Friday, June 21, 2013

Kevin Rudd's popularity is overrated

There's a helluva lot of chatter now about how Julia Gillard will be gone very soon. Clearly many in Labor believe that Rudd really is their best hope of saving the furniture. Some also believe they can beat the Coalition with him at the helm again.

Frankly I think this talk about him being a possible saviour is way over the top. As numerous columnists have pointed out, many of Labor's worst policy disasters actually began under him and not Gillard. And the Libs will be reminding us of that at every opportunity, no doubt. Also, the fact that he gets mobbed by fans in shopping centres doesn't necessarily mean that people will vote for him in droves.

There's something quite strange going on there, actually. It's more to do with mass hysteria than politics. It's kinda like what happens when One Direction are in town and all the schoolgirls go absolutely spacko for the cameras. Part of the reason they do that is because they've seen others do it on previous TV reports. It's a conditioned behaviour; a kind of ritual.

Another example: Gangnam Style. It's a very catchy song with a unique energy about it. And everybody has fun joining in with those signature horse-riding moves. 

Being the outrageous media tart that he is, the former PM has managed to imprint his nerdy and avuncular persona on pretty much the entire Australian population. We've all seen him yucking it up with everyday Aussies in shopping centres right across the land. So taking a selfy while arm-in-arm with the Ruddster and saying "Kevin come back!" for the attendant news cameras just seems like the thing to do.

Many of the same folk being caught up in the circus-like atmosphere that surrounds KRudd on his flesh-pressing jaunts will be in a much more serious frame of mind on election day, however. As a result only his most ardent supporters will actually vote for Labor if he's the leader. And there actually aren't that many of them.

Still, decimation is preferable to near extinction. Which is why the ALP should, and almost certainly will, go back to him. 

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Julia Gillard's conservative hairstyle

Pretty much everything Julia Gillard does is motivated by spin over substance. This includes changes to her appearance. Take the introduction of those serious-lookin' specs. Many pundits opined that she was trying to emulate Hillary Clinton. I think there was a lot of truth to that observation. 

And perhaps her latest hairstyle is another example. First thing I thought when I saw the classically elegant look was that there was an element of Margaret Thatcher about it.

Sure, she was at a black tie ball. But it was still a media event that left a public impression. Had her spin doctors recommended something in a more conservative vein to imply to the voters that she's not such a raging leftie after all?

Sounds insanely desperate. But then insane and desperate are pretty good descriptions of much of what she's done lately.

Well, if equating herself with the Iron Lady was the intention then it won't help at all. As everybody knows, Gillard is no Thatcher and never will be. 

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Akerman sledged for citing Mathieson sexuality rumours

So Piers Akerman mentioned on Insiders that rumours about Tim Mathieson's sexuality had been circulating in the Canberra press gallery for a couple of years. Not surprisingly his statement has provoked widespread condemnation from Piers's, er, peers. Needless to say, countless leftie Twitter trolls are arcing up big time about it. And they're all sheeting home blame to Akerman.

But why condemn him for merely reporting what he's seen and heard? It actually reflects more poorly on the press gallery, in my opinion. Clearly, the vacuous busybodies are mighty interested in the sex life of the PM's beau, and spend a lot of time gossiping about it. But if someone mentions their obsessions publicly, they all go into paroxysms of faux indignation. What a pack of prurient, cowardly hypocrites!

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Julia Gillard gets no respect! Sheesh, I wonder why ...

Lefties are squawking up a storm about how badly Gillard's been treated. They're forever bleating about how she doesn't get the "respect the office deserves".

Well, that's got a lot to do with the fact that she herself has disrespected the office. She didn't actually win the position honourably (you know, by being elected) in the first place. She took the easy, dodgy route by slyly knifing the bloke who had won it fairly. And she's abused her position repeatedly from day one with her constant, shameless lying. 

The sisterhood is particularly put out by the sexist abuse of Gillard. And yes, there's been a lot of hatred towards her -- some of which is misogynous. 

But again, she's brought much of this on herself by zealously playing the gender card -- particularly in the last year or so. Her false accusations of sexism are in themselves sexist, since they're aimed almost exclusively at men. So she shouldn't be surprised when she does cop some anti-female snark coming back at her.

