Obviously Tony Abbott’s complete meltdown on The 7.30 Report last night – and to think, just last week they were making a huge deal out of Kevin Rudd just getting a little snippy with Kerry – is something that should be repeatedly played to anyone who is considering voting Liberal this year. Tony didn’t just misspeak. He repeated his declaration that some things he says shouldn’t be taken seriously – and we’re not talking about jokes, we’re talking about specific policy promises – even after Kerry O’Brien highlighted to him precisely what he was telling the electorate.
It’s a video all Australian voters should watch. Particularly if they’re thinking of making this bloke Prime Minister.
The lame “defence” cobbled together by Liberal Party supporters – that “oh well, all politicians lie: at least he’s honest about it” garbage – reminds me of this old John Clarke routine from the early 1980s about then Treasurer John Howard, “The Honest Man”:
Ah, yeah g’day. Now I’d like to have a few words with you concerning the very interesting remarks made during the year by that nice little Mr Howard who is employed as a reader by Malcolm. And now that the dust has paid settlement tax a couple of things do seem to demand analysis.
The first of course is that Small John has been making a courageous attempt to redefine the concept of the honest man. Now you, or I and certain other head-in-the-cloud no-hopers I can think of might cling to the antediluvian view that an honest man is a man who is honest. And, on a purely superficial level, this would appear to be not totally unreasonable. But apparently, on close and heavily subsidised inspection, this transpires to be unsatisfactory thereby failing to incur satisfaction tax as laid out in Schedule 6E of the annual map of the buried treasury.
An honest man is not a man who is honest; an honest man is a man who is dishonest but is quite honest about it. A man who hides his dishonesty, now he’d be a dishonest man. But disarming honesty about previous dishonesty is apparently OK. Of course the dishonesty in the first instance is annulled by the subsequent honesty and any reference back to it would be the act of a dishonest political point scorer.
If a man decides to be honest about his dishonesty, not only is he an honest man but, if he does it consistently, he can be said to be a man of principle. Although having to be dishonest in the first place, in order to be honest about it later might worry some of you older people who foolishly accept that being a man of principle is something akin to being a man of principle.
A good example of all this, is the way Malcolm and the Gang of Plus Fours have turned the country upside down in order to get inflation down. And now they say this time next year, inflation won’t have come down. And unemployment won’t have come down either and the CPI won’t have come down and the only thing that will come down is the honest and highly principled August Budget and with any luck, it’ll go down with all hands. I’ll get out of your way now, I’ll see you later.
The fact is, “all politicians” don’t have to lie, and the quicker you refuse to vote for the ones that do, the quicker there’ll be some consequence to it and they’ll stop. Those slippery politicians are there because someone’s voting for them. If it bothers you (as it should) – don’t!
UPDATE (19/5): Want to know what relentless barracking for one party regardless of what they do or say does to a person? Check out the stupid:
- Lacho of Central Coast Posted at 4:37 AM May 18, 2010
Pffft, the labor party will backflip on their promises even if they are written down. I will still be voting liberal
- sophie of bris Posted at 5:14 AM May 18, 2010
You know what? The fact that Abbott has just admitted this makes me more inclined to vote, i’d rather a Gepetto than a Pinocchio and the fact he’s been honest enough to say this makes me trust him a bit more. Anyone is better than Rudd anyway.
- Dave of Sydney Posted at 5:52 AM May 18, 2010
Of course there is a difference between off the cuff remarks and considered statements. Hardly news.
- DD Ball of Carramar/Sydney Posted at 5:58 AM May 18, 2010
I saw the entire interview and this is not what Mr Abbott said. Mr Abbott was graceful in ways that Rudd wasn’t when Rudd was asked an easier question. Mr Abbott gave a good answer, and Red Kerry seemed unhappy with it and gave the same response Frost once gave Nixon, claiming and inflating a lie. The Question was of the type “When did you stop beating your wife?” and shows a new low with ABC journalism. Mr Abbott answered the question well and kept his head. He also answered it honestly in ways that the ALP will not .. Rudd crumbling and Tanner or Gillard answering questions from their own world.
- mangajack of Petrie Posted at 6:10 AM May 18, 2010
Still, with all the shooting off at the mouth that Abott does, he is still a much better candidate than Rudd whom I can not trust with anything.
- rob of northern nsw Posted at 6:45 AM May 18, 2010
Typical Tony Abbott, says what he thinks. That’s why he is popular. On the other hand, Krudd is just a grandstanding, egotistical liar. And he leads a team of grandstanding, egotistical liars!!!
- Tom Posted at 6:34 AM May 18, 2010
At least he’s honest about it, most politicians insult your intelligence by trying to convince you that you misinterpreted what they said, regardless of how clear it was.
- Ian of Tathra Posted at 6:26 AM May 18, 2010
Refeshingly candid Tony and its about time this country saw that attitude – thankyou.
Of course, the vast majority of people complaining in that thread about “both sides” being “liars” (or “liers”) will still be voting 1 for one of the two majors. If they’re both liars, people, vote for someone else!
UPDATE #2 Tony’s now making himself (and the country) look stupid in the international press.