« Afghanistan, Our Narco-Warlords vs the Taliban's. Who's Winning? | Main | Lt. Gen. Sanchez Supports Dems Plan for Withdrawal »

Australian Tsunami of Change Hopefully Headed Our Way

Back in February of 2007 four-term Australian Prime Minister John Howard, leader of Australia's "liberal" party (a misnomer since four terms of John Howard's leadership saw the party strongly embrace social conservatism) and a strong ally and supporter of President Bush, said al-Qaeda was praying for a Barack Obama win in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election.

Today Australian voters said they don't want John Howard's failed leadership anymore, and kicked this Bush butt-kisser out of office.

Prime Minister John Howard of Australia suffered a comprehensive defeat today, with a coalition led by his Liberal Party losing its majority in parliament. [...]

The attempts by Mr. Howard's coalition to stress their economic record failed to impress voters. The Australian economy has had 17 years of continuous growth, in latter years driven by Chinese demand for Australian iron ore and coal, and he had warned voters that a Labor victory would endanger the country's future prosperity.

But despite the coalition campaign, there was little distance between the two parties on economic policy, and the defining characteristics came down to the personalities of the leaders and Labor's promise to readdress broad concerns about the environment, health and education. Mr. Howard, 68, was running for a record fifth term in office, but many voters said they were ready for a change.

Kevin Rudd, the new Prime Minister, has promised to sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming immediately and withdraw Australia's combat troops from Iraq quickly. Australians have voted positively for a referendum of change, tired of the failed policies and empty rhetoric of the old regime which -- as was so aptly demonstrated in Howard's attack on Obama -- seeks to divide the world and foster conflict instead of resolution.

Howard's specific attack against Obama back in February, 2007 read like this:

In a strongly worded foray into US politics today, Mr Howard said an Obama victory in the presidential election would be disastrous for the war on terrorism.

"I think he's wrong. I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory," Mr Howard said on Channel 9.

PM Howard clearly demonstrated his leadership failures in his support of Bush and attack on Barack, and Australians made a choice for change and denied Howard's re-election in a move that reflects the same frustration expressed by Americans 'from sea to shining sea.'

There simply is no room in the world for the failed strategies of conservatives like Bush and Howard, and with this election we're seeing signs that voters are waking up to that and making a difference in the voting booth.

The need for change and new directions is a world-wide imperative, and here's hoping the wave of change that began yesterday with John Howard's ouster in Australia reaches our shores 12 months from now.

UPDATE: Prime Minister Rudd is moving quickly on his promises.

The day after sweeping to power in general elections, Rudd went straight into work mode, holding meetings with government officials about the mechanics of signing the Kyoto Protocol on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. [...]

Britain, New Zealand and Indonesia noted that Rudd's election would boost international efforts to address climate change - ousted Prime Minister John Howard had refused to sign the Kyoto pact.

Malaysia's leader said Rudd's plan to pull Australia's 550 combat troops from Iraq would also improve the country's international standing, the Malaysian national news agency Bernama reported.

The world will rejoice with the end of the conservatives' reign in our country. It's a shame we have to wait another year to show the world that we realize the mistakes we made in putting and keeping Republicans in power here in the U.S.

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.8/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.8/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (6)


"Rudd, the New Prime Minister, has promised to sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming immediately and withdraw Australia's combat troops from Iraq quickly. Australians have voted positively for a referendum of change, tired of the failed policies and empty rhetoric of the old regime..." -- Lee

It's our turn next year.

Steve Crickmore:

Lee, "don't forget Poland"


Then There Was One: U.S. Now Alone as Kyoto Holdout


Damn shortsighted conservatives.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Jo re: France - they voted for change too - the pendulums are indeed swinging away from what was and in a new direction, even in France. The same will happen here.

Herman re Kyoto and warming - This is Bush's biggest blunder by far. I can see how Bush's stupdity lead him into Iraq -- but it's just plain republican sliminess to have denied and dragged their heels on Global WamRMng this long -- and I have to admit that Paul at our sister site Wizbang had to have been the last holdout of denial, and undoubtedly provided the most amazing display of gross denial of reality for political gain I've witnessed n the blogosphere.

Steve - Poland - another excellent example of change for the better.


Do you little boys here know how to actually read yet?

Didn't think so.

You keep blaming Bush for not ratifying Kyoto. So tell me something.

The Kyoto treaty was signed by one Albert Arnold Gore Jr. on December 11, 1997. The Clinton Administration didn't end until January 20, 2001. By my math, the Clinton Administration had a bit more than three whole years to ratify the treaty.

(Oh, and yes, the Senate was still held by a Democrat majority, and the Congress' Republican majority was weakened in the 1996 elections.)

So if Billy Jeff had three years to get the treaty ratified by the Senate before he left office, why didn't he do it?


Looks like you have one Senator Robert Carlyle Byrd (D-WV) to blame.

You know, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (one of those silly little "Sense of the Senate") thingys.

Oh, yeah, that.

I believe the vote was 95-0 allowing the Senate to resolve the following (emphasis mine):

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the President.

Say what you want about Bush, but at least more often than not, he stands by his convictions. Your silly little Clinton got this "Sense of the Senate" resolution given to him five months prior to the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, and he didn't do a damn thing about it.

Clinton never once so much as even attempted to submit the Protocol to the Senate for ratification in those three years before he left office.


At least Bush has been looking for ways to follow the spirit of Senate Resolution 98 of the first session of the 105th Congress for some years now, instead of just sticking his head in the sand like Clinton did, regarding tangible progress in the area of climate change.

So grow up, and get over it already.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

It's always nice to have a Republican apologist stop by...

So Bill Clinton made Bush not ratify Kyoto? Or was it Jimmy Carter?

No, you claim it was Byrd and Hagel. Senator Byrd grabbed George W. Bush by the nose and forced him to ignore Kyoto...?

No. George W. Bush decided he would do nothing for seven years, and he succeeded - and the whole world knows he's a major-league jackass for doing so.

A lot has changed since George Bush took office seven long years ago - and a lot more is known about Global Warming and its effects and likely outcomes in the seven years that Republicans have continued to deny the problem existed, much less acted.

And you conservatives - as is so typical - choose to blame someone else. The Republican in the White House failed to act, and doesn't have the balls to admit he was wrong. If he didn't like Kyoto he could have proposed something better...

...but turning back the clock seven long years and claiming its the Democrats fault that George W Bush has failed on this issue is just plain bullshit.


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.