A poll that came out today reveals "female voters have rejected Julia Gillard's claim Tony Abbott is a misogynist and are preparing to elect him prime minister despite some concerns about his "negativity" and views on abortion."

Misogyny is the Greek work word for 'woman hater'. Apparently in more recent years feminists have redefined the meaning as "entrenched prejudice against women". Who knew?

Personally I don't believe mysogyny is a word in most people's everyday vocabulary and when Julia Gillard accused Tony Abbott of being a misogynist she did not qualify her use of the word. It was an outrageous and exaggerated personal attack that had lingering effects up until recently. As time passed people's distrust of Julia has outweighed the brief success she enjoyed.

As to whether or not Tony Abbott is too negative I'm left wondering what people would think of him as the Opposition Leader if he didn't criticise and challenge the Government. Many of us applaud Tony's 'No' to the carbon tax and no to excessive spending and no to the other stupid blunders this government has proposed.

With the impending Federal election looking like it will be a re-run of the Queensland state election I'd like to coined the phrase "Ruddite" to define those within the Labour Party who are secretly "Julia haters".

Given that Abbott is married with daughters it is difficult to see him as a misogynist. Life as a woman-hater would be unbearable if a man has to commit to the well-being of a household dominated by women.

The problem with labelling Abbott a misogynist is Gillard's misuse of the word. She simply does not understand what misogynist means. We should have pity on her for her simple mindedness

Mr Opinion, I think she understood full well what the word meant. I don't think the PM is stupid, rather like to many of those who do whatever it takes to get to become "leaders" the boundaries and ethics are in a very different place to where many of the rest of us live.

Th mysogynst speech was a calculated tactic to play on the fears of women rather than a misunderstanding of the word. A tactic where she knew Abbott would be at a disadvantage, if he returned fire in kind it would serve to reinforce the perception of Abbott that the PM has worked to create.

BTW I'm not convinced that having a a partner or children of a particular gender disqualifies someone from holding deep seated prejudices against that gender, people are quite capable of seeing a partner as a means to an end and treating children as the exception rather than the norm. My impression is that in Abbotts case there is no real evidence of prejudice, some traditional values which have been played on by the PM and others to try and create a climate of fear.

My concerns about Abbott are more that like most in his profession there is far to much belief in the rights of external authorities to regulate the lives of individuals. Wether that be the church or government or some other external entity the end results tend to be unjust and generally unsuccessfull in terms of improving peoples lives.

R0bert

Dear R0bert

It would be a contradiction for Abbott to be a misogynist. I am quite sure that he loves his wife and daughters. One cannot both hate and love a woman for her own ontology.

I think there is more to Gillard's misogynist attack against Abbott than an opportunity to capture votes for her party. I think there may be deep psychological underpinnings associated with her own barreness as a woman. A deep resentment against Abbott for his ability to beget children.

Dear sbr108,

When after polling the nation it is found “25 per cent agreed Mr Abbott was a misogynist” you have to agree there is a problem.

I mean what other politician comes even close? Perhaps if they polled on Bill Heffernan they might get something similar but it is a hell of an indictment on anyone.

With over 2 million views on Youtube the popularity of the PM's speech is testament to how much it resonated with the Australian people. If there wasn't some basis for the accusation then it would never have had the impact that it did.

No one gets to bluster past all that.

Dear csteele

Are you trying to tell us that apart from Gillard there are another 2 million people who do not know what misogynist means?

I bet you think that homosexuals are quite cheerful all the time.

with the lefties suffering severe Abbottphobia they are running out of labels that display their ignorqance and hatred. They have tried racist, sexist, misogynist, denialist and despite giving the sisterhood and national broadcasters a little to smirk about it has achieved nothing. Thankfully the polls indicate that.

Dear runner,

The polls indicated that at least one in every four women in Australia think that Abbott is a misogynist. Not a just a sexist, not just an 'alpha male', not just a conservative Catholic, but a misogynist.

This is quite damning no matter how much the apologists like you try to spin it.

What the polls also show is that despite this assessment of him a clear majority are intending to vote Liberal in the next election. You can take some comfort from that if you like but don't try and whitewash the man nor the public's assessment of him because it is pretty bleak.

csteele
'The polls indicated that at least one in every four women in Australia think that Abbott is a misogynist. '

you are hilarous or one in 4 woman are very dumb.

Dear runner,

csteele must be right. After all, Abbott lives in a house with 4 women: a definite trait of someone who is a misogynist.

