Tony Wright has been almost as worshipful as any press gallery journalist huddled at the feet of the new Messiah:
That same release — the hope of an expulsion, really, of a national burden — could be felt across the country...
Yet today Wright is having a nagging bit of bother reconciling that Messiah to these squalid tactics of a political mercenary:
SELDOM has Australia witnessed a defter illustration of the political art. As Kevin Rudd wove his spell on Wednesday over the gathered peoples of the old land we inhabit, granting with finely crafted words a symbolic rebirth to the lost and the found, he tossed a rope to Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson.It was, however, both an instrument of deliverance and a lasso.
Nelson had no choice but to sit there, nodding sagely, as Rudd proposed that he and the Opposition Leader jointly head a sort of war cabinet to tackle — as a start — the lack of housing in remote Aboriginal communities. Nelson had no clue that such a gift was coming his way, and thus could neither refuse it nor accept it. He was, in effect, rendered politically impotent.
Rudd’s gesture, though, was so dexterously crafted, he could receive only plaudits. His stature growing by the minute as an inclusive prime minister catching the mood of the country, who would be so meanly disposed to detect a hidden motive, let alone criticise such apparent generosity of spirit?
He had done something similar, though less transparently, the very day before. With a battalion of painted dancers and didgeridoo players about to perform the first “welcome to country” in the marbled members’ hall of Parliament House, Rudd and Nelson mounted the podium to receive their splendid welcome. Nelson came empty handed — he had been assured by organisers that he would not be required to speak. But as the ceremony reached its zenith, Rudd leant over and whispered to Nelson, “Mate, would you mind saying a few words?”
Meanwhile, new News Ltd columnist Laurie Oakes mentions a fact without noticing its real significance:
The surprising thing is that in his years as a bureaucrat and then MP, Rudd had never really been part of the bleeding heart brigade on Aboriginal affairs. Until nine months ago he had difficulty seeing any real practical value in the push for an apology.
Oakes says it was nine months ago that Rudd, heroically focusing on this issue during a time of personal troubles, finally saw the light:
But he finally put it together in his head when he came to prepare a speech for a function on May 27 last year to mark the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum which gave the Federal Government power to legislate for indigenous Australians.
Yet what Oakes fails to mention is that even as recently as three months ago Rudd wasn’t sure at all that saying the “sorry” word was necessary. Listen for yourself to Rudd dodging four specific questions on that from 3AW’s Neil Mitchell, refusing again and again to answer if his apology would contain the word “sorry”.
As I said at the time:
Three options: he’s unable to give direct answers; he’s trying to hide Labor’s dumber Leftist policies; or he’s walking into a huge ideological battle with Labor after the election. I favor two of those options.
All three of my suggestions were correct, as it turned out.
But Rudd this week rewrote his history of equivocation on “sorry”:
Last year I made a commitment to the Australian people that if we formed the next government of the Commonwealth we would in parliament say sorry to the stolen generations.
False. He refused just three months ago to confirm he’d say that word.
Let’s play options again, and this time there are only two.
First, that Rudd only recently bothered to even think about the “stolen generations”, what he now calls a “great stain (on) the nation’s soul”, and is saying “sorry” now only because he was dragged to it or because he could use it as a political weapon. In short, his sincerity is fake. His interest in Aboriginal issues is utterly new in him.
Second, that Rudd has in truth felt for many months that a “sorry” was needed, but misled the public about his clear intentions, fearing they might vote against it and him at the election. In short, he is not honest and knew his sorry would divide us, not unite us.
A flake or a fake.
Free Offers Discounts Promotional Samples Paid and Prize Surveys
www.zoomdirect.com.au
1 Minute Poll Who is a Better Leader?
Have-Your-Vote.com/FederalLeader
Uncover Your Political Past With Our Newest Historical Collection
www.ancestry.com.au
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Read Tim Blair about the apology where he quotes Laurie Oakes about how Kevin didn’t give a rat’s arse about saying sorry up to very recently ago.
Now he preaches to “41 parliaments for being late”.
Sat 16 Feb 08 (10:50am)
In Rudd’s case the terms are definitely not mutually exclusive
Sat 16 Feb 08 (10:53am)
*note* Labor ministers turn their backs at the Sorry ceremony and are repremanded by Mr Rudd.
Didn’t Mr Rudd ALWAYS turn his back on Howard in question time?
Sat 16 Feb 08 (10:58am)
Neither Andrew !
He is OUR brand new shiny , fresh, clean, modern and up to date PRIME MINISTER !
And doesn’t he look good ?
