@SPQR, Saturday, 16 July 2011 12:36:21 AM: You completely miss what should be the major story of the week : the govts attempt to intimidate the media.

Evidently you didn't notice this earlier comment:
@rstuart, Friday, 15 July 2011 5:53:18 PM: Here is what she actually said: "don’t write crap. It can’t be that hard,"

@SPQR: the woman in question had left the meeting after being called "a tree hugger"

In case it wasn't obvious, it wasn't the verbal argy-bargy that went on in the meeting I was drawing your attention to. It was the fact that she was perused after she left the meeting.

@SPQR: No wonder Shadow Minster doesn’t want to address your points.

They weren't my points?

@R0bert: The scare campaigns and negativity about the other sides actions and plans have been a big part of campaigning since at least the campaign where Hewson took the GST proposal to the electorate. Possibly before.

Again R0bert, it's not the scare campaigns. And although I complained bitterly about Abbott's over the top promises above, it's not about that either. Labor still has 2 years for the dust to settle, to get voters to see both those things for what they are. I agree with Shadow that if Julia can't do that in 2 years she doesn't deserve to win. At least she seems to have planned for it. She has given herself 2 years - unlike Rudd.

My complaint is with Abbott attacking the person, not the issue. That is all. I wouldn't be complaining if Abbott wasn't the leader of the opposition. As can be seen from Bill Heffernan's comment that Gillard is deliberately barren, jibes from the back benches don't set the tone of debate. The closest I can remember us coming to the current situation is Howard personally Kim Beazley, saying he didn't have the ticker for the job of opposition leader. But even then, Beazley later described it as uncharacteristic. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-gets-personal-beazleys-got-no-ticker/2005/10/13/1128796640367.html

And that is crux of it. Rather than being uncharacteristic, it seems to be one of Abbott's defining characteristics.

@ RStuart

<< Evidently you didn't notice this earlier comment: @rstuart, Friday, 15 July 2011 5:53:18 PM: Here is what she actually said: "don’t write crap. It can’t be that hard,">>

Yes I did, I did, I did notice it. But predictably your angle was : “ She attacked the issue, not the profession.” ( a variation of the * poor Julia striving against adversity line* ) When the real story was it had been a blatant attempt by the govt to INTIMIDATE the media.

<< In case it wasn't obvious, it wasn't the verbal argy-bargy that went on in the meeting I was drawing your attention to. It was the fact that she was perused after she left the meeting>>

And, yes, again : I noticed that too. But as birds of the feather flock together it seems likely she was being pursued by a fellow tree-hugger.
Who intentions I can only guess at , but might reasonably be thought to have included practising their tree-hugging techniques.

@SPQR: When the real story was it had been a blatant attempt by the govt to INTIMIDATE the media.

Only in your imagination SPQR. If you want to see a blatant attempt to intimidate the media, you could try Bob Brown's recent attempt to get a senate inquiry into the media, or Howard's putting in place a "bias watchdog" at the ABC.

@SPQR: it seems likely she was being pursued by a fellow tree-hugger.

So you tell us you have read a report of a man at a Liberal Party function yelling at a Greens supporter and subsequently perusing her and being lead away by police, and on the basis of that you have come to the conclusion his is a fellow green who wanted to give her a hug.

Way to go SPQR. I can't believe you are serious, but the fact you apparently think this is a reasonable way to debate the issue is exhibit 2 for my point.

Who better to deliver that budget BTW than ALP:)
Kerryanne,
In my opinion & experience that is a seriously unrealistic suggestion.

Now RStuart, I think you might be letting your prejudices cloud your judgement.

<< So you tell us you have read a report of a man at a Liberal Party function yelling at a Greens supporter and subsequently perusing her and being lead away by police, and on the basis of that you have come to the conclusion his is a fellow green who wanted to give her a hug>>

This is the article that you are basing your little hypothesis on : http://www.theaustralian.com.au/story-fn99tjf2-1226093905998
If you read it again you’ll find:
1) Yes, there was a man who yelled at her calling her a “bloody tree hugger”.
2) But no where in the article does it say that the man who yelled at her, and the man who “followed” her “two blocks” , were one and the same .

You have ASSUMED they were one and the same.

There might well have been many men (and women) who yelled at her in the meeting.
And it might well have been that none of them – but someone else, who might have sat quietly in the corner --walked behind her for *two blocks* (which after all, might only mean they both lived in the same street!)

(So on the above it is just as likely that the *follower* was a green supporter as a liberal supporter)

Conclusion: it was all a RStuart beat up!

(and you have the gall to support Gillard's call for the media to “stop printing crap” )
How does it go again? …let he who has not..., cast the first stone.

Who better to deliver that budget BTW than ALP:)
Kerryanne,
In my opinion & experience that is a seriously unrealistic suggestion.
Posted by individual,
No No Individual you misunderstood my meaning. I was saying that in context of Australians & people in general wanting more more more & greed of the average person.

I commented on in the 1920s the depression people were a lot kinder - that is all.
Now if you really care about saving a quid push the PM to sake Rudd again.
Hes running around like a revengeful kid spending the public's $ at a alarming rate.
He has doubled and tripped the aid and we cant afford it. Thank God Julie did get rid of him because we would be in a bigger mess- fact

As for Tony I can not believe the opposition leader remained SILENT about the cruelty of live exports and personally dislike him for that. So you look at him & try to sum him up.
I came to the conclusion he goes to the same Church as Bill Heffernan's who has sat on the animal welfare advisory board and heads the inquiry coming up OUTRAGEOUS! and while i am not a religious person i have it from good authority hes going straight to hell!
Hes turned a blind eye to millions of suffering animals for years,.

I utterly despise anybody who does that. Look if you haven't got a heart for animals your not much of a person so who wants that for a PM