GILLARD- Is she mad, stupid, guilty..or all three?

[Token Funder]

Exactly ... something smelly going on
I get the impression this may turn into something much bigger.

This is why muck-racking works. Throw enough stuff around and, even if it gets pulled, corrected or shown to be false, the residual vibe will carry on and the untruths maintained in various places as truths.

New Ltd pulled the story because, and I quote:

"The Australian acknowledges these assertions are untrue".

It's old school dog whistling and a fair reflection of how far politics and the political debate has slipped. Tipping point was, IMHO, the second term in the Howard Govt where both side of politics and, it would appear, the commerical media and the general public, decided all pretence of civility, honesty and thoughts of the long-term were off.

Until such time as a new political class evolves that is prepared to appeal to the better angels of our nature - rather than our short-term self-interest, prejudices and ignorance - we will continue to get the political leadership we not only deserve, but demand.

 

[evand]

That is only speculation.

She couldnt have threatened legal action by saying "that article makes me look bad".

There would have had to be something materially untrue, defamatory or damaging in the article.

Also, i dont think the Murdoch press would have pulled the article and issued a public apology just because it makes her look bad. That's an every day occurrence in the News Ltd stable.

Also, it wouldnt have been the facts in the article that was the problem. They were already public knowledge. As always it would have been the opinion.

Julia would have been very concerned about the entire article not just the breeched bit. The facts don't make her look good regardless of not being found guilty of any wrongdoing.

 

[evand]

I consider the crazies in the right wing media the equivalent to Fox news. People such as Jones, Bolt, Piers Ackerman, Milne, & Devine to a slightly lesser extent.

Murdoch sts the agenda for his media outlets the world over.

btw: Did you see Alan Jones in Canberra last week. How embarrassment! And gibbering Tony arm in arm with him. WTF!!

 

[evand]

Are you saying that its ok to get nasty if you lose respect for someone? Our PM no less.

Yes, Aaron it is a shame.

Things are getting nasty because people HAVE lost respect for this Government and those running it. They have stopped listening, just as Labor has.

Regards JO

 

[StefanA]

Every half sane person would step around Thommo, considering what he looks and smells like.

But not Julia. She certifies he is 100% pristine choir boy, and nothing bad ever happened at the HSU or any other union that gave Labor $1.5m.

 

[weg]

Every half sane person would step around Thommo, considering what he looks and smells like.

But not Julia. She certifies he is 100% pristine choir boy, and nothing bad ever happened at the HSU or any other union that gave Labor $1.5m.

Yep, assertions or not, guilty or not, the fact is if you lay down with dogs, as Julia has, you get flees.

No amount of protest changes that.

 

[weg]

That is only speculation.

She couldnt have threatened legal action by saying "that article makes me look bad".

There would have had to be something materially untrue, defamatory or damaging in the article.

Also, i dont think the Murdoch press would have pulled the article and issued a public apology just because it makes her look bad. That's an every day occurrence in the News Ltd stable.

Also, it wouldnt have been the facts in the article that was the problem. They were already public knowledge. As always it would have been the opinion.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/gillard-calls-murdoch-paper-sorry-20110829-1jig6.html

And no one at The Australian, apparently, saw the legal danger in a paragraph beginning ''what the lawyers would not allow to be reported was …''

--------------------

She has always strenuously denied ever knowing the association was used for illegal purposes.

But then Milne added a startling detail about Ms Gillard and Mr Wilson. ''What the lawyers would not allow to be reported was the fact that Gillard shared a home in Fitzroy bought by Wilson using the embezzled funds. There is or was no suggestion Gillard knew about the origin of the money,'' he said.




I gather the sore point was the embezzled funds bit.

Interestingly, talked to a friend yesterday who hadn't read any of the recent stuff and even she knew about the renovations .

 

[evand]

Not sure what point you're making here.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/gillard-calls-murdoch-paper-sorry-20110829-1jig6.html

And no one at The Australian, apparently, saw the legal danger in a paragraph beginning ''what the lawyers would not allow to be reported was …''

--------------------

She has always strenuously denied ever knowing the association was used for illegal purposes.

But then Milne added a startling detail about Ms Gillard and Mr Wilson. ''What the lawyers would not allow to be reported was the fact that Gillard shared a home in Fitzroy bought by Wilson using the embezzled funds. There is or was no suggestion Gillard knew about the origin of the money,'' he said.




I gather the sore point was the embezzled funds bit.

Interestingly, talked to a friend yesterday who hadn't read any of the recent stuff and even she knew about the renovations .

 

[weg]

Not sure what point you're making here.

You questioned why the article was pulled and I thought the article could shed some light .

 

[dan c]

I gather the sore point was the embezzled funds bit.

Interestingly, talked to a friend yesterday who hadn't read any of the recent stuff and even she knew about the renovations .

You're missing the point. The article stated that she lived with this guy, and she didn't. The Australian has apologised and said they got the story wrong.

Why do you feel the need to muckrake over this? If there was something in it, I'm sure The Australian wouldn't have apologised or withdrew the story.

