Comments on: Who’s your daddy?

By: Club Troppo » Missing Link

Club Troppo » Missing Link — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:36:15 +0000

[...] at Troppo, Don Arthur revists the Lakoff hypothesis (part of which suggests that voters relate to political leaders rather like parents: either mother [...]

By: C.L.

C.L. — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:07:28 +0000

Banishing me like Christopher did on one of his earlier posts, are you Don? Chris told me on that occasion that he gets emails from fraidy-cat Troppo readers who don’t like being dominated. The Rudd epirit de flee is spreading apparently. As I’m the only poster so far who has thematically engaged your cockamamie familial analogies in any way whatsoever, I don’t understand the reaction, frankly.

Pretty soon it’ll be Robert speaking to himself on this blog.

However, as you wish - adios.

By: wbb

wbb — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 09:49:45 +0000

(Sorry, Don.)

Iâ€™ve never quite understood why â€œprogressivesâ€ in this country get an almost religious buzz out of boat-people dying.

Well CL, I can only speak for myself here, but I suspect it’s because it satisfies a secret left-wing urge to kill people because of who they are. Never say that progressives aren’t complex.

By: smiling politely

smiling politely — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 09:04:55 +0000

Re: CL post 9 - “He likes Big Sisters like Julia Gillard to go into bat for him, having never had a no-bullshit father to hold him to account manfully.”

Seriously mate. That’s just p1ss-weak. You poor, poor, sad little man.

By: Don Arthur

Don Arthur — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:36:02 +0000

CL - Chris Sheil has opened up a special thread devoted to your pet issue. He must have read my mind.

Bye bye.

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 07:43:47 +0000

Well fair enough C.L. I’m not going hunting after the words because it takes a while to find them and it’s not that important. You likewise haven’t quoted any, but then there’s no reason you should go running round in response to a fairly idle request from me.

But in the absence of fairly damning words from Rudd I’m back with Fred Argy. It all sounds fair enough to me - the kind of thing that the Libs would routinely accuse the ALP Govt of in the past - of (for instance) making deals with unions etc. It’s all fair policy game isn’t it? As were the points scored about Rudd’s meetings with Brian Burke until it all got hyped out of all recognition - that’s how it seems to me anyway.

That’s not to white wash Rudd. He has presumably been somewhat less than entirely forthcoming. But - go on C.L. come with me this far on this - The idea of the Howard Govt hyping up a lack of candour of their opponents - well it is a little, shall we say, audacious? Don’t you think?

By: C.L.

C.L. — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 07:21:01 +0000

Rudd repeatedly pursued the Question Time line that private communications one or all of the men had with the Prime Minister (and others) raised a suspicion that the nuclear power inquiry was set in motion to benefit Walker & Co, because they had established - or were intending to establish - a nuclear industries business. The smear implied wrongdoing, collusion and the corruption of government. The canine yapping at a verbally struggling Ian McFarlane underscored how viciously Labor was prosecuting the entirely theatrical charge. Having been targeted by Labor on the subject of meetings and dealings and quids pro quo, the government responded by asking Mr Rudd to explain his multiple tete-a-tetes with a convicted criminal. McFarlane and Howard answered and stared down their accusers in the House. Rudd cried “mudslingers, waaahhhh!” and oozed on over to the press room where he was no longer accountable to the Parliament. The character assassination and mud-pie throwing was begun by Rudd. He has form for accusing Alexander Downer of being Saddam Hussein’s “bagman” and for calling John Howard a liar over WMD. (He was himself far more dogmatic about the existence of WMD than Howard ever was). Now we have hitherto serious bloggers hailing the Womble as Sibling Number 1 or Father of the Nation. Or something. It’s getting creepy.

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 06:43:46 +0000

C.L. I didn’t follow Kevin Rudd’s ’sliming’ of the three businessmen. So in my ignorance I assumed the same kind of position as Fred Argy has. Can you cite the things Rudd said that were unacceptable?

By: C.L.

