Belly,

For one that is often the one to start flinging the mud, I am surprised you feel the need to sulk. Considering that you called TA (a Rhodes scholar) an idiot, your respect does not carry much currency.

Lets see the things I called before most people became aware:

1- That the boats were to be a major election issue
2- Rudd's control freak issues were causing havoc and misery
3- That Labor's handling of the BER and insulation programs were a key weakness.
5- That the coalition's best strategy was to be confrontational.

This post was essentially about how Julia Gillard has by taking the moral high ground and then back flipping on most of her promises, has set herself up. TA is going to continuously beat her with it for the next year or so.

These were based on simple analysis of public opinion and the wedge politics that TA has so skilfully employed.

Your calls were based on a love of your party and your hopes and dreams. How is that going?

Dear SM,

As you know scholarships are given to people for
a variety of reasons - they certainly were in those
days, and they weren't/ aren't, always given to
the right people, and when they are - they don't
always deserve them. Malcolm Turnbull was also a
Rhodes scholar, as was Bob Hawke (just by the way).

The qualities that Cecil Rhodes was looking for
way back in 1900s when the scholarships first began
were those of: truthfullness, courage, sympathy for
and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness,
the exhibition of moral force of character and of
the instincts to public duties as their highest
aim ... of course not all these attributes obviously
can be found in the one person - but be honest,
how many of these qualities does Tony Abbott really
possess?

Think about that one before you criticize Belly to strongly.
He called Tony Abbott an Idiot? He could have used far
stronger descriptive adjectives - such as the ones you've
been known to do in regards to Labor MPs. (Pot - Kettle - black?).
And if a politician behaves like an idiot ...

As for your summations regarding Labor - they're not quite
accurate - and extremely narrow. You don't present the
full picture at all - but like others in your party - you
seem to think that if you repeat something often enough -
it's going to be true. Nah, it doesn't work that way.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but not your own
facts!

[This post has been deleted. The poster is a sock-puppet of another online identity and both have been barred for attempting to circumvent forum rules.]

[Deleted. Refers to previous comment.]

[Deleted refers to previously deleted post.]

[Deleted. Refers to deleted comment above.]