Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Kevin Rudd’

Yawn

Civil wars aren’t what they used to be. An obsolete coward arguing for an obsolete policy against an increasingly obsolete “leader”.

And since when do “foreigners” get to declare civil war?

Read Full Post »

Quinella

After Whitlamesque comes “the worst since McMahon“.

Which analogical cliche will the Opposition pull out next?

Read Full Post »

Do something

GetUp! has made an ad about Labor’s emissions targets:

Fundraising here to air it during the Boxing Day test.

Stage 2 of the campaign should be getting all Australians to throw their shoes at the TV when it airs.

Elsewhere, Guido suggests it was silly not to expect that Labor would shaft the environment when it came to the crunch.

Read Full Post »

Being prepared doesn’t make me any less disappointed and outraged by this. I cannot believe that Kevin said this with a straight face:

“Climate change is an inconvenient truth and a truth that we can no longer conveniently ignore,” Mr Rudd said at the National Press Club.

“No responsible leadership anywhere in the world can ignore the elephant in the room, an elephant of this proportion.”

His Government’s policy is not responsible, and he is not demonstrating any form of leadership whatsoever.

I’m tied up and can’t write more at the moment, so a quick round-up of other reactions:

UPDATE:

Read Full Post »

More W-R-O-N-G-!

So, this is becoming a pattern:

  • The Australian reports something about Government communications based on anonymous sources.
  • The Opposition insists that the matter be investigated and explained.
  • The Government and corroborating sources (e.g., the Treasury Secretary, the White House, etc.) refute the original report.
  • The Opposition continues to insist that the matter be investigated and explained.
  • The Opposition looks foolish.

Read Full Post »

Andrew Bolt is gunning for Krudd (if I may use the vernacular). He has been running a series of blog posts calling on the media to investigate “Rudd’s betrayal of Bush“. I have had several thoughts in reaction to this:

  • What a shame that Bolt apparently doesn’t have the skill or motivation to perform his own investigative work and has to rely on getting real journalists to take his ideas seriously.
  • Bolt flatly asserts that Rudd leaked the information. Isn’t this a terribly flawed assumption? The Bush administration has denied that Bush said what the Australian alleged. Rudd has denied that Bush said it and rubbished the notion that Bush isn’t well aware of the G20. What’s more, when asked whether the “leak” came from his office, has given an answer that approximates, “buggered if I know.” Yet Bolt still seems to be acting as though the “leak” gave information that would only be known to someone involved in, present during, or who had accurate information about, the Bush-Rudd conversation. If the information was false, then anyone could have made it up, so long as they knew the conversation took place and the general topic.
  • The phone conversation happened while there was a dinner party going on at Kirribilli house. Present at that party was one Chris Mitchell, editor of the newspaper formerly known as the Government Gazzette, currently known as the Opposition Organ, which has been using its editorial content to attack the Rudd Government’s policies and conduct. Now, this paper has published the “leaked” information. If the fact that it made Rudd look like a bigshot is enough reason for Bolt to conclude that Rudd himself was the “leak”, isn’t the fact that this made Rudd look like a blabbermouth enough of a reason to suspect Chris Mitchell?
  • If we take the idea of investigation seriously then, based on the information we currently have, someone fed the Australian false information about the Bush-Rudd conversation. Does the journalistic obligation to preserve confidential sources apply to a source who tells lies? Shouldn’t the investigation begin with the Australian revealing who gave them dud information?

Malcolm has been getting in on the act as well, and making some of the same errors of reasoning as Bolt. He says that the leaking of the conversation is embarrassing and a national security risk – which it might be, if the leak was accurate. Otherwise, it’s just bullshit spread by someone and believed by a newspaper who didn’t check the credibility of their sources well enough. But Malcolm adds in a call for the Australian Federal Police to head an investigation. Now I’ve never been shy about discussing the limitations of the AFP, but I would still contend that they are, in fact, a law enforcement body. So if Malcolm wants them to investigate something, should it perhaps be an allegation of some illegal activity? Just saying.

Read Full Post »

Unfiltered and direct

I’ve skipped Channel 7’s “audience” with Kevin this evening. If he has anything important to say, I assume he will call or text me.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »