Full of it
You can hear the plop, plop, plop of suffused leeches dropping off the carcass of the Howard Government, and even bits of its own flesh giving way.
First, we have Jase dissing the sort of people who were once his luncheon companions and column-stuffers. The stuff in the third-last paragraph should have occurred to him much earlier and he should have reported on that basis, were he to have the credibility he lacks now. Margaret Simons from Crikey gave Jase a big rap, but only because she obviously isn't familiar with his tedious oeuvre.
There is a more contemptible example than Jase: this guy has learnt nothing from 11 years of his kinda government and drops his mates in it when they are of no further use to him. He owes the Liberals at least one more
To top it all is this hand-wringing effort worthy of an ABC luvvie:
He is fit, capable and, like that Energizer bunny, he could stay on to fight another fight. But voters appear to have turned off Howard. They appear to have stopped listening. Each new initiative that was meant to deliver a electoral bounce has failed to do so.
Janet, when Howard was announcing each of these new initiatives - what were you doing? You were cheering him on, weren't you. You were sneering at those who said that it wouldn't have the desired effect, weren't you. If Howard goes - at the polls or before - will you go too? Why should Howard alone bear the brunt of the mistakes of yourself and all the other Howard boosters?
The last rabbit Howard should pull out of the hat is Peter Costello.
Those who doubt if such a change (from Howard to Costello) would have much of an impact should reflect on recent events in Britain.
Gordon Brown had established a separate identity to Tony Blair; Peter Costello has kept his powder so dry for so long that it's reasonable to doubt if there's any powder at all.
Most importantly: Gordon Brown doesn't have to go to the polls in a few weeks. In a few weeks, Janet. Peter Costello might be less old than Howard but any notion that he's "fresh" is a joke. It would destroy whatever advantages the Coalition have as incumbents to switch now, rewarding Rudd for not being so flighty with a chance to prove himself.
the same qualities that made and defined Howard as this country’s most successful prime minister, his courage and persistence, may also work towards his eventual electoral ruin and that of the party.
Menzies was this country's most successful Prime Minister, not Howard. If they are the same qualities, you have to wonder whether the qualities you describe were indeed successful, or just chimerical.
There is little nobility in defeat if it means his prime ministership will be forever tainted by him losing his seat.
There is considerable nobility in sticking to your principles, and ignominy in abandoning them for populism which is rewarded only by electoral rout.
It's easy to be wise after the event - what's hard is to be right and to wear the sneers of silly people like Koutsoukis, Bolt and Albrechtsen. You flogged this horse to death, the least you can do is step away from it so that it can be buried decently and curb your hankering for a new ride.
The theme that's clearly emerging is that Howard can do nothing right. Watch for stumbles and bumbles by Coalition figures to fit this. While it would be great to think the MSM will at long last scrutinise government policy, in reality Rudd will get an easy ride and Coalition self-pity will be projected onto the press, which is as fickle as any addictive substance.
Eugene McCarthy said that being in politics is like playing football: you have to be smart enough to understand the game but dumb enough to think it's important. Annabel Crabb demonstrates that she's the latter without being the former, and that like any hopeless addict she's bored by that which she can't leave alone. Oh, and Annabel pet, The Brothers Karamazov is not a "lesser known work". It might not be the cliche that falls out of your head, but that hardly diminishes it.