Friendly fire
Posted by Christopher Sheil on Saturday, March 3, 2007
Briefly, in remarkable events, it turns out that the Howard government’s minister for human services, Ian Campbell (the former environment minister), met with Brian Burke last June. In a savage random result, the upshot of the attempt to smear Kevin Rudd is that the government has taken out its own man. By the self-proclaimed standard that has been issued by the government from the nation’s highest rooftops – that is: “Anyone who deals with Mr Brian Burke is morally and politically compromised” – Senator Campbell’s career has been brought to an immediate, arbitrary and barbaric end, or the government’s own smear is all over itself. Any fair-minded person must prefer the latter.
Update: (10.45 am) The ALP’s initial grab is that “John Howard and Peter Costello are now drowning in their own political mud”. No government response on the record, yet.
Update: (11.00 am) Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have now bought in on the “government is drowning in its own mud” grab. Rudd has meanwhile reinforced his Burke story in light of the invitation disclosure. The government, it appears, is still riding the goat. Does the silence suggest Campbell is to resign?
Friendly fire victim: Ian Campbell |
Update: (1.00 pm) Rudd continues to climb to high ground, as popular ALP figures Bob Hawke and Barry Jones support the leader. Still; the government hides. Houston, do we have a problem? Cabinet minister overboard?
Update: It’s 3.30 pm, which means this story has now been running for over 15 hours, and still not a peep from the government. Helloooo? Commonwealth Government of Australia? Anyone home? Cooeee?
Update: (4.30 pm) As the Howard government hides in its bunker, the opposition leader senses clear air and moves on. The Burke issue is now primarily a government matter.
Final Update: (5.00 pm) As expected, Ian Campbell has resigned. This has been an extraordinary episode in national politics, not least because it has passed so rapidly. There is much that could be said. The quick take-away is that, in its fury to smear Kevin Rudd, the government has seriously and ineptly damaged itself. Questions about political judgement, so quickly put to Rudd, are suddenly pointing the other way. The cartoons will be good.
This entry was posted on Saturday, March 3rd, 2007 at 12:37 AM and filed under Politics - national.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed.
Apologies. Comments and trackbacks are both currently closed.
No equivalency here, sorry. Campbell wasn’t doing deals to game the system to attain the Prime Ministership of Australia. The take home story here is that Labor’s attempt to imply prime ministerial secret deals and a nuclear conspiracy theory spectacularly exploded in Mr Rudd’s face this week and he is now damaged goods. Labor can’t win a ‘who met Burke’ war which means they’ll have to shut it down. The government has won.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 12:52 am | Permalink“doing deals to game the system to attain the Prime Ministership of Australia”
Is Brian Bourke really that powerful?
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 1:14 am | PermalinkI mean Burke!
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 1:14 am | PermalinkSmall town, and all that … Fat lady, and all that …
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 1:25 am | PermalinkAh yes, the details. Campbell met with Burke because the latter was a contracted lobbyist and wanted to discuss an indigenous cultural centre with the Senator. The meeting lasted 20 minutes and was presumably secretarially logged by Campbell and Burke staffers. Rudd’s THREE highly personal, friendly and top secret meetings with Burke at various eateries were not official business and took place contrary to a WA Labor ban. The only payment that seems to have been involved is an implied undertaking by Rudd – exemplified by his startling interest in and loyalty to Burke – to make life easier and more profitable for the crooked ex-Labor Premier vis-a-vis a future Rudd-led Federal ALP. When asked about the details of their hours of mate’s rates conversation, Rudd says he “can’t recall”.
Yeah, right.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 1:29 am | Permalink“The only payment that seems to have been involved is an implied undertaking by Rudd – exemplified by his startling interest in and loyalty to Burke – to make life easier and more profitable for the crooked ex-Labor Premier vis-a-vis a future Rudd-led Federal ALP. ”
Was this meeting recorded? How does CL know all these juicy details?
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 1:38 am | PermalinkNice bit of spin there CL, but it really doesn’t wash with Costello’s clanger echoing in everybodys head.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 2:30 am | PermalinkSorry, aj, but Campbell didn’t “deal with” with Burke. Burke made an appointment to see him and they spoke for 20 minutes. On the record. Campbell listened to Burke’s spiel about an indigenous cultural centre – and then did absolutely nothing to facilitate the realisation of that or associated projects.
Yawn.
