Let's hope that people see the Lib's for the slime they truly are.
More US intervention in Oz politics. The US Deputy Secretary of State yesterday divulged details of private talks with Oz Labor Party representatives in Washington. Here's today's "Age" editorial comment:
Armitage labours a weak point
July 9, 2004
The US Deputy Secretary of State did no one any favours with his comments on the ALP.
From a number of points of view, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has this week failed to enhance his standing as the White House's chief custodian of the relationship between America and Australia. For one thing, in a meeting with Australian media representatives in Washington he employed a colloquial term involving the word "sausage" in such a highly inapposite way - given that he was talking about communications with Australian politicians - that it surely can do nothing but raise guffaws on this side of the Pacific. For another, he appears to have simultaneously interfered in Australian national politics, betrayed the confidence of at least one and possibly several Labor MPs, and misrepresented the policy position of the Labor Party into the bargain.
Mr Armitage said the ALP was "rent down the middle" over Iraq, something that was made plain to him in recent talks with Australian "colleagues" who he said had spoken with him "very candidly and plainly". In appraising Mr Armitage's comments, it is difficult to nominate the most egregious element. Perhaps dealing with the factual basis of his analysis is the best place to start. There are varying degrees of emphasis in the federal Labor Party about the approach to Iraq but it is simply not the case that Labor is split down the middle on the issue. So he is wrong.
Then there is the discomfort his comments create for the federal Labor Party people who recently visited Washington for the Australian/American leadership dialogue: Kim Beazley, Martyn Evans, Kevin Rudd and Stephen Conroy. None of these men could be said to be ill-disposed towards the US and, as another highly pro-American Labor figure, NSW Premier Bob Carr, has said, they are the ones who will be needed to repair whatever strains there might be in the relationship should a Latham government be elected this year. How do Mr Armitage's gratuitous statements help that process? Indeed, how could they do anything but make it more difficult?
One of the attributes that has enabled Mr Armitage to build personal relationships with people across the Australian political spectrum in the past is his straight-talking demeanour. There is nothing wrong with straight talking. Being direct can be a virtue even in the nuanced world of diplomacy; neither Australians nor Americans are as a rule particularly skilful at sugar-coating what they really mean. But this is not straight talk, it is loose and unnecessary verbiage - an exercise in poor form by a senior player in what is an important diplomatic, military and economic relationship. The Bush Administration has made its position on Labor's Iraq position clear. Cack-handed attempts at analysing the mentality of the caucus as a way of underlining the point are unhelpful.
`
And Mark Latham's response - from page 1 of today's Age:
Butt out, Latham tells America
By Mark Forbes, Michelle Grattan
July 9, 2004
Opposition Leader Mark Latham has urged Americans from the right and the left to butt out of Australian politics.
Responding to the latest comments on Iraq policy from the Bush Administration, Mr Latham said there was "too much overseas commentary and interventions in Australian politics" in the lead-up to an election.
He joined a chorus of condemnation yesterday of United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's claim that Labor was "rent down the middle" over its Iraq policy.
Former prime minister Paul Keating released a statement describing the Bush Administration's attacks as thuggish, dumb and counter-productive.
And New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, in Sydney yesterday, warned the US that "Australians have to have the debate themselves about who is best to lead them" adding that "other people should stand back".
In Washington for talks with top Administration officials, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer seized on Mr Armitage's comments as proof that Labor said one thing in public and another in private in an "extraordinary display of division and incoherence".
Mr Armitage told Australian reporters this week that he had based his view on private talks with Australian "colleagues" during the Australian-US dialogue in Washington recently. His comments followed President George Bush describing Labor's plans to withdraw troops from Iraq as disastrous.
In repudiating Mr Armitage's intervention, Mr Latham was careful not to appear to be attacking simply the Bush Administration.
He noted that left-wing US filmmaker Michael Moore had also stepped into Australian politics. Moore said this week that Prime Minister John Howard "appears to have half a brain" in supporting Mr Bush on Iraq.
Mr Latham, campaigning on the NSW central coast, said: "I'd ask these commentators overseas to respect Australia's democratic processes just as we respect theirs, and basically stick to their own election campaign and arrangements just as we're going to stick to ours".
