Well, the ones I don’t like, anyway.
Also, John – read Paul’s effort. If you’re going to swipe at your opposing successors, at least make it entertaining. “Nutter” trumps “not authentic”. What are the voters going to remember – “there’s quite a strong feeling developing in the electorate he’s all talk and no action” or “you wouldn’t trust this mob with a jam jar full of five cent bits”?
You weren’t much of a Prime Minister, but as a post-retirement commentator you’re even worse. Please shut up.
Moved On 
Nobody cuts through like Keating.
Agreed, confessions. Keating is a lyrical genius:
I agree with respect to Howard – shut up. But then I have to agree with the others here about Keating – give us more.
The only trouble with Keating is that noone will pay any attention to what he said in the rest of the interview about Superannuation, how there should be a hell of a lot more of it and how it is it’s own reward – reduces govt. spending on pensions etc.
It was a really interesting 20 minute chat, but only the last 5 minutes are getting any attention.
The less said about John Howard the better. But even though Keating’s become a hire-a-quote, at least his quotes are pretty bloody funny!
I still think Howard is more of a gentleman than Keating. Keating says some very good things on important issues, then ensures that no body listens to them by making some headline grabbing comments in the rest of any interview. Whether you liked Howard or not is simply a matter of opinion.
[I still think Howard is more of a gentleman than Keating]
Actions trump words unless of course you’re lying about people throwing their children overboard. Who cares if one is a gentleman or not? I think honesty is a far better trait than being a ‘gentleman’.
“Whether you liked Howard or not is simply a matter of opinion.”
Or whether you have a tendency to like blatant liars? I mean something needs to form our opinions.
“Gentleman” is a loaded word.
Who was it said “A gentleman is someone who has a bath to take a piss.” ??
“Actions trump words unless of course you’re lying about people throwing their children overboard.”
There was no lie – they simply announced information that was provided by Defence and then didn’t correct it when the full picture came in. Maybe devious, but no lie. The signal released up the chain of command stated that they had thrown children overboard. I’ve seen it, and have a copy as a souvenier (can’t spell that!!!
There’s some cracker lines at the Paul Keating Insult Archive:
http://www.webcity.com.au/keating/
“There was no lie – they simply announced information that was provided by Defence and then didn’t correct it when the full picture came in.”
How come nobodies head rolled for making Howard and Reith look like liars? Ask yourself that cemil before believing the likes of John Howard who’s own colleagues referred to himself as a ‘lying rodent’.
“The signal released up the chain of command stated that they had thrown children overboard. I’ve seen it, and have a copy as a souvenier”
Post it here then and show the rest of us.
Children overboard was one of the most disgusting episodes in Australian political history.
It is clear that Howard knew that there were serious doubts about the veracity of the reports, and in spite of this he was prepared to defame and denigrate and humiliate the refugees to gain votes, and to continue to do so right up until election day. His behaviour was sickening.
He was desperate to win an election and in order to do so he deliberately defamed the refugees. His hysterical attack on them was designed to convince the public that they were evil people who would throw their children into the ocean.
Howard was quite prepared to strip them of their humanity and dignity in order to justify his harsh treatment of them. Sadly it worked.
And don’t forget the treatment of Dr Haneef. Interesting that the opposition haven’t learnt from that episode in calling for the government to revoke the visas of the refugees alleged to have sabotaged their boat.