Rudd, on the other hand, flew across the country to have three top secret influence-peddling pow-wows whose “business” was strictly off the books. And that’s where Rudd hoped they would stay until he was spectacularly blasted out of seriousness by Costello this week. At the Burke-Rudd sit-downs, it was Burke who did the listening – as Rudd, presumably, undertook to repay political support for his leadership ambitions against Sandgroper Beazley with more of that very rehabilitation for Burke that Rudd’s own willingness to consort with the ex-Premier demonstrated. That their dealings stank can be guessed at by Rudd’s sudden memory loss. Hours of conversations but he “can’t recall” the details.
Rudd may very well be finished as a faux heavy-hitter.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 3:32 am | PermalinkCL spinning it again.lol
Lets see, you think it’s not ok for Rudd to stay with a friend, Graham Edwards who initiated the meetings, but its quite fine for Ian Campbell to sit there in parliament, backing up the comments made by Costello, Howard and others, but keeping secret the fact that he did have dealings in 2006 with Burke.
You can’t on one hand malign Rudd for having lunch and dinner where other people were present, then on the other hand absolve Campbell for having business talks/dealings in 2006 (a year after Rudd)with the same man, Burke. Costello red faced bellowing in parliament, “Anyone who deals with Mr Brian Burke is morally and politically compromised” so if this is the moral high ground that they are trying to apply to Rudd, then it also has to be applied to Campbell and to a lesser extent applied to Prosser and any others who have delt with Burke.
You say at the Burke meetings it was Burke that was listening. I don’t know if this is true, except to take your word for it. At the end of the day Rudd is copping it on the chin and has apologised for having social occassions where Burke was present.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 4:37 am | PermalinkCampbell, surely, is gone from the Ministry. ABC radio is also running a story this morning that seems to undermine Rudd’s claims about the dinner he attended with Burke. Rudd told the media that he only attended the dinner as Graham Edward’s guest and at Graham Edward’s behest. It seems that there’s a pre-dinner email from Burke that suggests otherwise……
One of the aspects of this affair that must be deeply troubling to many people is that Burke and Grill presumably know where a multitude of bodies are buried – and how they got there. And it could drag on for months……………
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 7:30 am | PermalinkDo you guys really think this worries the coalition ?
They’ll swap a campbell for a Rudd any day.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 8:02 am | PermalinkThe invitations are circumstantial and do not necessarily undermine Rudd’s story, as he would not have seen them. Edwards could well have invited KR to speak at a local ALP dinner, and Burke & Grill could well have taken it from there by themselves.
Currency’s defence is keen, and hilarious. Whether he knew or not that Burke & Grill were touting the gig, Rudd still appears to have been merely politiking as usual, speaking at yet another of the endless dinners that a high-flying shadow must, holding his nose a little where necessary. Nothing wrong with that. Although, as we have seen, the company you keep might be used for smear by association campaigns, and in retrospect it was inadviseable.
Campbell, on the other hand, actually met the guy on a real business deal. By my standards, I don’t think Campbell should be sacked unless there is positive evidence that he then intervened on Burke’s behalf in some way. But by the government’s own standards, he is gone for all money … unless the government now revises its standards, which would be fairer to everyone concerned, but mightily embarrassing for Howard & co. Will they take the hit to save a colleague from an unfair dismissal? Howard hates sacking ministers, but probably hates being wrong even more. The phones will be running hot; the spin doctors will be turning over options …
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 9:02 am | PermalinkTop Secret meetings. In various eateries. Heh :- )
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 10:14 am | PermalinkGeoff’s right, this thing will drag on, and Campbell’s in the soup.
For the record: I met Brian Burke in 1987. In life you make some mistakes and I’ve made a mistake.
Good to be with you, Troppo.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 10:34 am | PermalinkThe bad mistake Rudd made was to meet up with Burke at all and he has acknowledged that. The fact that people in WA saw Rudd as a leader aspirant and said so in a memo to guests is hardly relevant. Of course he was a longer term aspirant for the leadership and of course he was trying to build up his poltical image in WA in order to advance his long term chances. If that is all, wo b— what?
If however it turns out that a ‘deal’ was made with Burke which involved the latter as cheer leader or promoter of Rudd, it becomes very serious – especially if it involved some reciprocal promises from Rudd. But where on earth is the evidence of that?
