Some say its no one else's business but I have no doubt that private philosophy determines public policy. Those that claim that ones private life is no one elses business are first to criticize Abbott for his private beliefs. Ms Gillard's latest revelations of having an affair with a married man with kids really reveals a huge character flaw. I suppose with Bob Hawke as a mentor it is no wonder. It seems sleeping your way to the top is still going on. Where are the feminist outcries?

Dear runner,

I'm really surprised at you for this thread.
Don't you know that it's not their sex lives
that matter, but the way they run the countries?
Look at the heritages of the Kennedy Family,
Bill Clinton, the current President of France,
and so on. All were popular, and their sex
lives simply made them all that more interesting.

However,
why pick on just the Labor Candidate, if
you're into people's sex lives?

The former Liberal Leader - Brendan Nelson,
divorced - third wife.
Bronwyn Bishop - divorced.
Julie Bishop - divorced - currently in a
defacto relationship with a divorced man.
Warren Entsch - in a defacto relationship.
Ross Cameron (Parramatta) revealed as an adulterer.

What about the notorious "womanisers" - Andrew
Peacock, and Harold Holt? And the many others...

I'm sure if you were to scrutinize
any powerful person's private life - you could come up
with all sorts of interesting data and
"exciting" reading. Though I doubt that people
who actually got into power had other qualities apart
from sex on offer. But, like Catherine the Great - they may
have used their power to acquire sex, once they
got in.

Anyway, don't be obsessed with sex.
Instead may I suggest:

Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody
else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private
whatever their inclinations, which are none of your
business.

Or if their private lives are of real concern to you -
ask Tony Abbott what he got up to as a uni-student,
and what was all that scandal in the press about him
having fathered a child out of wedlock?

They're all out to get her just because she is a woman!

If a male politician was unmarried with no children and had a live in hairdresser girlfriend I'm sure there would be no comment at all. In fact, how many male politicians have to show they have a wife and kids, and prove or justify their religious beliefs or their 'family values'. It just isn't an issue for men is it!

Nobody has ever commented on Abbott's ears or his swim wear for instance, and all anyone can talk about is Julia's earlobes and dresses. It's so sexist! Nobody has ever commented on Tony Abbot's religious beliefs, yet Julia's lack of belief is fair game. It's not fair! Nobody has ever commented on Abbott's love child, why would anyone comment on Julia's affair with a married man.

This boys club of politics is disgusting.

All Julia wants is for her gender and life style not to be issues. I know because I read about it in the 15 page spread for a women's magazine, when she talks about her love life and beliefs and ...

Ahhhh!

cont'd ...

oops - sorry - I'm a bit tired and made a typo.
The sentence that reads, "Though I doubt..."
Should have read -,"Though I'm sure that people
who got into power had other qualities apart from
sex on offer..."

runner you really are the most vile christian I have ever come across.

How could ms Gillards affair possibly affect her policies? Will she make it legal to be adulterous? Oops its not illegal now is it? Will she force us all to be adulterers?
What is this sleeping to the top s#@t? Did she(or even could she)have gained personally? This is just in the gutter mudslinging from a christian extremest who hates anyone who dosent agree with them.

Abbotts beliefs have and will colour his whole attitude to policy. As we saw with the morning after pill. As we saw with his attitude to women and I quote

"If we're honest, most of us would accept that a bad boss is a little bit like a bad father or a bad husband - notwithstanding all of his faults, you find he tends to do more good than harm. He might be a bad boss but at least he's employing someone while he is in fact a boss."

Where is your outrage and condemnation of your kiddy fiddling priests? A far more serious danger to children than ms Gillard having an affair.

If private philosophy determines public policy then what can we glean from the acts of the pedophile priests? That their private molestations infect their sermonising and pastoral care. That their destruction of lives and childhoods will affect who they "care" for and who they dont?

Give it up runner you are on a hiding to nothing with all the filth your lot get up to.

Thanks for your reply Foxy and Houellebecq

You both make some interesting and relevant points. I know Tony Abott and many on all sides of politics have pasts they would regret and not want published. I do however feel that if a politician is going to put there stories on the front page of magazines in order to portray a positive image then they should be willing to be open to scrutiny. The secularist pin up girl certainly lives up to the perception that secularism really has little to no moral values.

I could be wrong but I seem to remember that Mr Abbot has admitted that his has a fallen past. He was soundly criticized for advising his daughters not to give away their virginity cheaply. There were several posts on OLO regarding this issue. It is one thing to be cheat and be unfaithful and another thing to pretend their is nothing wrong with it. Being a woman contender should not silence the sisterhood and jump on anyone asking the question.

Personally I think it is an indictment on the Australian public that a man or a woman can brazenly sleep with someone else's wife/husband, stab a sitting prime minister in the back and then asked to be trusted. I don't necessarily see this as an genda issue. I see it as a very poor reflection on a country that has many faults but has generally respected common decency in the past.

Funny enough though I obviously would prefer a Liberal win I would must prefer a politician either labour or liberal with a few decent morals that I can point my kids towards as examples. Labour has had people like that in the past. Now it is all about being elected and I think Liberal is only marginally better than Labour.

You obviously don't believe private philosophy determines public performance and yet when Abbott opposed the abortion drug people screamed murder (ironically).

Mikk

I love your commitment to opinions other than your own. Maybe we could give you the OLO tolerance award.

you ask

'Where is your outrage and condemnation of your kiddy fiddling priests? A far more serious danger to children than ms Gillard having an affair.'

go to the 10 or so posts already on this subject including the ones you commenced. I think I take your comments as a complement. Do you really care about kids or do u just hate the Catholic church so much of which I am not a part of. At least you are now calling me a Christian. Thanks.

Foxy

Your point about previous and current Liberal members is very valid. I realise that I am sometimes naive thinking that some past PM’s were people of great character. At least that’s what I along with many others like to believe. Whenever you put your faith in any man other than Christ you end up disappointed. Politics has always been a dirty game. It appeared that the US press were and are prepared to pull up as much dirt as possible on Palin (whether true or not).

Yep true runner. Read mikks comment for the double standards you mentioned.

It seems these days it's fine to lambaste a religious person for their beliefs, but not an atheist.

If Abbott's religion is relevant, so is Julia's atheism.

mikk,

'Abbotts beliefs have and will colour his whole attitude to policy. As we saw with the morning after pill. As we saw with his attitude to women'

As will Julia's.

You just happen to agree with Julia's world view more than Abbott's. runner happens to agree more with Abbott's. Neither is more valid.

While I am not a Christian let me be clear, those who are are nothing like runner for the most part.
Christianity is shrinking, say it is not so if you wish but apart from a very few Church's are near empty.
How many of us Christian or not can say we have not climbed out of the wrong bed.
How many Prime Ministers had more than one relationship.
The hatred towards Gillard is here to see.
She however has an election victory to help get over such as runner.
Sleeping her way to the top what a truly grubby remark!

Is this absolutely necessary? Is OLO really a platform for Victorian-era judgements about public figures?

How does this constitute 'sleeping her way to the top'? Who was the married man? Where is he now?

Yawn. Who cares?.

But, in the spirit of the forum. In my experience, people - men or women - who've got their way to the top on their backs become very quickly transparent in their abilities. People like that are detrimental to the business and the employees respect for the whole set up erodes. In the case of Gillard, quite obviously she is above or she wouldn't be PRIME MINISTER of the country.

Runner, I hope you get sued.

I agree with StG. It is disgraceful that this topic was allowed on this forum.

You can't go around saying someone slept their way to the top without proof.
Do you have proof Runner?

Runner, this is a low blow, even for you.

Otokonoko

Read the latest Women's weekly for your answer.

St George

Bill Clinton made it to the top and look at his behaviour. It seems that most don't take character into account when voting.

Suzionline

I take it you condone affairs with married men. You are obviously not a victim.

I for one would like a pm who is a role model for the younger generation.

[Deleted for bad language].

I note some comments above asking why I allowed this post. Well, there are a number of reasons. The affair is on the record and was with Craig Emerson. Apparently (I haven't read the Weekly) Julia Gillard has just alluded to it.

While I don't think this means Ms Gillard has "slept her way to the top", I guess you could hold that opinion. In any event, the PM has raised the issue and I don't see that it is inappropriate to talk about it.

I wouldn't judge someone for having an affair, but others will. I cannot see what the harm is in having the discussion. The morals of a public official running for office are an issue that is worth discussing. Plenty have discussed Abbott's morals and take exception to them. I can't see how this thread is any different, it just looks at the other contender for PM.

The thread has clumsy wording, but I have a policy of allowing threads through with clumsy wording without editing them. The journal is for the polished thoughts, the forum for the more rough hewn ones.

I was not aware of this affair prior to this topic. Those who read my other posts would never suspect me of being a follower of Julia Gillard, but if anything, while I still wouldn't vote for her, this revelation makes me place two '+' signs next to her name.

+1: Humility is a rare quality among politicians.
+2: One who prefers others to stay away from their private lives, may perhaps, just perhaps, be a little more careful about interfering with the private lives of others.

Having read the online extract (I won't be forking out the dosh for a copy of Women's Weekly, and don't have any dentist's appointments coming up), all I can say is that she seems a lot more personable than her opponent. I'm still not sure how sleeping with Emerson scored her political points, though.

I am no crawler and just about as different from GY as you can get.
BUT please let us not censor things we do not like.
I learn from this thread runner will go to any depths to condemn those he is opposed to.
And I challenge every poster who ever posted here to say their sex lives never wandered at some time.
The affair did not bring Julia to the top it had nothing to do with her policy's and runner is no average voter.
No party surely? would ever fill his wants.
I however highlight just how low SOME who support conservatives are going to try to defeat this government.
Dragging Latham out is one of a hundred crimes against fair reporting.
Here we see references to shew, and more in threads a desperate time and desperation drives some.
After Labor is returned just maybe we can see policy's replace mud throwing.

[Deleted for arguing a moderation issue on the forum and the poster suspended].

Half-time

Dragon 1

StG Nil




Sorry. Couldn't resist. Very immoderate of me.

Thank you Graham
I agree with all you have said. The inference and heading that Gillard slept her way to the top was wrong. I apologize. The fact that she had an affair with a married man and knifed the previous pm should raise doubts about character with every parent who sees our leaders as being role models. Her private morals or lack of it works out into public policy. Only those blinded by their own dogmas can't and won't see that.Next someone will be telling me its okay to for a member of Parliament to be sitting down watching porn all day and be given the role looking after the censorship board.

One thing I admire about the Australian public is when Tony Abbott's private life and alleged love child became news, people instead of being hateful and judgemental, looked forward to a union of father and son. That was not to be of course when further information came to hand.

I despair sometimes for those who constantly live in judgement of others for doing nothing more than living their lives. People on both sides of politics have made mistakes - people sometimes do.

To relate those mistakes to broader policy making is stretching it a bit IMO. We tend to excuse mistakes more from those we agree than those we don't - that is also human and may I suggest that is the case here.

Pelican,

Thank you.

runner,

Please take special note of pelican's post.
Talking of "role models" - if I were to give instruction to my children as to the practice of basic decency and morality on a human level - yours are the posts that I would hold up as the antithesis of constructive and compassionate dialogue.

I'm waiting for you to surprise me one day with a demonstration of true Christian charity and understanding....

Dear runner,

I fully agree with Pelican and Poirot.

Australians do have a tendency to be less
judgemental of their "heroes," be they
football players, politicians, celebrities,
that they like. Less tolerant of the ones
they don't like. And as I tried to point
out in my earlier post - people do make
mistakes, admit them, try to resolve them,
and move on.