Csteele when I was in uni at least 25% of the female students did not shave their armpits. These were the lefty ladies, a sign of the revolution I believe.

This, at the time, was part of the lefty mystique, & they were referred to as the hairy armpit brigade.

If 25% of that theoretically higher intelligence part of our population could be so stupid then, is it strange that 25% of the current female population is equally stupid?

Dear runner,

I was quoting directly from the same article that initiated this thread.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/galaxy-poll-shows-female-voters-choose-tony-abbott/story-e6frea6u-1226579510972

This is where sbr108 got their quote from; "female voters have rejected Julia Gillard's claim Tony Abbott is a misogynist and are preparing to elect him prime minister despite some concerns about his "negativity" and views on abortion." and is also the article I directly quoted from with “25 per cent agreed Mr Abbott was a misogynist”.

So are you saying the poll was wrong, or the article, or sbr108 for quoting it in the first place? The last person you are able to label incorrect is myself or alternatively you really do think a quarter of Australian women are dumb. Actually as an Abbott apologist this probably fits.

Whatever does having two daughters have to do with whether you're a misogynist or not? Did he have a choice about the sex of his offspring?

The term has changed it's meaning (like so many others in modern times) and you're really arguing about semantics.

The fact remains that women see him in a certain way and his behaviour, reputation and demeanour reinforce that view among many of them.

Whether it influences the way they vote is another matter, or are women considered just too dumb by some posters to consider things like alternative policies?

I don't think Mr Abbott is a misogynist but not because he is married with daughters. The latter is irrelevant as it is quite possible to hate women or see women as unequal and be married. If not there would have been many single men throughout the centuries. Whether or not 'X' percent of women or men think he is misogynist is also irrelevant. Polls mean nada on these sorts of issues. How many people were polled and from which demographic? Also just because people think something does not mean it is true, much has been 'thought' and much of it is nonsense depending on the prevailing groupthink.

Mr Abbott's problems are little to do with his alleged misogyny. It is his penchant for spin politics and lack of substance that are his weakest points.

Dear wobbles,

The point is that Abbott is not a misogynist. There is nothing in his behaviour or personality to indicate that he either hates or dislikes or mistreats women.

What we need to work out is why Gillard has constructed in her mind this warped image of him as being a misogynist. There is something deeply psychological driving her to believing that men are attacking her because she is a woman. I think her irrational behaviour towards men is something that would have fascinated Freud. If there is a word for a woman who hates or dislikes or mistreats men than it would most certainly apply to Gillard.

csteele

'an Abbott apologist this probably fits '

is this another abbottphobia term? My first preference for PM would not be Abbott but compared with Gillard/Rudd he is miles ahead. Can you invent any more derogatry terms to display your Abbottphobia or are you running out of them?

Julia Gillard once said that married women are nothing more than Prostitutes. At the same time she was having affairs with married men with families.

Now it is convenient for her to try for the women's vote. What could be more cynical, negative and patronising to women? Women have already demonstrated that they are not swayed by appeals to vote along gender lines.

Women are more than capable of making up their own minds and they do see through Julia Gillard.

Dear runner,

Please do not dodge the question.

Do you think the poll was wrong or that one quarter of all Australian women are “very dumb”?

Or are you going to do an Abbott and refuse to answer any questions?

It's misandrist. Julia Gillard is a misandrist: a woman who either hates or dislikes or mistreats men.

Unfortunately Tony has been labeled a misogynist, and as implied by others here, many people don't actually know the meaning of the word only having heard it for the first time.

It is a bit like the word decimate which actually means only one in ten, but it is has been used in the wrong context constantly by journalists & others for so long it has now been adopted to mean "wipe out". English language is changing all the time.

Many members of parliament are ignorant as we saw when Pauline was asked if she was Xenophobic and she started a whole new catch-phrase, "Please explain". Perhaps Julia should be asked the same question in relation to misogyny

Dear snake,

Did you know that when Pauline Hanson was MP for Oxley she was referred to by Australian sociologists as an oxleymoron?

Yes, words can change and take on new meanings. But in the case of misogynist I still think it means specifically what it has always meant throughout history.

csteele

I think you are very naive if you believe one in four Australian woman think that Abbott is misogynist. If it was the case I for one would vote for more money for woman to be educated and not to swallow the abbottphobia hatred that comes from the likes of Tony Jones and other smart a leftist journalist. Fortunatley I don't believe one in four woman are that stupid.

Can we all agree that Julia Gillard stabbed Kevin Rudd in the back?

Where did this hatred of hers for Kevin Rudd come from?