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 11:02 am | Permalink“Campbell, on the other hand, actually met the guy on a real business deal. By my standards, I don
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 11:25 am | PermalinkIt seems that there
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 11:32 am | PermalinkMy best response, Currency, is to advise you to stay away from sharp objects. Don’t flood us now, old chap. You have made your point, such as it is.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 11:39 am | PermalinkFalse equivalency, Geoff. If Rudd had an on-the-books 20 minute chat with Burke in his capacity as Foreign Affairs shadow – and was presented with some spiel about a Chinese cultural exchange – Costello wouldn’t have proceeded. However, they met for hours on three occasions. We more or less know for sure that Rudd is lying about the meetings. This is a boastful poindexter who can still remember how to speak Mandaran after 25 years but apparently he “can’t recall” what he discussed with Burke. LOL.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 11:42 am | PermalinkCurrency, can you desist from saying we “know” things on the basis of your own conjecture, and fanciful conjecture to the fair minds of many, at that?
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 11:54 am | PermalinkThat’s funny, Chris. But you just “know” that Howard secretly decided to set up a nuclear industry in Australia on the say-so of Ron Walker. (The latter gentlemen also having revealed his nefarious intentions to the Labor Premier of Victoria). That’s the context to this, let’s not forget. Rudd wanted to be a he-man to his backbench so he got down in the gutter over the Walker-Howard convo. Then he got pummelled by Costello. I didn’t see it but a commenter at Catallaxy yesterday said Rudd looked on the verge of crying during one of his mea culpa press appearances. Let’s hand over a trillion dollar economy fighting a war against terrorists to a borderline blubber.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 12:06 pm | Permalinkyou just
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 12:51 pm | PermalinkFred & Geoff sensible analysis, what Rudd & Campbell’s (and others) meetings whether social or business seems to be both innocent in the sense that no deals or wrong doing is implied, but Costellos & Howard have painted themselves into a very tight corner, because of their comments in parliament last week. Now if anyone whether they be Libs, NP, Labor or joe blow are now tainted with Costellos comments in parliament.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 1:15 pm | Permalink“False equivalency, Geoff. If Rudd had an on-the-books 20 minute chat with Burke in his capacity as Foreign Affairs shadow – and was presented with some spiel about a Chinese cultural exchange”
I don’t think either Rudd’s or Campbell’s meetings amount to a national scandal C.L. Rather, it’s the political optics around them that are at issue and Costello
was nothing if not forthright in declaring any contact with Burke to be beyond the pale and those that had engaged therein to be up to no good, by definition. Howard, at the same time, assured the House that he was unaware of any Coalition members who had met with Burke, didn’t think that any had and would confirm this – presumably when the House re-convenes.
We now know that Campbell did meet with Burke – well after Rudd had ceased any contact – and it looks passing strange that the government [presumably]didn’t check with their party-room West Australian MHR’s and senators before declaring anyone who had met with Burke to be so emphatically hors la loi.
If they continue to pursue Rudd whilst excusing Campbell it’s just politics as usual and everyone will have lost interest by Tuesday. If they persuade Campbell to fall on his sword, Burke will still, presumably, have a few years worth of appointment diaries to trawl through……
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 1:36 pm | PermalinkChris, your analysis is nonsense. “It is legitimate for the opposition to ask if any policy matters were discussed between the pm and the businessmen”, you say. But – lo! – it isn’t legitimate to ask questions about what Rudd spoke to a convicted criminal about during three conversations – during a spell in which four WA politicians have had to resign over Burke dealings. (Note to hysterics: the Campbell 20 minute chat about a cultural centre, in which the Senator was surprised to be lumbered with Burke, was not “dealings”). The timeline is this: the Opposition painted itself into an hilarious corner by spending two weeks on the Secret Nuclear Businessmen conspiracy theory only to have it detonate in their faces. Their leader gutlessly and groundlessly besmirched the reputations and motivations of three of Australia’s finest businessmen under Parliamentary privilege. But he himself can give no account of why he sought the services and counsel – not of a fine men who advise the South Australian Labor Cabinet or who serve on the Reserve Bank board or who play a role in Aboriginal reconciliation – but a thief and convicted crook. And Rudd didn’t even have the balls to give his explanation in Parliament where his excuse would have to be 100 per cent accurate. He sledges like a he-man in the Parliament but sneaks outside the Parliament to give his overwrought “can’t recall” defence.