C.L. — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 06:42:24 +0000

The coroner said he drank beers, then whiskies, then beers again with dinner. Then he drove home, fell asleep and hit a pole. Clear case of drink-driving but Homer is entitled to his fantasies. The point is Rudd claimed doctors were responsible for Bert’s death. Not so.

Anyone can make a personal explanation in rebuttal of misrepresentation. Rudd didn’t go that route because he intended to dissemble on his multiple “accidental” eating engagements with Burkey.

By: Bring Back CL's blog

Bring Back CL's blog — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 06:32:19 +0000

incorrect. The Coroners report stated he was observed to have drunk some beers and whiskies but they did not know how many.
He was playing bowls, which is in the report, at the time so your theory is blown out of the water.
As I said previously the coroner could have said if he thought Rudd had been drinking too much.
He didn’t.
You should pay proper attention to Piers and Christopher. They did NOT say that at all. They merely implied because it wasn’t in the coroners report.
The Coroner would have only investigated the doctors if some sort of complaint was made at the time.
It wasn’t.
Surely I don’t have to tell a Queenslander that after what has happened up there.

You again avoid the problems of attempting to claim misrepresentation in the house.

It is a fools errand as it is stacked in favour of the Government via standing orders which no Government has attempted to change.

By: C.L.

C.L. — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 06:22:30 +0000

Bert Rudd was drinking all afternoon and drank into the evening. He then drove home, fell asleep and smashed into a pole. What a surprise. The coroner cleared doctors of malpractice.

Young Rudd could have claimed misrepresetation in the House but chose not to because he knew this was a slippery matter and he’d have to be creative.

He got away with it, though reporters noticed he appeared panic-stricken.

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:56:51 +0000

If the method is to scare the heck out of us and then swish around telling us how everything will be ok, it sounds more like a Tranny Daddy.

By: Bring Back CL's blog

Bring Back CL's blog — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:42:32 +0000

Contrary to CL’s hallucinations The Coroner could have made it very clear if Bet Rudd had been hammered on beer and whiskies. He didn’t. The police couldn’t ascertain how many drinks he had. Rudd di not have the reputation of a heavy drinker.
Bear in mind in 1969 no-one knew how many drinks could lead you to drive badly.
We know he went bowling. Few beers and partaken during this. He did have lunch and dinner. given the time involved and the small beers that were served in Queensland at the time even having half a dozen beers and a couple of whiskies would not have been viewed as drinking a lot nor detrimental to driving however we do not know how many drinks he had. It is highly unlikely he had a lot given he had to drive 120 miles.
The coroner did not clear the doctors of anything but merely stated what Mr Rudd had died of. He didn’t investigate it.

If CL actually understands what an MP can say under misrepresentation then he would know that MR Rudd could only talk on a very restricted area and not the whole subject which is why he wisely held a press conference which only finished when there no questions left to be asked

By: C.L.

C.L. — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:36:54 +0000

“…after the intense venom poured out over the last two weeks against Rudd…”

Well, here’s another example of this increasingly strange Big Sisterly orientation to Little Kev. Howard would be the most vilified leader in Australian history but the poignantly innocent son of the Sunrise family gets sympathy from people because he was asked why he meets convicted criminals in restaurants on the other side of the country. Sympathy for Abbott getting ridiculed over his adopted-out son? No. Sympathy for Costello after a Labor speech-writer accused his wife of being sexually loose? No. Sympathy for Howard after having his war hero father and grandfather investigated and mocked by David Marr? No. The difference: the three Coalition personalities are men and adults. Young Kev, not so much.

By: C.L.

C.L. — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:28:51 +0000

Bert Rudd was hammered on beer and whiskey. He crashed his car and died later of complications. The coroner cleared the doctors - contrary to Rudd’s imaginative tale. Villagers in Rudd’s former home regard his Mr Potter story regarding “eviction” as bizarre. Rudd could have claimed misrepresentation in Parliament over the Burke charges but chickened out to a press conference where he could be more casual and breezy with the truth. The official story is still that he strolled into various eateries after flying across the continent and Burkey happened to be there.

