ll be accused of being a Greens “front”.
UPDATE #2: Make Poverty History also have a scorecard.
UPDATE #3: From the subsequent post, another contradictory attack, added to the list above: the Greens are all taxes and punishing the wealthy just out of spite/the Greens are outrageous spendthrifts who have no means of paying for the public services they advocate. If we portray them as either all spending or all taxes, then we can make them look alternately irresponsible or penny-pinching, even though when put together those attacks make no sense.
Moved On 
NSW-specific, but you missed:
Lee Rhiannon’s parents were communists
Not only her parents, but Rhiannon was a member of the CPA as well. And when the SPA split from the CPA (because the SPA supported the Russians sending tanks into Czechoslovakia to put down the Prague Spring of 1967) Rhiannon joined the SPA. Watermelon anyone?
Well, to be fair, in first year Uni I joined the Liberal Party. You’re not seriously suggesting I’m still a conservative, are you?
We all make silly mistakes when young that we are now embarrassed about, SB.
I was a Young Liberal, moved up to the LP and became president of my branch and delegate to state and federal councils etc. (I left the party in 1982 because of JWH – I had his number even way back then!)
The blind stupidity of youth.
Go the Greens.
Joining a democratic party such as the Libs is quite different to supporting the Soviets as they roll in the tanks to crush a nascent flowering of democratic spirit.
You might as well damn anyone who was a member of the Liberals in the 1960s when they supported apartheid.
Didn’t know the Libs had an apartheid policy. But do I admit I have particular contempt for the way the left gives a pass to old commos, as though they were somehow different to old Nazis. It is also no surprise to see the gullible hacks who took their marching orders from the murderous and discredited Soviet system re-surfacing in the Greens. It’s time for purge, comrade.
SB, a lot of communists left the party after 56, even more after 68. Others stayed in the party and expressed dissenting views. I’d strongly recommend “What’s Left?” by Eric Aarons for an insiders account (though he certainly has his own prejudices). I knocked about with quite a few old communists in my youth (through family connections rather than political affiliation) and I am reasonably confident in saying that none of them ever operated gas chambers, if such was your point.
“Liberals in the 1960s when they supported apartheid.
Or members of Thatchers government that supported apartheid way into the 80’s.
Even today:
(James) Gerald (Douglas) Howarth (born 12 September 1947) known as Gerald Howarth is a Conservative MP and right-wing operative. He is a former banker and pro-apartheid campaigner.
What is it with the right and their support for foul racist policies?
And there are the useful idiots of the right who support the murderous Pinochet regime.. Like Thatcher herself, that darling of the wingnuts.
“the murderous and discredited Soviet system re-surfacing in the Greens.
LOL
Redravens most Nazi supporters didn’t gas anyone either. Still they are now rightly derided for their fascist tendencies. I don’t see why the same rule should not apply to old commos.
Walter Duranty reported for the NYT from Moscow in the 30s and reported the communist line. He got the Pulitzer prize for his efforts. Malcolm Muggeridge reported for the Guardian. He actually left Moscow, went to the Ukraine, and saw the government induced famine which led to the starvation of millions. He was sacked by the Guardian for his efforts.
While the useful idiots who eventually recanted early are better than than others who continued to make excuses, what rankles is the hideous naiveté of the so-called intellectuals who were so willing to suspend belief and the free pass given to them now, as though they should be taken to be serious human beings. If you listen to LNL regularly you will get a good dose of hagiography of the old left.
My experience at uni was regular discussion with CPA SPA Trot Maoist and other factions. It took about 3 months to work out that these people were at best totally delusional. I remember a speech by James McAuley where he noted that even though he supported democratic regimes he was regularly reviled as a fascist by those supported tyrannical versions of communism.
It may be that I am getting a bit twisted with age, seeking revenge on old opponents who were clearly shown to be wrong. But even today you see the those who idolise Che and respect Castro yet revile Pinochet when all had done bad things. At least Pinochet murdered far less people, eventually stood down from power, and left his country with a far healthier economy than you find in Cuba now after 50 years of Castro family dictatorship.
Among the intellectual elite there is still massive tolerance of failed ideas, still a vibrant leftist dream of a better future, but absolutely no understanding of the defects inherent in leftist thinking and no recognition of the grotesque flaws of the useful idiots who have become more like folk heroes. What you see is the blind optimism that characterises free market fundamentalists. In both cases this represents a massive failure to think clearly about what works and what is possible. A sceptical approach is always preferable to being on one side or the other. Ideology is the enemy of rational thought.
