Joe puts the best spin on things he can

I’ve often thought that in politics, the signature of honesty is not lack of dishonesty – an impossibility in party politics – but a certain discomfort with the the lies you have to tell. I’m giving Joe the benefit of the doubt on this one. And good on you Penny for your dignity in the midst of indignity.

This entry was posted in Gender, Media. Bookmark the permalink.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
18 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael
Michael
9 years ago

I found “Kin Hell, By George Monbiot” interesting. I haven’t studied this topic so I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the claims, but interesting nonetheless.

The nuclear family, as idealised today, was an invention of the Victorians, but it bore little relationship to the family life we are told to emulate. Its development was driven by economic rather than spiritual needs, as the industrial revolution made manufacturing in the household inviable.
…….Conservatives often hark back to the golden age of the 1950s. But in the 1950s, John Gillis shows, people of the same persuasion believed they had suffered a great moral decline since the early 20th Century. In the early 20th Century, people fetishised the family lives of the Victorians. The Victorians invented this nostalgia, looking back with longing to imagined family lives before the Industrial Revolution.

woulfe
woulfe
9 years ago

Indeed. The look of great pain on Hockey’s face revealed much about his humanity. As Dennis Altman has said on The Conversation site today:

Until politicians are free to actually express their own views rather than those of the party, they cannot be used as commentators. Perhaps that is why the final exchange between Penny Wong and Joe Hockey on Monday’s Q&A was so electric. Here were current politicians talking about personal beliefs, and Hockey’s clear embarrassment was evidence that his basic decency is restricted by his party’s policy.

Hockey’s discomfort also illustrates why marriage equality must be a conscience vote when it comes before the Parliament later this year. The level of personal investment in this issue means that to force parliamentarians to vote one way or another would be an act of egregious brutishness.

Chris Lloyd
Chris Lloyd
9 years ago

The whole premise of the question, which Joe did not contradict, was that Joe is not in favour of gay marriage because you believe children need a mother and a father. How are the two related? Gays and straights can have children now without being married. This just reinforces my view that Joe has a below average IQ.

Pedro
Pedro
9 years ago

Opposition to gay marriage seems like a real “just because”. But I think we have to accept that a generally conservative electorate will take some time to finish moving on it and politicians are followers before they are leaders.

Dan
Dan
9 years ago
Reply to  Pedro

Isn’t the electorate well and truly in favour but held back (sigh) by a couple of marginal Bible Belt electorates in Western Sydney?

IIRC, about 80% of people are in favour. Maybe you can correct me here, but I note that the majority of people in the US are now supportive.

Dan
Dan
9 years ago
Reply to  Pedro

In fact, if there was bipartisan support for this, it just wouldn’t be a political issue it all. Funny little bit of game theory there! But instead poor old Joe has to go and say something he doesn’t believe to a country that doesn’t agree with his stated position. For what? Product differentiation?

Dan
Dan
9 years ago
Reply to  Dan

*at all

Pedro
Pedro
9 years ago
Reply to  Dan

I haven’t seen the figures, but my sense is that pollies need a real push on social change. It’s not just the libs.

Patrick
Patrick
9 years ago
Reply to  Dan

It certainly isn’t ‘just the libs’!! Julia’s red-hot support for gay marriage is well documented.

And just for the record has anyone asked Rudd for his view? I’d love to get that on the record, especially if he managed to work Shorten and Arbib into the answer with some real PJK-style venom :)

Sancho
Sancho
9 years ago
Reply to  Pedro

The polls and parliamentary submissions uniformly come in at ~65% public support for gay marriage.

JB Cairns
JB Cairns
9 years ago

Chris, yes they can both adopt children.
However it is only gays where one ‘partner’ has to be unfaithful to actually have a child. There is only one parent. The other can do bugger all.

not like heterosexuals eh!

Joe was uncomfortable but not because he was not telling the truth. It might just be the topic!

fxh
fxh
9 years ago

You ok there homer?

You supporting Sloppy Joe?

You are against same sex marriage because gays aren’t heterosexual?

JB Cairns
JB Cairns
9 years ago

Yes FXH I am supporting Joe.

I am not a trendy

Dan
Dan
9 years ago
Reply to  JB Cairns

Given that it’s not clear that Joe is supporting Joe, I’m sure he appreciates your sentiment, or maybe not.

JB Cairns
JB Cairns
9 years ago

I can’t see how you can say that.

It looks pretty clear what he is saying and why he is saying it.

Dan
Dan
9 years ago
Reply to  JB Cairns

Actually, it’s conjecture, unless you have some claim to the truth that the rest of us don’t (which I’m fairly certain is not the case).

JB Cairns
JB Cairns
9 years ago

Dan,
the video is pretty easy to look at and listen to.

You are claiming Joe is saying something he doesn’t believe in.

You claim it shows this. I cannot see that.

Well the whole basis of Nick’s premise is conjecture

Dan
Dan
9 years ago

Well, if there’s a conscience vote we’ll see.