On the other side of the coin, there is also
the tendency to moralize, to say endless things
to other people about how "they" should clean up
their houses. Surely we must clean up ours.
The days have long gone when we have the genuine
moral authority from which to preach to others
in this country.

Let us regain that ground, take a fearless moral
inventory, do the work on ourselves that we still
need to do. It will heal our hearts and free our souls.
There is new life waiting to happen here, as soon as we
own up. Nothing less will heal us and this country.

I like public figures who promote freedom and keep government interference with freedom to the minimum.

One of Julia Gillard's first acts as prime minister was to kill the proposed government internet censorship. This was an initiative of Rudd, and Abbott has not protested it.

This issue to me is far more important than the small number of boat people who come to our shores.

I hope our prime minister will continue to limit government interference by getting rid of the National School Chaplaincy Program which has put fundamentalist missionaries in the public schools and stops subsidising religious and other private schools. Both the NSCP and religious school subsidies are violations of S. 116 of the Australian Constitution.

Good Ruddance.

While I don't care particularly about some ones past relationships, this is prime example of poor judgement. Having an affair with some one married with kids is never going to have a good result either for ones self or the man, or his family.

This was stupid, stupid, stupid, and shows that JG had no consideration for anyone but herself. It takes a liar and cold hearted cheat to do this.

For any one that stoops this low, there is little she will do to get what she wants.

Dear Shadow Minister,

It takes two to tango as the saying goes,
and blaming just one party in the breakdown
of any marriage is simply displaying ignorance.
Who knows why the married man chose to have a
relationship with Julia Gillard or she with him.
Who knows what state his marriage was in or
who was to blame. I dare so only the parties
involved. It's very easy to make assumptions and
cast blame - but without knowing all the facts -
it's best to avoid doing that.

We are experiencing a crisis of leadership now,
not so much because people lack the qualities
necessary for it, but it seems to me that its
because we systematically invalidate such qualities.

It's hard in today's world for a person to stand up
in excellence and power within the public realm.
There are a myriad forces marshaled against doing so,
causing a massive brain and spirit drain from the
realms of worldly power.

Instead of tearing people down let us support the
possibility of greatness in anyone at any time.
We must rethink our attitudes about leaders, or at the
rate we're going we will soon have none.

davidf says:

"One of Julia Gillard's first acts
as prime minister was to kill the
proposed government internet censorship.
This was an initiative of Rudd,
and Abbott has not protested it."

That one had slipped under my radar*, davidf. Do you have a reference, and does it also relate to abandonment of the proposal spoken of in Chris Abood's OLO article 'An even Bigger Brother?' See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10589

I wonder whether, if it does, it constitutes a tacit acceptance of the true proposal having been the one speculated upon here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10589#177061

I wonder, too, whether Julia Gillard's action in this matter may portend some hope of Brian Howes, currently detained without charge in the UK awaiting extradition (rendition?) to the US, being given at the least a hearing by means of an Australian request for the same? See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3810&page=0 , for a bit of background, here and there. You will have to read the whole, now two-page, thread, davidf. My apologies, but maybe worth it.

And I don't think I am really off-topic, either, but only the links might, toward the end, make that clear.




* Radar. Another palindrome. But nothing could top Diva David in context!

Thank GY not for doing as you may and suspending a poster but for the change that let us see what had taken place.
Shadow Minister after the poll lets look back at the campaign,here in OLO at least.
I am combative, but that last post of yours is way over the top.
Did you ever stray? do you think only a few do? did you read the post about how we handled Abbott's son that turned out not to be.
Runner talks of watching porn and such but porn plays no part in my sex life.
Stooping so very low to get at Gillard but the coming election victory will make up for it.

Foxy, that was pathetic.

Yes it takes 2 to tango, and what I said applies equally or more so to the other dufus. Apportioning blame to the other party does not absolve JG of any. I have no idea of who the dufus and don't care, as this is not about him.

The state of his marriage is irrelevant, as the idiocy of the act still applies. There is simply no rational that can paint this as any thing other than stupid and conniving. It probably helped her to pledge allegiance to Rudd with sincerity, then put the knife in at the first opportunity.

Belly,

As a married man I have had several opportunities to stray, but it came to the crunch I knew that my kids mattered far more to me than any tryst. And in 23 yrs have yet to stray. Though I admit to some window shopping.

Agree with Pelican, Poirot, Foxy - setting high standards as usual.

Forrest - very funny, but then I do have a warped sense of humour. I am so glad you didn't resist.

Runner

I have been sitting in happy reverie, recalling lovers past, may be there were one or two I shouldn't have slept with (hey, we all make mistakes).... but I have wonderful memories (memories don't decline with age) and the future looks very good too...

I have absolutely zero power over others, so I certainly can't be accused of using sex to get anything... except satisfaction and my present happy glow.

Graham Y

Thanks for another opportunity to reveal the horror that is fundamentalist religion.

:D

Dear Forrest Gumpp,

In "Deliverance", the publication of Exit International which lobbies for voluntary euthanasia there was an item headed "New Prime Minister Dumps Mandatory Net Filter!"

The story was based on the fact that the 'Clean Feed' plan will be sent off to the joint States and Territories inquiry for a 12 month review. The review process will focus on the entire RC (Refused Classification) protocol. This was seen as a quiet way of getting rid of the plan without stirring up those who want it. Hopefully the interpretation is correct.

It was done this way rather than dumping it outright to avoid clashing with Rudd and his supporters who wanted censorship.

http://bit.ly/98Rv5q is the url for a history of censorship in Australia in an exhibition in the Baillieu Library at the University of Melbourne.

Foxy

You seem to miss the point. You write

'And as I tried to point out in my earlier post - people do make
mistakes, admit them, try to resolve them, and move on.'

Has Ms Gillard admitted her affair with a married man and knifing of Mr Rudd was wrong? If so, she would go up along way in my estimation. The point is her philosophical position is that their are no such things as absolutes (right and wrong) or at very least she can make her mind up what is right and wrong. This philosophy has already led to guilt free baby murders and immoral relationships even if they deny kids of mums and dads. I think after your years of harsh judgements on Mr Howard you are being a bit two faced.

Dear Shadow Minister,

We are two people with completely and
fundamentally different ways of seeing
this issue. I would not presume to judge
the essence of any dysfunctional
relationship. And if you see that as
"pathetic," I guess that's something I'll
have to learn to live with.

Dear runner,

It wasn't just me that judged Mr Howard.
The voters of this country did.
Not only was his Party
booted out, but so was he, out of his own
Electorate. Perhaps you need to do some
to research to find out the reasons why?

cont'd ...

If you don't want to do your own research
into Mr Howard's legacy, this website
may help:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10661

"Howard's legacy..." by Bruce Haigh.

View the entire article, it's worth a read.

Foxy

By the same token you might like to do some research as to why Mr Howard won 4 elections. Did the voters get it wrong 4 times and right once? Bruce Haigh is far from being a balanced source. You also seem to be defeating your own arguement as Mr Howard's personal philosophy certainly influenced his public policy. Interesting enough Ms Gillard is pretending to adopt much of Mr Howard's policies.

We can learn a great deal from the Americans here. They are after
all the most religious of Western countries, where politicians
at least have to pretend to be religious, to meet voters expectations.

Bill Clinton was a great president, who left the country with a
healthy economy and a budget surplus. All that the religious could
focus on, was Monika!

So with the help of the religious right (aka people like runner)
George Bush became president, not once, but twice.

The result is there for all to see. As far as we know, George
resisted temptation and was most likely faithfull to Laura.

But he also nearly sent the country bankrupt and straight into
the worst financial crisis in generations. Empty coffers,
record unemployment, a total disaster. It has been left to
poor Obama to try and clean up the mess.

From all this we can learn a great deal. Clinton would have been
an even better president, if so much of his time had not been wasted
on the Monika nonsense, for the republicans could think of little
else.

Given the disaster that was the Bush regime and the price which
the whole world has paid, clearly personal sexual habits have
absolutaly nothing to do with ability to govern

Dear Yabby,

There is more than one lesson to be learned from the United States. Grover Cleveland ran for president against James G. Blaine, a self-righteous man who was proud of his moral standing. Blaine accused Cleveland of fathering a child out of wedlock and being unfit for public life.

Cleveland pointed out that he made no secret of it and had provided for the child. He said he was quite fit for public life and that Blaine was obviously better fitted for private life. He appealed to the voters to keep Blaine in private life for which he was well suited and elect himself to be president. He won the election.

Given the disaster that was the Bush regime and the price which
the whole world has paid, clearly personal sexual habits have
absolutaly nothing to do with ability to govern

Ditto Yabby and I agree with the fact that the U.S. would have prospered greatly with Bill Clinton. The few stupid moments spent with the young girl in addition to the technology and publicity were his undoing. At Bill's age he should have been wiser thinking of his family [under the radar], his career and the country. Had Bill been younger ie 25-30years [not aware of the consequences and learning]; I would have made allowances. Damn shame.

Lol, Runner.
Who cares what Julia Gillard does in her own time in private?

Besides, wasn't your god an adulterer for getting a virgin pregnant?

Low blow, Celivia, and actually quite offensive.

Assuming that your argument is genuine, and not just an attempt to get runner worked up, then by inference you believe all IVF doctors are adulterers as well. They get women (other than their wives) pregnant for a living, don't they?

Sorry Celivia - I shouldn't have been confrontational there. I understand that you don't believe the same things runner does (which, some of the time, appear to mirror some of the things I believe). I also know that runner is often confrontational and, at times, downright insulting in responses to others. I just get a little concerned when such things that lie at the core of my belief system are dealt with so coarsely, all for the sake of an apparent "cheap shot".

While not every Christian on here is tolerant of others, and not every Christian on here treats the beliefs of others with respect, I'd like to think that I do (with some regrettable bad mood foot-in-mouth moments). What I meant to say was that some of us who mean no harm and openly embrace the ideas of others can be offended by these barbs as well.

Again, sorry.

I have lived in times like this before.
I know it is not for some as visible as it is to me.
Defamation, lies, a form of xenophobia and blindness.
This thread, ones naming the PM as a shrew, the headlines in todays media.
Manufactured news slanted half true news.
Despite the polls I think we are better than that, I think Australia will return this government.
Rudd with leaks possible coming from some one very close to him, is showing if guiltily he indeed may be only interested in him self.
I have to admit it is just as likely we will not be returned but the consequences are horrific.
Workchoices,remember no GST? cuts to just about every thing and no extra tax for our future we let others export.
As the campaign is now mud and lies we can but remember John Howard pledge that GST was dead.

Belly

This thread is a wonderful opportunity for Runner to vilify Julia Gillard and he is making the most of what OLO has to offer. The fact that he is simply confirming his hypocrisy and bigotry in the eyes of many is beyond the beam in his own eye to notice.

Otokonoko

I couldn't help but be stunned by the vehemence in your post to Celivia, I am sure she appreciates your apology. It is true that many do not (and never will) see religion and, specifically, Christianity through your eyes. I think the point Celivia was trying to make was that Mary was not given any choice (if you believe that stuff) in her pregnancy and god simply helped himself; Mary was unlike other women who get to choose to use IVF.

In the competitive world that is politics, testosterone would be in abundance (testosterone is produced by both sexes BTW) I wonder if, in fact, that everyone has had a liaison with everyone else at some stage (with the exception of John Howard), not unlike first year Uni.

As for the title "Sleeping your way to the top" being linked to Julia Gillard's sex life.... maybe OLO had better check with its law administrator, if it has one.

