She was getting pretty desperate by that stage. Any attempt to gain traction. As we know now, it wasn't Tony Abbott she was really worried about so much as another man in a blue tie.
But yes, Moody's <post> went, "
why would any thinking woman vote for Tony Abbott?"
Let's look at that. Let's replace a word. "
why would any thinking person vote for Tony Abbott?"
Perhaps in Moodyland that's an equally valid question, but it was not the question he asked. Instead he played the gender card.
As if the entire election, and beyond it the entire realm of political discourse could be reduced down to a single issue - of gender.
One might as well ask. "
why would any thinking woman vote for Kevin Rudd?"
Kevin Rudd is not a woman either.
If one follows this line of thinking, a thinking woman would vote for Tony Abbott, because his deputy is Julie Bishop. Rudd's deputy is Anthony Albanese.
But I reject all these questions seemingly <only fishing for a response>
It has always been my experience that men and women both display a normal range of human intelligence. Both are equally adept at abstract thinking. Voting on gender alone makes as much sense as voting on any other single issue. Marriage equality, for example. Or unlawful arrivals.
A thinking person would vote on a range of issues, because we may be sure that when choosing a representative, none of the range of candidates who have put themselves forward are going to have the same views and opinions on every issue.
My own criteria have less to do with expressed opinions or promises than with the under-lying character. Is this person intelligent? Well-informed? Articulate? That's pretty much any major-party political candidate, but there's always a few who display behaviour that makes the questions worth asking.
More to the point, is this person honest? Authentic? Do they behave as if they genuinely care for those whose votes they are seeking? Or are they motivated by personal or party advancement?
On that last, do they have some other agenda? Perhaps they want to see Parliament become more theocratic. Perhaps they have a business interest which donald trumps all public spirit. Just where does their dogma run, I ask myself.
And most important to me, are they of good heart? Do they seek to serve those whose human needs are greatest, or are they interested in other things?