He said Australians wanted to make their own judgement in their own way about the coming election.
"So whether it's right or left-wing commentary out of the United States or any other country, it's better for people to stick to their own democracies," he said.
Mr Latham pointed out that Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd had said he knew of no factual basis for what Mr Armitage was saying.
Mr Latham said he had not had the chance to ask others from the Labor Party about any conversations with Mr Armitage, but Mr Rudd had responded on behalf of the party.
Yesterday Mr Rudd said he had had a "robust exchange" with Mr Armitage after explaining Labor's promise to withdraw troops from Iraq by Christmas. "We opposed going to war in Iraq and our policy was clear-cut in terms of a proposed date for withdrawing our troops," Mr Rudd said.
Four federal MPs, including Mr Rudd, Kim Beazley, Stephen Conroy and Martyn Evans, attended the dialogue, as did NSW Premier Bob Carr and Victorian Premier Steve Bracks.
Mr Latham rejected yesterday's pact with the US for Australia to join its "son of star wars" missile defence shield.
He said it would not protect continental Australia but would increase missile proliferation and insecurity in the region.
However, he supported the establishment of three joint training bases in northern Australia, which was also endorsed in the Washington talks.
"Labor has always supported joint training with the United States, just as we strongly support the American alliance," he said.
Mr Keating denied there was any division in the party over Iraq policy and said Mr Armitage "has made yet another unwarranted and untimely partisan intervention in the Australian political debate".
The Labor Party would "not be thugged by US officials", and the previous Bush and Clinton administrations would not have attempted or contemplated such behaviour.
"Beating up on friendly foreign political parties is not only unsightly, it is also dumb and counter-productive in the longer term," Mr Keating said.
Let's just say that Labor wins the coming Oz election. And let's just say that the Republicans win in the US : It'll make future dealing between the 2 countries INTERESTING, yes?
Or, what about a future relationship between a Liberal government in Oz & a newly elected Democrat government in the US? ... Would our prime minister continue to grovel & automatically adopt every bit of US policy as "good" for Australia?
Or (in the best of all worlds
) what if there's a Labor victory in Oz & a Democrat victory in the US? Would the US treat it Oz with a bit more respect? And how would a Democrat government respond to Latham's stated goal of removing Oz troops from Iraq by Christmas? Hmmmmmmm ...
"Son of Star Wars"?
Australia, US sign bases, missile pacts
By Mark Forbes, Michelle Grattan
July 9, 2004
Australia and the United States have signed pacts to establish three high-tech joint military training bases in northern Australia and to develop the "son of star wars" missile defence shield.
Labor has condemned the missile defence program as costly, technically questionable, unnecessary and likely to provoke a new arms race.
It said it would renegotiate the agreement if it won government.
But Opposition Leader Mark Latham welcomed the plans for joint training bases as helping to keep the US alliance strong.
Prime Minister John Howard said a missile defence shield would add an additional element to the defence of Australia.
"We're talking here about providing this country with a capacity to defend itself against the possibility of a future missile attack," he said.
The deals were signed during bilateral defence talks in Washington in which Defence Minister Robert Hill and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer met US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell.
The talks also ranged over Iraq, terrorism in South-East Asia, and the threat posed by North Korea.
But the missile defence agreement was high on the US agenda. "The goal is to help ensure that our nations are able to deter and defend against countries that have access to ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction," Mr Rumsfeld said.
Critics have attacked the program's huge costs overruns, technical failures and its contribution to a new arms race.
The Bush Administration plans to spend $70 billion on the project over the next five years.
Senator Hill called the agreement "a long-term investment" to meet threats that may emerge in the future.
There were no details of the potential costs, or of how Australia would participate in the program.
The pact commits Australia to the program for 25 years and to providing a framework to be part of research and development.
Mr Latham said the system would not protect continental Australia.
It would increase missile proliferation and insecurity in the region.
"That's why it's outside Australia's national interest - that's why the Labor Party opposes the 'son of star wars'," he said.
