Piers Akerman’s Character Assessment Service Pty Ltd

Just in time to kick off the campaign proper, Piers Akerman launches into a character attack on Kevin Rudd. It’s an ugly bit of writing, filled with pretty much nothing of substance and a long stream of insinuations:

PHONE calls from Kevin Rudd to his friends in the media, which once included me, always begin – according to members of the press gallery – with the words “this conversation has never taken place, right?”

Is that supposed to sound much worse than the notion of conversations being “off the record”? We know Peter Costello doesn’t mind doing that as well, and in fact it’s a common part of journalistic practice in politics.

While I will not confirm or deny the accuracy of that account, it is public knowledge that Rudd and I have had numerous discussions and it was written elsewhere that both he and his wife, Therese Rein, have been guests at my home.

I have, however, never breached our many agreements of confidentiality.

But, without breaking my word, I can say that my initial admiration for Rudd, the man, has diminished over the past nine months until I have the gravest concerns about his fitness to head a political party, let alone run this nation.

So, you are not going to give us any direct evidence to support your assertion, ostensibly because of your great respect for confidentiality, but you want us to believe that he’s a very bad man? Have you been reading Kevin Andrews’ “Guidebook to Character Assassination”?

My main concerns about his character relate to what I perceive to be an unalloyed ruthlessness, a lack of his loyalty to anything but his own short-term political ambitions and his projection of a carefully constructed image that has little or nothing to do with Rudd the man.

Of course, all politicians exhibit these traits to some degree.

They wouldn’t make it through the first pre-selection meeting if they did not, but these qualities drive Rudd as they drive no other politician in Australia today.

[SNIP section about the Robert McClelland affair]

I don’t know that this is a revelation, but neither do I think it’s the sign of gross incompetence you are making it out to be. I have my own issues with Rudd’s approach and his handling of the furore over death penalty policy. But, as you note, these are fairly common traits among politicians, and Rudd is in the position of trying to win an election against a very clever opponent. The fact is, he has been doing well all year because of his approach.

Despite his claim to be a conservative Christian, the reality is that everything with Rudd is about power and when he is before an audience not enamoured of religion, he is happy to tailor his persona and step back a few paces from his ready avowals of faith made before other gatherings.

What does this mean? Does he worship false idols if it suits his audience? Does he start swearing like a sailor? Again, every politician tailors their presentation to their audience – watch John Howard’s appearance before an audience like the Australian Christian Lobby and see whether he was talking about the same things in the same way that he would when meeting with Tasmanian timber workers.

The list of excuses he has made for various blunders from the phoney Anzac Dawn Service he was to take part in with Channel 7’s Sunrise crew, an essential medium for the delivery of the hand-wrought Rudd image into Australian households, to his night on the tiles with New York Post editor-in-chief Col Allan, runs on and on.

Yes, he has made some blunders, and he has attempted to get past them – how uniquely Machiavellian of him.

But there is an insight that can be drawn from his voyeuristic pole-dancing episode.

…

Rudd’s lapse of judgement in progressing from dinner to the strip-and-clip joint was not caused by his desire to see bare breasts, or go on the sauce; it was driven by his insatiable craving for power, which Allan personified.

Rudd could have met him for a coffee, he could have met him for dinner, he could have begged off going on into the Manhattan night but to do so would have meant giving up an opportunity to curry favour with someone of undoubted influence.

A politician attempted to develop relationships that would help his ambitions? Inconceivable! Seriously, this makes no sense – yes, Rudd put himself into a position he would have been better to steer clear of, but to analyse it a few years later and say that he should have scheduled a different meeting is absurd.

It is hard to nail what the real person is like and, while I would never question his love of his family, there is a sense that he does not have the long-standing friendships which help provide leaders with the ability to meaningfully communicate with the population.

No actual evidence, not even an anecdote, but just the implication that he has no friends. And without long-standing friends, you can’t communicate with the population? I wonder: (a) how many long-standing friends John Howard has, and (b) how many of them bear any resemblance to ordinary “working Australians”.

His “people” moments are staged, geared for the 6pm news, sometimes disastrously, as was the case when he went to a unit near Canberra to talk about a scheme to subsidise property for low income earners only to later find that the person chosen for the stunt by ALP staffers from the People’s Republic of the ACT would be, embarrassingly, ineligible for the scheme he was promoting.

A bit like that nurse JWH spoke to last week about how to reform Tasmania’s health system – oops. So Rudd stages photo-ops with ordinary people – again, how does this make him different from other politicians, let alone grossly incompetent to lead?

This shallowness was exhibited again last week when, after railing against the Coalition for its wasteful advertising spending, Rudd and his staff flew to Perth ostensibly to launch a cancer-screening initiative but really, according to the ABC, to shoot a commercial with two local candidates.

Couldn’t he manage to do two things in one trip? Is there something wrong with him preparing campaign advertising? And haven’t you failed to acknowledge the distinction that the Labor commercials will have been paid for by the party, whereas his criticism of Howard is the use of “government advertising” as a campaign tool?

Whatever John Howard’s critics may say, he is what he is and, apart from a trim of the famous eyebrows, what you see is what you get with no contrivance.

To some extent this may be right (although it’s not as though we get to watch “Big Brother: Kirribilli”), but that just means plenty of us know we don’t like him.

He doesn’t fabricate an enthusiasm for sport before a grand final, doesn’t manufacture grief when tragedy strikes and he doesn’t run from tough decisions or blame other members of his Cabinet or staffers when those decisions may be unpopular.

Are you accusing Kevin Rudd of doing these things that Howard does not? Is the implication that Rudd would “manufacture grief” after a tragedy? If so, please provide some evidence to back it up instead of insinuating that he is an uncaring fake.

It is, however, Rudd’s consistent refusal to address grave concerns about the so-called Heiner Affair which bring so many of the question marks about his character together in my mind.

[SNIP Heiner affair details]

Ah, we should have known you would end up back here – banging on about the issue that you really wish could destroy Rudd, but that everyone else has let go of.

The Australian people should have sufficient knowledge to know he is not fit to run the nation.

Well then, you should have given us some actual knowledge instead of a clumsy and illogical character assassination. Nothing you have written reveals anything new about Kevin Rudd, does very little to suggest that he is markedly different from his political allies or opponents, or that he is unfit to lead.