And I do love how mild socialism (as practiced in a lot of WESTERN europe) suddenly becomes murderous, genocidal communism.
“It may be that I am getting a bit twisted with age
You don’t say, ah well, glad you’ve got a credible excuse for your ridiculous rants.
Pinochet murdered far less people
Oh, that’s OK then, only 4 000, by comparison the moors murderers are saints!
“) suddenly becomes murderous, genocidal communism.”
Heh, it’s par for the course for SB, mention ‘the left’ and he froths at the mouth.
Pingback: This is as terrible as we could make them sound | An Onymous Lefty
Yeah, to me mild socialism is things like public roads, state schools, public medicine, really evil, murderous stuff……..
Australian Christian Values also has a sweet election scorecard. Oddly enough, there don’t seem to be that many Christian values on there–you know in terms of stuff Jeebus actually talked about. Not surprisingly, almost total Greens FAIL. To their credit, they are looking after God’s Green Earth. Also, Labor should sue. They got a big, nasty cross on rejecting same-sex marriage. Pretty sure they’re on board there. There are some perfect score options too though to help youse out on Saturday, especially if you’re voting below the line:
http://www.christianvalues.org.au/check_list.html
What has SB to say about the military dictatorship of Argentina during the Dirty War?
Considering they murdered a heck of a lot more people than in Chile.
And considering the economy was definitely left in ruins there. (please, don’t say it was all Menem’s fault. Please, don’t go down that path)
And considering they followed the same ideology as that pursued in Chile (and other dictatorships including Paraguay).
But, of course, they fought against Thatcher, right, SB? That means they were all lefties, huh? Hey, SB gets himself off the hook yet again!!
“What has SB to say about the military dictatorship of Argentina during the Dirty War
Propped up by Reagan, another darling of the wingnuts, hell Thatcher would have supported it before that murderous bastard Galtieri garrisoned the Malvinas.
What about that disgusting regime SB? They fucked the economy too so you can’t give them praise like you gave praise to Pinochet.
An honest mind will be sceptical of all sides and equally critical of leftist tyrants and the useful idiots who support them as they are critical of other tyrants. Ideology is the enemy of rational thought. It is much better disdain the consolation of belonging to a tribe or party and rather to approach all sides with a critical spirit. I really don’t get why people think that adoption of the leftist label is indicative of anything other than their mushy-mindedness.
But SB, your an ironed on member of the right, you are blinded by ideology, why else would you make so many over the top rants when talking about ‘the left’?
Only a complete wingnut would make the following excuse for a murderous bastard:
“At least Pinochet murdered far less people, eventually stood down from power, and left his country with a far healthier economy than you find in Cuba now after 50 years of Castro family dictatorship. ”
I don’t make excuses for Stalin, Mao, Pot etc, they’re utter bastards, all of them.
RobJ I am not a member of the right. And I am not blinded by ideology, although I believe a bit of forthright criticism is a valuable contribution to the dialectic.
Illiteracy is such a bitch. If you’d read what I actually said (that both Castro and Pinochet had done bad things) you would have understood I wasn’t making excuses for Pinochet, but rather comparing him to Castro. BTW neither of those two are in the same class as the monsters you mentioned, each of whom murdered millions.
“At least Pinochet murdered far less people, eventually stood down from power, and left his country with a far healthier economy than you find in Cuba”
“At least”? Meaning there was SOMETHING of merit? That’s what I understand about the phrase “at least”, in spite of my bitchy illiteracy.
Sounds like you’re making the same sorts of apologies for this brutal dictator that you accuse your “rusted-on” leftist former student peers of making. (is that grammatically correct? feel like I’m getting twisted up, here)
“An honest mind will be sceptical of all sides and equally critical of leftist tyrants and the useful idiots who support them as they are critical of other tyrants. ”
Remind us which rightwing blogs you hang out at on a near-daily basis making criticism of tribal rightwingers, so we don’t continue thinking you are a hypocrite in denial about where you fall on the political spectrum. You can fool yourself, apparently, but rest assured you fool nobody here.
“Yeah, to me mild socialism is things like public roads, state schools, public medicine, really evil, murderous stuff……..”
First they built the public roads, and I said nothing because I drove a car…
Stop it RM, you are parsing me to death. My point was simple – Castro and Pinochet both did bad things, but at least Pinochet was better in specified ways. The phrase “at least” is a way of differentiating the two. It cannot be reasonably construed as excusing the bad things that Pinochet actually did. If I was excusing Pinochet, I might have tried to argue that he mainly murdered leftist ratbags so he wasn’t that bad after all, but I didn’t put that argument because it is wrong.