Opposition defence spokesman Chris Evans said the costs of developing a shield would be prohibitive for Australia, which faced no threat of ballistic missile attack.
The second key agreement endorses the establishment of joint training bases Shoalwater Bay, in Queensland, along with the Bradshaw training base and the Delamere air weapons range in the NT.
Tens of thousands of US and Australian troops will use the bases for operational training, including bombing runs with live munitions.
Officials left open the prospect of "pre-positioning" US military weapons and equipment at the bases - despite earlier denials by Senator Hill.
Mr Downer said the Americans may leave military equipment in Australia, although no final decisions had been made.
The NT Government welcomed the plan as good for the economy, but the Mayor of Katherine, Anne Shepherd, said she was worried about becoming a target for terrorists, "always a distinct possibility".
(I think I wanna more to Canada!
)
`
Ex-Liberal (conservative) prime minister of Oz, Malcolm Fraser, has just joined the chorus: US butt out of Oz politics!
You might be wondering what's happening in the area of POLICIES in this campaign?
... Not much, apparently. If there are new policies being revealed, they're being lost in the barrage of Latham rumours & US intervention stories ... Hang on, I do recall Latham announcing that there would assistance supplied for older workers to re-enter the work force if Labor is elected.
Just wanted to ask US A2Kers:
Aren't you a wee bit embarrassed at your government's intrusion into Oz politics?
Annoyed, sure. Surprised, no. Embarrassed, hard to say -- I feel like Bush isn't mine, and seems like embarrassment goes with ownership.
Actually - the Americans behaved pretty damn crudely towards Canada over Iraq.
"The British have been able to get most of their people out of Guantanamo Bay.
The British have said that the justice system set up for the military tribunals is not appropriate, would not be acceptable for nationals of the United Kingdom."
The British TRIED.
"I think it's time they're stopped..."
Yep.
Only - we will need to be the ones to say - enough already!
"He joined a chorus of condemnation yesterday of United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's claim that Labor was "rent down the middle" over its Iraq policy."
Wow - I haven't kept up with things - the Bush administration is really behaving outrageously on this. They are drunk with power.
Gosh, many years ago I never thought that I'd be filled with admiration by Malcolm Fraser's integrity. But, I have to admit, over the past few years I have grown to admire him. His response to Armitage is spot on, PRECISELY what I'd expect from any self respecting Oz politician. Just goes to show how far to the right the politics of Oz has skidded.
From Crikey:
Howard's toughest interview of the year
Matt Abraham
ABC Adelaide morning host
The Prime Minister screwed ABC listeners in Adelaide a beauty this morning, but in the process he also copped his most aggressive interview for the year from Matthew Abraham.
After gushing with Tory sycophant, former Andrew Peacock brother-in-law and cash-for-comment veteran Jeremy Cordeaux yesterday, Howard offered just 15 minutes from his torrid 3-day Adelaide schedule to speak to Matthew Abraham on ABC local radio.
The phone interview lasted just 15 minutes, with Howard in a particularly testy mood. There was time for just one talkback caller, and the Rodent guillotined it as quickly as he could.
Why? The answer was clear on 5AA at 9 o'clock. There was Howard live in the studio, with another cash-for-comment veteran, Leon Byner, taking calls for half an hour. Byner, as did Cordeaux, beat the PM mercilessly with a feather but in the little time he was given, Abraham was near his antagonstic best:
9 July 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP
INTERVIEW WITH MATT ABRAHAM
ABC RADIO ADELAIDE
Subjects: Comments by Richard Armitage; values; detention; nuclear waste dump; Rann Government; federal election; superannuation.
ABRAHAM: Prime Minister John Howard joins 891 Mornings, Prime Minister good morning.
PRIME MINISTER: Good morning.
ABRAHAM: And thank you for making the time available. Prime Minister, onto the main international issue if we can start by that and these statements by US Deputy Secretary of State, Mr Armitage, that the Labor Party is divided over the Iraq policy, there are divisions within the Labor Party. Would you accept that sort of thing if you were in a similar situation, if those criticisms and observations were being made of your government?
