Rudd really was a crying shame

[icyfroth]

YOU'D have to be heartless not to feel sympathy for Kevin Rudd, tearstained and forlorn, announcing his resignation from politics.

It's also only human to feel exasperation at his self-indulgence and emotional flaccidity.

Overseas visitors who watched Wednesday night's performance could scarcely believe the behaviour of a grown man, a former prime minister, in parliament with streaming tears, sniffily nose and the demeanour of a child who has just spent an hour in his bedroom bawling his eyes out.

Get a grip, Kevin. People in the Philippines have something to cry about.

The contrast could not have been more stark between a blubbering Rudd capping off his spectacular career with another spectacle and Tony Abbott just 10 minutes earlier giving the interview of his life on ABC's 7.30, as he tried to fix his predecessor's biggest mess.

But Abbott is one cold turkey. "I'm not interested in providing sport for journalists," he told 7.30. "I'm not interested in starting a fight or provoking an argument; I'm interested in stopping the boats.

"And why I'm interested in stopping the boats is because this is a humanitarian disaster as well as an affront to Australian sovereignty."

"I want to stop the boats for Australia's sake and for the sake of common humanity," Abbott said.

"Surely all Australians, including the media, should want to stop the boats, not to provoke an argument."

Abbott's construction is correct. Those calling for blow-by-blow details of "on-water" operations are only providing marketing material for people-smugglers and causing trouble with Indonesia. Why should the government help them?

Again, how different it was to John Howard's behaviour when he lost office in humiliating circumstances in the Ruddslide of 2007, losing his own seat of Bennelong to Maxine McKew by 2434 votes.

But Howard was gracious in defeat, even turning up at the official declaration of the poll when he didn't have to, smiling and shaking hands with the victor, and having a cup of tea with the voters who had rejected him.

"This is a wonderful exercise in democracy and it is a privilege to be part of that process," he said at the time.

John Howard was indeed a class act. History will treat Rudd less kindly.

Click Here To View Full Article

And with that I'm off to bed. Anyone want to take pot-shots at me, I wil be back tomorrow to reply.

'night all night owls

[cherry*135]

Labor Luvvies should concentrate on strengthening ties with their own party and wait until the next election to hit their target.

What about people that aren't Labor luvvies,?  No reason why they can't express their dissapointment/horror at the new Prime Minister.. nothing to do with past Labor leaders.

The new Prime Minster is the target of today's media... why would anyone think only good things will appear in the media about him for the next 3 years?

[the_great_she_elephant]

Icy, you need to Google the expression "non sequitur" if you think the Labour party - and previous government - are/were a shambles, you are perfectly entitled to post anything you like to back up that opinion, but you can't expect people to take you seriously if you can't present a logical argument..

Even you must see that whether or not someone becomes emotional when they announce their retirement has absolutely nothing to do with their professional abilities (or lack thereof)

[cherry*135]

I think LNP supporters keep trying to turn attention back to Gillard and Rudd to try and stop negative comments being made about Abbott.. not going to work.

[icyfroth]

---

@am*3 wrote:

I think LNP supporters keep trying to turn attention back to Gillard and Rudd to try and stop negative comments being made about Abbott.. not going to work.

---

Their is nothing current from the ALP for the LNP or the ALP supporters to focus attention on, is there? Theyr'e still busy trying to rebuild in the aftermath of their annihilation at the hands of the Aus public.

[lakeland27]

annihilation is newsltd speak. they won , thats all.

[cherry*135]

I don't see it like that at all. We have a new Prime Minister, him and his MP's are the focus of news stories now. If newspapers started running main stories now (not just an opinion piece here and there) on what Rudd or Gillard did or didn't do in the past, as main stories .. readers would think they had lost the plot. 

Tony Abbott is who readers want to follow/read about. If he or his ministers  do dumb things, it will be in the media asap.

No amount of deflecting back to Gillard or Rudd will take the focus of the current PM... in the media or on forums!

[icyfroth]

---

@am*3 wrote:

Labor Luvvies should concentrate on strengthening ties with their own party and wait until the next election to hit their target.

What about people that aren't Labor luvvies,?  No reason why they can't express their dissapointment/horror at the new Prime Minister.. nothing to do with past Labor leaders.

No reason at all. It's still a free country.

The funny thing about the Aussie voters is...they vote one party in, get all disillusioned abut their choice then decide next term they'll give the other party a go, then get all disillusioned about that, then next term...

Ever heard the old saying "if you keep doing the same thing, you'll keep getting the same result"?

Both our parties are at core interchangeable, they are beholden to the large Corporations and Big Money players that keep them in rotation.

Aussies think they have freedom of choice, but in actuality they are simply on a treadmill.

The new Prime Minster is the target of today's media... why would anyone think only good things will appear in the media about him for the next 3 years?

No government is all good or all bad. There were some good points about the recent Labor government, but they were lost in the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd debacle.

---

[topsidesoul]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

Do you have any reliable proof or example of in-party bickering of the Liberal such as we saw in the Labor administration, Lakey?

Anyone you know of being groomed to stab Mr Abbott in the back in a leadership challenge?

It seems to me the Labor Lubbies have nothing positive from their own party to focus on and so need console themselves with the continued character assassination of Mr Abbott they tried to win the election with.

Get over it fgs, it's distracting us from the real issues.

We should all be out on the steps of Town Hall in Sydney protesting with big placards the sale of Australian Industries and resources to foreign interests, especially our food sovereignty, instead of sitting behind our computers bickering about what party is better. They're as good or bad as each other!

I'm sure Labor will get it's turn again at a future election. That's the nature of Aussie politics.

---

so stability = dictatorship and never questioing because there was a while of 'will turnball, won't turnball'?

Or is stability using howards old front bench?

Howard cried BTW,

I would cry to if I lost my seat to a first term journalist...

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

I don't care whether you approve of my motives in posting certain articles find worthy of discussion, Martini. After all, when have I ever questione yours?

---

You can post whatever you like.

As you will see from my first post, you will note that I was querying what discussion you wanted to have based on the OP and the article posted.

You then posted that the article (about Rudds tears) had nothing to do with the topic you really wanted to discuss (instability of the Rudd administration). So surely you can understand why I was trying to make sense of the article. I had to keep going back to read it to see if I had missed anything that related to politics rather than what it really way - a dig at a man who shows emotion.

Sorry if my questipon upset youi.

[icyfroth]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

I don't care whether you approve of my motives in posting certain articles find worthy of discussion, Martini. After all, when have I ever questione yours?

---

You can post whatever you like.

As you will see from my first post, you will note that I was querying what discussion you wanted to have based on the OP and the article posted.

You then posted that the article (about Rudds tears) had nothing to do with the topic you really wanted to discuss (instability of the Rudd administration). So surely you can understand why I was trying to make sense of the article. I had to keep going back to read it to see if I had missed anything that related to politics rather than what it really way - a dig at a man who shows emotion.

Sorry if my questipon upset youi.

---

youis questipon didn't upset me at all