Rudd is morally finished.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 1:51 pm | Permalink“Rudd is morally finished.”
Not, on the ample evidence, a career-terminating diagnosis in politics, C.L.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 2:06 pm | PermalinkChristopher’s updates inform us that Rudd is now being supported by Julia Gillard, Bob Hawke and Barry Jones. My God, this is remarkable.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 2:09 pm | PermalinkBut – lo! – it isn
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 2:18 pm | PermalinkRudd met Burke and others on three occasions.
I have only heard Edwards on this but he says he set it up.
Speaking as a former lobbyist it is not unknown to parade someone other’s lurch etc as yours.
Edwards was in the Bombers inner sanctum so attempts to spin this as the Ruddmeister courting votes is patently absurd.
It is clear he was talking to people as the shadow spokesman. Given the publicity the Ruddmeister was getting a lobbyist would certainly want to get ‘clients’ to the event.
If the Government wants to live up to its own publicity then Campbell has to go which is a shame as he is one of the few competent ministers around
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 2:42 pm | PermalinkThe difference is that the nuclear issue goes to a matter of public policy.
The alternative Foreign Minister meeting with a notorious criminal and influence-peddler is not a matter of public policy?
Interesting.
My analysis doesn’t depend on the MSM version, Chris. That’s why I consider myself to be a writer rather than a link-blogger. Rudd is now using the Campbell false equivalency theory to lie about the course of events. The fact is HE started slinging the mud and trashing honorable men in Parliament but now claims to be a victim of a government whose “mud-slinging campaign” has failed. And now Burkey’s (and Bondy’s and Laurie’s) old mate, Hawkie, agrees. I can tell you admire the spin-doctoring quality of this patent bullshit but it really proves yet again that here is a phony who likes to quote Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the morning and tell lies about impeccable public figures in the afternoon. Brave under Parliamentary privilege, “can’t recall” elsewhere.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 2:59 pm | PermalinkI think we have now heard that speil 20 times now Currency. Does it grow on you from repeating? Do you tend to believe it more everytime you say it? Or do you presume others cannot read, unless you write the same thing over and over?
Homer, I suspect, is correct on the Rudd politics. Belonging to the same faction as the Beazer, Rudd’s internal campaign style in this awkward context was to win support by his performance, not direct lobbying.
Geoff’s point, however, is the most intriquing:
We now know that Campbell did meet with Burke – well after Rudd had ceased any contact – and it looks passing strange that the government [presumably] didn
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 3:16 pm | PermalinkThe now destroyed Secret Businessmen Nuclear Conspiracy Theory proved the ineptitude of the Opposition Leader. He had intended to show-case his macho-man status to the faithful but, against Costello, that strategy was truly a fool’s errand. That Rudd has been caught lying is now a matter of public record:
Now we know why Rudd didn’t give an explanation in Parliament – he intended to lie and spin his way out of it. He’s been caught out.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 3:28 pm | PermalinkBut it’s just the same speil, Currency. Burke may have spun the gig anyway he wanted to, yet it still does not constitute any sort of first-hand proof on Rudd’s purpose in attendance. Your repetition is destroying this thread. Give us a break. We know what you think, believe me. Which part of “tiresome” don’t you understand?
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 3:33 pm | PermalinkChris, what you mean when you say I’m “destroying this thread” is that you want a lefty pile-on to portray this disaster for Rudd as something other than what it is. I’m breaching no comments policy and am – like others – working through the ins and outs of the event from various subtle angles. If others want to bail from the Dispatch Box like close-to-blubbing Kevin, that’s their problem.
Rudd said he went to that dinner more or less as an afterthought because Edwards was going. That – certifiably – was a lie. Burke arranged the whole thing and Rudd was the special guest. He flew all the way to Western Australia FOUR TIMES, ffs. Rudd also said he didn’t discusss the leadership. That too was a lie.
But I admire you for running interference for your friend, Chris.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 3:56 pm | PermalinkCampbell has resigned from cabinet.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/campbell-quits-cabinet/2007/03/03/1172868803543.html
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 3:58 pm | PermalinkRudd must now resign. He has no choice.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 4:05 pm | PermalinkCL,
20005 there was NO leadership contest prospective or actual.
