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

However, as you wish – adios.

I

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

Bye bye.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Thanks for this overgeneralization. Obviously “we” in this in means white males who need an excuse for either being obnoxious to other people or an excuse for being a failure. This isn’t the majority of the population.

Because the Coalition has been in power for so long, and due to the rugged nature of their changes made, it’s difficult for them to stand on a positive platform. They’ve not convinced the electorate the changes they’ve made are fabulous for the country, so they cannot undo that uncertainty and then provide an inspiring, attractive vision of it enough to rely on it for being re-elected. (Of course they will provide interesting and innovative policy). And the economy to him is but an elective tool.

With nowhere up to go, and under increasing pressure from Rudd’s viable alternative (if ALP doesn’t break or stumble), I see the election process as effectively stripping Howard back to his core. There’s a huge amount at stake. That’s enormous pressure and Howard won’t risk mucking around.

At his core Howard is all about getting re-elected. He doesn’t care about what he does to the country to do so. He has no philosophical drive or principle closer than that. He is comfortable and in his element when ripping into some sort of divisive, fear based negative action. Nothing is more powerful than security. Strip a country to its core and the economy goes before it does.

So the speculation is it’s “security” for this one, played much later (unless he has to sow seeds of it and build it up), with a lot of piss and wind positives before then to cover that intention up.

It is at a quite different level from questioning the integrity of Rudd simply because his recollections of childhood experiences (backed by his brother) differ marginally from those of other witnesses at the time. That is clearly mud-slinging.

Do you think Lakoff’s right that people think of the nation as if it were a family? In his review Pinker thinks Lakoff goes too far:

Lakoff’s cartoonish depiction of progressives as saintly sophisticates and conservatives as evil morons fails on both intellectual and tactical grounds.

Robert – Ok, I understand you’re just speculating, but what kind of securtity issue do you think it will be? Want to have a go at sketching out a scenario?