She is definitely one wacky misandrist!

csteele,

It's unceasingly fascinating that runner attributes "hatred" to anyone who happens to dislike someone or something he himself is in favour of.

No-one, apparently, is entitled to espouse their preferences regarding pollies, etc without runner chiming in to inform them that their opinion is dictated by "hatred".

(I see Mr Opinion is getting in on the act as well......happy days....)

Dear runner,

You wrote; “Fortunatley (sic) I don't believe one in four woman are that stupid.”

Fair enough, therefore you believe the polling was wrong since this is the only viable alternative.

Therefore when you wrote; “They have tried racist, sexist, misogynist, denialist and despite giving the sisterhood and national broadcasters a little to smirk about it has achieved nothing. Thankfully the polls indicate that.” you were incorrect in that assertion, or at least basing it on polling you now consider wanting.

Do you now wish to withdraw it or in the very least acknowledge it is baseless opinion?

I find it very difficult to believe that Julia Gillard did not know
exactly what Misogynist means. She knew exactly what she was doing.
The speach would have been checked over, even if it was without notes.

The proof is in the padding that went around the use of that word.
Such phrases "I will NEVER let THAT MAN blah blah blah" --.

It was deliberate and those that don't think so never watched it, or
only saw snippets on the TV news. It was vicious and it was meant to be.

Gillard's dirty tricks department and speech writers slavishly copied Hilary Clinton's employment of the misogyny sledge when she (Clinton) was failing in her campaign against Barack Obama. The tactic was intended to get women to vote according to gender. History shows the tactic was unsuccessful, the feminists were wrong and women made up their own minds. It is certain to rebound in Australia. It shows the desperation, lack of originality and lack of principles of the Gillard camp.

Gillard can't pull the same number of women to support her as does Rudd, the man she ruthlessly deposed and returned later with a mob to orchestrate abuse and geld him politically.

What do Australians take as the meaning of misogyny? When the story broke,
(1) ABC's Tony Jones to Wayne Swann: “So do you stand by the use of this word misogynist, woman-hater, in relation to Tony Abbott or do you want to step back from that because ... ?”
(2) Emma Alberici asked the same question of Tanya Plibersek the previous night.
(3) Leigh Sales asked the same question of Penny Wong.

Of course Australians understand misogyny to mean intense hatred of women.

What Gillard's camp are doing is playing fast and loose with the meaning of the word for political purposes. When they slander an opponent as a misogynist the intent is to label their opponent as a pathological hater of women. When they are challenged they hide behind the sloppy justification that the word could equate with 'sexism'. Like the thimbles and the pea, now you see it and now you don't.

Rest assured though that women see straight through shabby tactics like that. Julia Gillard doesn't fool women.

Dear Bazz,

You wrote; “It was vicious and it was meant to be.”

I tell you what was vicious my friend, it was Abbott's calculated, bullying, and despicable comment directly to the PM about 'dying of shame'.

My God why do people still hold this person up as any kind of leader they would want for this country? There are a couple of people in the Liberal ranks who, if they held the reins would definitely get my vote. In fact there are probably another half a dozen who would have me seriously considering my options.

But to contemplate ever giving this man my imprimatur via the ballot is totally unthinkable to me and should be to any right thinking, moral person.

This is a person with a track record for dirty tactics against other women in power, particularly another redhead Pauline Hansen.

To work so hard and underhandedly to get Pauline into prison then to fling the 'dying of shame' comment at a still grieving PM speaks to a hatred, one deep and entrenched.

He may not hate women per say unless they have the temerity to gain power then it is not holds barred. The PM was right to call him out on his statements regarding his views on women occupying positions of power. They are at the best archaic and sexist, and at the worst border on misogyny.

To do it once is problematic but to have exhibited this character trait twice labels him as a vicious, nasty piece of work whose probable rise to the role of Prime Minister should be of deep concern to those who value integrity in their leaders.

Here is my pledge, I will hand out how to vote cards for the Liberal Party at the next election if anyone other than that man is in charge.

csteele
The 'dying of shame' comment was despicable. This more than anything reveals Abbott's character. Certainly it is something he should be ashamed of, if that is even possible given the bottom-dwelling state of politics at the moment.

'Therefore when you wrote; “They have tried racist, sexist, misogynist, denialist and despite giving the sisterhood and national broadcasters a little to smirk about it has achieved nothing. Thankfully the polls indicate that.” you were incorrect in that assertion, or at least basing it on polling you now consider wanting. '

csteele

you obviously don't read the fairfax press or watch the ABC. They have used everyone of these despicable tactics listed above. Why on earth would I withdraw comments so obviously true.