If Julia does win this election, it will have nothing to do with her abilities in the boudoir and everything to do with her ability as a leader.

Runner,

I don't like your chances of proving that JG slept her way to the top.
it might be noted that her romantic judgement may have been some what less than impeccable.
One problem with being so all fired Christian doctrinaire (fundamentalist) as you tend to be is that you ignore so many verses in your own bible that simple advocate you leaving judgement up to god. And I'm sure you are not always entirely without sin.
But hey if you want to be selectively hypercritical who am I to complain.

SM,

Good grief man elections certainly do tend to warp your logic.
i can't wait for it to be all over and you return to your usual reasoned self. If poor judgement in love was a reason to then no one except the unctuous and the self deluded

Otokonoko,
Severin explained exactly where I was coming from. Indeed, god helped himself. Mary had no choice- she was never asked if she wanted to be pregnant. And Joseph was expected to look after a child that was not his.

I am not going to walk on eggs around Runner just because he is a fundamental Christian. I do not deliberately offend, but since Runner always cherry-picks bits of the bible that suit him, I will, and should be able to, highlight some parts that he deliberately ignores.

Perhaps, if Runner is so fundamental as he would like to be, he would not even EVER criticise any political leader or government at all.
He would need to accept that Paul's words are the truth, and that ALL authority comes from God.
Yes yes! Even Julia Gillard- an atheist who had an affair.
Lol!

"Every person should obey the government in power. No government would exist if it hadn't been established by God. The governments which exist have been put in place by God. 2Therefore, whoever resists the government opposes what God has established. Those who resist will bring punishment on themselves."

Romans 13:
http://gwt.scripturetext.com/romans/13.htm

Naughty, naughty Runner for criticising God's choice of authority.

Celivia

Amazing how good you are at quoting a source you claim has no relevance. Why did John the Baptist lost his head.

Unlike much of the lawless left who often demonstrate violently I am prepared to accept and pray for God given authority. The laws of this land do however give Australians a right to an opinion and free speech. Your vile posts are good examples of this.

If the people of this land have been so blinded and are so morally bankrupt that they are prepared to vote for men or women who have affairs with others with kids, knife sitting prime ministers in the back then so be it.

No doubt along with numerous other secularist you would love for seared consciences of many who are prepared to murder the unborn, promote the porn industry and enjoy guilt free immorality go unchallenged.

Personally I care more about future generation than I do about allowing let country continue its slide.

Julia Gillard demonstrated reckless unethical conduct, lack of self control, lack of discipline and very poor judgement in her affair a married man. It is reasonable to assume that she came clean because the alternative, a cover-up, would have resulted in a worse outcome when discovered.

Marital infidelity, having an affair with a married person and lying are just as despicable and wrong for you and me as they are for Julia Gillard. However, as the most senior person in government she is in a unique position of trust (and power) and her deceit affects everyone.

The early opinion polls showed that fair-minded Australians were prepared to give her a go and take her promises at face value. However it is reasonable and right that the same good citizens should shy away from her if she cannot show she is trustworthy and decent enough to represent them in the highest public office. Gender isn't relevant but her ethics and principles, or lack of them would be a high priority for most Australians.

Well Bob Hawke was one of the best Prime Ministers we have ever had, and he's a vain self-glorious philanderer whose biographer is now his wife but was one of his philanderees! I'm sure that sexual indiscretions do not disqualify from being a good leader. They are just one of many things to hold in the balance.

Runner might like to answer the question of why David was fit to be the greatest king of Israel according to the Bible when not only did he seduce another man's wife but he ensured that the man was killed in battle so as to cover-up the fact that his wife was pregnant to the King.

I'm not particularly wanting to run a Christian argument here, but as Runner only seems to operate on those terms, I think it can be demonstrated without distorting the theology, that sexual indiscretion is not held by the Christian church to disqualify anyone from anything in an earthly sense, and that it may actually lead to a great good. The outcome of the liaison between David and Bathsheba was, if you follow the biblical genealogy, Jesus.

You don't have to pick some texts that are on the edge, but you can go right to the centre.

The New Testament is even more forgiving on the issue.

Mind you, I hope if we are going to discuss Christianity those who would criticise Runner for being obnoxious (which I think he is being with some of his posts) might want to refrain from being obnoxious themselves.

We all wish our PM would be trustworthy and committed to the job despite their personal failings. Hawke was a flawed human being to his own admission but he still cared about policy, about social justice even if you didn't always agree.

As a woman I don't approve of Ms Gillard's affair as I sympathise with the wife. At least Gillard has come clean about it which suggests she feels some remorse. Young people sometimes do silly things and society tends to judge the 'mistress' more harshly than the married man. Almost as if he was mesmerised and tricked into an affair by a seductive siren, as though he has had no part in the betrayal of his wife despite being committed in marriage.

I am not sure how this will play over into policy making and as for trust why is it any different if a woman had an affair than if a male leader had an affair or was seen in a strip club. It may sound harsh but I do think gender is significant here, many still holding onto that 'one of the boys' mentality and Gillard is the wrong gender to get away with that one. She is not a Clinton.

It is no surprise that there has always been affairs going on in Parliament House - many that never come to light for various reasons. It might have something to do with the adrenalin and allure of power (I am no psychologist) but that does not excuse hurting another human being and in fact with that power should come responsibility.

We all have to be led by our conscience and this has nothing to do with religion/non-religion but with how committed we are to our personal beliefs and values.

GrahamY

'Runner might like to answer the question of why David was fit to be the greatest king of Israel according to the Bible when not only did he seduce another man's wife but he ensured that the man was killed in battle so as to cover-up the fact that his wife was pregnant to the King.'

If you were to read on Graham you will see that David was dethroned from his kingship by his own son as a result of his behaviour. David came to his senses and repented knowing that he was not worthy to receive his kingship back. One of the things that made him great was his willing to repent when he knew he had done wrong.

The issue for me is not about whether someone has an affair or not. We are all hopelessly lost in sin without Christ. The issue is whether as a nation whether we want someone to lead us whose private philosophy ( extreme feminism, lack of biblical morality, okay to say you are not going to stab your leader in the back) inevitably works out into public policy and whether we want our children to have a role model like this.

I have no doubt whether it is Mr Abbott or Ms Gillard that they to can be forgiven and go on to be successful leaders. To refuse to look at yourself and see how your own philosophy and dogmas has led you into this sort of behaviour shows you have not learn't from your sin (or mistakes). The obvious answer is that someone who does not believe that one day they will be accountable make up the rules as they go. I along with many other Australians believe we have the right to have an expectation that our leader acknowledges common decency.

cont

You mention Bob Hawke. He could of been a brilliant pm. Paul Keating would disagree. Some say he was brilliant because he used the abilities of others while he himself was the pr man. The point for me however is that you could hardly say to your children that a man who does the dirty on his wife and kids is a good role model. Preferably I would prefer a leader with a little less charisma and talent but demonstrates it is important for dads to be faithful to mums.

Ultimately it is like sports stars. Some think they are role models some think that they are entertainers. No one could argue that Tiger is the greatest golf player of all time.

In a democratic society people will vote for any number of reasons. Usually the adamic nature will vote for the party that is going to put an extra $10 in their pay packet. Some like Belly will vote along party lines.

At the end of the day I think if moral character is an important issue. Those not say its not are the first to question Howard for sending troops to Iraq. It might be unrealistic but I would like a pm with common decency. They are a lot less likely to sell us down the drain to the corrupt immoral UN.

Just checked the story Runner. The child of David and Bathsheba conceived while she was married to Uriah the Hittite actually dies, but a subsequent child of David and Bathsheba is Solomon, who succeeds him much later and with his help against the plots of another son who seeks to overthrow David. David does repent, but how do you happen to know the mind of Julia? She may well be deeply sorry for the affair, but I bet she didn't arrange for the wife to meet with an industrial accident!

So you're substantially wrong. I made a mistake about the lineage of Jesus, but the rest is substantially correct.

Moral character is an important issue, but there is more to that than sexual conduct. For me the great problem with David is not that he slept with Bathsheba but that he had her husband killed. David murdered for his sexual pecaddillo, I bet Julia didn't.

And others might argue with you about your championing of John Howard as a moral person. On one view he sent troops to war to support our relationship with the USA. That could be a bigger moral issue than Julia and Craig.

runner started this thread with the statement that:

"... I have no doubt that private
philosophy determines public policy."

runner, in a post on Friday, 30 July 2010 at 10:00:30 AM, just after 'half time' in the thread, admitted that:

"... The inference and heading that
Gillard slept her way to the top was wrong."

So what are we left with to moralize about? The already well known propensity of the vast majority of persons to fall short of some ideal standard, in many cases one that they themselves may have set or accepted as applying to themselves? 'Sin' is an archery term: its literal meaning is 'to fall short (of some target)'. "For all have .....". Interpersonal relationships in general, and intimate ones especially, can be profoundly difficult to negotiate for those directly involved or affected. How much more so for anyone outside of that situation to validly comment upon them.

It all brings to mind certain 'upholders of the law' from long ago and far away, who, having caught a woman in the very act of adultery, hauled her up before a certain teacher, and, setting the scene, laid down what the law prescribed as the penalty, and then proceeded to DEMAND TO KNOW where that teacher stood on the issue. (Where was the man involved, given she was 'caught in the act', one wonders? Double standards involved, or an ulterior purpose held by those 'upholders of the law'?)

The teacher involved knelt down and wrote in the sand. "That one of you that is without sin shall cast the first stone". Eventually the blood-lusting mob melted away.

Recognise him runner?

Your frequent 'high minded', brutal, and short forays into discussions seem in many cases to be of the nature of a thread hijack, hence my attempt to shock you into recognition of what you were attempting here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3810#93353

Since this is your thread to divert if you wish, and given you acknowledge your topic title's inference to be wrong, I'll ask you why John the Baptist lost his head. I demand to know!

Dear Graham Y.,

I have to Thank You for keeping us
all revved, even when we stall.
So, Mwah, mwah, to you !

Dear runner,

I finally managed to get hold of a copy of
"The Australian Woman's Weekly," August 2010
issue, which apparently caused you to make
all these assumptions about our current PM.

Frankly, I don't get it!

In the article to which you referred earlier,
it quite clearly states, "The state of Craig
Emerson's marriage at the time, specifically
whether he WAS separated or otherwise estranged
from his wife PRIOR to starting the relationship
with Julia, is NOT KNOWN..."

You it seems are condemning the PM for something
that is NOT KNOWN. You are judging her on unknown
facts and making your own assumptions about her.

I don't believe that many people would do that!
In fact, I don't believe that many people would
even care. After all the current PM is not preaching
her life choices as a model for other people.
It's her life, she's made her choices, she doesn't
regret her choices, nor is she urging anybody to
mimic them. In this country we don't look to our
political leaders to model lifestyle choices for us.
We have our values and our commonsense and we don't
judge our leaders by what they may or may not have
done in their private lives years ago.

Well said Graham. I think we have all adequately established that one doesn't have to be Christian or without sin, to successfully lead a country.

Is there ANYONE who doesn't have something in their past that they don't feel proud of?
Think of that famous Catholic president John.F.Kennedy who apparently had no trouble at all having numerous affairs while he ran America!

What really annoyed me in the W.A. papers over the past few days is Archbishop Hickey suggesting that an unmarried, childless, atheist woman should not be supported as a Prime Minister, but that we should all look to the 'good Catholic' Tony Abbott as the perfect subject.

That's a bit rich coming from a leader of unmarried, childless men who also would therefore not understand the families of our society.
Was the Archbishop suggesting that only Christian, married fathers should run our country?