Lots of conservative women in politics get sexist abuse hurled at them (and quite often it's from the same people squealing about misogyny in relation to Gillard!) but they don't wallow in their victimhood. They just shrug it off and get on with the gig. That earns them respect.

Gillard, on the other hand, has courted this reaction, stoked it, and wallowed in it big time. It's gotten to the point where her victim status is now offered as the main reason we should vote for her! It's truly pathetic.

The other annoying claim from Gillard's sob sisters is that as well as all the public loathing, she's been unfairly treated by the media. What a crock that is! On the contrary, they've made a point of protecting her from criticism -- particularly about her dodgy past as a lawyer. The vast majority of Aussie journos avoided that as a subject for ages until finally they could remain in denial no longer.

And ultimately two of them lost their jobs for investigating that, remember. Add Howard Sattler to this list of professional road kill, albeit for simply being a meathead, and the body count stands at three. Now, I know of no reporter who was actually sacked because of his treatment of a sitting PM in the past. (If anyone does, please enlighten me.) Clearly, rather than being beaten up by meeja heavies, she's been consistently treated with kid gloves.

Then there's the treatment she gets from her own party. Would any male politician have lasted so long in the top job if he were so catastrophically unpopular? No way!

Gillard has been our worst PM by a country mile. She's also our most mollycoddled. Roll on September 14 when we finally get to put an end to the whole nauseating bloody farce that this malignant mediocrity has inflicted upon us. 

Friday, June 14, 2013

Gillard prefers role of Prime Victim to Prime Minister

Julia Gillard's self obsession knows no bounds. Rather than attempting to effectively deal with serious issues affecting the nation she's turned her prime ministership into a grotesque and sanctimonious soapie that revolves entirely around her hurt feelings. The way she's twisted her unpopularity into a po-faced diatribe about the evils of sexism is shameless and cynical in the extreme.

Sure, most Aussies don't like her one bit. But that's got nothing to do with her being a woman. It's because she's incompetent, nasty, duplicitous, and a world class hypocrite to boot. The fact that she has the gall to then hide behind her gender just annoys people even more.

Now, brazenly milking Howard Sattler's oafish interview (for which he lost his job, BTW) for her own political advantage, she's wringing her hands about its ramifications for the next generation of female leaders.

Speaking today, Ms Gillard refused to take questions on the controversy, but echoed comments from Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick that the treatment of high-profile women could send a damaging message to the next generation.

"I'm concerned about that, too. I don't want to see a message like that sent to those young girls," she said.

"I want young girls and women to be able to feel like they can be included in public life and not have to face questioning like the questioning I faced yesterday."

The sanctimony is breathtaking. Apart from anything else, the one with the greatest right to be angered by Sattler's line of questioning is actually her significant other. But she's cast herself as the biggest victim. Cry me a river, Toots!

And like pretty much everything that comes out of her mouth, she doesn't mean one word of it. Gillard doesn't give a tinker's cuss about Australian girls. She's just cynically exploiting the Perth broadcaster's faux pas to bolster her preferred narrative.

The Women for Gillard launch, along with the menu-gate stitch up, and possibly even that army sexism scandal that surfaced so conveniently, have all been aimed at building up a clear image of her as the brave, virtuous victim of eeevil male oppressors. Her clear hope is that it might get her over the line on September 14. But it has a more immediate goal too: to make sure that any internal move to topple her will be seen primarily in terms of gender politics.

If Rudd, Shorten or another bloke sticks his hand up for the gig Gillard knows that her armies of victim feminist harpies in the mainstream and social media will characterize her attempted ousting as the patriarchy's revenge. They'll all do their darnedest to cast her as a latter day Joan of Arc.

Knowing that Labor blokes like to see themselves as attitudinally reconstructed pro-feminist types (even though many are far more sexist than those in the Coalition) there's a good chance they'll balk at such a move.

But frankly I don't think it will work. Gillard is just so catastrophically toxic to the party's brand that even the Labor males' abundant moral vanity will not stop them from doing what clearly needs to be done. If some bloke in a blue tie doesn't tap her on the shoulder in the coming weeks (or even days) I'll be very surprised. 