“ First they built the public roads, and I said nothing because I drove a car…”
Buns you are the most useless of useful idiots, tottering on the edge of reality as you are, but saved from insanity by a few spectacularly funny quips like your last.
Do you hold yourself to that principle ,SB?
As noted by others, you only seem to unleash your vituperation towards those ‘of the Left’, although I note with pleasure your jab at ‘free market fundamentalists’.
I would argue that extremes of ideology are the enemy of rational thought. A sound ideology, coupled with compromise and flexibility of thought, is not an unhealthy way of deciding public policy.
Unfortunately, compromise and flexibility are anethema to extremists.
My experience at uni was regular discussion with CPA SPA Trot Maoist and other factions. It took about 3 months to work out that these people were at best totally delusional.
My experience at university was that everyone was delusional.
We thought that we would takwe the world by storm. We thought that our academic efforts would lay waste to the legacy of our predecessors. We thought that we were thinking in ways that nobody else did. In fact, we thought that we were the only ones who were actually thinking.
Some of us thought we could change the world and some of us though that we would rule the world.
The point is that if, all these years later, you’re still tilting at those windmills, then maybe you should consider whether that’s the best use of your energy and talent.
You can’t seriously think that our (Australia’s) social and political institutions are so weak that they can be jeopardised by voting for somebody who was a Commie over thirty years ago?
Canberra has an homogenising effect that knocks those radical edges off its’ politicians.
Just look at Peter Garrett!
Finally, I think that this idea that one side of politics bears more responsibility for death and destruction than the other is utterly ridiculous and juvenile.
Murderous bastards while do, say and be anything to obtain and keep power.
The Twentieth Century was a time of massive upheaval when the social order was turned on it’s head.
Socialism, Communism and Maoism was the anti-establishment camouflage used by those wanting to wrest power from the historical and hereditary holders of same.
The cause of the class underdog, like ‘Howards’ Battlers’, was used to grab power by they who couldn’t give a fuck about those who’s cause they profess to champion.
If we have any wish to improve the manner by which we govern ourselves, then we should be ever vigilant and suspicious of the motives of those who claim to act for our* benefit.
To wit, those Rolex revolutionaries who bankrolled the downfall of a democratically elected government in order to protect their mining profits.
Finally, I’m very pleased that you chose not to bring up the name of Hugo Chavez when talking about LatAm dictators and failed Socialism.
Perhaps it was simply an oversight or, perhaps, it was a tacit ackowledgement of the fact that, after 11 years and many free and fair elections, the Chavez Government has actually taken what was once the poorest country in South America and lifted its’ ranking to number three behind Chile and Argentina.
Regardless of political colour, helping bring people out of poverty is always something to be congratulated.
Don’t you agree?
Cheers
Follow-up edits.
1./Para five should be in block quotes as they are SB’s word.
2./The asterisk in the phrase act for our* benefit should have refered to a footnote that claiming that by “our” I meant those that seek no power or wealth above the norm.
3./In the same paragraph as above the phrase downfall of a democratically elected government should read downfall of a democratically elected Prime Minister
Wouldn’t it be nice if WordPress could come up with a Preview function?
Cheers.
Marek: “ Do you hold yourself to that principle ,SB?”
No one is perfect, but please bear in mind that here I am generally reacting to the leftist tone of the place. I certainly used very strong language regarding the Lying Rodent. I often give people the benefit of the doubt, and then unload on them when they don’t deliver – I favoured Obama for the Presidency, and Rudd for PM, but became highly critical of both after I saw them in office.
AS to ideology, I certainly think the stronger the ideology, the greater the perversion. Ideology is effectively just another word for prejudice.
“ My experience at university was that everyone was delusional.
We thought that we would take the world by storm. We thought that our academic efforts would lay waste to the legacy of our predecessors. ”
That was certainly my experience of leftists, who were the majority of the population. My problem was that modern universities favour the new over what was true. In that sense I have long been a conservative. Maybe Aristotle got to me with all that blather about the golden mean. All these years later I still see a great unlearning going on, a process of forgetting the past in favour of the latest fad.
“ You can’t seriously think that our (Australia’s) social and political institutions are so weak that they can be jeopardised by voting for somebody who was a Commie over thirty years ago?