Yes I agree that Julia labelling Abbott as a misogynist was at least partly correct, if not quite the correct word to use.

Any person who was so disgusting as to kick the PM while she was down, after the death of her father, is not a fit person to become PM of our country.

Negativism is Abbotts MO.
The fact that he has stopped using this character trait at present, does not mean he won't jump straight back onto that negative bike again once he is elected as PM.

I sure wish another Liberal leader would stand up and be counted.... ANY other Liberal!

Abbott?

Misogynist - probably not, although the accusation seemed to be received favorably outside the mainsteam media, who were the only ones not to acknowledge it.

Liar, opportunist, hypocrite? Definitely.

"the accusation seemed to be received favorably outside the mainsteam media"

Translated, "Reputable news sources thought it was without basis".

Social networks? No editors and any crackpot rubbish goes, "I was probed by an alien" and so on.

The accusation of negativism leveled against Tony Abbott is a bit
silly also as that is the job of oppositions and reminds me of pots & kettles.
Are people saying that the Labour party was not negative and did not
deserve the Dr No label when they were in opposition.

Of course they were, and anyone who says differently is out of touch with reality.
If you do say so, then you are quite young or an early candidate for alzheimers.

Oh come on Bazz, Abbott is well known as one of the most negative opposition leaders we have ever had!

The fact that you don't believe he is, does not make everyone else wrong.

op·po·si·tion, Noun

Resistance or dissent, expressed in action or argument.
A group of adversaries or competitors, esp. a rival political party or athletic team.

Synonyms
resistance - contrast - antagonism - objection

Shows that Tony Abbott is simply doing his job as Opposition Leader. Nothing to see there.

But then the Greens would also qualify as the opposition where they find it politically convenient to do so. As at the moment where Christine is trying to spin a public perception of distance from Gillard and Labor.

Of course the girls will soon be back together under the covers, all plots and sharing preferences. Nothing negative about maintaining appearances while doing backroom deals of course.

Abbott a negativist? Never!

Everyone really knows that he is a Labor yes-man: Isn't that the role of the opposition leader?

Suzie, you must have memory problem if you cannot remember elections
when Labour was in opposition. I am sorry for you.
You could just change the names over and it would all be the same.
Perhaps you are suffering the Lexi syndrome ?

csteele wrote:"The polls indicated that at least one in every four women in Australia think that Abbott is a misogynist. ...This is quite damning no matter how much the apologists like you try to spin it."

Polls also show that despite the shambles that this government is, over 30% of people intend to vote for them. I think you might find a significant overlap of those who agree with Julia on this and those who are prepared to overlook her multitudinous flaws in their devotion to the ALP.

Indeed I think you'd find that 1 in 4 Australians would sagely concur that the moon was made of mayonnaise if the ALP told them it was true. And the Macquarie Dictionary people would redefine the meaning of "mayonnaise" to make it so.

mhaze
'Indeed I think you'd find that 1 in 4 Australians would sagely concur that the moon was made of mayonnaise if the ALP told them it was true. And the Macquarie Dictionary people would redefine the meaning of "mayonnaise" to make it so. '

brilliant but sorry Csteele will tell you the science is settled.

Dear mhaze, runner, Mr Opinion and Bazz,

This is what I know.

I in my many years on this planet, living in this and other countries there have been a small number of people I have found distasteful, or untrustworthy or just not my type of person. There have been far fewer that I have disliked with any intensity and only a tiny number I could ever say I hated and that was mainly playing contact sports.

I would never in my wildest dreams ever think of baiting them about a deceased parent. It takes a special type of person to ever do that. A person with either a deep hatred of that individual, a disturbing lack of empathy, or a blind ambition to win at all costs, all of which ought to disqualify him from garnering our support.

A really am interested in what gymnastics you four do in your minds to ignore this side of Tony Abbott. Is it because you feel you would be capable of the same? Do you think that other policy considerations trump any condemnation due for his action? Or perhaps it is a personal hatred of our PM that has so blinded you all.

I would particularly like to hear from our moralist runner.

Dear csteele,

I cannot tell a lie.

It was the others.

Did Tony Abbott bait the PM about her father following her fathers death?

I heard the bit where Alan Jones used her fathers death in bad taste at a meeting which the PM was not at and in the normal course of events was unlikely to hear about but didn't hear of Abbott "baiting" the PM over her fathers death. Alan Jones comments were in bad taste but hardly viable as baiting the PM and as I recall Abbott made it clear that he did not support Jones comments.

