yep, the anti-war, environment friendly candidate won the day, if only Americans could elect someone who represents their concerns also.
2007-11-24 07:46:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by . 5
·
4⤊
1⤋
I'd say somewhat. I was in one of those protests with 100,000 others and that's true, there was a wave of support for change back then. However, I think adding in WorkChoices and Howard's disregard of anything to do with the environment played heavily on the minds of voters. Thankfully this time they couldn't see through his promise of keeping interest rates low.
2007-11-25 15:59:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by Aussie Chick 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't think so. I mean, that crazy french guy won, and he was pro-Bush. I think it's more a matter of national issues than international. Though most of the world does indeed hate Bush and Americans in general, those who live in countries that graciously allow them to vote, apparently do take other things into consideration.
2007-11-24 08:20:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nope. It's because the Australian people are getting disgusted with the perpectual Neo-con fear tactics and dirty politics Howard has been using the last few years to separate the country's citizens. Notce that his attempt to 'bribe' the voters just doesn't work either. Looks like Australia is a good model to exhibit that the Neo-Conservatism of the new World Order is breaking down?
2007-11-24 07:52:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by United_Peace 5
·
3⤊
2⤋
Definitely also Howard's proposed Labour Reform Act and his discrimination against minorities, Aboriginals all helped Kevin defeat Howard. I am afraid though that Kevin is too pro US and conservative in domestic poltics. He needs some pressure
2007-11-24 07:47:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
i'm no longer a democrat and in basic terms liberal on social matters, yet particular, I did help him till he invaded a usa which had no longer something to do with 9/11. particular, he became into POTUS, so I supported him after the election with Al Gore, till he invaded Iraq.
2016-10-17 23:57:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by lumley 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am so pleased about this - Howard has been around for years and has been a total reactionary bollock head, refusing to apologise to the indigenous peole about the 'Lost Children' etc, and it probably is his association with Bush that has been part of his downfall, but only part of it - domestically they weren't too pleased about the GST either.
We had the same situation in the UK - Blair really ballsed that up by being so pally with Bush - in England we REALLY hated that, I didn't know anyone who thought that he was doing a good thing, one of the biggest demo's in London ever was in oppostion to the Iraq invasion.
2007-11-24 08:01:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by Ellesar 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
I think it (the war in Iraq) plays a crucial part, of course, but workchoice is definately the main factor for the huge swing we saw yesterday against him...
2007-11-24 18:07:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by disckoala 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
That's probably part of it.
But maybe the other guy had better domestic ideas. Seeing as most Americans don't pay attention to Australian politics, maybe we should ask the Australians.
*calls out*
Yoohoo, Australians, come answer our burning questions, please!
2007-11-24 07:43:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by K 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
Yep and having his head in the sand about Global Warming.
2007-11-24 07:43:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by ideogenetic 7
·
3⤊
1⤋