”
My point is that someone so delusional really shouldn’t be in parliament. There are some reports that she remained supportive until the fall of the Soviet Union. She should clarify that. I don’t think Peter Garrett is an example of anything good at all. At least he stood for something once.
“ Finally, I think that this idea that one side of politics bears more responsibility for death and destruction than the other is utterly ridiculous and juvenile.
Murderous bastards while do, say and be anything to obtain and keep power.
The Twentieth Century was a time of massive upheaval when the social order was turned on it’s head.
Socialism, Communism and Maoism was the anti-establishment camouflage used by those wanting to wrest power from the historical and hereditary holders of same.
The cause of the class underdog, like ‘Howards’ Battlers’, was used to grab power by they who couldn’t give a fuck about those who’s cause they profess to champion.
”
We would do well to recognise the type of system which encourages tyrants – anything that needs to limit freedom to achieve its ends is suspect, be it the need to attack a particular group or class or the need to control the economy. The call for violent revolution, the need to break eggs to make the omelette or the need to call in the military to restore order are usually signs of tyranny to come.
Communism requires state control, and inevitably leads to tyranny. There really isn’t another way to do it. Some tyrants were worse than other, but human nature eventually prevailed.
“ The cause of the class underdog, like ‘Howards’ Battlers’, was used to grab power by they who couldn’t give a fuck about those who’s cause they profess to champion.”
I think you are misreading this. The Libs had a genuine desire to improve the lives of their constituents. Also those people were regularly disparaged as rednecks and ridiculed by pompous ignorant turds like David Williamson. In the words of Kim Beazley Sr the ALP is now populated by the dregs of the middle class rather than the cream of the working class.
“ Regardless of political colour, helping bring people out of poverty is always something to be congratulated.”
I heartily agree with this. I didn’t include Chavez because in spite of his defects he hasn’t murdered too many people yet, and his country hasn’t fallen apart. Land reform and the promotion of small farmers may even do some good. We should look at Venezuela and see what’s gone wrong, and what’s worked. Chavez is certainly no friend of free speech and he does behave like a populist loon.
Electronic Frontiers have a scorecard as well.
“Illiteracy is such a bitch.”
You should bear that in mind before you write:
“At least”
Besides, I highlight in the other thread how you are prone to critisising what you call ‘the left’ whilst ‘the right’ are guilty of the exact same things (waste)
You’re just like that trollumnist idiot at News.com who claims that just because he doesn’t address certain foul right wing posts doesn’t mean that he supports them, but he doesn’t miss a beat when it comes to critisising posts made by those with a dissenting view. This is your MO as well.
You froth at the mouth, call everybody else left of you ‘the left’ and then claim you’re not the one blinded by ideology! LOL
RobJ: “You froth at the mouth, call everybody else left of you ‘the left’ and then claim you’re not the one blinded by ideology!”
In case you didn’t notice, I also criticise non-leftists and non-leftist positions. It must be your ideology that renders you blind to those statements.
Also, the fact that I criticise ideology is not evidence that I am blinded by ideology. The fact is that here there is an abundance of leftist ideologues here like your good self, so it is not surprising that my criticisms of ideology are pointed in that direction.
In your case your blindness and your ideology have a joint common cause, which is no doubt the same cause as that of your chronic wrist strain.
At the risk of Godwining this thread SB you know who else positively transformed the economy of European nation in the thirties? You wont hear many saying ‘at least he transformed the economy’
Also this is your business so I understand if you don’t want to answer (even though your anonymous on this blog) but can I ask who you intend voting for on Saturday?
“nything that needs to limit freedom to achieve its ends is suspect, be it the need to attack a particular group or class or the need to control the economy.”
Like the way the Liberals attack asylum seekers? You know ‘armadas’, ‘peaceful invasion’ Labor aren’t much better, the Greens on the other hand………
“The call for violent revolution,”
Something the rightards and Tea Party types do regularly, don’t believe me? Go and read the responses the Trollumnist gets.
“Also those people were regularly disparaged as rednecks”
Many of them ARE rednecks, Howard Battler Number One; Jackie Kelly, (I couldn’t remember her first name, I Googled ‘Howard battler kelly’ LOL) Very telling that you describe someone who calls out the rednecks as an ‘ignorant turd’.
“It must be your ideology that renders you blind to those statements.”
OK then clever clogs, what is my ideology?
“Also, the fact that I criticise ideology is not evidence that I am blinded by ideology.”