That is a kick in the guts for the many others (male and female) in our society who are single, childless and don't worship the Christian God isn't it?

GrahamY please check for facts and see what I wrote

'If you were to read on Graham you will see that David was dethroned from his kingship by his own son as a result of his behaviour. David came to his senses and repented knowing that he was not worthy to receive his kingship back. One of the things that made him great was his willing to repent when he knew he had done wrong.'

David lost his kingship to his son Absalom as a direct result of his sin. One consequence was that Absalom slept in public with some of David's concubines. Sexual sin certainly did have dire consequences on David and it did cost him his leadership for a period of time. It also resulted in much family bitterness. After that he regained his kingship reluctantly as he wished that it was himself who was killed and not his son. You really have not read the entire story or you would see this clearly.

Jesus lineage included Rahab the prostitute and many flawed characters. That just proves how badly we need God's grace. No one including myself disputes that.

It is very hard for any claimed atheist to repent when they don't even believe in the God they have offended against. They may be sorry for consequences but spiritually have no idea. That is why their personal philosophy will play out in public policy whether abortion pornography or any other moral issue. That is the point.

Foxy

You sum up what the intention of the discussion here was

'In fact, I don't believe that many people would
even care. After all the current PM is not preaching
her life choices as a model for other people.
It's her life, she's made her choices, she doesn't
regret her choices, nor is she urging anybody to
mimic them. In this country we don't look to our
political leaders to model lifestyle choices for us.'

You obviously believe private lives of pollies don't influence their public performance or policy making. I would like to believe that with you but fail to see how it can't. Do you think if a revelation came out tomorrow that Tony Abbot was cheating on his wife that it would affect the polls? Or would people say that is his business? What if Bob Brown attended an evangelical church and enjoyed it. Would the Greens supporters say that is his private business. I think not.

If I shared your belief I might not bother commenting on politics at all.

Forrest Gump

Your point is fair enough. My condemnation of child abuse is the extraordinary imbalance of the media where the Catholic church is castigated at every Opportunity . I have made it clear a number of times I am no fan of the Catholic church however the imbalance is incredible. I think if you read a number of my posts you would find I have always maintained that all child abuse is abominable and should be dealt with equally.

John the Baptist lost his head for telling King Herod he was committing wickedness for sleeping with his brother's wife. I am not sure what point you are making here.

Cruelty is a vice in my estimation. It may be simply being witty at someone else's expense. It may involve torture or murder. It may be someone in power abusing their authority by humiliating a subordinate. There are many forms and degrees of cruelty. It is a vice in any form or degree.

Sex is not a vice unless it is accompanied by some form of fraud or
compulsion. Whatever consenting adults do between themselves that hurts nobody is really nobody else's business.

Julia Gillard is a person who has sexual desires. That's nothing unusual. She has apparently satisfied them. There is no evidence that there was compulsion, fraud or violence involved. Yet runner is upset. Why? As far as I know she has not been cruel to anybody. That would be a serious character flaw.

runner states, "Those that claim that ones private life is no one elses business are first to criticize Abbott for his private beliefs." That is one of runner's assertions without proof.

We don't know what Abbott's private beliefs are. Any beliefs he has stated are no longer private. I am worried about what I know of his public acts. As minister of health he was unwilling to do anything about the ads for goodies and sugar-laden cereals on TV. Those ads contribute to an unhealthy life style and are a burden on the public health system. However, he was unwilling to interfere with the making of a dollar. Both the present pope and the previous pope have spoken against our materialist and consumerist culture. In that area he ignored his religion.

What it comes to sex that is different. As health minister Abbott banned the morning-after pill until the authority was taken away from him.

Certainly an atheist can repent wrongs. Be conscious of the fact that one has done wrong and try to make up for it by trying to do something to make it right with the person one has done wrong to. If that is not possible one can try not to repeat the wrong. No religious mumbojumbo need be involved.

Graham Y, "I'm sure that sexual indiscretions do not disqualify from being a good leader."

They certainly don't qualify either. What appears to be the case is that voters are reasonably forgiving of the sexual philandering of someone in a position of trust provided that there has been no attempt at a cover-up and also providing that there are no other indiscretions. Hawke was a flawed character, but there was never any doubt that he was a great man with a vision for Australia and that he was batting for all Australians, excepting the greedy. A Robin Hood might be given more rope.

The leader's performance and context do matter. In Julia Gillard's case the doubts are mounting without being balanced by any obvious pluses in her favour. Julia does not stand wreathed in glory from her performance as a minister; she doesn't appear so far to have a great vision or ideals that would mark her as a great leader - or even as an average one; and there are suspicions that she might not be batting for all Australians and especially the weak and vulnerable members of society, unless there is a quid pro quo in it for her.

It is time to move on from the demolished accusation at the opening to this thread and consider what minimum standards of conduct are expected of elected members and particularly ministers. Is the code of conduct to be set at the lowest possible bar, ie forget convention and accept that any abuse or indiscretion is fine unless the erring minister is held to account in a court of law and convicted of a serious offence? John Howard seemed to think that a minister shouldn't resign over principle, it would take serious conviction to do it and there was no way he would have any minister investigated with evidence that had already stood up in a court of law.

Is the expectation that there should be honest and moral leadership by those occupying the most senior positions of trust old fashioned and past its use-by date?

Runner, King David didn't lose his Kingship because of Absolom, and I've never heard your interpretation of the uprising of Absolom against his father before. Can you direct me to a verse for this?

I'm sure that some of the OLO community have been hurt by infidelity and had a bit to say about the participants. Yet everyone except Runner seems to feel a need to display a quite forgiving attitude about the possibility of adultery. I find this well intentioned but hypocritical. If any of us discovered that our partner had an affair, we would be anything but forgiving. Let's make some effort to empathise with Craig Emerson's wife and kids. It is up to them and not us to award forgiveness.

I don't argue that Julia is unfit for her high office, but lets not forget how hurtful this is the the people directly involved.

Dear benk,

That's the whole point though isn't it?
We don't know who was the "victim," in
this case - husband or wife. The fact
remains all we're doing is making
assumptions about a private matter about
which we know nothing and yet we're
judging people by it.

Bizarre, to say the least!

Dear runner,

There's nothing more I can really say to
you on this issue. I feel that it's
pointless making judgements as I stated
previously on hypotheticals when we don't
really know the facts involved.
Sleeping your way to the top?
I don't think in all fairness that this
applies to Julia Gillard. She certainly didn't
get where she is today by doing that, anymore
than Tony Abbott got where he is because of
the way he looks in his budgie smugglers.

benk, "Let's make some effort to empathise with Craig Emerson's wife and kids."

Yes and one can rest assured that the sensible, caring majority of voters are thinking that.

This is where Julia Gillard showed poor judgement, or to put it bluntly, she put her own lust and short-term benefit ahead of the good of others. Yes, for some it might not be an impediment for the highest job in the land but male or female there is no way I would hire anyone for a senior management role who was so damn stupid, egocentric and uncaring.

Looking at it from a business point of view, anyone who is that selfish and silly is a risk and poor publicity and loss of credibility can easily undo the credit gained from thousands of hours of exemplary service by staff. Can't these political parties do any better and what sort of example are they setting from the top down?

Is it political correctness that would chastise and demand the sacking of a sports jocks for raunch behaviour, while forgiving the immoral behaviour of leaders who regularly take decisions that could have momentous impact on our lives? Code of conduct for ministers, what's that?

A few points runner belly never ever votes on party lines.
I understand no party can fill all my wants.
So I vote ALP as the best fit, helped by the great distance away from me of conservative party's.
Runner just maybe it was me among others, who GY said should not stoop to your level in debate.
It was Christians like you, a minority, that drove me forever from God land.
Jesus taught of far more forgiveness and love than you, your silly statement of violent leftist protests is surely untrue?
Jesus spoke of giving Cesar his dues , you judge only one side and think your God is behind you.
The Christ I once followed would not be pleased to be used by you this way.
Gillard is human, sex is much more popular than some wish to think, if DNA tests took place in every new birth we may see Divorce grow ten fold.
We live in the real world and it is shameful that we have turned so badly on our first female Prime Minister for such reasons.
Runner it is my view that the Christian right does not follow God ,they try to use and lead him in directions he was never known for.
I remain confident no hell waits me but you may just be living in your hell now.

Belly you may use me as an excuse however you make little sense. You write

'It was Christians like you, a minority, that drove me forever from God land.'

Surely if it is a minority like me that turned you away from Christ then you would have the tolerance to look past the majority. In fact their are many in churches that disagree with a literal interpretation of of Scripture. I am sure also there are some in the Labour party you can't stand. That does mot prevent you supporting them. You may wish hell upon me but I wish it upon no one.

>>> We live in the real world and it is shameful that we have turned so badly on our first female Prime Minister for such reasons. <<<

Well said, Belly.

This topic is a disgrace.

Dear Cornflower,

How do you know the precise details
of what sort of judgement the PM did or did
not show,
under what circumstances, in what context,
or what other considerations were involved?
Lust? - really ? That's simply viewing things
through your own lens and making possibly
totally skewed assumptions.

But if you want to attack the PM - do so on
policies that are relevant to
her job. As far as I'm aware, (at least
in this country) who you sleep with (or don't),
is not considered to be part and parcel of your
CV - and you don't have to explain your choices
at job interviews.

I suspect though that you're not serious here,
and are simply stirring.

Foxy

So it is not a betrayal of trust to have an affair with a married man or for a married man to have a lover? What is to say that the same people wouldn't display a similar disregard for the rights and welfare of people they don't even know? Would you do the same and if not why not, because therein lies your ethical standard and your own code of conduct.

Thinking about ethical conduct, in the recent case of Colin Buswell (WA) would you agree with this, "He told reporters in Perth that while the affair was a matter between two adults, using ministerial entitlements was not."?

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/wa-treasurer-troy-buswell-admits-affair-with-adele-carles-but-wont-resign/story-e6frea6u-1225858394024

Foxy, you are so right!

How come that nobody has paid attention to what Foxy said earlier in the discussion after she read the article in the Weekly?
>>In the article to which you referred earlier, it quite clearly states, "The state of Craig Emerson's marriage at the time, specifically whether he WAS separated or otherwise estranged from his wife PRIOR to starting the relationship with Julia, is NOT KNOWN..."<<

I did some googling yesterday to see if there was more info on this relationship, and came across some articles of around 2002-2004 that clearly stated that Craig Emerson had already separated from his wife before he started having a (2 year long) relationship with Julia.
There are lots of little bits and pieces I sourced from several newspapers and interviews, so I won't provide all the links. Google and you will find!
One example though, is this article:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/05/1057179204775.html

"Dr Emerson is the separated, quietly-spoken economics PhD, former bureaucrat and political adviser drafted in to tackle Coalition hardman Tony Abbott on workplace issues."

and

"Their year-long relationship has been spoken about by Canberra insiders for months but, under the unwritten law of observers in the capital, it went unreported - until last week, when their elevation became the stuff of headlines.

It is the political reality that voters like to see government leaders married which has prompted a senior ALP figure, who was not a supporter of Crean during the leadership challenge, to express the view that Ms Gillard, 41, and Dr Emerson, 48, should get married."

Celivia, "I did some googling yesterday to see if there was more info on this relationship, and came across some articles of around 2002-2004 that clearly stated that Craig Emerson had already separated from his wife before he started having a (2 year long) relationship with Julia."

That would be good news. What prevents either party from simply confirming dates to put the matter to rest?

