2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Rudd? (5 Viewers)

[frog12986]

I think we can all see perfectly well that this is a concocted political ploy. Rudd should, obviously, have expected something along these lines, so if he fails to respond well enough then that's his own fault for not being prepared, but don't act as if this is a serious allegation.

Of course it's political; it's that nature of the beast.

As for comparing it to AWB, Iraq and the like, that is not the issue. The issue lies in Rudd taking the moral highground in relation to purity and honesty, which has been vastly undermined by his dealings with a person of this stature in the political scene. If three WA Government ministers were sacked because of their connection to the man, and common knowledge in the ALP suggested that one should steer clear of Mr Burke, 'ignorance' is not a defence.

In each of the aforementioned issues, Rudd lambasted the government, ministers and bureaucrats for dishonesty, and failing to remember the incidents in their entirety, yet on this issue he does the same. Once again, it was Rudd and the ALP who were questioning government integrity in relation to Ron Walker and his business associates; accountability is not a one way street.

Rudd claimed to be an inadvertent guest (on three occassions) of Graeme Edwards, when an invitation sent to other attendees stipulated not only his attendance, but noted him as key speaker. Other informants have also released information that leadership was discussed on at least one occassion, which reveals a lot in relation to Rudd's campaign to remove Beazely. Sure it's a drop in the ocean in the scheme of things, but it says a lot about he character of the man. If Rudd had not been so 'moralistic' in relation to matters that he has criticised the government, this once again would not be an issue.

If it were John Howard in Rudd's position, those saying it's not an issue, would reverse their view.

It's politics and if this went unnoticed, one would have to question the opportunism of Australian politicians.

 

[Josie]

Exactly, if this had never of come out, or if Howard couldn't see a way of gaining political mileage from it, Campbell would have continued to be a no-name for the rest of his time within the party and no one would have cared.

I personally think Rudd's dealing with it quite well, admitting responsibility, which is something Howard never does, because he didn't know, it wasn't his responsibility, or no one told him.

 

[Josie]

but it says a lot about he character of the man.

If it were John Howard in Rudd's position, those saying it's not an issue, would reverse their view.

Sure, this may have tarnished Rudd a bit, but characterwise, he is still infinitely preferable to Howard.

And of course the view would be reversed. That is once again, the nature of Politics.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Of course it's political; it's that nature of the beast.

It's politics and if this went unnoticed, one would have to question the opportunism of Australian politicians.

Yeah, that's not a reason to excuse this shabby excuse of a leader though. This is the best thing he can get on Rudd in the lead up to an election? Lol, oh please, the man is an incompetent buffoon. Oh, and just because politicians are all sleazy opportunists doesn't excuse the behavior on question.

As for comparing it to AWB, Iraq and the like, that is not the issue. The issue lies in Rudd taking the moral highground in relation to purity and honesty, which has been vastly undermined by his dealings with a person of this stature in the political scene. If three WA Government ministers were sacked because of their connection to the man, and common knowledge in the ALP suggested that one should steer clear of Mr Burke, 'ignorance' is not a defence.

Rudd is not claiming ignorance, you fool, he's made it perfectly clear that he did the wrong thing and he apologised for it. And you know what? Iraq, AWB etc is indeed the issue. We've got two men going for election here, one which has lied on a consistent basis for eleven years and another who made a mistake in talking to a guy who's a bit corrupt. It's the lesser of two evils, and if Howard thinks that anyone is going to change their vote over this issue that NO-ONE cares about, then he's grossly mistaken. He's heading toward defeat, and this simply highlights the shallow nature of his supposed political "genius".

In each of the aforementioned issues, Rudd lambasted the government, ministers and bureaucrats for dishonesty, and failing to remember the incidents in their entirety, yet on this issue he does the same. Once again, it was Rudd and the ALP who were questioning government integrity in relation to Ron Walker and his business associates; accountability is not a one way street.

You must have missed the part where I said "I find it deeply disturbing that you'd even considering putting the AWB affair (funding weapons to be used against Australians) against some blown out meeting with some guy. Your judgement is clouded." Please, stop.

Rudd claimed to be an inadvertent guest (on three occassions) of Graeme Edwards, when an invitation sent to other attendees stipulated not only his attendance, but noted him as key speaker. Other informants have also released information that leadership was discussed on at least one occassion, which reveals a lot in relation to Rudd's campaign to remove Beazely. Sure it's a drop in the ocean in the scheme of things, but it says a lot about he character of the man. If Rudd had not been so 'moralistic' in relation to matters that he has criticised the government, this once again would not be an issue.

Once more, I have to point out that even IF this is a 100% transparent example of Rudd being a sleazy politician, he's still miles ahead of Howard on issues like this. Rudd ftw.

If it were John Howard in Rudd's position, those saying it's not an issue, would reverse their view.

Lol. And who was the one who earlier made the comment that AWB etc is not an issue, while focusing on this shamble story? Don't try to take the moral high ground here.

 

[umop 3pisdn]

Look, at the end of the day, the people of Australia have to ask themselves the question:

Do you want our country led by people who associate with the likes of Brian Burke?

