I don't like howards nuclear policy.
rudds not an option for me

Sprint you still have to choose between them, whoever you give your first preference to. It's probably the most important choice you will make on polling day, in terms of short term consequences.

I tried to watch the debate, but couldn't stand it. I guess I'd heard all the arguments before. I hate the way they try to take credit for every economic blip that occurs. They overstate their role and oversimplfiy the issue to the point of absurdity.

---

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Press-Club-defends-cutting-Nines-feed/2007/10/21/1192940904313.html

The National Press Club has defended its decision to cut the Nine Network television feed from the leaders' debate on Sunday night.

The National Press Club terminated Nine's feed from the Great Hall of Parliament midway through the 90 minute broadcast saying the network had breached an agreement with the coalition and the Labor Party not to use the controversial worm to gauge viewer opinion.

Nine managed to secure a feed of the debate from co-broadcaster Sky News and later accused the Liberal Party of sabotaging the broadcast.

---

Most observers believe Rudd won debate

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Most-observers-believe-Rudd-won-debate/2007/10/21/1192940904527.html

Most people observing Sunday night's leaders' debate say Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd defeated Prime Minister John Howard in the 90-minute debate.

Political commentators assembled by Sky News to observe the debate unanimously awarded the contest to Mr Rudd.

The panel of four journalists - Sky's Kieran Gilbert, The Sydney Morning Herald's Marian Wilkinson, The Australian's Brad Norington and the Sun-Herald's Kerry-Anne Walsh - and body language expert Alan Pease all nominated Mr Rudd as the winner.

Sky News journalist David Speers, who hosted the debate on Sunday night in Parliament House's Great Hall, also awarded the debate to Mr Rudd, though by a narrow margin.

According to the Nine Network's controversial "worm", Mr Rudd won the debate with 65 per cent of viewers' approval, compared to Mr Howard's 29 per cent.

Nine, which used the worm despite objections from Mr Howard, had its feed of the debate from the Great Hall of Parliament cut midway through.

---

Coalition's odds weaken following debate

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Coalitions-odds-weaken-following-debate/2007/10/21/1192940905426.html

The odds of a coalition win in the federal election have lengthened in the wake of the leaders' debate on Sunday night.

Centrebet says all the bets it took during the 90 minute-broadcast were for Labor.

Centrebet now has the coalition's odds at $2.40 out from $2.15.

"At the moment Labor's at $1.58 and still a fairly short favourite," Mr Evans said.

Rival firm Lasseters Sportsbook says Labor also firmed as favourite on their books into $1.60 from $1.70 before the debate.

The coalition has eased from $2.15 to $2.30.

However, deepthought, Rudd is not Beazley or Latham. Big difference. This is one of the reasons he has been doing consistently well in polls all year.

This is a bit hypocritical, after Howard forced Rudd into a debate on fairly short notice, and expecting them to respond to a tax plan they had months to work on in just one week. Hopefull Rudd uses Howard's trick against him and lets it be known he will turn up and debate anyone, with or without Howard. Maybe Howard is just too old and can't handle the late nights?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/PM-rejects-more-debates-with-Rudd/2007/10/22/1192940981403.html

Prime Minister John Howard has knocked back calls for another debate with Labor leader Kevin Rudd, saying Sunday night's head-to-head was extensive and lengthy.

Eager to keep the momentum going, Mr Rudd has offered to debate both Mr Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello, while Labor's treasury spokesman Wayne Swan also wants to debate the treasurer.

PM says he's not behind debate feed pull

national Press Club blames Howard, Howard blames press club:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/PM-says-hes-not-behind-debate-feed-pull/2007/10/22/1192940956417.html

Prime Minister John Howard has denied any responsibility for a decision to pull the Nine Network's broadcast feed during the live televised leaders' debate.

Mr Howard had said before the debate that he did not want the worm, which charts reactions from 90 swinging voters in Nine's studio audience, while Labor leader Kevin Rudd was in favour of it.

But Mr Howard on Monday denied any involvement in the decision to stop the feed.

"The decision about the feed was taken by the National Press Club," Mr Howard told reporters.

Why is it hypocritical to do what you say you're going to do?

The hypocrisy will come out when Rudd sets a date and time and turns up, but Howard doesn't. Then listen to what Howard has to say about it. Or maybe he'll crawl under a rock and hide. Either way it will be interesting.

Also, he criticised Rudd when Rudd tried to get out of the Sunday debate and get a time that they both agreed upon. But now he is doing the same thing he criticised Rudd for. The one debate line may have held water if he hadn't been so stubborn about having the timing all his way.

---

Abbott in denial:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Newspoll-doesnt-reflect-voters-Abbott/2007/10/23/1192941020620.html

The latest Newspoll showing the government falling further behind Labor is radically at odds with the attitudes in the streets, Health Minister Tony Abbott says.

---

This is just getting silly: I challenge you. No, I challenge you!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Costello-challenges-Swan-to-debate/2007/10/22/1192940981403.html

Federal Treasurer Peter Costello has challenged his opposition counterpart Wayne Swan to a debate on the economy in Canberra next week.

You decide to play one match of tennis.  You make it clear that's all you're playing.

This did not come out of a vaccuum. To use your analogy, you responded to repeated requests for a 3 setter from someone with more stamina than you, then you offer to play one set only on short notice - the next morning when you see your opponent out drinking the night before. You invite a heap of people and indicate you will declare your opponent a forfeit if he doesn't turn up.

Are you a hypocrite for only playing the one match even though that's all you ever agreed to play?

It depends on what you say around it. If you admit you tried to stack the odds in your favour with the choice of timing and that your opponent has every right to complain, then you are not a hypocrit. If you pretend you acted with honour and that you opponent is being dishonourable by demanding a 3 setter, then you are a hypocrit.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2007 at 6:22pm:


Well, I don't know about you but if you say you agree to one debate and have one debate then you have fulfilled your promise to have one debate.  I don't see why you're obliged to act according to some bully's goading.

It was always one debate.  That was clear to all (but Kevvy it seems).

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2007 at 7:29pm:


What you mean to say is that in your humble opinion (and it is humble) he is hypocritical.  For in my opinion he is a man of his word.  He did exactly what he said he'd do.  No more, no less.   No hypocrisy there.

I think the whole timing issue made Howard appear childish and stubborn. Perhaps that's why the debate hasn't helped him in the polls (despite the double gazumping).