Graham brought up the ethical questions regarding Mr Howard's reasons for committing our troops to war - and whether that is pertinent as a moral issue.(I think it is)
Mr Howard's decision to allow refugees to float around in the tropical sun on the deck of a container ship while he worked out his "Pacific Solution" should also be held up to moral scrutiny.

runner, you seem to have a very narrow lens through which you view the moral scruples of your leaders - I suggest you obtain a wider one.

Cornflower asks: "What prevents either party from simply confirming dates to put the matter to rest?"

The matter has nothing to do with Gillard's qualifications for being prime minister. Confirming or denying the matter would admit that it was relevant to her qualifications. It isn't.

However, Howard's public actions in regard to lying about child overboard or the presence of SAS troops in Iraq before the war are matters to be concerned about. If Gillard is also guilty of misconduct in her public role that is relevant to her qualifications for office. Her private life is not.

>> This topic is a disgrace.

Indeed. Before we had online discussion forums, the medium for this muck was the dunny wall.

The only redeeming feature of this discussion is that those lining up to cast stones at the PM are a tiny minority here.

A question for runner: does your mum know about the ordure you deposit on OLO? If she did, would she approve?

Cornflower asks:

"What prevents either party from simply
confirming dates to put the matter to rest?"

Nothing, except that neither party is 'on trial', or answerable to this Forum.

No obligation lies upon either party to put the matter to rest. The matter, but for its having been raised in a topic on this Forum, the very title of which contained a now-admitted false inference, was already 'at rest'. The affair was, and had been for some time, a matter of public knowledge. So, too, appear to have been any perceivably relevant dates. There had been no attempt at concealment of it. It was not unlawful. People have been free all along to make their own assessments as to its relevance to the performance of public duty by either party.

It was precisely, and perhaps only, because all this was already public knowledge that GrahamY was prepared to let the topic run, if I understood his earlier post correctly.

What I find incongruous is runner's seeming assumption of the mantle of some sort of morality policeman when his position on this matter is so at odds with that of the scriptural record, that same scriptural record he seemingly claims as the basis for his moral authority. To me his position is indistinguishable from that of those who demanded to know Jesus' position with respect to adultery, perhaps anticipating that with him being under the gun of a stoning about to commence at any time, he might make some statement in conflict with their law, armed with which they could commence to remove the perceived threat to their authority and status that he and his teaching evidently posed.

runner's answer to me with respect as to why John the Baptist lost his head is a bit trite. The record in Matthew 14, while it shows that JtB had been imprisoned by Herod the Tetrarch for the reason runner gave, and that indeed HtT once desired to kill him but feared public reaction thereto, also shows that HtT had subsequently repented from that position. Herod, SAVING FACE, executed JtB.

Dear Celivia,

Thanks for having read what I had posted
earlier and for your added information.
This may possibly quieten
the finger-pointers. At least I hope so.

Dear Cornflower,

In all honesty I'm not sure whether I would
or could, have an "affair," with a married
man. I'd be lying if I was to tell you,
"No, never!" Who knows what a person would
or wouldn't do depending on the circumstances?
I love my husband, and I am happily married,
but how can I judge another person's actions?
As the saying goes, "the heart wants what it wants..."
Anyway, I don't think it's my place to preach.
I think it's up to us as individuals to make
decisions concerning our private lives, and not
have politicians make them for us. The same as it's
not the business of politicians to have to divulge
the details of their private lives to us.

That may make me a bad person in your eyes, but at
least I'm being honest.

Excuse me for being cross-threaded (blame Severin), but this seems more apposite here:

Pynchme: <Can anyone recall a male EVER being accused of "sleeping his way to the top"? I can't think of anyone.>

=Giacomo Casanova.
He was immortalised for the feat rather than vulgarly accused, mind you. I have the two volumes of his memoirs, beautifully bound in green cloth. A wonderful read and enduring testimony to the foolishness of both sexes.

Gillard's exploits (including an affair with a married man with kids, no less, along with merely living in sin) should of course have no bearing on her suitability for office (everyone has affairs, in reality or in their minds. 'Tis the price of civility, and makes for much better sex!). Yet it does, and these are the issues that seem to be dragging her down in the polls, in the context of a vacuous campaign on both sides. There was a fascinating analysis on "Insiders" this morning.
Now I'm willing to bet that it's the ladies, by and large, who are here dragging morality into politics, regardless of religious persuasion?
After all, their husbands might be next!

Oops! Severin is pure as the driven snow; 'twas pynchme!

Squeers

>> Now I'm willing to bet that it's the ladies, by and large, who are here dragging morality into politics.. <<

Only if Runner has had a sex-change.

;)

Thank you Severin for your good grace:-)
Just to clarify; I suspect the dramatic shift in the polls signifies the "ladies" are now sidling up to Abbott (the faithful family man; apart from a bit of harmless spooning with his cycling chums on long hauls). The men, apart from the runners of the world, would see Gillard's "earthiness" as a virtue!

Squeers m'dear

The majority of female posters here at OLO don't seem to have a problem with Julia's love life - even the more religious ones. And that is my experience in the real world too.

It is only the judgemental of either gender who seem to get their knickers in a twist over a bit of free-range rumpy-pumpy.

Now, who do I have to sleep with to get a drink around here?

Severin and Squeers,

Thanks so much for that entertaining exchange (If our pollies had your talent for dialogue, it would be much more enjoyable campaign)

I, for one, couldn't give a toss about the morality or not of Julia's assignations - being a fan of passionate literature and what not.

Thanks to you too Poirot and Severin,
it's been a long day with sick bubs and nothing like a larf.
I'm now off to the Eisteddfod with my oldest daughter and her oboe (she's 14 now so it might actually be soothing)

..So, I wonder why the sudden drop in the polls for our naughty miss Gillard??

"Insiders" should be available online for anyone who missed it.

Foxy, examinator,

People steal and murder for love. In neither case are they considered extenuating circumstances. The fact that she strove so hard to hide it goes to the fact that she knew perfectly well that it was wrong.

This is not a game changer, but it is certainly a stain on her character.

What about the 'stain' on Abbott's character Shadow Minister?

As a good Catholic boy who commenced training to be a Priest no less, he was worried he could have fathered a child out of wedlock.

As a good Catholic boy he wouldn't have used contraception of course, so it is only luck that the child turned out not to be his.

He then has the cheek to say that he hopes that girls like his daughters will keep their 'precious gift' of virginity for marriage.
Apparently, this does not include good Christian boys keeping themselves for marriage does it?
Not in Abbott's case anyway.

As health minister he made his views on abortion very clear, and attempted to stop women having a say in what sort of contraception they could have available.

What will happen if he becomes Prime Minister?
Will we see the return of stoning for adultery, banning of contraception, banning of the rights of de-facto couples,
or the forced adoption of children born out of wedlock?
Give me any other Prime Minister any day!

suzeonline only goes to prove that she also believes that private philosophy affects public performance. Her rant about Abbot demonstrates the point to the tee. As a a matter of fact it seems that most people seem to believe it although remain in denial.

Woulfe
My apron strings were cut along time ago. What my mother has to do with this I have no idea.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Stain on her character?
You say that like it's a bad thing.

Remember a clear conscience is usually the
sign of a bad memory. ;-)

Dear runner,

You are sounding so narrow-minded.
I bet you can see through a keyhole
with both eyes. ;-)

That's a scary thought, Suze!

Abbott will also aim to kill any progress made with euthanasia laws.
A few years ago he played a role in overturning the euthanasia law in the NT.

Abbott, as a strict Catholic, will be compromised when voting on issues like contraception and abortion, same-sex marriage and euthanasia.

And he would try to get his hands on our internet, too.

Perhaps all of you who would like to rip apart Julia Gillard without knowing her situation and that of Greg's Emerson at that time, should take the wise Rafiki's (from Lion King) advice:
"It doesn't matter... it's in the past".

*Rafiki hits Adult Simba with his stick*

Adult Simba: Oww. Jeez... What was that for?

Rafiki: It doesn't matter, it's in the past.

Adult Simba: Yeah, but it still hurts.

Rafiki: Oh yes, the past can hurt. But the way I see it, you can either run from it, or learn from it.

Shadow Minister:
"The fact that she strove so hard to hide it..."
Did she?
As far as I know, she has been open about it.
Even in interviews from around 2003, she talked openly about sharing a hotel room with Craig Emerson.

Celivia, loved your analogy about the Lion King!

I think we can safely assume that Julia Gillard's love life will have a negligible effect on Labor policies, whereas Abbott's fundamental Christian beliefs have done, and will continue to, colour everything he decides in politics.

I dread the day he has any sort of power over any decisions made for this country, especially for women.

Foxy,

To judge a person's character, you can only go on what they say and what they do. Of which what they do is the most reliable.

Compared to the BER rort, and other incompetences, this is a small issue. However, it is not a positive one.

SM

It is not even a "small issue" this attempt to smear Julia Gillard is a non issue.

I cannot help but wonder if the same topic had been set up with Tony (not sure if he had a son or not) Abbott as the target, whether this thread would've been approved. We will never know for sure, but somehow I doubt any male politician would've been scrutinised in such a derogatory manner.

Double standard.

One of the things raised on Insiders yesterday was whether Laurie Oakes was disseminating his prized leaks impartially. A series of clips were then shown of Oakes in action; In my view, Oakes's mode of delivery was maximally damaging to Labour, pouring scorn and ridicule on the damage control Labor administered. Of course the coalition is thriving on all the lop-sided media coverage. So far as I can see, all the commercial outlets are conservative more or less. Populist media (perhaps 90% of journalism) is in my view a despicable yet powerful force that both sides are forced to try to harness. One side seems to have tamed the beast!

Severin,

"We will never know for sure, but somehow I doubt any male politician would've been scrutinised in such a derogatory manner."

Bill Clinton?

Severin, Celivia and Suze, you demonstrate one of the reasons this thread is legitimate. While you all seem to think it is wrong to look at Julia's private morals but it is OK to look at Tony's. My polling shows that character is one of, if not the, major issue in this election.

It's legitimate to look at both of them. Abbott's pre-marital sex, while he was considering the seminary, and Julia's affair(s) are both indicators of character.

When neither side is offering a radically different view of the world, then the substance of the candidates will be more important than it normally is.

I've been trying to limit my exposure to most of the campaign, however, I've watched a small amount mainly through Sky News which, in my opinion, offers a superior political commentary - even so, I caught Laurie Oakes on several occasions triumphantly announcing his "scoops".
I agree, Squeers, that the populist media drives the tone, and often the content of the election campaign. The politicians themselves are really a secondary entity, almost like animated puppets in a Punch and Judy show.

Severin

There was a thread about John Della-Bosca. There was alot more news coverage of allegations about Mike Rann, Troy Buswell and Bill Clinton having affairs. Given the amount of anger that you have shown at various times while posting here, I could only imagine how you would react if your man strayed and it wouldn't be with the philosophical attitude that you are showing at the moment.

Suze

Check your facts. Tony only ever said that he would advise his daughters not to give away "it" too lightly. It is unclear whether "it" means their virginity or just choosing to have sex, but his actual comments bear no relation to your interpretation of them. There is no difference between what he has done and what he suggests his daughters do. While he didn't remain celebate until marriage, having sex was certainly a step that he didn't take too lightly.

How many times do you two need to shown to be wrong before you stop crapping on about double-standards?

Graham

I probably wasn't clear enough with my last post. I do not believe that a person's sex life has anything to do with their work.

I was merely pointing out that I very much doubt you would've approved an identical topic, where it was claimed that Abbott slept his way to the top.

Benk

I don't care about Della-Bosca, Clinton et al - what these men do in their private lives should remain just that as long as no-one is harmed.

