Another example of poor analysis by commentators

Comments on Ross Gittins “Floods expose national loss of loyalty and respect for leaders”, 2/02/2011, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/floods-expose-national-loss-of-loyalty-and-respect-for-leaders-20110201-1acbw.html?posted=successful

This is another piece of commentators' poor analysis, similar to that by Peter Hartcher today.

It is so shallow!

Why don't mention the very high ratings of Rudd, before he fell on his own sword?

He, as the national leader of the time, had a lot of national loyalty and respect.

Why Gillard does not have the similar degree of national loyalty and respect?

You should clearly ask her for the reasons and answers, though hers, similar to yours, may not necessarily be accepted by the public.

Loyalty and respect are two way street – both the leaders themselves and the public. If a person does not demonstrate he or she should be given loyalty and respect, why do they deserve them?

Clearly, Gillard so far has not demonstrated that effect yet. What she has done is the contrary.

The flood levy has shown a poor leader cared for only her government or unable to move out of her incompetent political colleagues in terms of policies and strategies.

Maybe it also reflects her deep classical approach to income distribution and her desire to hit the rich and the not so rich! If that is true, it would be more dangerous and would drag Australia backwards many decades.

It is simply and absolutely no need for such a levy at this time.

To institute such a poor levy, and shamelessly arguing that at booming times needing budget surpluses is so hypocritical!