No it’s your ridiculous rants at anyone (which is most decent people) who stand to the left of you.
“In your case your blindness and your ideology have a joint common cause, which is no doubt the same cause as that of your chronic wrist strain.”
Marvellous, can’t win the debate the so you just call me a wanker.
originally posted at 12:56 and stuck in moderation:
At the risk of Godwining this thread SB you know who else positively transformed the economy of European nation in the thirties? You wont hear many saying ‘at least he transformed the economy’
Also this is your business so I understand if you don’t want to answer (even though your anonymous on this blog) but can I ask who you intend voting for on Saturday?
“nything that needs to limit freedom to achieve its ends is suspect, be it the need to attack a particular group or class or the need to control the economy.”
Like the way the Liberals attack asylum seekers? You know ‘armadas’, ‘peaceful invasion’ Labor aren’t much better, the Greens on the other hand………
“The call for violent revolution,”
Something the rightards and Tea Party types do regularly, don’t believe me? Go and read the responses the Trollumnist gets.
“Also those people were regularly disparaged as rednecks”
Many of them ARE rednecks, Howard Battler Number One; Jackie Kelly, (I couldn’t remember her first name, I Googled ‘Howard battler kelly’ LOL) Very telling that you describe someone who calls out the rednecks as an ‘ignorant turd’.
Shit – sorry, I guess I have to work out which words are making some of my posts get stuck in moderation, you know it makes no sense to me that my 12:56 post is stuck but my 12:58 is published.. It’s hard to ‘debate’ when this happens.
RobJ, as far as going back to the argument goes, I had already answered your point regarding the meaning of “at least”:
You didn’t address this at all.
Yes I did! I’m even prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you made a poor choice of words, but to claim I’m illiterate because of your poor wording I think is poor form.
I wish my rebuttal of one of your recent posts wasn’t stuck in moderation.
RobJ, I can’t help you much with your inability to reasonably construe my comment. The context was my contention that the left treat Castro much more kindly than they treat Pinochet even though Pinochet was not as bad as Castro. My statement acknowledged that they both did bad things. I then name a couple of things that Pinochet did better than Castro. I really don’t know what is so difficult about this argument. At no point did I attempt to justify the bad things. That is an entirely different argument to the one I actually presented.
In this contest ‘at least’ means something look ‘as compared to’. It invites a comparison between Pinochet and Castro. It doesn’t mean ‘killing people was OK because Pinochet also did some good’. I had already stated that they had both done bad things. At no stage did I try to ‘justify’ the killing.
I meant ‘context’ not ‘contest’.
And the some on the right think Pinochet did no wrong (Norman Lamont, Margare Thatcher). Personally I think they’re both wrong!
“I then name a couple of things that Pinochet did better than Castro. ”
But you don’t acknowledge the good things that Castro did (You realise that Cuba has a better literacy rate than the US?) I wouldn’t have a problem except you acknowledged that Pinochet was good for the economy. The only treason I’m stating anything ‘good’ about Castro is to highlight your folly in your tendency to scream ‘the left, the left……..’ Even when you are talking about people FIRMLY RIGHT OF CENTRE (but to the left of you).
“I really don’t know what is so difficult about this argument.”
Yeah, that’s because you are what you accuse others of – blinded by ideology, you’re a hypocrite.
“In this contest ‘at least’ means something look ‘as compared to’. It invites a comparison between Pinochet and Castro. It doesn’t mean ‘killing people was OK because Pinochet also did some good’. I had already stated that they had both done bad things. At no stage did I try to ‘justify’ the killing.”
Like I say, I point out the evils of Pinochet, a darling of the right that you compare with Castro but refuse to acknowledge that not everything Castor did was evil……
One more time SB, what is the ideology I’m supposedly blinded by?
arrrgh moderation queue, you’ll have to wait for the rebuttal I posted SB, in the meantime, tell me which ideology I’m blinded by?
RobJ: “But you don’t acknowledge the good things that Castro did “
This is beside the point. Your argument was that by using the words “at least” I was somehow excusing the murders carried out by Pinochet. You now appear to have abandoned that insupportable argument and moved on to a discussion of their overall merits.
“what is the ideology I’m supposedly blinded by?”
Firstly, you claimed I am blinded by ideology, a patently absurd statement as I am not ideological at all.
Second, although I considered the proposition that you may have been blinded by ideology in one comment above, you will no doubt recall that in that comment I came to the by now self-evident conclusion that it wasn’t ideology that was blinding you after all.