This remains a disgusting excuse for a topic.

I second that, Severin. The topic could only have been conceived by a rabid moralist like runner!

Squeers makes me laugh so much

'The topic could only have been conceived by a rabid moralist like runner!'

Most can't see that just about everyone who has posted is a moralist. Give us a break.

Severin, Squeers, et al,

A person's sex life is irrelevant, however, this is not about her sex life, and to try and trivialise the issue is notably by the labor supporters.

This is about her ability to do the right thing in the face of temptation, especially when the results of the decision can hurt other people.

We should not be too concerned about runner after all few agree with any thing he/she posts.
However some are beneath contempt in bashing anyone for their sex lives.
Any stone will do for SM and indeed a few others Julia will win.

Severin, Squeers,

I can only agree with the sentiment your sentiment while not necessarily Squeers strident verbiage.

I take the point that runner is entitled to his views no matter how extreme they might be. However, there is a world of difference between questioning JG or any public person's morality (lack of emotional judgement) but another thing entirely with border-line LIBELOUS IMPLICATIONS. I must admit that I was surprised by GY's extreme latitude in the wording of the TOPIC especially his stated aim 'to be a family site'.

But the golden rule is clearly at play here " he who has the gold rules" (its GY's site and he can choose to offend if he wishes).
Note. GY is both a self defined Christian (his selective version thereof) and wants a Liberal Govt.
I think the wording of this topic has slipped under his bias but it is his choice

Severin, you're right I wouldn't have approved a thread that claimed that Abbott had slept his way to the top. There's no evidence that he has slept with any of his colleagues, either from him or anyone else. In this case the source of the most recent information is Gillard.

But if you submitted a thread critical of Tony Abbott's personal morality or behaviour and it was within the law and site rules then it would get approved. Many more threads get approved than not. I'd be surprised if you've ever had one knocked back.

I would have thought that if Ms Gillard or her minders read this thread they'd be reasonably happy with it. Hardly anyone agrees with Runner, which would give anyone else wanting to run a similar line pause for thought, and it has given a number of you the opportunity to try to discredit my impartiality. So it has provided opportunities to slant the debate Labor's way.

Graham,

The problem isn't necessarily the thread - it's the title and a sentence in runner's opening spiel. He later apologised for the inference and said that he was wrong to term it so. You said that you didn't think that she slept her way to the top in one of your posts - so why was the title approved?
It is entirely demeaning and stereotypical in that the inference is that she is a vacuous bimbo.

Dear Examinator,

"Squeers strident verbiage"?

My posts are nothing if not economical. I try to make my points as efficiently as possible. Please feel free to edit my verbiage next time so I may learn to be more succinct.
The same with "strident". One is bound to be opinionated on OLO. What's the use of equivocating all over the place in search of fatuous harmony? One of the problems with modern politics is there is too much appeasement and back-sliding.
Yet I don't deny runner or anyone else their entitlement to a point of view. If I thought I could make any headway reasoning with them I'd give it a shot, but in my experience runner, and a few others, are beyond the reach of reason. Such points of view are obsidian, "strident" and often rabid.

GY
To me the key issue is the inappropriateness of the headline in the context of Runners moral opinion, Not your impartiality.
Everyone including me has biases and occasionally one slips under the guard. Which I suggested is what happened here.
I was making the point that YOU have the right to let one through if that is your want.
I merely comment that I was surprised and offered a plausible explanation why, that is all.

I think that anyone expecting you or anyone to be whiter than white is absurd, flying in the face of humanity.

As a contributor to several sites I am comfortable to suggest that by and large you are far and away, better than most. This is clearly self evident by the success of OLO and the range of views expressed.

Graham

I thank you for your explanation, however it has taken how many posts to discover your reasons - that because Gillard slept with a colleague there was an assumption she "slept her way to the top". Whereas, Abbott has (we assume) kept his sex life to non-colleagues.

Everything is now clear.

Not what I said at all Severin. I never said that she slept her way to the top and I don't believe it. Runner's choice of headline no doubt damaged his thread, but that is his problem. I'm amused that according to some if I'd tampered with Runner's heading that would be a sign of lack of bias, but as I didn't that is a sign of bias.

The only reason I alter headlines is if they breach the rules or the law. You either get all of your thread through, or not.

And Severin, if you had bothered to pay attention to the thread you'd know that I said substantially what I have just said back on Thursday last week http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3834#94206.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Who exactly has Julia Gillard hurt?

Mr Emerson's marriage had already broken up
prior to Julia Gillard's relationship with him,
as Celivia has pointed out. Julia
Gillard had nothing to do with the marriage
break up. So I don't understand your reasoning.
And condemnation.

GrahamY

I said:

>> there was an assumption she "slept her way to the top <<

I never claimed you said Julia did sleep her way to the top. However, you did allow a topic go through with just that as a heading.

Graham, we all make mistakes and there is no harm in admitting that we are merely human.

If anything this discussion has revealed that no matter our station in life we are as susceptible to sexual desire as any other person.

In an ideal world, what happens between consenting adults would remain between consenting adults. However, we are far from that ideal world.

GY

You raise an interesting point not really worth a separate topic but it does follow on from what you said.
the question is is impartial to allow erroneous and biased (implications) headlines to be remain unaltered and simply let both sides to fight it out? or is it better to alter the headline to whereby it starts on neutral ground and go from there.
Personally I opt for the latter.

BTW you have asked me to alter a submitted headline in that it appeared biased...I'd observed that the most ferocious attacks were from the conservatives on OLO at the time.

Graham,

I would not expect you to tamper with anyone's headlines, however, I presumed that you may see the need on the odd occasion to request that a headline or the general wording be altered by the person submitting the thread starter, in the interests of accuracy.

Actually Foxy, there is very good indication that JG was directly or partially responsible.

While the affair became public after the break up of the marriage was announced it was clear that it had been going on for some time. When JG was asked directly whether she had anything to do with the break up, she declined to comment. If she had no responsibility, she could easily have said so without offending anyone.

While might seem like judgement by omission, the reality is that if she were completely uninvolved, she would have had every motivation to say so, and no real reason to keep quiet. Ipso facto, her silence on the issue is due to the reluctance to admit breaking up a marriage, and the consequences of being caught in a lie if she denied it.

If you can find anything that shows that the affair did not begin before the separation, I would stand corrected. I have yet to find it.

*her silence on the issue is due to the reluctance to admit breaking up a marriage, and the consequences of being caught in a lie if she denied it.*

I'll have to agree to disagree on that one, SM. Marriage is
between two people, if anyone breaks it up, its one of those
two, not an outsider. None of us know what really happened.
It might be clever politics to try and dig dirt, but I would
never be that judgemental.

Personally I am far more concerend about Archbishop Pell
knocking on Tony's door and trying to influence Govt, as the
Vatican is infamous for doing, then about Julia's past love
life.

While we are on the business of distinguishing the facts from the speculation, no-one really knows if JG is responding to questions or deliberately publicising this relationship. There are some people who will think more of her because of this story. I wonder what her strategists are saying.

Examinator, you might send me the email where you claim I asked you to change a heading because it was biased. I don't recall doing that, but if I did I did. But as there is a rule against discussing moderation decisions on the forum because all you do is ventilate the material that is moderated out, please send it to me privately.

Julia her self may not find the threads title so offensive.
Yes runner with drew some of it but reading the whole thread will show most are unhappy with its title.
I ask this, is it better to have the chance to rebut things like this or are we asking GY to censor some things?
Let the title lay in the mud and be grateful we can stamp on it.

GY

My humblest apologies I forgot about the rule.
The incident was a long time ago (approx 18mths ago) in no way do I question/dispute your decision. I was attempting to make a point that no one is perfect (full stop). I won't do it again.

benk,

I envy you that the world and its complexity can be reduced to such economic wording and still maintain a sense of proportion.

I personally see a difference in intent and proportion between 'strident' and a rant etc.

Diplomacy is a tool I've yet to master but that doesn't stop me trying.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You obviously don't read all the posts on
this thread. Celivia confirmed for us the
fact that Craig Emerson WAS separated from
his wife, prior to his two year affair with
Julia Gillard. Celivia even gave us a link
to confirm that fact. If you scroll back,
I'm sure you'll find it.

No problems Examinator, but please send me the email(s). I want to see what I said.

A case that comes to mind of a male politician being subjected to public scrutiny over his private life is the allegations which were running against Bill O'Chee (former Nationals senator).

A number of stories ran with the allegation that Bill was a deadbeat dad, claims that Bill O'Chee denied in the stories I saw. I don't know what truth if any was in the allegations.

The boundary over public and private is a difficult one when people seek to lead the country. As others have pointed out the choices people make in their private lives are often a far better indicator of what they really believe than polished public statements yet most of those same situations can be incredibly complex and open to misrepresentation from outside.

R0bert

That's right, Foxy!
One can't simply assume that someone did something terrible and then continue to talk/act as if the assumption is fact.
Oh wait.. they can, and they did!
But I just feel that this is unfair and uncalled for!

As others have said, and I agree: attack politicians for the decisions they make for the country and for the people.
Tsk!
Me thinks that there is enough to talk about if one does just that!

RObert is right that it sometimes is difficult to know where to draw a line, but in this case there is a very clear, hard line.
JG's past relationship has nothing to do with the decisions she now makes as a PM.

Yabby,
"...I would never be that judgemental. "

Hear, hear!
I'm sure that Runner has heard similar words from a certain guy called Jesus.

I'm very happy with how this thread turned out. Hardly anybody agrees with Runner, for good reasons.

The vast majority of posters are far less judgmental than Runner, who has tried hard all of his life to follow Jesus- who has unfortunately failed to convey his messages about judgment to Runner.
Fortunately, the messages didn't get totally lost. They seemed to have taken a detour, 'coz these teachings magically ended up in Yabby's (an atheist) head, who must therefore have telepathic powers.

Runner over all thanks for the thread free speech is on display here from us all.
I thank you for allowing us to see how rabid some can go to undermine our first lady PM an Honorable mention to Shadow Minister.
Over all we all should not ask for moderator to kill any thread, not sure we should let such a chance to see how some think be hidden.
Please runner understand my opinion of you has not changed you did ask me why I left the church if it was only a minority that upset me.
2 Reasons, I could not tell the good from the bad.
And so very many sought power not love.
I must say I have been a much better person from the day I understood only I am in charge of my life.

Did anyone else see Craig Emerson on Q&A last night? The affair seems to be a bigger problem for him than Julia. Everytime he defended her over something there was a sort of ooooooh from the audience. Of course when they had the affair she wasn't the boss, but it illustrates one of the issues with workplace affairs.

I'm also wondering why a two year relationship that apparently happened after he left his wife is called an "affair".

Foxy, Celivia,

I read your earlier post, and I am aware that supposedly JG only was with CE after he split up. However, if you read my post, when JG was asked directly if she was involved in the break up, she refused to answer. Given that it is manifestly in her interest to put the record straight, the logical conclusion is that she cannot deny it as she risks being caught in a lie.

Given that extra marital affairs are generally clandestine events for obvious reasons, the full details are likely never to emerge. However, there ample reason to believe that the affair began before the split, and no comment from the PM to deny it.

Dear Shadow Minister,

What the PM actually said when asked
if Craig Emerson was still married
when their relationship began. Julia
Gillard replied,

"That's really a set of issues between
Craig and his wife that I really
wouldn't want to canvas... it's
not about me, it's about a set of
other people, so I don't think it's
appropriate to comment on it..."

In other words, she was NOT involved
and it's a private matter between
Craig Emerson and his wife.