PRIME MINISTER: Well there are two issues in this, the first is whether the statement is factual or not, and I think when you remember what Mr Rudd was saying on behalf of the Labor Party until Mr Latham abruptly changed policy, there probably is a good factual basis. But aren't we dealing here also with this capacity of Mr Latham's to dish it out but not take it. I'll tell you what I wouldn't have found acceptable, the idea that a senior political figure would make a personal attack on a serving American President. Mr Latham a few months ago, it was last year I'm sorry, before he was Opposition Leader but when he was a senior Labor figure, said that George Bush was the most dangerous and incompetent American President in living memory. Now apparently it's okay for him to say that, but when a member of Mr Bush's administration states something that a lot of people in Australia believe and that is that there is division in the Labor Party on Iraq then there's something fundamentally wrong and unacceptable with that, I think that's a double standard. But can I also make a point
ABRAHAM: Well Malcolm Fraser thinks it's unacceptable for the US Government to make those observations.
PRIME MINISTER: I have a long standing practice of not commenting on anything that Mr Fraser says, I'll deal with the substance of the issue and that is that it's apparently okay for a personal attack to be made by Mr Latham on the American President but when a member of President Bush's administration points out something that many people in Australia believe to be a fact about Labor policy that is somehow or other an undemocratic intrusion. But can I make a
ABRAHAM: So one bad turn deserves another?
PRIME MINISTER: Well no, no, no I think it's not a question of one bad turn, it's a question of whether or not there is consistency in Mr Latham's stance on these things. But could I make a broader point, and that is if we are an independent grown up country, does it matter? Australians are not going to be influenced by this, any more than they're going to be influenced by Michael Moore's movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, I mean we pride ourselves quite rightly
ABRAHAM: Why wouldn't we be influenced by that?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes but in the end aren't we living in an open society? I mean aren't you Matt of all people as a journalist in favour of free discourse? Surely we are mature enough to make an assessment of whether we make any notice of Richard Armitage or we take any notice of Mike Moore, surely in the end the average Australian will make his or her mind up. So quite honestly I don't think these things have any real influence on how Australians react, and I think this complaint from Mr Latham and others that somehow or other this is an unwarranted instruction is an echo of an earlier day when we felt a sense of insecurity and felt somehow or other that our fate was always going to be determined by what others said and did. I think Australia has grown beyond that and quite honestly we do live in a world now where everybody seems to talk about everything, I mean I'm frequently asked to express views about American politics, I'm frequently asked to express views about British politics, it happens a lot and I just think the whole idea that this is going to have a huge impact on Australia is far fetched, I don't think it will have any impact at all, whether you agree with Mr Armitage or not I don't think it's going to alter in the slightest and I think we're quite grown up and strong and independent enough to absorb these things and make our own judgement, which I'm sure the Australian people will do.
ABRAHAM: Now Prime Minister, we under that Mr Armitage was referring to senior Labor officials who were in the US for last month's Australian/American leadership dialogue meetings and this is where he heard of divisions. Now this programme understands that Mr Armitage was not at the session that dealt with Iraq, he turned up to the dinner session, however two Labor people had private meetings with Mr Armitage, one was Kevin Rudd, the Foreign Policy spokesperson, the other was Kim Beazley, former minister. Now who do you believe Mr Armitage is referring to? Kevin Rudd or Mr Beazley?
PRIME MINISTER: Look Matt I wasn't there, I don't know myself, because I haven't spoken to him, the basis of these comments. I'm reacting to the issue. I'm not going to get into a discussion about who said what in a conversation that I wasn't part of, break it down, ask me something else
ABRAHAM: Wouldn't you be interested? I mean you referred to Kevin Rudd.
PRIME MINISTER: Matt, I'm talking about something that I know he said, because he said it publicly and he said it in a letter he wrote to me, that's what I was talking about. I'll talk about things of which I have knowledge, I'm not going to speculate about things of which I do not have knowledge. If you want to know what was said you talk to Mr Beazley, Mr Rudd, or Mr Armitage, I wasn't present and I'm not going to get into the speculation, I'm simply making the observation that it's apparently okay for Mark Latham to personally attack the President of the United States, but when a member of that President's administration says something critical of the Labor Party all hell breaks loose. I mean that is ridiculous and that is a double standard.