For a person to say Graeme Edwards would be courting Rudd as the next leader of the ALP is simply to say they have never, do not or will ever know Edwards whom would NEVER walk away from the Bomber let alone undermine him.
you have merely pointed out your politcal naivety
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 4:05 pm | PermalinkLanderyou has a post claiming Campbell will now resign.
Obviously anything this individual claims should be taken with a bucket load of salt.
- Slanderyou
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 4:22 pm | PermalinkCampbell’s gone. What a bizarre passage this Burke thing is.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 4:23 pm | PermalinkI’m sure the climate change denialists in cabinet are licking their lips about the demise of Campbell, from what I hear a lot of Libs had it in for him a long time before this became public.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 4:27 pm | PermalinkSorry, Homer. Edwards introduced Rudd to Burke and his mates as a future Labor leader. Whether or not Edwards wanted Beazley gone at the time is irrelevant because Kim was always prone to challenge (it was often discussed and speculated about) and news of Edwards’ grooming of Rudd with the help of the Sam Giancana of Labor politics would have been dynamite. So much so that Rudd, even last week, didn’t give a grievance speech in Parliament after Question Time – as is customary for the purportedly misrepresented. He kept it more informal because he intended to bury the leadership element of his many discussions with Burke by way of blatant untruths and “can’t recalls”. Only a politically naive person believes Kevin Rudd flew to WA and had three meetings and several hours of conversation with Brian Burke because he shared the influence-peddling don’s liking for pasta and lamb dishes.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 4:28 pm | PermalinkForget it Currency. It’s all over. You are sounding like one of those Japanese soldiers, found on pacific islands decades after the end of the war, still fighting on. Never mind. Pip. Pip. Better luck next time.
Actually, this is not a time to celebrate, even for the left side of politics, as fortuitous as the twist has been. A competent conservative minister has been taken out in friendly fire, but you never know where this Burke blighter will pop up next. Long way to go. Heads down. Eyes on the prize.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 4:37 pm | PermalinkRATTUS MAXIMUS (STRIKES AGAIN) A SCALP! HIS FIRST MARTYR OF THE SEASON.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 4:41 pm | Permalink“with the help of the Sam Giancana of Labor politics”
More like the senescent Truman Capote in that Panama hat….
“Rudd, even last week, didn
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 4:57 pm | PermalinkNice try, Chris. The old reverse psychology with a double-twist.
Campbell’s meeting with Burke was a big fat zero. Twenty minutes and, by all accounts, he wasn’t even quite clear on why Burke was in his office.
Rudd, however, has been caught lying and his grubby meetings with Burke were far more serious. He flew across the country three times to win some kind of favour from the convicted criminal.
Rudd should resign.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 4:57 pm | PermalinkBad-faith spin, Geoff. When a member claims to have been misrepresented IN parliament, he or she usually wants to point out why in parliament. Rudd didn’t because he knew he couldn’t possibly tell the truth about his dealings with Burke. As it happens, he went for the cliche ‘made a mistake’ and ‘don’t recall’ howlers which are such a telling contrast to his tough-guy slandering of eminent businessmen in the chamber during the preceding fortnight.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 5:02 pm | PermalinkHeh. Good one Currency. Why don’t you write to the Ruddster and tell him just that. Meanwhile, you can hold your breath and turn blue. I hope for your side’s sake that the government’s Burke Ban Circular has been distributed this time. Heh.
Ahhhh, excuse me, but I love the smell of a burning conservative cabinet minister in the evenings. It’s been a long time between drinks. I’m thinking I might fetch me a Lionel Murphy Shiraz. Good luck.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 5:20 pm | PermalinkYes, strange game of rugby that, Chris. Costello and Howard sold the dump to Campbell then crash tackled him themselves.
I note Howard’s now going Rudd publicly on ‘honesty’. “Bring that on,” was the reply.
Something is amiss in all this – it’s not vintage Howard, but echoes of it. I tend to agree he’s missing Sinodinos.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 5:25 pm | PermalinkLionel Murphy – speaking of [deleted].
The immediate take-away is that, in its fury to smear Kevin Rudd, the government has seriously damaged itself. The questions about political judgement, so quickly directed to the opposition leader, are suddenly all pointing one way, the other way.
The actual story: Kevin Rudd, in his fury to smear three eminent businessmen and the Prime Minister with a whacky conspiracy theory, seriously damaged himself. The questions about political judgement, so quickly directed to the opposition leader, have been proved justified.
