An old tactic for sure,

I don't think it is going to work this time,
on Rudd- on this issue.

I raise this topic after watching the Costello interview on Lateline.
Did anyone see it?

I don't like the guy,
he has always appeared way to smug for my tastes,
but this interview took the cake.

damn, he really made my skin crawl.
With the first polls coming out tomorrow it appears that the tactic is not working (yet).
Costello, unfazed, mentioned something about these things 'taking time to filter through the electorate' or something to that extent.
Meaning I suppose, that there is going to be a hell of a lot more ramming of this issue down our throats.

Left or right, (admitably I am left), I have found the political discourses of late actually very interesting... until this.

Is this the end of issues now, real issues, until the election?
If the coalition polls start to lift, I think so,
if not, maybe they can get back to some decent debates and differences.

thoughts?

It might have worked if the coalition had been more successful at making Rudd out to be a tall poppy, but they weren't and now it just looks like the big bovver boys are getting stuck into a boy scout type.

Costello went on last night about Rudd being driven by ambition, but it's too late for that to stick now and rather hollow coming from When Will It Be My Turn Costello.

Howard is the last person who can credibly attack someone else's honesty and integrity, so he can't carry it off either.

Campbell's efforts are wasted because he can't keep the smile off his face - pretty weird for a guy who's just lost his job.

Overall I think it fits the pattern we're seeing where the whole Labor side have been keeping their cool while the coalition go into a seething frenzy. It's too aggressive.

Remember the impact the Latham/Howard handshake had on the public impression of Latham? A big bully boy getting too aggressive with a little man is a very bad look. Even Howard's media supporters are noticing Howard's wheels are falling off.

How about Keating's remarks? You may not like the man, but some of the things he says are national treasures. "All tip and no iceberg". We were rolling in the aisles over that.

The campbell thing really did expose a bit of hypocrisy. It's difficult for the Howard Government to suddenly care about accountability when they abandoned that quite some time ago.

Perhaps if Downer had resigned over AWB I'd be a little more inclined to believe this line. Even if he didn't know, that should have been sufficient grounds to warrant a resignation.

Yet a 20 minute conversation with Burke did?

Howard has always been able to go against public opinion and in a weird twist it's worked for him. He's been able to stand up and say, "I'm doing this cause I think it's right, not because of fickle public opinion."

The thing is - the Campbell sacking is at odds with this. It just doesn't stack up, and it goes to show Howard has abandoned his tactic of standing up for what he believes, no matter how many may disagree.

This, I think, will bite him.

The Burke issue doesn't really cut with the electorate. While this is a character issue, it is difficult to hold on to something tangible and say: this is what will happen if you vote for Rudd.

What exactly? Meetings with disgraced ministers? Who cares? (I'm aware of Burke's history and that it is quite significant - my point is that most people really don't give a damn).

Whereas things like war, nuclear power, climate change, David Hicks... these all have tangible effects that the electorate can decide upon.

Presumably Campbell's "resignation" will be costing him a lot of money. Does anyone know how much? Well, it's one thing to hopefully help your boss in his tactic of attacking Rudd. And maybe it's OK to try and fool yourself that the public will see you in a good light for acting "honourably". But what about the money that this charade is costing Campbell?

I know that if it was me paying the supreme sacrifice in this way, then I would expect to be adequately compensated for my monetary losses.

I found the following comments interesting in a thread supposedly lamenting "playing the man not the ball"

"I don't like the guy,
he has always appeared way to smug for my tastes,
but this interview took the cake.

damn, he really made my skin crawl."

Ok I share the sentiments regarding Costello but is playing the man not the ball only a concern when the other side does it or is it wrong regardless of who does it?

I hear the same from Labor supporters regarding Howard playing loose with the truth (telling whoppers) and their expressed moral outrage at this but a massive silence where Labor pollies tell their own porkies.

All sides of politics seem to go after any weakness they spot in their opponents, that is their nature. For the rest of us we should hold them all to account, not just the side we don't generally vote for.

R0bert

Totally agree TRTL. Rudd is going to come out of this looking good while Howard’s apparent invulnerability has been well and truly fractured.

As much as I detest Keating, his comments on this matter seemed to be pretty spot-on. Especially is words to the effect of; ‘who cares about a meeting with Brian Burke. I mean, Brian who??’

As Kevin Rudd keeps repeating; let’s get away from the stupid personal stuff and onto the issues that really matter.