ABRAHAM: Now Prime Minister, onto your vision thing yesterday, what do you mean when you say you're worried about a coarsening of our society?
PRIME MINISTER: I think there are trends in our society towards less civility, there are trends towards more aggression, it's illustrated by the growing incidents of road rage, it's illustrated by the, I use the example of David Hookes' tragic death where a disagreement, minor altercation can lead to a far more tragic thing, I don't know that I can be any more specific than that because there are court proceedings pending. But I think there has been a deterioration in civility, I think we are seeing from the media a higher level of voyeurism
ABRAHAM: Are you focused on reality television, Big Brother and so on?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't know if I'd especially, you know generically speaking, attack that. But these things are difficult, but equally if you don't say anything about them somebody in my position is ducking his responsibility.
ABRAHAM: But if you don't say something about them, if you talk the talk but don't walk the walk where does that leave that? What are you going to do about it? If you express concerns about a society.
PRIME MINISTER: I think that is an ultra-regulatory view of government, I think there are some things where people in my position can actually talk about them without necessarily producing a government law or a government regulation, I think that is a very regulatory, with respect, narrow view to take of the role of the government. I think people do have, in my position, do have responsibilities to express views, but the idea that you can pass laws to make people more polite to each other, of course you can't, that is an absurd proposition and you know it.
ABRAHAM: Well we do pass laws that do regulate human behaviour
PRIME MINISTER: But not ordinary civility Matt, you know that.
ABRAHAM: I do, but you have been Prime Minister of this country for nearly a decade now.
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, eight and a half years.
ABRAHAM: Are you saying that this coarsening of society, lack of civility, has occurred under your watch?
PRIME MINISTER: I think it's a trend that's been going on for quite a long time.
ABRAHAM: Would you concede, or accept, that some of your policies may have contributed in some way to this coarsening of our culture, and I point specifically to your detention policies, the fact that for many a year now children have been locked up in detention? I mean it's no coincidence the older Bakhtiari boys are big fans of Big Brother and Merlin.
PRIME MINISTER: I think that is drawing a fairly long bow and you know that too. No, I don't believe that policy has contributed to it, no I don't because the sort of things I speak of are trends that are not only occurring in Australia they're occurring in other societies as well.
ABRAHAM: You're in Makin today.
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I'll be going to Makin, yes I will.
ABRAHAM: And does Trish Draper as a candidate reflect the values you'd like to see in Australian society?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, she certainly reflects the values of hard work. She reflects the dedication and effort and hard work and love and commitment to her children of somebody who's been a single mother for a long time. She has raised three sons and I met them and she's done a very good job. So if you're asking for a testimonial to her character as a mother and as a hard working local member, I'm not only very happy to give it on this programme, I'll be very happy to give it in her electorate as well. She is a person who's identified with many of the battlers of her electorate
ABRAHAM: What by going overseas with her boyfriend on a taxpayer funded trip?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, she has dealt with that matter. She has repaid the money, even though she was entitled under the rules that then operated to do it and she has repaid the money which is more than perhaps others may have done in similar circumstances.
ABRAHAM: Matthew Abraham talking to John Howard here on 891 Mornings. Prime Minister, the nuclear waste dump, will you now rule out South Australia having a nuclear waste dump, just finish with it.
PRIME MINISTER: I'm not ruling anything out. What I am doing is saying that we're going to in light of the federal court decision we're going to examine the manner. This is a difficult issue. There has to be a low level waste dump somewhere in Australia but nobody wants it and it's very easy for premiers and local figures to run negative campaigns all over the country wherever it is proposed to have it. I can understand why people in South Australia don't want it. It's one of these very difficult issues because it is inheritably unpopular but we did have a scientific investigation. We were satisfied on the basis of the advice we were given but the court has made a ruling and we're going to look at the matter and we're going to look at it in a measured calm way. We obviously take into account the concerns that people have expressed. We obviously have to in reply point out that those concerns will be expressed by Australians wherever you propose it.