I sure don't.

 

[Josie]

Do you want your country led by people who allow themselves to be led by the likes of George W Bush blindly and unconditionally?

I sure don't.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Lol. For everyone one semi-horseshit example that umop 3pisdn, you could come up with about five to use agains the liberal party.

 

[umop 3pisdn]

I'm sorry, but the only message this is sending is that only ONE of the major parties has any ministerial accountability. And it's sure not the ALP.

 

[withoutaface]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

I find it deeply disturbing that you'd even considering putting the AWB affair (funding weapons to be used against Australians) against some blown out meeting with some guy. Your judgement is clouded.

Except that the government was cleared of any wrongdoing over AWB.

 

[jb_nc]

Nebuchanezzar do you rest easy at night knowing soon you will be indoctrinating children with this crap

 

[frog12986]

Rudd is not claiming ignorance, you fool, he's made it perfectly clear that he did the wrong thing and he apologised for it. And you know what? Iraq, AWB etc is indeed the issue. We've got two men going for election here, one which has lied on a consistent basis for eleven years and another who made a mistake in talking to a guy who's a bit corrupt. It's the lesser of two evils, and if Howard thinks that anyone is going to change their vote over this issue that NO-ONE cares about, then he's grossly mistaken. He's heading toward defeat, and this simply highlights the shallow nature of his supposed political "genius".

You must have missed the part where I said "I find it deeply disturbing that you'd even considering putting the AWB affair (funding weapons to be used against Australians) against some blown out meeting with some guy. Your judgement is clouded." Please, stop.

Once more, I have to point out that even IF this is a 100% transparent example of Rudd being a sleazy politician, he's still miles ahead of Howard on issues like this. Rudd ftw.



Lol. And who was the one who earlier made the comment that AWB etc is not an issue, while focusing on this shamble story? Don't try to take the moral high ground here.

Don't call me a fool; insults only reflect on your own character.

Rudd has insisted that he was unaware of the dealings of Mr Burke (now subject to a CCC inquiry) and that if he had been aware that "dealing' with a convicted criminal would have in someway damaged his credibility, he would have rejected such arrangements; seems like ignorance to me. It is either ignorance alone, or ignorance and poor judgement combined. Further, Rudd also seems to have changed his tune from being unaware, or it being incidental that Burke was at the same palce (3 times), to him regretting to committing to such meetings.

Despite attacking a series of government ministers for failing to recall key details of meetings with AWB executives, Mr Rudd admitted he was unable to remember details of three occasions on which he had met Mr Burke, including a dinner at Perth restaurant Perugino on August 1, 2005.
Rudd continually ignores questions about the substance of the meetings to divert attention away from what was actually discussed, and in doing so is creating the perception that he either cannot recall the information, or the information is too damaging to in fact divulge.

Senior Bureaucrats and the government were cleared of any wrongdoing in the AWB situation, which was the work of a corporatised organisation effectively operating independently from government.

Oh and do you plan to have a cosy position with the Teachers Association in the distant future? The fact that you read Mike Carlton, does not surprise me in the slightest..

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Except that the government was cleared of any wrongdoing over AWB.

Hey, maybe this was just talk of the schoolyard, but weren't the terms of reference so slim that it was practically impossible for the commision to level such accusations?

Nebuchanezzar do you rest easy at night knowing soon you will be indoctrinating children with this crap

Don't call me a fool; insults only reflect on your own character.

See, there's the major difference. You have this clown launching this ad hominem crap without anything else. I, on the other hand, hand out a few insults every now and then but also say a bit more to go along with it. So please, don't try to portray me in that way.

Rudd has insisted that he was unaware of the dealings of Mr Burke (now subject to a CCC inquiry) and that if he had been aware that "dealing' with a convicted criminal would have in someway damaged his credibility, he would have rejected such arrangements; seems like ignorance to me. It is either ignorance alone, or ignorance and poor judgement combined. Further, Rudd also seems to have changed his tune from being unaware, or it being incidental that Burke was at the same palce (3 times), to him regretting to committing to such meetings.

Despite attacking a series of government ministers for failing to recall key details of meetings with AWB executives, Mr Rudd admitted he was unable to remember details of three occasions on which he had met Mr Burke, including a dinner at Perth restaurant Perugino on August 1, 2005.
Rudd continually ignores questions about the substance of the meetings to divert attention away from what was actually discussed, and in doing so is creating the perception that he either cannot recall the information, or the information is too damaging to in fact divulge.

Once more, even if this was the case, you're still making a mountain out of a molehill. You yourself just said that it's ignorance and poor judgement, NOT THE EVIL WRONGDOINGS OF A MAN WHO WAS PURPOSELY MEETING WITH A CRAZED CRIMINAL! Holy Jesus, I mean, this isn't 'children overboard' or the Iraq war we're talking about, is it? And for the third time, stop putting this minor affair on the same level as supplying a supposed "terrorist regime" (According to Howard) being funded by an Australian company with government ministerial knowledge. They're not anywhere near the same level, stop trying to pass them off as being on the same level.

