How has the fact that George Bush answered a question in which he attacked the policies of Australia’s opposition leader gone down in the States? How about if John Howard made a comparable comment about John Kerry, how would that be recieved by the US media?
From the US headline writer’s perspective, Bush was just “reaffirming Australia’s support for troops in Iraq”. It doesn’t look like a story even got printed in most of the papers, like the Washington Post.
That probably says it all :). I imagine 99% of people there dont even know it happened, we’re pretty tiny in the grand scheme.
Otara
Here is an article I found by a right wing hothead at the Washington Times, whose style of writing is like a SDMB OP, more questions than answers.
Sad to report, but I doubt that one person in a thousand in the U.S. could tell you who the Australian Prime Minister is, to say nothing of who the leader of the opposition is. In that respect, GWB’s extremely US-centric view of the world is shared by more of us than we’d like to admit. AFAIK, this story wasn’t reported here at all.
It was around, buried under headlines about how Bush said that pulling out of Iraq would be disastrous. Given how many times we’ve heard this from Bush already, the Latham connection got buried in stories that few people read.
What’s up with Laqtham’s poll numbers these days? He was doing well for as while, but I heard that he just dropped behind by 10 points. Is that for real?
sarcophilus, since your questions don’t have clear factual answers, I’ll move this thread to IMHO.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
The government just released a budget that lowered taxes and increased spending in key areas which sweetened the poll. The latest ‘issue’ hasn’t been reported as having an effect yet, too early. Bush criticising Latham’s position will probably help his standing in the opinion polls rather than detracting from it.
Latham is keeping quiet about it all for good reason. Once again John Howard licks Yank arse and gets Bushie to support him, by slamming Latham, in the upcoming Australian election. Latham will keep pushing Australian identity as an election issue for the next four months. Howard will keep licking Yank arse to the detriment of his re-election strategy. It will come back to bite Howard’s scrawny arse before the dust settles.
As an aside, only a Yank president would have the bloody arrogance to interfere so publicly and blatantly in the election of another, quite sovereign, country’s election. Somehow the Yanks assume the devine right to determine the outcome of another country’s democratic processes. Hell, this is subtle compared to the usual foreign policy sledgehammer approach by the Yanks.
Devine? Write~!
Let’s all keep in mind that Mark Latham did serve George Bush up a big can of whoop ass.
I am so voting for Latham. You gotta love a guy who uses the phrase “conga line of suckholes”. 
The very fact that Bush is against Latham confirms my gut-feeling that he’s the guy to vote for. I imagine many Australians will feel the same, considering the widespread view over here that Bush is a dangerous moron.
If he doesn’t win, can we have him? We really need an opposition leader who will, you know, like, oppose the incumbent.
Latham is a dangerous loose cannon who is only bitter because he couldn’t get any appointments in Washington. YMMV.
As for “kissing Yank arse”, we have an historical alliance with the United States, one that has been supported by Labor as well as the Lib/Nats. Bob Hawke sent forces to the Gulf too.
OK, now we’re in a forum where I can add some opinion.
Doesn’t it matter that Bush was sitting next to Howard at the time of the question? Seriously, he doesn’t want to piss off one of his few allies by saying his opposition has a good plan, in front of him. He had no choice but to come out strongly pro-Howard, and anti-Latham.
If Howard was asked a question about Kerry when he was meeting with Bush, do you really think he would have supported Kerry?
I’d have hoped that Bush would have the sense to decline the question and state that the internal affairs of another democratic, not-completely-sodden-in-oil country had naught to do with him.
This historical alliance has certainly come in to play in the past, with just cause.
I am not the only one in this nation who can see that protecting Kuwait from invading forces can be more seriously justified than this latest scuffle.
This is not the only reason that Howard is a terminal wally either.
Probibly wouldn’t even be recieved. If they did report it most Americans would scratch their heads saying “Who is John Howard?” Sorry, but thats the truth.
Bush says the plan is disasterous, but, based on what he said right after that I don’t think he meant the specific details of Latham’s plan. Bush thinks the whole concept of withdrawing troops under any circumstances would lead to disaster. I’d be surprised if Bush could accurately describe the details of Latham’s plan and I doubt he cares what they are. All he has to hear is that involves removing the Australian troops and that’s enough for him.
For example?
You’re welcome to him. Latham’s an opportunistic, unprincipled fool. He backs the gay-bashing laws Howard is trying to rush through Parliament, and for that reason alone, I will never vote for him.