ABRAHAM: Would you make a clear announcement before or during the federal election campaign? In other words, because Nick Minchin, there was a review and he announced a review before the last election and it just basically strung it out and got you through the election campaign.
PRIME MINISTER: We'll look at the matter at Cabinet, I'm not going to say anymore than that.
ABRAHAM: So you won't rule out?
PRIME MINISTER: Matt, I will answer your question, I've just done so. So can we
ABRAHAM: Okay, we'll move on
PRIME MINISTER: No, well I've given you an answer, I know you don't like it but it happens to the case that we are dealing
ABRAHAM: Sometimes we want more
PRIME MINISTER: Well, but sometimes it's not possible to give more because the appropriate part of the government hasn't considered it and we're going to talk about it on the next occasion that Cabinet meets.
ABRAHAM: The Morgan Poll today and the Newspoll this week shows the Rann Government, Mike Rann the most popular Premier in Australia, again the Rann Government is sitting pretty for whatever reason. But it also, the Morgan Poll shows that people are saying well we like having a State Labor Government and we can have a Federal Liberal Government. Do you take any comfort in that? I mean, is
PRIME MINISTER: I haven't seen that poll, well not the second part.
ABRAHAM: But do you think it could be a factor for Australia working to your advantage?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, I do think a lot of people will hesitate before having Labor everywhere, I do. I think there are a lot of people who think that if you've got eight state and territory Labor governments the idea of having a federal Labor government as well so that there would be no alternative to Labor anywhere in the country, there are some people, even Labor supporters who might baulk at that. Now that doesn't necessarily reflect the finding of the Morgan Poll but I do believe that when people realise that if they vote in a Latham government there will be no governments other than Labor governments everywhere in the country and there won't on my recollection have been another occasion when that's happened, certainly not in my living memory, I'd have to search the records if there was however briefly at some point. But in areas like industrial relations and union power, a lot of people will take fright at the idea that you would have Labor everywhere.
ABRAHAM: So in a way they may feel well we have a moderating influence. We can have a state Labor government looking after our backyards in a way, hospitals, schools and what have you, with federal funding of course. But the big issue, the big picture issues like national security and so on, well we have a different view there.
PRIME MINISTER: Well, certainly the national security and managing the economy are unqualifiedly national issue, they're federal issues and even our critics will acknowledge that we've done a good job with the economy. There's debate over where we should have gone into Iraq but I think even our critics would acknowledge that we have responded strongly to the terrorist threat, but even our critics would acknowledge that we've put more resources into defence. So those two big national issues, the government does have a very strong record and we'll certainly be campaigning on that record and, as I pointed out in my speech yesterday, you can't do these other things unless you have a strong economy and the country is secured and adequately defended.
ABRAHAM: Prime Minister, do you have a few more minutes, can we take a couple of calls, how are you placed?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, I've just got to check with Tony O'Leary, when have I got to go Tony? I've got to go, look, literally in one minute.
ABRAHAM: Okay, let's just talk to Peter from Coromandel Valley just quickly so we'll at least get one call in. Peter, good morning.
CALLER: Good morning.
ABRAHAM: Quick question.
CALLER: Good morning Mr Howard. I want to know about self managed superannuation. I'm a 68 year old semi-retired small businessman. I've strived all my life to arrange my affairs through self managed super to be completely independent of the social security system and with the continuing changes to the rules, it seems to me that your government is endeavouring to force people like myself into the hands of the large financial institutions because of the continual need to update trust deeds and seek legal advice.
ABRAHAM: Okay, you want a simplified super by the sounds of if
CALLER: That's right.
ABRAHAM: We can put that to Prime Minister John Howard just quickly.
PRIME MINISTER: Peter, we're not trying to force you into that. I, in the short time available, I can't perhaps analyse exactly what your concerns are. If you wanted to leave your telephone number and name with the station I would be very pleased to get somebody from my office to ring you and have a talk to you.
ABRAHAM: Okay, now we will do that. Okay just finally, Prime Minister when you settle down at night you know in the beanbag with your ugh boots on, what are you watching Big Brother or re-runs of Leave it to Beaver?