Sat 16 Feb 08 (11:01am)
So, if saying Sorry or expressing sorrow for something that “this generation” isn’t responsible for, is wrong, then isn’t expressing pride and gratitude for something that “this generation” had no part in also wrong. Gallipoli comes to mind for example.
Also, if an apology is wrong because “this generation” isn’t responsible. Surely, this philosophy must applies to other countries as well. Are you opposed to the Current Japanese or German governments apologising for WWII atrocities ?
Sat 16 Feb 08 (11:02am)
How many blond Australian prime ministers or premiers can you recall? How many globals heads of countries?
The only person other than Rudd that I can recall is Peter Beattie and he tends to confirm thinking…
Sat 16 Feb 08 (11:09am)
Krudd is a reflection of the people of this country.
Sat 16 Feb 08 (11:10am)
Sat 16 Feb 08 (11:25am)
Yep, Rudd certainly does reflect the majority. Increasingly so too!!!
As Brendan Nelson said in 2005 - “If you don’t like it here, then clear off.”
Rudd will increase his margin at the next election.
900 days till the next election. I haven’t seen 1 single thing this week that suggests to me the the Libs can win a chook raffle let alone the next election.
Andrew, my advice to you is to stop trolling the Saturday morning rags to misrepresent old leftie hacks and start sorting out the Liberal party.
They are quite frankly - “LAUGHABLE.”
Sat 16 Feb 08 (11:19am)
I cannot stand the way that Kevin Rudd, a very recent convert to the Aboriginal cause, is being feted while Brendan Nelson is being pilloried as some sort of fiend. In fact, long ago, Nelson established his credentials as a supporter of Aboriginal rights, while Rudd remained silent.
How quickly we forget.
In May 2000, the Federal Parliament debated the Mandatory Sentencing laws in the Northern Territory. These “three strikes and you’re out” laws effectively targetted and jailed Aboriginal people - including children - for the most minor of crimes.
Brendan Nelson, then a backbencher, gave one of the best speeches heard in the Parliament for many a long year. Read it. Even Anthony Albanese commented that it was a great speech, according to the Hansard record. Nelson was not alone amongst the Liberals on opposing these laws – Dana Vale, Petro Georgiou, and others spoke out and threatened to cross the floor of Parliament. The result of their opposition was that pressure was applied to the NT government and the laws were repealled, much to the delight, as I recall, of Aboriginal leaders and people alike.
Did Kevin Rudd? Nope. SNIP
Sat 16 Feb 08 (11:23am)
SNIP… way too long. Please keep it short and sharp. Bolt Moderators.
Andrew Bolt
Sat 16 Feb 08 (11:24am)
Andrew asks:-
Is Rudd, “A flake or a fake”.
I lean towards “A flake AND a fake”.
It’s funny though how closely The Age’s Tony Wrihght and The Tele’s Lozza Oakes think.
Almost identical in fact. It must be something in the water collers down there in parliament House.
Sample:
Wright:
Nelson had no choice but to sit there, nodding sagely, as Rudd proposed that he and the Opposition Leader jointly head a sort of war cabinet to tackle — as a start — the lack of housing in remote Aboriginal communities. Nelson had no clue that such a gift was coming his way, and thus could neither refuse it nor accept it. He was, in effect, rendered politically impotent.
Oakes:
And the PM deliberately ambushed Nelson with his public invitation to co-chair a kind of “war cabinet” on indigenous housing and other issues, giving the Opposition Leader no chance to confer with colleagues or lay down conditions before accepting.
Rudd clearly thought Nelson might be tempted to break away from bipartisanship unless he was continually corralled.
-------------------------------
Maybe the herd mentality is required to to get you a job in the Press Gallery. It’s uncanny that both men were so, shall we say, in lock-step with each other on the same day in papers 600km apart and even further apart politically.
Anyhoo, Nelson is gradually wiggling out of it saying he “will refuse to join Kevin Rudd’s tour of Aboriginal communities until he is assured it will not become a “media circus”.
It’ll be a circus alright. Anybody who saw Rudd in Dili on the news last night knows exactly why he went. It was nothing but a huge photo op to show us he’s el supremo on the world stage.
Two stunts in one week and the stupid press bought it, lock, stock and two smoking barrels”.
Sat 16 Feb 08 (11:27am)
Ads By Google
Free Stuff Australia
Free Offers Discounts Promotional Samples Paid and Prize Surveys
www.zoomdirect.com.au
Kevin Rudd v B Nelson
1 Minute Poll Who is a Better Leader?
Have-Your-Vote.com/FederalLeader
Australian Electoral Roll
Uncover Your Political Past With Our Newest Historical Collection
www.ancestry.com.au