No I don’t think it makes any sense, Don, respectfully.

By: Bring Back CL's blog

Bring Back CL's blog — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 04:04:49 +0000

CL apparently has heard the judges in TWO counties found High Morgan’s integrity wanting. Not surprised though.
A pity he relies on two of the laziest reporters for his information on Rudd’s family.
Neither of whom actually stated Rudd’s father had drunk too much because that isn’t in the report.
He died of septicaemia. A problem form the hospital. You know doctors and all that
We do know the much lauded Aubrey Low simply refused to meet a obligation he agreed to of paying compensation for improvements in the building the Rudds were living in.
This was not an unusual occurrence with share farmers. It happened a lot with banana growers in the Mid North coast of NSW at the same time.

CL then drivels on about Rudd not making a statement to parliament. HE isn’t a minister. He could only make a statement on being misrepresented. Anyone who understnds anything to do with parliament knows he couldn’t make such a stement under those conditions.

By: Don Arthur

Don Arthur — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 03:55:46 +0000

Can we not have a debate over which side is more virtuous? It always ends up like barracking at a footy match.

I’m curious about whether anyone thinks this new spin on the Mummy/Daddy thesis makes any sense.

By: Fred Argy

Fred Argy — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 03:48:19 +0000

There is a myth going around that people on the Left are great haters but that this less true of the Right. I never believed that! I believe it even less now - after the intense venom poured out over the last two weeks against Rudd - a man who at best is guilty of poor political judgment and who (in the absence of new evidence) is basically a decent Australian.

By: C.L.

C.L. — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:55:43 +0000

It was, on the ground in Parliament, actually more muddy than that, Fred. The man being repeatedly hissed and hollered at was Ian McFarlane. Because of his voice defect, he is usually the only man in the chamber afforded the novelty of being heard in silence because he can’t rise to the interjections. On these occasions that courtesy went out the window, as Rudd slimed everyone in sight - including Walker (who also spoke to Steve Bracks about his nuclear business proposals). Subsequently, the government decided that if the debate was about who met with whom and what was discussed where and why, than Mr Rudd had serious questions to answer about his dealings with Brian Burke. McFarlane and Howard answered their questions in the Parliament - evidently to the satisfaction of the Opposition because they dropped the subject. Rudd, however, “answered” his questions outside of Parliament because he intended to lie. He has still not answered those questions - but he was right to discern that Rudd Huggers would protect him, which they have.

If the nation is a family, McFarlane and Howard on this occasion gave explanations to all at the kitchen table. Rudd did a bunk and dissembled in less solemn environs to the most sympathetic family member he could russle up: the media. This is of a piece psychologically with what we know about Rudd, thanks to his own Log Cabin mythologising. He likes Big Sisters like Julia Gillard to go into bat for him, having never had a no-bullshit father to hold him to account manfully. He can, he believes, get away with fantastic tales of self-referential lionisation: thus the mendacious Mr Potter hatchet job done on Aubrey Low, the invented story about doctors being responsible for his drink-driver Dad’s death, that he wandered into restaurants on the other side of the country three times and Brian Burke happened to be there. And so on.

WBB, the number of asylum seekers coming to Australia courtesy of people-smugglers is down by hundreds, if not thousands. What Howard has “stooped to” has saved many lives. The left’s come-one come-all policy would, by now, have killed probably dozens. I’ve never quite understood why “progressives” in this country get an almost religious buzz out of boat-people dying. It’s sick stuff.

By: wbb

wbb — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 00:54:23 +0000

Of course Howard’ll play the security card. Already we have seen him try it on with the Sri Lankan refugees.

They washed up on Christmas Island to complete media & public disinterest.

So what does Howard do? He loudly announces that he’s moving those naughty Sri Lankan refugees to Nauru. All in the attempt to stir up some controversy. However them being Sri Lankans makes it difficult for Howard to get this issue off the ground.

There is virtually nothing Howard will not stoop to.