PRIME MINISTER: At this time of the electoral cycle Matt I've got to watch Lateline.
ABRAHAM: We'll take that one. Prime Minister, thank you. [ends]
===========================
CRIKEY: This whole episode again demonstrates that the media are very much motivated by beating each other to the story. Abraham was obviously dirty about being given third-string status and let fly accordingly. Cordeaux and Byner enjoyed the longer studio visits from the PM and treated him with kid gloves. Wouldn't it be nice if the media simply treated all stories on their merits? Afterall, the whole Mark Latham rumour-gate was motivated by nervous journalists worried that they were going to be scooped by Sunday.
`
How does Crikey know what motivated the the tone of the interviews?
Matt Abraham is a JOURNALIST - he asks the hard questions as a matter of course.
Cordeaux and Byner are entertainers. Ptooey!
Crikey said: " After all, the whole Mark Latham rumour-gate was motivated by nervous journalists worried that they were going to be scooped by Sunday."
And LED by Crikey, which broke from the gates with erroneous rumours about "Sunday" first!
Not to mention the Kernow stuff was BROKEN by Crikey!
Ptooey again.
Mind you - Latham, as I realize on reflection, is no saint in the personal life **** stakes - he taunted Abbott about a child he "abandoned", I believe - some time ago.
Another ex Australian prime Minister - and the current New Zealand one - criticize US attempts to interfere in Australian election:
"
Keating slams US official's 'thuggery'
By Steve Lewis and John Kerin
July 09, 2004
PAUL Keating has accused Bush administration official Richard Armitage of acting like a thug in "beating up on a friendly foreign political party", in a fiery response to the US Deputy Secretary of State's claims the ALP was divided over withdrawing troops from Iraq.
And after copping flak from President George W. Bush and other senior US figures over the past month, Mark Latham yesterday also pointedly urged the Bush administration to "respect" Australia's electoral processes.
"We respect the great American democracy. I just hope the people would respect ours and the processes we follow here - proudly and uniquely Australian processes - to do our democratic thing our own democratic way," the Opposition Leader said.
New Zealand Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark, whose country did not back the US-led campaign to topple Saddam Hussein, also expressed misgivings at Washington's intervention in Australian affairs."
Full story:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10083642%255E2702,00.html
<sigh> Sadly, the following article (by Terry Lane from yesterday's Sunday Age) just about sums up my feelings about US "interference" in the Oz political life. When we have a government whose motto appears to be "whatever's good for the US is good for us" what else can we expect? Oh, for some autonomy, some sense of national sovereignty from our Liberal government! <sigh>
There's no Armitage in knowing where we stand
By Terry Lane
July 11, 2004
Richard Armitage, US Deputy Secretary of State, is an unattractive chap with all the grace, charm and manners of a school bully, but that doesn't mean he is a fantasist. If he says that he has been told that the Australian Labor Party is "rent down the middle" over its internal differences on Iraq then there is no obvious reason not to believe him. This goes beyond a mere leg-up for his pal, the Man of Steel. This sounds like authentic inside information.
The question is: Who told him?
Mr Armitage has had meetings in recent times with Kevin Rudd, Kim Beazley, Bob Carr, Stephen Conroy and Steve Bracks. One, or more, of these men must have told him that the ALP was far from unanimous in supporting a policy of withdrawal. Mr Rudd's assurance that he knows of no factual basis for Mr Armitage's undiplomatic intrusion into our political processes is not quite the same as saying: "I certainly didn't tell him, and I have had it from the others on oath that they didn't tell him, either."
Someone told Mr Armitage. Among that group of Labor men, one or more is encouraging the American Administration to believe that even if Labor wins the federal election things will go on as before. Reasons and excuses will be found for leaving Australia's token force of 800 or so military persons in Iraq and environs. Mr Armitage is saying, in effect, that he has been reassured by his conversations with two premiers and Labor's would-be secretary of state.
And why don't we use the American nomenclature? We do for many other things.
