Comments on: More spill thread with added smokey goodness

By: Ambigulous

Ambigulous — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:35:40 +0000

Congratulations and thank you:
* the amazing Paul Burns
* the Katzian wit
* erudition aplenty, Dr Cat

I agree about the nurturance: helping and sheltering the tiny buderigars with warm affection; a far far better use of his scrotal items than could ever have been envisaged.

Please excuse me while I step outside to vomit.
I have horrified meself.

cheerio

By: Patricia WA

Patricia WA — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:59:33 +0000

Joe2 and Brendon, is it cowardly to speak your mind to someone in a private email?
Julie B’s leaking of that and her rush to protest her loyalty brandishing her voting slips smacks to me of a touch of the guilts.

Similarly Sloppy Floppy Joe’s self justifying story that Malcolm told him he planned to give up if he lost the spill motion doesn’t ring true either. The public certainly weren’t in any doubt about Turnbull’s intention to fight on to the last stand. My reading is that Joe, weak unprincipled ninny that he is, was thrilled by all the attention into standing. He was probably fooled into adopting the “conscience vote” suggestion by others like Minchin who knew him well and wanted Abbott to be able throw his hat back into the ring without loss of face.

Not sure of the timing, but yes, I can imagine Minchin was dancing down the corridors with girlish glee when such a ploy succeeded!

And what does it say about the Liberal brand of “loyalty” when Turnbull is deserted, supported publicly only by two fine women senators, while the others to a man seem to have closed ranks behind Tony Abbott. Significantly, Bishop and Hockey, the two who most loudly protested their loyalty have now with indecent haste joined his shadow cabinet.

By: joe2

joe2 — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:12:46 +0000

I am not a big Julie fan, Brendon but I can see why she might want to straighten the record when colleagues had taken to calling her a cockroach. I still get the feeling she copped more because she is a women.

By: Brendon

Brendon — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:42:13 +0000

Still if every aside and snipe straight after defeat from a fallen leader was made public, I’m sure none of them would look too good.

And as for Bishop making public the story about her former leader, it doesn’t say much for her, either. When you think about it.

By: Fine

Fine — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:15:36 +0000

I still find it amusing joe2 and look forward to more backstabbing and cowardly attacks over the coming months.

By: joe2

joe2 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:00:35 +0000

I just find it most interesting, that out of all this, it is the sole women involved in this treacherous powerplay who is needing to assure, and be judged, on the issue of loyalty.

In circumstances Turnbulls attack on her is a pretty weak (and cowardly) effort.

By: Paul Burns

Paul Burns — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:26:26 +0000

Seems they all knifed each other one way or another. Which is not surprising, geven the way thay were carrying on. Not to be trusted.

By: Brendon

Brendon — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:51:54 +0000

I wouldn’t say his attack on Bishop was cowardly. Childish, vindictive….and kind of cowardly.

By: joe2

joe2 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:19:06 +0000

I would speculate that Turnbull, who conned Hockey, was out conned by Abbott.

And then, having lost the battle, Mal pointed the finger at Julie Bishop for treachery.

In a case of that well known cowardly technique…. “look, over there”.

By: Brendon

Brendon — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:38:45 +0000

I got a question out of this.

Hockey says he was assured by Turnbull that if there was a spill, Turnbull would not stand.

Is there something missing?

Why would Turnbull give that assurance, and what was the quid pro quo, if any?

There is Turnbull hanging on for dear life and he tells Hockey he is going to fall on his sword for….nothing. Because Hockey is a good guy, or something. Doesn’t sound right. To me, Hockey is not telling the whole story.