Forget policy. Let’s get down to brass tacks. Lawrence Gonzi deserves our vote because he is the better man.
Women really don’t like this man, and physical features have nothing to do with it. Lawrence Gonzi isn’t good-looking, but women really like him a lot.
Any man or woman who looks at Joseph Muscat and Lawrence Gonzi and thinks that Muscat is the better man should not be trusted anywhere near a marriage contract or even a business deal.
Forget the politics, the policies, the track record and even the parties. Just look at the two men, because that’s what it’s all about right now.
It’s the reason why Joseph Muscat has made barely any inroads with women and why the sight/thought/sound of him repels us ladies in a way that not even Alfred Sant did.
We are biologically programmed/hardwired to assess a man’s worth at a fundamental level. And the qualities we use to assess whether a man will make a good husband/father/provider (sometimes subconsciously, and even when we are not in the market for any of those three) are the very same ones we use to assess the party leaders.
Women really, really don’t like Joseph Muscat. I mean, really – at a deep, deep level. We find him repellant and untrustworthy.
It is not a coincidence that those who are gathering around his feet – and I’m not talking about the dyed-in-the-wool Laburisti pretending to be switchers – appear to have one thing in common. They have made some pretty catastrophic life choices because they are poor judges of character and situations.
And they tend to be men (Joseph doesn’t flirt with women).
10 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Ouch! But so, very true.
I, for one, find Joseph Muscat EXTREMELY repulsive. Even Gonzi, who wouldn’t score a high mark on the “looks” stakes, is infinitely more appealing than Muscat can ever hope to be. Even children warm to Gonzi more, because he looks – and is – ever so sincere and trustworthy.
I know whom I will trust with my children’s future, and it is certainly not Mr(s) Muscat.
His strange face irritates the hell out of me, and everything he says always tends to sound rehearsed.
That smirk and everything else about him repulses me.
And that’s a woman’s view of Joseph Muscat.
Konferenza tal-Ahbarijiet 4/3/2013. – Simon Busuttil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxIq-jzDPzw
They make poor choices because they think others won’t do the same.
This is where Joseph plays with their emotions and insecurities. Gauci Cunningham was adamant about his urge to personal involvement, ‘now or never’. As if life is something to delegate to politicians.
Grillo went around Italy telling everyone NOT to vote his movement if they expected change by a simple vote. That once they vote, it will be their responsibility to bring the changes required. Pharaonic projects in Delimara and making fun of the night tariff are exactly the sort of thing Grillini despise.
Labour on the other hand, beset content with a gargantuan campaign, consequently refusing to send their program out. A coloured index instead of the content of their work.
If they’re so proud of the ‘shared effort’, why don’t they own it?
The latest, ‘poetry’, is Labour’s deepest fault. Politics doesn’t sate the soul, if it will, the others become oppressors. Again, if he’s trying to emulate, Fo would have refused to appear on yesterday’s stage, pure sfarzo.
Have you seen the Muscat poster before the tunnels (sta venera side) with the skip beneath it? So appropriate
Have to share this comment from FB…to good to give it a miss!
Ma x’biza, Malta’s Disney channel, Super One did their old trick of zooming in on some faces in the PN event in Gzira yesterday…you know what they’re trying to say…these people are Nationalists, keep them in mind…so first they zoomed in on me, and then on my father too. Tas-Super One u tal-Labour, meta kwazi qtiltuni z-Zejtun ma bzajtx minnkom ….. meta imlejtu l-karozza ta’ missieri bil-bili u bid-daqqiet tal-lembubi, fir-Rabat, ma bzajtx minnkom…. u lanqas jekk tirbhu l-gvern bi 30,000 vot ma niddejjaq minnkom! I have a special place reserved for the Labour party, and it’s situated somewhere beneath my back and above my knees.
Hartiet all the way.
Joseph looks like Henry of comic strip fame in that photo.
He has got that same bewildered look as Henry does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_(comic_strip)
The Malta Independent, this morning, carried an interview with PN candidate Ryan Callus entitled “Uncovering an irresponsible decision is not mud-slinging”. I am in full agreement with this young candidate: bringing to light a candidate’s (or an entire party’s) shameful behaviour should not count as mud-slinging… rather I would consider it a duty. Since we are tasked with choosing those best-suited to govern us, we have the right not just to know what their proposals and their politics are, but also whether we can trust their personal integrity.
For this reason, and in a similar vein I would venture the question “When is a personal attack not really a personal attack?” In fact, what makes a campaign “negative” rather than “positive”?
So as not to be accused of mud-slinging or bias, allow me to borrow an example from a few hundred miles away, in Rome, where the Cardinals of the Catholic Church are congregating right now, in preparation for the election of a new pope… Would anyone (even a fellow Cardinal) be guilty of “mud-slinging” or a “personal attack” if he brings to light some skeleton-in-the-closet of a potential contender for the Papacy? I’m not talking about unsubtantiated claims or outright fabrications but real, concrete facts like the ones which caused the Scottish Cardinal O’Brien to recuse himself and not travel to Rome for the Conclave.
Similarly, if someone has substantial (and verifiable) information which could impugn the personal integrity of any candidate (but especially someone aspiring to the highest posts in the land), would it not be his or her duty to reveal that information? After all politicians place themselves in the public eye: should they not therefore feel some sense of noblesse oblige? Have we not the right to expect a higher standard of behaviour from them? For instance should Bill Clinton’s inability to keep his tackle in his pants have been forgotten or ignored just because he was a popular president? Likewise Berlusconi who made a mockery not just of himself but of his entire country with him. We needn’t expect our politicians to be saints, but don’t we have the right to expect at least a modicum of loyalty, first of all to their spouses and offspring, and then to their party and to us, their potential electors? If it transpires that a hypothetical candidate is a liar, or a serial adulterer (perhaps having fathered children out of wedlock), is it not our right to know before we put our foot in it and choose someone eminently unsuitable to represent us?
Certainly, arguments can be made about how such damaging material should be presented immediately it becomes available, not only when it is politically expedient. Other arguments might concern the potential fall-out to third parties (especially that politician’s family). All are relevant (and should be discussed in the appropriate fora), yet all pale in comparison to my main argument outlined above: our right to know before we cast our vote.
How right you are, Daphne. The first thing I thought when Joseph was elected leader. More repulsive than that you cannot be. And he’s a redhead to boot