Foxy,

The simple answer to the question would have been "No". However, she did not say that.

Your conclusion that she was "Not" involved is not stated at all.

I have heard enough weasel words from politicians to see what are saying, and what they are not.

For example:

The cabinet leaks on JG opposing the increase in pension and family leave benefits, JG said that she could not comment on cabinet discussions. However, on the the assertion that she said that pensioners did not vote for Labor anyway. She stated emphatically that she did not say that.

So when she can give an answer that shows her in a positive light, she is emphatic, other wise she does not comment.

See any parallels?

Runner “Ms Gillard's latest revelations of having an affair with a married man with kids really reveals a huge character flaw.”

Foxy “Don't you know that it's not their sex lives
that matter, but the way they run the countries”

Observation....

To have an affair with someone else is a generally a private matter
However there are two types of affair, one with another person who is ethically free to have an affair (not in another relationship) and
An affair with someone who is supposed to be in a permanent relationships

It goes to character

A lady once told me she would not enter any relationship with me until after I cleared up the matter of a then existing marriage, one of the best things anyone has ever said to me.

Obviously Ms Gissard’s does not have the depth of character of that lady, if she proceeded with a relationship with someone who had not resolved the matter of his existing marriage.

But some claim this affair is a private matter and should not reflect on her candidacy for relection

Well it has been said “Character is doing the right thing when no one is looking”

Making happy with a married person is not and never will be “doing the right thing”

So to character.. what is “leadership”, if not the outward display of character?

Who wants a leader of flawed character?

Does Tony Abbotts religious values (regardless whether we agree with them ) indicate a character?

Does Julia Gissard’s dalliances with people she should not have dalliances with indicate a lack of character?

I note John Howard is still happily married but Bob Hawke had a very public fling whilst married to Hazel.

As to Foxy “Look at the heritages of the Kennedy Family,
Bill Clinton, “

Yes, sad examples of the excesses of hedonis

secular humanism has certainly achieved its goal of allowing any behaviour to be justified especially if you like the person. For those who champion feminism it is impossible for Julia to do wrong. The same applies to Tony Abbot. Different standards obviously apply to those they dislike. No wonder the majority of posters are self contradictory. I noticed Henson his head up again. He again tries to justify photographing young girls as 'art'. How deceived can one be.

You are a funny ol' thing runner.

Please expalin how secularism condones any sort of behaviour. Have the laws changed to condone murder, torture and theft?

Secular humanism gives you the freedom to constantly sprout your anti-human rhetoric and others the freedom to disagree.

Secular humanism merely separates Church and State and allows freedom of religion unlike some countries where one can be killed for being different. If that is what you aspire to well good on you but thanfully your prejudices are not being forced into law. That is the beauty of secularism.

Dear Shadow Minister and Stern,

I elect politicians to affect matters of
policy that affect me and my family.
It's the decisions that they make around
policies, regulations and laws that affect
me and my family that I am concerned with
the most.

Things like how faithful a politician is to
his or her spouse or how they conduct themselves
in their private life is of no concern to me.
To you both it seems that how a person conducts
themselves in their private life reveals their
character and that to you is of paramount
importance when it comes in choosing a leader.
You prefer to sit on a moral high horse and
pass moral judgement on other people without
knowing the full circumstances or context
or any other considerations of what's involved.
Fair enough. You're not alone - it seems that there
are many who are more than willing to pass moral
judgements on others.

Some people love to delve into politicians past
and personal private lives. This makes it easy for
politicians to avoid issues of real importance by
selling "us" an image of the perfect family man and
so on.
It doesn't matter whether the image is in fact true
or how really pristine their past is, as in the case
of Tony Abbott. What matters to me is that this so
called image of "character" does not usually
address the issues that affect me and my family.

Character is doing what's right when nobody is
looking. Leadership is being the most effective
in all situations. And the leader who is able to
win a consensus on the required course of action
is the one who will get my vote.

Foxy,

Considering we have Andrew Johns suspended from his show because of a sex romp nearly a decade earlier, and a footy player suspended because his column was deemed offensive to gays, it would appear that one's conduct off the "field" is certainly not off limits.

While you expound the virtues of leadership, obviously you feel that trust and honesty don't rank so highly.

In the highest office in the land, trust worthiness is rare commodity of which Julia is in short supply.

runner, "For (some of) those who champion feminism it is impossible for Julia to do wrong."

There, I fixed it for you. It would be a mistake to confuse the selfish, materialistic, career-focussed feminism endemic in academia, the public bureaucracies and politics with what most women believe to be feminism.

It goes without saying that the shrillest feminist mouths in the media represent the privileged, 'I'm alright, Jill, but I wanna a new Beamer' middle class, not the general population. Women are far more diverse and have far more diverse interests and expectations than the career-oriented feminists would ever accept (and for obvious reasons).

ok swinging voters you need look no further than this thread to make up your minds.
Gizzard? look at shadow ministers posts how can anyone think those rambling thoughts are changing voting intentions?
It comes down to this, just bet your last dollar it will be safe some who pillory Julia have had much more interesting sex lives than her.
Sex like it or not is not never will be out of fashion and drives each of us some times before throwing stones ask am I in position to do this?

Dear Shadow Minister,

So far you've been concentrating on the
"character" of our PM.

What about the "character" of the other
contender for PM, Tony Abbott?
Is his past so pristine? And what does that
say about his "character?"

Isn't there a double standard at play in
your judgements?

You seem not to see that your opinion is also
a confession of your character.

Personally I feel that if you meet life
honestly and courageously, that's how
character is built.

As far as politicians go, the key is we
don't know who they really are. Instead we
trust them to be who we want them to be.
And when they're not - we vote them out.

Foxy “I elect politicians to affect matters of
policy that affect me and my family.”

I do too

I prefer to elect those with a demonstrated referral to

their character

Because I figure, the people (gender does not matter) who respect the institutions which were valued and defended, by our fore-fathers are the folk who see beyond their own personal “gratification of the moment”

and the folk who see dalliances with married folk as acceptable are

Placing momentary gratification before that respect.

Would you rather your child be taught by a libertine or a nun?

Would you rather be treated by a doctor who has been a stable member of the community or one who is known to consider female patients fair-game?

So why would you see no difference in electing someone who has a strong moral character (albeit we might not agree with all of it) and some who is a fornicator?

“It's the decisions that they make around
policies, regulations and laws that affect
me and my family that I am concerned with
the most.”

But those decisions are influenced by the values and strength of their moral character

“Things like how faithful a politician is to
his or her spouse or how they conduct themselves
in their private life is of no concern to me.”

Well It should be a concern… leopards and spots…… expect public decisions to reflect private values

“You prefer to sit on a moral high horse …
….. any other considerations of what's involved”

Yes because I have grown to understand how private values are reflected in public behavior, values and the quality of decisions taken.

“the leader who is able to
win a consensus on the required course of action
is the one who will get my vote.”

I recall another female politician’s comments

“consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.”

That explains a socialists preference…

no beliefs, principles, values or policies required

Dear Stern,

Ah, yes the old chestnut -
of a "socialist preference,"
referral.

It always seems to come up,
as do the old Thatcher quotes.

"Your Choice Australia: Vote Liberal
or roast in hell!"

"Moraler Than Thou!"

We get it!

Stern,

May I congratulate you on your last excellent rambling post.

For some reason, it brought to mind a "Blackadder" episode (Series Two) titled, if I remember correctly, "Turnip Puritans" - wherein the lady (puritan) explained that while her husband was required take his ease by sitting on a spike, she instead sat on his lap - because two spikes would have been an extravagance.

Foxy “Vote Liberal
or roast in hell!"

Reviewing my post I see no reference to hell or other hot spots.

Are you trying to impart some subtlety of comment? If you are I would suggest subtlety is not your forte

Although taking a theme from your comment, I must admit, since Rudd/Gizzards & Co took over the reigns of state

The economy has been forcefully overheated with dimulous packages and profligate spending on things like insulation inspired house fires

The budget surplus has been roasted to the point of ruination

Emotions have run “hot” as people have lost the ability to keep up with socialist inspired fuel price increases

Our supposed warming climate is attracting flotsam and jetsam of a duskier hue by their thousands, in leaky boats (i am waiting for the owl and the pussycat to make an appearance)

And the whole country does seem to be going to hell-in-a-hand-basket, having the chastening experience of the failings of socialist incompetence.

So, maybe, for once, you are right

“Vote Liberal or roast in hell!"

I think I will have some bumper stickers made



Poirot “Turnip Puritans" yes i recall that episode too...

Very humorous

Although, I preferred the 1914 series, where the Generals Aide, a particularly odious twit, was called “Darling”

I am sure you could relate to that too, darling

or maybe you prefer "impalement"...

lets face it, you will get fewer fun filled choices under labor...

but on the bright side, at least your spike will be of equal length to everyone else.

Stern,

...sweetheart...but lets not get carried away.

I might point out that men like Darling were obsequious products of the British class system of the day....Tally, Bally Ho! - and all that.

Foxy,

This thread was about JG, Feel free to throw stones at TA.

>> This thread was about JG <<

That's right this discussion was set up to disparage Australia's first female Prime Minister.

Now get back on topic.

If people wish to discuss whether anyone's sex life affects their professional work life, then they are free to start a discussion on that topic. This is all about dissing Julia.

Congratulations Shadow Minister, where would we be without you?

PS

Col Stern is now warning us of 'reds' in the bed.

:P

Severin,

>>Col Stern is now warning of "reds in the bed"<<

...with "spikes", no less.(one for each of us)

Dear Severin,

Are you telling us that Stern is really
Col Rouge?

That would explain a great deal.

Dear Shadow Minister,

As for Tony Abbott, I feel that I don't
have to say anymore about him. He's
doing quite a good job on his own.
Upholding Principle and Truth since
the last weeks of this election campaign.

Severin “If people wish to discuss whether anyone's sex life affects their professional work life, then they are free to start a discussion on that topic. This is all about dissing Julia.”

From the 146 or so, posts thus far, it would seem “dissing Julia” is not hard to do


As to her sex life.. to correct you, it is not about that at all – it is about her lack of character


- A deficiency which she seems to reflect in the chin but compensates for around the hips, (albeit hips unencumbered by child bearing)



Poirot “>>Col Stern is now warning of "reds in the bed"<<

...with "spikes", no less.(one for each of us)”

Whatever turns you on, Poirot, whatever turns you on.

Foxy, in her post of Wednesday, 4 August 2010 at 12:15:18 PM, asks:


"Dear Severin,

Are you telling us that Stern
is really Col Rouge? "


Knew you not this thing, Foxy? That our good Prince Valium hath but recently found, and yea, wedded, his Aleta?

The literary style, changed little if at all by his change in status, a faithful beacon for us all, flashing out its identity like the Lizard Light. Of course a name change for our good Prince was to be expected upon marriage, and since the stern Aleta had (to our knowledge) no online persona of her own by which we would know her name, the good Prince has changed his, adopting her's, telling us one and all what it is. Stern.

I wonder how the Queen of the Misty Isles SNAGged Col?

Howsoever, you girls should be delighted, shouldn't you?

Now that the thread has perhaps bottomed-out, can't any of you find it in your keyboards to put up just two more posts to give runner a sesquiposterior feather in his hat for this absolutely top salute to somnolence? Come on, diss it up!

Dear Stern,

"dissing" Julia's not hard to do?

Of course but what strikes one most
is the enormous ratio of words to
substance. Certain people can post
for ages at a time and leave behind
nothing except the impression of
great vehemence.