Lastly, even if any of this were true, it's a bumblebee of incompetence on behalf of Rudd compared to a fucking bald eagle of incompetence on behalf of Howard and co. We must elect the lesser of two evils, and Howard sure as hell isn't the lesser at this stage.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Hey, maybe this was just talk of the schoolyard, but weren't the terms of reference so slim that it was practically impossible for the commision to level such accusations?

From what I understand Cole had the option to expand the terms of reference, he did not see a need to do so? Anyway, to refresh the record I'm still quite firmly set on voting Liberal in the federal election.

 

[frog12986]

See, there's the major difference. You have this clown launching this ad hominem crap without anything else. I, on the other hand, hand out a few insults every now and then but also say a bit more to go along with it. So please, don't try to portray me in that way.

Once more, even if this was the case, you're still making a mountain out of a molehill. You yourself just said that it's ignorance and poor judgement, NOT THE EVIL WRONGDOINGS OF A MAN WHO WAS PURPOSELY MEETING WITH A CRAZED CRIMINAL! Holy Jesus, I mean, this isn't 'children overboard' or the Iraq war we're talking about, is it? And for the third time, stop putting this minor affair on the same level as supplying a supposed "terrorist regime" (According to Howard) being funded by an Australian company with government ministerial knowledge. They're not anywhere near the same level, stop trying to pass them off as being on the same level.

Lastly, even if any of this were true, it's a bumblebee of incompetence on behalf of Rudd compared to a fucking bald eagle of incompetence on behalf of Howard and co. We must elect the lesser of two evils, and Howard sure as hell isn't the lesser at this stage.

You say I have ad hoc explanations? :rofl:

I don't have to elect anyone that you say I should elect. At the end of the day, economic prosperity along wth ministerial competence will decide this election. A comparison of the front bench's certainly highlights the distinct lack of ministerial depth and potential in the ALP (In a similar vein to the Libs in NSW)

As much as the Mike Carlton's and Alan Ramsay's of this world would hate to admit it, AWB, Iraq and the goblin fairies of Azkaban will not alter the end result. They will affect certain votes, but certainly nowhere near the extent to create a change of government.

You can keep mentioning AWB, Iraq, and the horrendous 'Children Overboard' Saga (which failed to have an impact at the last election), and attempt to reduce the impact of this issue on Rudd's credibility, however despite the shortcomings of the government over 11 years (as with all governments), the Australian people are less forgiving to errors of judgement and mistakes forged by the alternative; this is the context in which this whole fiasco becomes an issue. It won't destroy electoral hopes, however it will go along way to damaging any inherent lead obtained by a fresh opposition..

To suggest that the government is on the brink of electoral defeat on these issues when the ALP has barely mentioned the word policy, really does highlight your failure to grasp the nature of Australian politics and the way in which elections have been historically shaped.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Lol, we'll see. Oh, and way to put yourself off as a hypocrite.

To suggest that the government is on the brink of electoral defeat on these issues when the ALP has barely mentioned the word policy, really does highlight your failure to grasp the nature of Australian politics and the way in which elections have been historically shaped.

Once again, ad hominem. "YOU DUNOT UNDERSTAND AUSSIE POLTICS THEFORE WAT UR SAYING IS TEH WRONG~!"

Good job.

 

[frog12986]

Lol, we'll see. Oh, and way to put yourself off as a hypocrite.

Once again, ad hominem. "YOU DUNOT UNDERSTAND AUSSIE POLTICS THEFORE WAT UR SAYING IS TEH WRONG~!"

Good job.

If you were able to grasp the point, you would understand. Issues such as Iraq, AWB and the like will not shape the likely result of the election. Economic prosperity, and the way in which Australia's individualistic society are ultimately affected bears greater impact on the end result than any ideological issue occurring on the other side of the world. Further as 2001 and 2004 highlighted, policy along with the impactual nature of government will play the most prominent role. Knowledge Nation and Medicare Gold are two such policies that seemed to resign the ALP to the cross benches on each occassion..

If my response was ad hominem, yours was unintelligible. Good Job..

 

[Josie]

Edit: that post made no sense.

Sure, AWB, children overboard, whatever, aren't going to affect the Election. Neither is Howard's scare campaign over Burke though.

 

[Sparcod]

This was stuff from last year. Very old stuff.

Are we all aware that there's a public holiday on September 7 this year. It's due to APEC meetings, in case you've all forgotten.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Natio...y-for-APEC-meet/2006/09/11/1157826862009.html

Sydney residents will enjoy a one-off public holiday on September 7 next year when 20 Asia-Pacific leaders arrive in Australia for a meeting hosted by Prime Minister John Howard.

So this is election year and of course, Johnny Howard, like any other PM, would be extra nice to his people.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Neither is Howard's scare campaign over Burke though.

I don't think people are necessarily going to remember Burke or the exact allegations made, but I do think this is the beginning of a PR attack on Rudd's character that will likely play a decent part in his (I'll predict it now, though I can see a decent chance of me being wrong) downfall.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

If character played any part in winning elections, Howard would most definately not have won anything beyond his 1996 victory.