PAF - you do neither yourself nor the Government's cause any good by resorting to abuse. What they can't stand is rational argument - so let me have a go, for all the good it will do.
Let's get some ground rules understood first though. As a relatively educated audience, Im sure we can all accept that politics - like life - isn't all black and white. However, the great bulk of the electorate isn't particularly sophisticated, nor engaged when it comes to matters political and economic. That, combined with the dominance of the ten-second media grab, is why the arguments are mostly grossly over-simplified. Ergo, when it comes to interest rates, the message is "Howard - good. Latham - bad" - even though the truth is probably somewhere in between.
So, that understood, why vote for Howard? Probably the biggest reason is he lives in the real world. He's flint-hard, pragmatic, and in most cases will do "whatever it takes" to get the right outcome as he perceives it. That could be on trade policy, illegal immigrants or war on Saddam Hussein.
Paradoxically this realism - what I see as his greatest strength - is also what his enemies hate most about him. (Note that when I say enemies, I'm not talking about your average Labor voter. I'm talking about your real rusted-on, venomous Howard-hater - the likes of Philip Adams, Tony Kevin, Margo Kingston and our very own Mr ****su-Tonka.)
Having said that Howard lives in the real world, my thesis is that these people largely live on an entirely different planet from most of us. For the purposes of this illustration, why don't we call it "Planet Adams", after it's most long-standing, bilious and vocal resident. What would life be like there, you ask? Well, let me give you just a taste.
On Planet Adams, the Prime Minister of Australia is Public Enemy Number 2 (the President of the USA having nabbed top billing). It is perfectly acceptable - nay, compulsory - for residents to routinely refer to the PM as a rodent, a creep and a liar. Of course, that rule only works one way. Should members of the Government dare to question the motivation or agenda of, for example, the 43 self-appointed guardians of the public good, or perhaps disgruntled ex-staffers, then they are to be attacked as "playing the man" - resorting to personal attacks rather than a policy critique. Remember that next time you hear the "R" and "L" words bandied about. My guess is that you won't have to wait long.
Part of this strategy is to obfuscate on the issues. Therefore, all you ever hear about children overboard is that "Howard lied". Now it is true that children (on SIEV4, anyway) were not heaved over the side. However, as the logs of the HMAS Adelaide show quite clearly, the boat was subsequently sabotaged by the passengers - causing it to sink and putting everyone, not just the children, into the water. That's a bit inconvenient though, so we won't get into that - that liar Howard is the only issue here, remember.
Also on Planet Adams, the nation's present economic success has absolutely nothing to do with the Government, or eight years of good management by Howard and Costello. Apparently everyone in the world's doing well. The countries to our north - recovering from the Asian economic crisis which Australia curiously avoided - were presumably just unlucky.
This world view would have you believe that if Simon Crean became Treasurer on Ocotber 9 (and never forget that's exactly what we're talking about here) then the good times would just keep on rolling.
Now Mr Tonka will no doubt say that I'm just regurgitating propaganda - and to some extent he's right. It's that black and white portrayal again. There's no doubt that some of the success we currently enjoy is as a result of the structural reforms of the Hawke and Keating Governments. But is it true to say that economic success or failure has absolutely nothing to do with the Government? Was Paul Keating responsible for 1 million unemployed and 17% interest rates all on his own? Of course not. Underlying fundamentals had something to do with it. But did he contribute to them with ill-judged fiscal responses? Absolutely.
Therefore, when the Government seeks to draw a distinction on economic management, it's quite entitled to do so, and to claim some credit for record low unemployment, unprecedented economic growth and a huge reduction in public debt. Similarly, the statement that "average interest rates have been higher under Labor than the Coalition" isn't propaganda - it's a historical fact.
What about foreign policy? On Planet Adams, we're hated around the world for our alliance with the US. From where I sit, we're on the same sheet of music as the United States and Britain, (not to mention Singapore, Japan, South Korea.....etc.) Particularly in the case of the former two, they are our greatest historical allies, and the nations with which we have the most congruent world view. I'm sorry, but if the price of that alliance is being disliked by the Germans (not that I think for a minute that that's true), then I'm afraid I think we've picked the right team.
A corollory of this argument is that we're even more hated in the region than we used to be. Presumably that's why under this Government, our trade with China has increased by 300%, we've signed a free trade agreement with Thailand, done the courageous thing in East Timor but stayed on speaking terms with Indonesia, and now have unprecedented influence in the South Pacific.
On Planet Adams, the big old cuddly UN will fix all the world's problems. Nothing must be done without their imprimatur. Therefore, we should all return to our homes and wait for the UN to follow up their spectacular successes in Rwanda, Somalia, the Balkans and the Middle East. World peace will be delivered shortly.
By contrast, Howard lives in the real world. He knows that 10 years of violated Security Council resolutions on Iraq turned out not to be worth the paper they were written on. The UN squibbed it in the end, and vested interests meant nothing would ever have been done about Saddam. However, on Planet Adams, because the French and the Russians wouldn't give us approval, that would have been it. Presumably poor old Hans Blix would still have been chasing shadows while Saddam relaxed in the palace in Baghdad.
Howard also knows that a UN resolution to authorise the successful Solomon islands operation would never have been possible - because Taiwan is a donor to the Solomons, China just wasn't interested in helping. So on planet Howard, we do what we did in Iraq - put together a coalition of like minded nations and get on with the job. Fortunately there was still enough of a government there to invite us in. God knows what would have happened on Planet Adams.
On Planet Adams, the US is not the victim of September 11 - it's actually all their fault! Terrorism is nothing to do with Islamofacism, religious hatred, woefully low education standards and the fatuous oligarchies so prevalent in the Muslim world - it's actually caused by McDonald's and Coca Cola trying to take over the world.
Meanwhile, residents of the planet cry crocodile tears and fill acres of newsprint over David Hicks (a man who watched 9/11 on TV and went out and picked sides) but never mention Sergeant Andrew Russell. He's the Australian SAS member that died in Afghanistan while putting the skids under the repulsive Taliban, and helping to root out Al-Qaeda from their caves. Remember that Howard commitment? Didn't think so.
I could go on, but I've lost the rage (and probably the audience). If I can summon it up again, I might deal with the rubbish about the $100 000 uni degrees.
But that's it in a nutshell. If you think that the times demand a hard PM, with runs on the board on issues from defence to the economy, then vote Howard.
If you think that Australia needs a violent, foul mouthed yob from Western Sydney as PM instead, then good on you - vive la democracy! I'm off to lock in my home loan for three years on fixed interest.