As for character flaws? You seem not
to see that your opinion is also a
confession of your character.

Dear Forrest,

Ah, an echo chamber of the Old Bard!

1000 points of sheer delight!

More please!

Foxy “As for character flaws? You seem not
to see that your opinion is also a
confession of your character.”

Of course it is and I never step away from what I say...

When ones choices are based on long held values, one's opinions flow from a wellspring of worthy thoughts and considerations.


Conversely, if, like you confessed, the pursuit of “consensus” is the goal -

Then what does it say about your values, to be abandoned for the sake of a peaceful existence, under the tyranny of those you appeased with your “consensus”

So too, it would seem, your “opinion” is a confession to your character too....

When it comes to confessions, the sins of the socialist will always outweigh, by several times, the sins of the libertarian

Especially if:

hypocrisy;
hubris and
the indulgent pursuit / repetition of the past failures (of collectivism) is considered “sinful"

Of course Stern = Col.

The proof - if proof were needed - is that he couldn't resist the temptation to defend his beloved Margaret Thatcher, over on http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10735#177980

The clincher - if clincher were needed - is his characteristic use of the word "mute", when he means "moot"

Nowhere to hide, on OLO.

Pericles

Don't forget Col's confusion of poll and pole as in Thatcher's "pole" (sic) tax.

That still has me laughing.

Col Stern so easy to diss, so little time.

As for character, I'd sooner buy a used car from Julia than Col any day. Those neo-cons always scrambling after the last dollar.

As for claiming to be libertarian, pull the other one; true libertarians are not sexual prudes. What say you on same sex marriage Col Stern

PRIME Minister Julia Gillard is a sneaky, calculating schemer, according to the online polls.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/espondents-back-tony-abbott-in-online-poll/story-fn5z3z83-1225900761763

Lets see the damage and bodies littered in her wake:

1 - Craig Emerson and his family,
2 - The school principles with shoddy over priced buildings and the tax payer
3 - Kevin Rudd
4 - Tomorrow the entire country.

Electing Labor is like giving an alcoholic a credit card.

True, Tony Abbott would be the pick of the cartoonists and tabloids. A PM that is easily drawn, with plenty of opportunity for enhancements as the days of the coalition 'Return to the Dark Years' government grow long.

Tony could call in a favour or two and have George Pell conduct the prayers in parliament to thunder down some lightning bolts on those damned heathens on the other side of the chamber. Send a few thousand volts up to that other chamber too to straighten out Brown and others, eh what?

Then it would be floggings all around for those serfs who have been getting out of hand. Don't know how well off they are that lot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

Cornflower

ROFL

I bet Col Stern thinks it is a doco - supreme executive power - eh, what?

The ghost of Little John Howard walks the vacant corridors of Abbott's mind. Next winter could be very cold indeed for the homeless and those on disability pensions.

Janette never wanted LJH at home and that is the problem. Curse those Indians who thought that the president-elect of the ICC should have known how to bowl before he criticised one of their greatest bowlers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o8by05rtMY

Following LJH's lead as he must (it's a compulsion, re-read para 1), the Crazy Abbott recently fumbled a footy much to the amusement of Essendon players while his minders gasped in horror. Thank God (er Cardinal George Pell) that he didn't attempt to kick it.

However Julie hasn't been allowed near balls and that was wiser still. Better leave that alone, 'nuff said.

Just once I would like to see all of the hopefuls, Julie, Tony and Bob (Where am I?) Brown lined up for a photo in miner's safety helmets, because either way the big miners will continue to have a big influence on government policy in the years ahead. Queensland's Anna Bligh has her personal helmet with her name on it in case she forgets who she is.

It is a funny election, no doubt about that.

Cornflower

Champagne comedy indeed.

So many feet in mouths in the following, no-one is left standing:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/04/2973419.htm?WT.mc_id=newsmail

Comrade stern, had me wondering there for a while thought you may be Shadow Ministers shadow.
Now we know what you thought of the old lady Marg Thatcher seems you reserve your spite for us reds under your bed types, anyone left of Hitler.
Abbott? stoops very low when he is being himself the race is not yet over believe me.

Severin

I nearly choked on that, priceless.

However I am confident that Alexander Downer would do a better job of cross-dressing than Alannah Hill. He would show his legs too with thigh boots, Liberals are known for that sort of thing.

How much would Tony Abbott pay for that photo of himself? It is the equivalent of several face lifts (and ear tucks) by one of Hollywood's top cosmetic surgeons. Nice browning too. All of that through a bit of software, very clever. While on that subject, Shane Warne is looking less worn too, through 'skin tone adjustment' of a more intrusive kind.
See here:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/entertainment/confidential/shane-warne-launches-underwear-range-but-what-happened-to-his-face/story-e6freq7o-1225833958490

For myself, I prefer Tony Abbott as his God intended him and Nicholson captures his body and spirit the best (as well as several others):

http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/cartoon_7165.html

I am wondering if the rear of Tony's Speedos might gather some weight and sag if he doesn't do as well as expected in the big poll.

Dear Cornflower,

As I wrote previously, Tony Abbott
should not wear his budgie smugglers
anymore. Not when his favourite hymn
is, "Holy, Holy, Holy!"

Dear Col Stern,

We're really over
reading the same-old- tired-arguments.
Especially the Dame Thatcher quotes.
They're not that great!

Belly “Now we know what you thought of the old lady Marg Thatcher seems you reserve your spite for us reds under your bed types, anyone left of Hitler’

I must say your English is lacking in lucidity Belly – try better please, I don’t need the unnecessary challenge of interpreting your posts

Regarding “spite for reds under the bed?”

Drivel, the deflections of someone who knows they are losing and lost

“Anyone left of Hitler”

More drivel…. More attempts at faux bravado when you know your ship is sinking under you.

RE “Abbott? stoops very low when he is being himself the race is not yet over believe me.”

Ah more grammatic torture but when it comes to stooping low, Julia seems to be lost in a fog of vilification when we see the union bosses adverts every evening, paid for with money extorted from their membership to buy government at any price.

I wonder what reinvention of a soulless lawyer will Julia conjure up next, I hope she is up to date with her books… politics does not seem to be her forte and return to the dusty realm of conveyancing and traffic fine evasion beckons.

Ah fractelle, “As for claiming to be libertarian, pull the other one; true libertarians are not sexual prudes. What say you on same sex marriage Col Stern”

Denying same sex marriages the same rights as real, hetro-sexual marriages, is not prudish at all and in no way implies an anti-libertarian value.

I recognize that “abnormality” is not and should not be held up as “normal” or equal with heterosexual relationships (in fact Fractelle, I could probably get you to squeal in anticipation at some of the tales of libertine excesses I have enjoyed with adventurous partners of the opposite sex but enough or you will accuse me of bragging)

My libertarian values extend to toleration the abnormal but not encouraging it or extending it “equality” with the normal.

Foxy, what you are "over" is of no interest to me

I can quote Lenin… too

“the goal of socialism is communism”

Goodonya Stern! let that bitterness show.
Sorry bloke but I do not speak English I am Aussie.
That upper class impression you try does not quite come off, but keep trying.
So my ship is sinking? see you here on election night bloke.
Please consider this,a person who both under estimates his opponent ,and overestimates them selves is a poor judge.
Stern Col? hard work trying to communicate with some one who thinks only he has the answers.
Upper class, want to make it clear Mrs Bucket also thinks she is upper class I am reminded of her here.

Ha Ha Belly – no bitterness here

I was just listening to the previous labor leader... you know that fashion icon for albino chinese dental technician, the one before all guts, hips and gizzards....

Saying how he wanted to stop Tony Abbott destroying what he (the dental technician) had “built” and I thought – what does he mean

Does he mean
The pointless school halls
The blackened embers of burnt out houses with faulty insulation and
The funeral pyre of dead insulation installers
Or maybe
The huge debt mountain he and his cronies built in record time?

Your comments regarding it being hard to communicate....
The biggest challenge in our case is, clearly, your inability to form coherent sentences in English

Regarding “all the answer” – yes you might say that of me....
You, on the other hand, clearly have none.

Regarding “class” - I gave away all considerations to anyones “class” decades ago

I find it is the “inverted snobs” who cling to such notions, it helps them justify their failings and inadequacies...

I am sure you can relate to what I mean

Now maybe you can regale us with shocking tales that Tony Abbott is, somehow related to Genghis Khan

But by appearance, I would suggest Kevin07 gets that title

- and Gizzards... well, looks like a duck, talks like a duck....

I fully expected her to qualify as a protected water fowl.... and she is half way there already

Well, “foul” anyway!

Good Prince, Belly writes as he speaks. Come but to that realization, and the written ungrammaticality of some of his posts dissolves like a morning ground-fog but hit by the rays of the newly risen brightly shining sun. You know, orta recens quam pura nites, and all that stuff.

Let but his written words flow into your mind's ear as if that ear were a biological version of Dragon Naturally Speaking, and one will readily get his drift almost every time. Bear too in mind, good Prince, that Belly has made no pretense of having had opportunity of an extensive education, but despite that the visual comprehensibility of his posts has steadily improved over the time of his habitation of OLO.

But why am I telling you all this, good Prince? You have responded to all of the points covered in Belly's post already. I think you've developed an ear for Brutish despite yourself. That, or you are a telepath.


Speaking of the Dragon, does anybody know just how high a hook he suspended StG on? That is, how many days it may take StG to get his feet upon the Forum pavement again? Just curious. And for that matter, how high, too, he suspended Seajaye, the Lord Dymo, Thread-Labeler-in-Chief of OLO, Scourge of all the Wingnuts, for his recent indiscretions? (That's the problem with having an ariddissstockracy* of the Foruminifera: titles and honourifics just seem to grow and grow, don't they? Next we'll hear he's been awarded the Nobble Prize for argument truncation. Ah well, as runner would no doubt be aware, 'to those who already have shall more be given'.)

In conclusion, I thank runner for an engaging thread, one that has afforded me an insight into the enigmatic friendship that suddenly developed between Herod the Tetrarch and Pontius Pilate long ago.





*Now there, good Prince of the Mother Tongue, is one for the books. A triple 's'! And all quite properly deployed, too. Is there no limit to the flexibility and adaptability of the English language?

Cornflower

We have our differences, and no doubt will again, however I have gained an insight into you that I appreciate - a sense of wicked humour. I can forgive most flaws but not a lack of humour.

Which brings me to Col Stern. My dear, you are an authoritarian by nature, you apply a different set of rules to yourself and to those you regard as lesser beings, whether they be gay, black or just not what you approve of. Sexual experimentation does not cut it as being libertarian and you have bragged about yourself many times in the past on OLO so why hold back now? Unless you are not quite telling the truth about yourself. And you claim that Julia displays poor character because of her comparatively tame sex-life? I have no doubt that Tony Abbott could indulge in orgies with puppies and you would still vote for him.

Dear Stern,

The fact that you can quote Lenin comes
as no suprise because as I stated in
my earlier post you use the same old
tired arguments today as you've done
in the past. And obviously, you don't
care that we're "over" them.

The Chinese philosopher Lao Tsu thought
that life could be seen and explained in terms
of a circle. Nothing was new, but nothing
stayed the same. You always ended up in the
same place, although you could be further
ahead than when you started. Sounds familiar
doesn't it? Like the authors of astrology
guides in the daily newspapers, Lao wasn't taking
any chances. But he had a point.

Like promotional campaigns that say the same thing
over and over again. Once you've absorbed them you're
in the same position as you were before you knew about
them.

The same with you, you're bound up in the same old
strands, cemented by repetition.

But that's of no interest to you?

Fair enough!