The Womble: he’s fluent in Mandarin but “can’t recall” what he discussed with Brian Burke when he flew across the continent to kiss his buttocks on three occasions.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 5:31 pm | PermalinkYes, something has slipped, or is slipping, Robert.
Reminds me of the death signs you often see at the end of an administration. Remember when Hawkie had to sack Treasurer Kerin for not remembering an economic acronym? Then there was the famous Brian Howe cupboard walk. Not to forget the Ralph Willis letters, with which this also resonates. How will this go down? The rugby picture is gorgeous. Doing a Burke-Campbell? I keep seeing a Bill Leak, with Howard, Costello, Abbott and Downer covered in their own buckets of do do, saying to Tin Tin, standing non-plussed to the side: “See sonny, this takes experience”.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 5:36 pm | PermalinkSorry, BUT
Edwards would NEVER EVER give up on the Bomber. You obviously have never met the bloke.
There was no Challenge anywhere in 2005 and if there was you wouldn’t be talking about one to people who came to a dinner.
You talk to people who vote.
Trust me on this I have been close to two challenges on either side of politics.
CL you are talking about things you haven’t the slighest clue about.
My question is why in heaven’s name does someone have to resign merely because they met Brian Burke?
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 5:42 pm | PermalinkLionel – the colourful racing identity of the legal profession.
LOL.
You’re being silly, Homer. It’s now a matter of public record that Edwards introduced and touted Rudd as a “future leader”. Had that become public – along with the other Burke meetings Rudd lied about yesterday – it would have explosive.
Yes Robert, strategy can go haywire in political parties. Witness the Emmersen disaster on ABC radio this week, the laughable Give The Nod conversion of Peter Garret, the stolen national curriculum policy, the uraniun fiasco, the ever-changing Labor IR catastrophe, the now buried Secret Nuclear Businessmen Conspiracy Theory, the ALP President inviting Hugo Chazez to Australia to give advice on economic policy and Kevin Rudd borrowing “Brutopia” from Donald Duck.
Who’s advising Labor – Mark Latham on crack?
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 5:52 pm | PermalinkDon
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 5:52 pm | PermalinkI’m indifferent to Burke. He was banned by Labor in WA, not the Vatican.
Rudd ignored the ban, flying thousands of kilometres to meet him.
The topic? Rudd “can’t recall”.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 6:02 pm | PermalinkHomer: “There was no Challenge anywhere in 2005 and if there was you wouldn
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 6:05 pm | PermalinkI think we need to know all about Burke, Currency and the Vatican, and who double-crossed who? How many times did Burke meet with the Pope as Ambassador to the Holy See? What did the Pope say about what, when, why and how? What was Currency’s involvement?
The intervention by the unnamed businessman is interesting. Quite possibly, he is the source of the government’s intelligence in the first place. Having dumped his own side in it, the guy is now desperate to say anything that could save his face around the PM’s office. This issue is becoming hilarious.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 6:19 pm | Permalinktell us all about the prospective challenge in 2005 CL,
you know the one that was never written about.
No-one attempts a challenge and tells unknown businessmen about said challenge.
Edwards has not backed you up at CL. There is no newspaper talk to back you up at all either
.
What is more as acknowledged by Edwards himself, Edwards would be the last person involved if there was.
If Rudd was touting leadership ambitions why would he go to WA of all places given the low number of votes and the entrenched votes at that.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 6:50 pm | PermalinkHe would have been better off atrtempting to change Bill Ludwig’s mind.
Sectarian baiting is only an additional sign of your desperation, Christopher.
Homer, Edwards wanted to introduce Rudd as a “future leader”. We now know this. Had it become widely known and written about that one of Beazley’s supporters was breaching the WA Labor ban on Burke by introducing the ambitious Foreign Minister as the “future leader”, that would have been gold for the government and trouble for Beazley. Rudd has presented his faithful ad limina visits to Burke as pure happenstance. This is a lie.
Anyway Homer, you believe Rudd flew across the country on three occasions to have breakfast, lunch and tea with Burke (and hours of conversation) – because, what, he loved the Burkster’s company? Doesn’t have a phone?
Either that, or the real story here is that they admire one another in what Dr Karl might call “a very special way”.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 7:30 pm | PermalinkA careful read between the lines reveals all.
Mr. Cambell didn’t jump. He was pushed. This is the classic example of workplace bullying. If Senator Campbell had any protection at all under the Government’s draconian work-choice regime, then he wouldn’t have to stand for this workplace bullying.