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Gillard's gender war is poison for future Labor feminists

Like many, I'm just amazed at the cynicism and nastiness of Julia Gillard using abortion to slime the Libs. She brazenly lies that Abbott and his party will play politics with the issue. But that's exactly what she's doing! Considering what a complex and emotional issue it is, that is about as low as you can get.

And how hollow is her claim to be fighting for women when she is flouting her own party's affirmative action rules by supporting a man over women in the seat of Batman?

This behaviour is more confirmation of Gillard's deeply duplicitous character. To her, lying is as easy and natural as breathing. Clearly, she doesn't just take the voters for mugs -- she also has a very low opinion of the women who loyally support her. And I think the women in the electorate are awake to this. So it's likely that her gender war will ultimately alienate more women than it wins over.

And there'll be long term ramifications for this for Labor. After the party has been completely thrashed in the election there'll be a lot of stone-cold analysis of what went wrong. If party members aren't completely retarded they'll realize that Gillard's toxic gender politics had a lot to do with the loss. As a result, they'll resolve to keep anyone like Gillard from having too much influence in the future. So the odds of a left-wing woman leading the party again -- at least for many years -- will be zilch.

And that will be part of the PM's toxic legacy. Not only a disaster for the country, but also a disaster for left-wing feminism. (Not that I'm upset about this, mind. Frankly, I'm chuffed. But if you are a bit of a bolshie babe, then Julia Gillard really should be in your bad books.) 

So if the sisters continue to worship her -- as I suspect they will -- it will just show how utterly lost the poor little poppets actually are. It really is very, very sad. 

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Latham's "realm of evil" line about Rudd on Q and A

Last night on Q and A, former Labor leader Mark Latham characterized Kevin Rudd's white anting of Julia Gillard as being in "the realm of evil". Actually, it sounds like the title of a Hammer horror film. No doubt some mock movie posters will appear online, if they haven't already.

Cinematic potential aside, the memorable phrase is sure to be cited often as the election approaches. I suspect that the Libs might even use it if Rudd does actually wrest the top job back from the woman who knifed him (although right now that is looking unlikely).

Of course, the "realm of evil" line says more about Mark Latham than it does about Kevin Rudd. It reveals his histrionic level of hatred for the former PM. I think it also says something about the psychological make-up of people in the ALP. Frankly, I doubt a Liberal would use such, er, hyperbowl in describing the actions of a fellow conservative pollie. They're just not that emotionally intense.

But Labor is full of world class haters. Just as Rudd loathes Gillard, Latham loathes Rudd. And that's just the start of the Labor loathe-fest. Gawd, what a toxic environment it is!

There is such vicious personal enmity there, it makes you wonder what's going to happen come September 14 (or even earlier). The election itself will of course be a massacre. Then there will be all the bloody reprisals within the party. Canberra will be awash with rivers of blood ...

Which sounds like another Hammer title when you think about it!

Friday, June 7, 2013

"You're having a lesbian" campaign from PFLAG

Something that has long fascinated me about the more zealous advocates of gay rights is how easily and often they ignore the realities of reproduction. They talk about gay male and lesbian parenting, for example, as if there was no one else involved in the child's creation. For myself and so many other flint-hearted conservatives this is both astonishing and annoying.

Let's face it, until cloning becomes old hat it's gonna take a man and a woman to make a baby. So, in the case of a "family" resulting from "marriage equality" there will always be a biological parent (father or mother) who more or less disappears from the child's life after she is born. Their absence is sure to affect the bub -- and not just because of societal conditioning due to "heteronormativism". 

Fair enough if you're going to argue that these issues are negligible. But most of the time gay marriage advocates don't even acknowledge that they are there. They blithely brush them aside, totally ignoring the mechanics of human reproduction. And if you remind them of these cold hard facts they don't like it at all. They do a lot of eye rolling and derisive snorting. They'll often claim you're being heterosexist or homophobic, too. It's bloody infuriating.

That's why I find the latest campaign from Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) to be quite revealing. In it, a woman gives birth to bub, and the doc says: "Congratulations, you're having a lesbian." Next to her is her male partner -- clearly the father of the child.

So, if they're going to acknowledge the necessity of heterosexual sex in reproduction in their own political advertising, why are they so quick to dismiss it in debates with conservatives?