Poor old $weetie must have been feeling attention deprived. The “will he, won’t he?” stories had run out of any possible oxygen, so he opened a Senator’s office, and attacked the Labor party on economic management. The drooling in the News Limited punditariat started on cue, with Costellologist in Chief Dennis Shanahan immediately pointing out that while the Great Pretender had said he woudn’t challenge Brendan Nelson, he hadn’t ruled out being drafted into the leadership. Of course he didn’t. He’s always wanted everything given to him on a platter.
All the schtick about some leadership draft ignores the fact that Nelson – although he’s been reminded ad infinitum that a dignified handover would lead to some fabbo outcome for him like becoming the next Lord Downer – will probably fight, if indeed as the same pundits previously speculated, he has to at all, because he’s been briefed by Costello on his intentions. But I suppose an attention span longer than a day and paying some attention to what you’ve previously written is beyond their ken.
The other theme here from the cheer squad (they give you “balance and fact”, remember!) is that Costello supposedly came out with some masterly (remember the front page about last year’s “Master Class Budget”?) economic critique of economic management Rudd style. Err, he didn’t actually. He just said exactly what Nelson and Turnbull have been intoning – a weird melange of fantasy (“Labor created inflation by talking about it”) and patting the Coalition on the back for the good old days. It’s actually likely to have less credibility coming from Costello than anyone else. When interest rates start trending down, the contrast with 12 rises in a row under Cossie will be plain. Yesterday’s man, celebrated by a bunch of craven bootlicking hacks who can’t find anything else worth writing about. Yawn.
“Yesterday’s man, celebrated by a bunch of craven bootlicking hacks who can’t find anything else worth writing about. Yawn.”
Those craven, bootlicking hacks are keeping you in copy, Kim. This must be about your 950th post on Shanahan, Nelson, Costello and all that stuff that is so not worth writing about.
Give me credit for some restraint, Geoff! I waited a few days.
Anyway, I find it funny.
Maybe that’s just my sense of humour!
Laurie Oakes had a go. in todays Telly.
…craven bootlicking hacks who can’t find anything else worth writing about. Yawn.” Don’t forget Michelle Grattan! Why do you hate her so much?
BBB
I’m tired of being told who I hate, BBB. I don’t “hate” anyone. It might be a productive way of improving the quality of debate about politics in this country if people could do it with less hyperbole, and more attention to what their interlocutors are actually saying.
Far out. Now who’s not getting someone else’s sense of humour?
BBB
Yikes! Sorry!
I take the really cynical view that Peter Coleman, who hates JWH, has tipped a bucketload over the Lib’s former Great Helmsman in the Costello “autobiography”. Otherwise I can’t see why MUP would bother buying it.Books on the Howard Era are being remaindered, fer Chrissakes! And this is al just one long, slow, very brilliant publicity campaign dreamt up by Louise Adler, whose direction Costello is following to the letter.
Besides, the man’s too lazy to be PM.
Did like the joke about the eagle eye, though.
If Costello can get as many votes as he does posts by Kim, he’ll win in a landslide.
Gonna stand up for Kim here. If the Custardello Clarion keeps raising the issue, why shouldn’t Kim keep following Keating’s sage advice: ‘If you see a head, kick it’?
Shanahan owes a long-standing debt to Costello, for all the leaks he had during the Libs’ reign which made his job so easy, and now he’s using Rupert’s rag to provide the quid pro quo: plenty of free publicity for the imminent taxpayer-funded book.
I wish someone in the press gallery had the guts to tip a bucket on some of their colleagues over their all-too-comfy associations with politicians and staffers. Government-by-media-management-by-leak short-changes the public, both in terms of media product and of governance.
Costello would rather be The Man Who Could’ve rather than The Man Who Didn’t.
As long as he doesn’t make a move, he can go down in the history books as a brilliant statesman who terrified Labor with his genius for the bon political mot.
It’s yer classic gutless wonder/bully-boy behavior: bluff everyone into thinking you’ve done them a favour by not bashing them. Pick the odd easy target and humiliate them. Get a reputation as the best fighter in the schoolyard athen pray you never have to prove it, at least in a fair fight.
On Insiders this morning Cassidy flew the “Question Time Pete” flag again. Thankfully the panel shot it down by pointing out that the whole thing was rigged in Cozzie’s favour and always had been. He could wax on all lyrical and biffo because he had a “special” relationship with an egregiously tame Speaker. As Opposition Leader he’d have to deliver the goods against experts, who could shut him up with the gag. Too much like hard work for Pistol Pete.
I think he’s enjoying tearing the Libs apart. I really do. I think Keating called it, “Doing you slowly.”
Costello could win if he gets into the right party position, the global economy keeps going floudering, and he engages in the usual fudge of all politicans, left or right: assignmening responsibility to certain politicans or parties for prevailing economic conditions that have nothing to do with them.
Perhaps even Nelson would have a chance with doing this. Its a shame the masses will swallow it.
When this bloke has absolute total commitment from his political party(if ever) the other side may shudder, as their worst dream comes true as PETER the new opposition leader places dreams held for year on the agenda for 07PM to answer.
Costello won’t win.
Look at the competition: Nelson and Turnbull. Nelson is the stalking-horse for the far right and they would have to be accommodated in some way. Turnbull is a restless presence. Someone who wants it all his own way within the Liberal Party has to get rid of both of them.
I’m not sure Peter Coleman can convincingly shape a post-Howard narrative. At this point after Fraser was defeated, there were two narratives for the Liberals to choose from, which later became known as “wet” and “dry”. Today, there is only the Minchin-Abetz line of reaction (which has led all state Liberal Parties to oblivion, and from which these guys have learned nothing), the personality cult of Turnbull, and not much else. I’m not convinced that Coleman has much to say about Kyoto or Murray-Darling (and because Rudd and Wong have blown their credibility on th latter, their claims for action on the former are increasingly hollow), let alone global economics in a post Cold War age, or that phenomenon George W Bush calls Tair.