Senator Campbell, here’s the link. Register your complaint now with Greg and the boy’s. They’ll put in a good word for you with Kevin. He’ll fight for your rights. You don’t have to take this treatement you know.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 7:36 pm | PermalinkIn his years as “Dr Death” in the Queensland public service, bullying was one of Rudd’s most renowned traits. Expect more to come out on those years. The macho he-Womble was an extremely unpopular operator. Got lots of people sacked, amongst other things.
The gist of this thread for latecomers: Rudd must resign.
No debate on that so far.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 7:55 pm | PermalinkWell so far you’ve convinced yourself CL. Another twenty more comments like that and there’s bound to be another taker. The rate you’re going I reckon you might have half the country by about oh…let’s think…2034.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 8:03 pm | PermalinkRudd must resign.
What has he done, specifically, to warrant resignation? Time to put up, I’d suggest.
Howard has a problem, in relation to pushing that line (without specifics, relying on public agreement on the face of what Rudd supposedly did), of his own making. One of the first things he did when he got in was set a new code for ministerial standards. Then, bit by bit and again and again, he condoned – nay, supported – shitty ministerial acts and failings. C.L., the public are now sick and tired of how ministers behave and get away with it, you can bet your socks there is a lack of public push to have a fresh Opposition Leader thrown out, when they’ve been wanting for years to have a government more accountable.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 8:28 pm | PermalinkCampbell rightly resigned. Probably insisted upon by Howard. He was easily the most incompetent Minister in the Government. His behaviour over banning that windfarm because of some astronomically small chance that some parrot may fly into it once in a thousand years was just ludicrous. He’s quite a stupid man and won’t be missed. On the other hand Rudd pretends to be PM material. His time is up and he has to resign, [delete]. He’s totally gutless and contemptuous of the electorate. Having faced a bit of friendly “questioning” from left-wing jourmalists doesn’t change that one iota.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 8:42 pm | PermalinkWell, Rex, it’s a famously lefty site and most of the commenters were Latham supporters – especially Christopher and Homer.
Four WA Labor pols have resigned for ignoring the ban on Burke. Rudd ignored an earlier ban and mysteriously met with this malign cafe di tutti capo three times. Phone calls weren’t good enough; nor faxes, nor emails. Rudd felt he had to be in the presence of The Man. Homer and Christopher believe these meetings were what the Treasurer this week characterised as Muriel’s Wedding happenstance. There is no doubt to any adult watching that Rudd has lied about his motivations. He was there to nationalise his backroom power base and he wanted Burke to facilitate that ambition. The only other explanations are that Rudd flew across the continent because he loved eating with Burke or that the two men were having an affair.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 8:56 pm | PermalinkNow THIS is how you avoid the un-answerable demand for your resignation!
Rudd challenges PM to call early election.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 9:08 pm | PermalinkRudd’s story continues to crumble, as the ABC reports:
Union leader saw Rudd as leader after Burke meetings.
Kevin backs Kevin after Kevin meets influence-peddler Brian.
Another Muriel coincidence!
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 9:14 pm | PermalinkI agree with much of what you’re saying, C.L, except the conclusion you draw. However, and this will hurt just as Rudd challenging PM as a return fire hurts, as stealing a Howard tactic: Rudd hasn’t lied. He has explained what he was there for – but, and this is the Howard thing – he obviously hasn’t told the whole truth. See? No lies. Stinks, doesn’t it? And that was a mild one.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 9:20 pm | PermalinkIt’s not about lies…[deleted].
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 9:30 pm | PermalinkHear hear, WIIS. The emperor not only has no clothes but he’s lost his undies to boot.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 9:58 pm | PermalinkOK, that’s it. Currency Lad – and his repulsive ally, Whyzitzo – have driven this post into repetitive insensibility, and will now have to find another sandpit to play in. You have been given the first and last words, Currency, I hope you will appreciate. In fact, you have had 5 out of the last 10 comments, and most of the thread. You may wish to reflect on that.
My thanks to the other contributors for a stimulating blog on a fascinating political day. It’s rare that you see cabinet blood on the floor, especially from friendly fire. FWIW, I find it hard to escape the feeling that we are watching the death throes of an old government. Cheers.
Posted on 03-Mar-07 at 10:09 pm | Permalink