I suggest that you do a little homework, TZ52HX. Search out the item in question, read it, then make your comments.

>>Pericles, surely no sane person can take any commentary by Mark Latham seriously!<<

The article lands some fairly hefty blows on Rudd's credibility - not, as I mentioned, through opinion and judgment, but on observable, verifiable, factual material.

If anything, the fact that it comes from a person that you hold in such low esteem will add to its impact.

Only if you bother to read it, of course. Otherwise your observations hold no weight, built as they are entirely on prejudice and preconception.

TZ52HX,

Latham had a lot of baggage of one type or another, which was why he lost the election in 2004. If that's what you're criticising, fair enough.

But Latho's intellectual ability is actually very high. Have you read some of his stuff? There are two political identities in recent years who have really surprised me with their ability to put forward a very cogent, high-level and intellectual narrative: Mark Latham and Michael Costa.

The problem these two guys faced is that the political world they lived in was not big enough to support their ideas. And I don't mean that in a disparaging way either. They are streets ahead of most.

This just goes to show that there is a limit to everything in life, intellectualism included. The best type of Prime Minister is not the most intellectual, but the one who has the requisite combination of appeal (to get the votes), strength (to hold his Party together and to make decisions independent of lobby groups etc) and intelligence (to know when he's making the best decision and hearing the best advice). All other qualities are not as essential as these two IMO.

Rob, I agree with what you wrote.

Like many ex leaders and ex members of parliament, Latham has axes to grind. Latham's axe is particularly sharp and well defined, and is based on an extremely complex personality and set of circumstances. He has the brains, and now "control", to present any case he wishes very well indeed. "Some" people will lap it up, especially if it suits them politically.

Belly seems like a good time to mention our little bet on the next election; me for a Labor win with reduced majority, you with an increased.

Hewson was the ultimate MBA helicoptered in to match Keatings deregulation/privatisation orgy. He didn't represent me then and he doesn't now. Turnbull has nothing to do with my l/Liberal inclinations either.

The Libs. are in trouble and it will take awhile. That's ok by me; but unlike you and the ALP, they will only get my vote if I think they are up for government.

I do agree with you, Costello aint up to it. I've been saying it for 2 years. But unlike others I see a lack of drive and ambition.

Finally, a friend told me of the following exchange on radio that went something like this:

Ray Hadlee talking to John Della Bosca mentions Dellas Machiavellian qualities. Della responds with something like "don't bring up ethnic issues". Hadlee was left speechless/confused. I can't vouch for the truth of this but very funny.

Good People
Pls listen carefully.
We have tried to educate people on this forum that live exports has everything to do with trade and the economy. Downer created live Exports and Vaile- we now Tony Burke Burke and Simon
If people are 'ignorant to the fact that trade and ecomony very much comes into these debates then dont accuse us of being offpost.

Now we have said this once and for the last time. So sick of the ignorance and unfairness we are addressing this point with the forum owner. With facts!
Now I will get off my soap box and join this coversation and remember the first person who raises the stupid comment that pale is off post has just advertised their complete lack of understanding in politics and trade issues.
The End.

*Does this qualify as a troll posting? ie Belly's post.*

palimpsest,

I think what you mean is each time Belly and Foxy, cant understand the questions, or not like the comments they start a new thread. So yes your correct.

*Dear palimpsest,

"There are no stupid questions,
but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots..."
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 22 February 2009 10:04:18 AM*

Foxy is there a need to use that tone?
I have gone from seeing you being one of our favoiute posters to seeing you as a thin veile for a ALP stooli.

I have noticed you open threads. Once somebody starts to address some real issues regarding that topc you either A stop posting B post hurtful jokes or C.like Belly start a new thread!

Col Rouge and a few of the others posted some informed and quality comments on the ;Have the libs lost the plot thread.

We saw the way in which belly and yourself responded. Cracks about his mother. Jokes about the Poms. Lashes from Belly. I do not have a political preference. We just post on policy.' If people stopped playing sides like school kids we might actually come up some answers between all of us to make changes for the better.

It's somewhat less than surprising, but in all that babbling above from PALE&IF, neither Hewson nor Costello got a mention.

For those who are interested in the topic, I generally agree with John Quiggin's take on Hewson's remarks:

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/02/22/hewson-hits-the-mark/#comments

That is, he generally agrees with Hewson's characterisation of Costello as "Lazy, disloyal, no balls, unelectable" - although, being Quiggin, he finds the "no balls" bit distasteful. Personally, I agree with Hewson on this.