The Age's headline on Friday read: "Butt out, Latham tells America". Has the word "butt" become part of the Strine vernacular? Or the verb "to butt out", meaning to "mind your own business"? Paul Keating got into the act last week, accusing Mr Armitage of "beating up on friendly foreign political parties". Since when do we use the construction "beating up on"? Since we started calling potato chips "fries" perhaps? Or since butt displaced arse.
How can it be improper for an unelected, partisan American official to get involved in the affairs of a nation that has all but surrendered its sovereignty to the US?Anyway, we are grateful to the rude Mr Armitage for telling us where we stand. He believes an Australian Labor government would not be very different from a British Labour government on the matter of Iraq.
Much is being made by commentators about Mr Armitage's improper intrusion into Australian politics, which must be a tad mystifying for the fat man in Washington. Is this not America's most loyal, obedient satrapy we are talking about? How can it be improper for an unelected, partisan American official to get involved in the affairs of a nation that has all but surrendered its sovereignty to the US? We have volunteered for the madness of Son of Star Wars. We have American secret spy bases across the country. We are about to welcome American soldiers in their thousands to set up camp here. (Is it time to lock up our daughters? We might ask the Koreans, Japanese and Filipinos - they have had experience.) And America has never yet invited us to a war that we have refused.
We are about to sign a laughingly misnamed free trade agreement that will concede to the Americans the right to determine our agricultural, industrial, labour, taxation, health, cultural and environmental policies. Mr Armitage may well be shaking his head in disbelief and asking anyone who will listen: "Hey, guys, (remember blokes?) what's the problem? It's not as though we are talking about the sensitivities of an independent, sovereign nation here."
Lol! I just came here to deposit that site! We both get Crikey, I see?!
Hee is their take on it:
1. Former Labor staffer behind johnhowardlies.com
The operator of the johnhowardlies.com website has been revealed as former Labor staffer Tim Grau through his political consultancy company Springboard Australia. The site now carries the line "Authorised by Springboard Australia Pty Ltd, 11-25 Wentworth Street, Manly NSW 2095" and they have also corrected the details of their domain name registration.
And Erica Betz's brilliant marketing effort is really kicking goals. This afternoon the site is boasting: "We may have started Australia's first and fastest growing grassroots internet movement."
The government has really played into the hands of their online critics giving enormous mainstream publicity to a what would otherwise have been little more than a joke for lefties and political insiders.
Web analysts
www.hitwise.com.au report today that johnhowardlies.com is now the No. 1 Australian political website - a category which includes all sites which belong to particular political parties or organisations, plus sites that are devoted to expressing views on local or international political issues.
The rise of the site's ranking over the last week perfectly illustrates the impact the mainstream media attention has had on the sites traffic:
Monday 12th July, 2004 - 32nd position
Tuesday 13th July, 2004 - 9th position
Wednesday 14th July, 2004 - 2nd position
Thursday 15th July, 2004 - 1st position
And the site itself claims to have had 18,000 visitors to the site between 6am and 1pm today alone and more than 670,000 hits since the start of July. Those are huge numbers - Crikey has only had 367,000 page views since the start of July.
The next question is who compiled all the evidence on Howard's alleged "lies". Grau told the ABC today that he took on the project "for a group of people who approached him to set it up". Who are these people?
And anyway, what is wrong with a Labor supporter creating a website which highlights the inconsistencies of Howard's policies. Are the Liberals disputing any of the "lies" or "facts" presented on the site? All the "lies" seem to be quotes directly attributed to Howard or his ministers. If Erica Betz has a problem with the site he should sue for defamation.
Grau was a senior advisor to Wayne Goss while he was Queensland Premier before joining the Federal Labor government as senior political and communications adviser to Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch - you can find his full bio here.
And given the fiery debate between Graham Young, the editor and the publisher of the web forum On Line Opinion, and the team from johnhowardlies.com we hosted a couple of weeks ago - refresh your memory here - it is now interesting to see this mention on Young's site about his On Line Focus service:
"We have enlisted retired players from opposing sides to direct the angles and perform the analysis. In the NSW election campaign it is me and Tim Grau from Springboard Australia."