 

[josko]

Are you saying that its ok to get nasty if you lose respect for someone? Our PM no less.

Not really.

When Rudd was actually voted in...I cried into my pillow every night..No not really. (But nearly ha ha) But I was damn disappointed that there were so many Australian's that obviously did not care enough to look deeper, learn more and were fooled.

Yet, I respected the decision, even though I didn't like it...and thought "we won't be such fools next time...." Hmmm.

When Gillard and the faceless men stabbed K07 in the back.. his polls were far better than hers, the respect he had left was still in tact.

Gillard was not elected by the majority and Gillard has not had the respect of the Australian people To START WITH.

Instead of proving her leadership and "wow of a time" negotiating skills, as Oakeshott would put it...she has so far negotiated rip off after rip off...on lie after lie, wasting billion after billions of our money. Don't even start me on this ridiculous Malaysian deal. What an absolute joke that is.

Regards JO

 

[Ausprop]

this could eventuate to be the worst government this country (n)ever elected, tho judgement of that is usually some time down the line when the full impact of the deisions and policies can be seen

 

[evand]

Of course that's all your opinion and its your right to express it. But nothing really to do with my initial question.

Not really.

When Rudd was actually voted in...I cried into my pillow every night..No not really. (But nearly ha ha) But I was damn disappointed that there were so many Australian's that obviously did not care enough to look deeper, learn more and were fooled.

Yet, I respected the decision, even though I didn't like it...and thought "we won't be such fools next time...." Hmmm.

When Gillard and the faceless men stabbed K07 in the back.. his polls were far better than hers, the respect he had left was still in tact.

Gillard was not elected by the majority and Gillard has not had the respect of the Australian people To START WITH.

Instead of proving her leadership and "wow of a time" negotiating skills, as Oakeshott would put it...she has so far negotiated rip off after rip off...on lie after lie, wasting billion after billions of our money. Don't even start me on this ridiculous Malaysian deal. What an absolute joke that is.

Regards JO

 

[buzzlightyear]

I consider the crazies in the right wing media the equivalent to Fox news. People such as Jones, Bolt, Piers Ackerman, Milne, & Devine to a slightly lesser extent.

Murdoch sts the agenda for his media outlets the world over.

btw: Did you see Alan Jones in Canberra last week. How embarrassment! And gibbering Tony arm in arm with him. WTF!!

You don't need to say anything more on AJ. I'm with you on him.

But if Murdoch drives the conservative agenda for his papers, then what happened in 2007 election, when the Daily Telegraph, The Australian and the Courier Mail all supported the ALP.

 

[josko]

Evan: Yep, was a long reply to short: Not really.

She certainly didn't have my respect to begin with...to be able to lose it in the first place.

Therefore...she didn't lose my respect.

Regards JO

 

[dan c]

But if Murdoch drives the conservative agenda for his papers, then what happened in 2007 election, when the Daily Telegraph, The Australian and the Courier Mail all supported the ALP.

Good question. The thing with Murdoch is that he swings with the breeze. He could tell the public were more than likely to vote in a Labor government, so he backed Labor, too. It makes his organisation look more powerful, rather than going against the prevailing tide. Now that the public has swung back, his papers have too, quite savagely in some cases.

The Sun in the UK did the same thing in 1997, it came out in support for Tony Blair and Labour, against its usual tendancies. When it loked like the Tories would win earlier in the year, it support David Cameron.

 

[josko]

Good question. The thing with Murdoch is that he swings with the breeze. He could tell the public were more than likely to vote in a Labor government, so he backed Labor, too. It makes his organisation look more powerful, rather than going against the prevailing tide. Now that the public has swung back, his papers have too, quite savagely in some cases.

The Sun in the UK did the same thing in 1997, it came out in support for Tony Blair and Labour, against its usual tendancies. When it loked like the Tories would win earlier in the year, it support David Cameron.

Exactly......swings with the breeze. It is a business. You print what will SELL your papers. There is no tendancey here or there, guys, just the urge to make money.

Regards JO

 

[buzzlightyear]

Exactly......swings with the breeze. It is a business. You print what will SELL your papers. There is no tendancey here or there, guys, just the urge to make money.

Regards JO

Although the Daily Telegraph has only endorsed Federal ALP twice since it has been in Murdoch's hands. I suspect it has been far more cosier with the State ALP however.

 

[dan c]

Exactly......swings with the breeze. It is a business. You print what will SELL your papers. There is no tendancey here or there, guys, just the urge to make money.

Regards JO

Except The Australian has lost money since its inception.

He swings, but in my opinion he swings more often and with greater vigour to the right. A quick look at his opinion columnists would suggest, to me, his papers are harder on the left than the right.

 

[evand]

That's very obvious.

None of these New Ltd employed shock jocks support the left. They just bag the hell out of it.

He swings, but in my opinion he swings more often and with greater vigour to the right. A quick look at his opinion columnists would suggest, to me, his papers are harder on the left than the right.