When did Abbott bait the PM over her fathers death and what were the details?

R0bert

Dear R0bert

He did. It was on TV.

Abbott is his own worst enemy and his biggest problem is that he cannot keep his mouth shut.

Mr Opinion do you have any more detail?

R0bert

Some dishonestly claim that Abbott made the comment. He didn't:

Mr Abbott said: "I must allude to the vile anatomical references to which this Speaker appears to be addicted in his text message… Should (Gillard) rise in this place now to try and defend the Speaker, she will shame this parliament again… And every day the prime minister stands in this parliament to defend this Speaker will be another day of shame for this parliament, another day of shame for a government which should already have died of shame."

Feminist and trained lawyer Julia Gillard deliberately introduced her dead father to score a political king hit:

"The government is not dying of shame, my father did not die of shame, what the Opposition Leader should be ashamed of is his performance in parliament"

Then Gillard went to with what was obviously a prepared speech to sledge with 'sexism' and 'misogyny'.

It was a shameful, crafted exercise to defend Slipper.

Thanks onthebeach.

Yes, I think that was what I saw on TV.

I do remember that one and I also noticed at the time a bunch of replays of other times Abbott had used similar phrasing. I didn't take it as a play on Jones comments and I think it's a pretty big stretch to do so.

It would have been smarter to avoid the phrase for a while but I don't have the impression that Abbott is a great orator.

R0bert

Abbott is at his best in oratory when he is not saying anything.

Yes csteele it was a disgraceful piece of opportunism to use her
father's death to beat Abbott over the head.
It was effective, as can be seen by the fact that we are still talking
about it here. You made a false interpretation of what Abbott said.
Anyone who takes the same attitude as yourself is just as guilty as Julia Gillard !

It would take a ruthless, self-obsessed feminist to use the recent bereavement of a father to king hit her opponent.

Not a good look at all.

Well we seem to have a smorgasbord of excuses the obviously morally bankrupt, including OTB, are giving Abbott a free pass over his reprehensible statements.

They can probably be summarised as either delusion, denial, deceit or deflection.

Even Alan Jones was able to recognise the statement from Abbott as 'unfortunate' and when that smarmy piece of work is capable of something this lot appear totally incapable of I think it tells the rest of us just what level they inhabit.

Abbott had used the phrase three times before in parliament but only singly on each occasion. This time he used it four times in the one sentence reading from a prepared script and eye-balling the PM to deliver directly the line “died of shame”. For anyone to accept Abbott's excuse that this was not a premeditated attack because he had 'forgotten' the Alan Jones incident less than two weeks earlier would make them delusional.

For anyone to think this man is incapable of such a low act is living in denial particularly about his past record which reveals a man prepared to do anything to gain power.

But to deflect the blame away from Abbott toward the PM with deceitful and disgraceful statements like “It would take a ruthless, self-obsessed feminist to use the recent bereavement of a father to king hit her opponent” and “disgraceful piece of opportunism to use her father's death to beat Abbott over the head.” puts OTB and Bazz on a par with the worst of the bottom feeders who inhabit the fringes of the Liberal Party. What makes people capable of such spite, such hatred, and such vile and incomprehensible partisanship? How do they explain their actions to their children? Are they capable of reflecting on just how dreadful those comments are? Probably not.

Now we wait for the insipid attempts at humour or the tepid attempts at justification.

May God indeed have mercy on what is left of their souls.

csteele,

With all of that feigned indignation and moral outrage you should be a member of Actors' Equity. Just go back to your allegations, for which you couldn't even give a quote when asked. See here,

csteele, Thursday, 21 February 2013 4:59:16 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5635&page=7

csteels, your attempt to shield yourself by attacking onthebeach and
myself, is pathetic.
You did not even quote Abbott yet you seemed to have the video.

No, just as you decided to select the worse intentions for Abbott, you
decided to select the best intention for Gillard.

Dear OTB and Bazz,

Very few people would have the temerity or pathological blind partisanship to twist this into something that was the Prime Minister's fault.

You two have attempted to do just that. It is far less a case of me attacking you than you two standing completely and utterly condemned by your own words.

Further you seem incapable of telling me if you would ever bait anyone, even your worst enemy, with the death of their parent. Perhaps it is as inconceivable to you as it is me, if so there is hope for the both of you. However the man you are so hell bent on defending had no such scruples. Most of Australia recognised what he did but seeing it mixed with the current toxic atmosphere in Canberra many have let it slide.

I don't think we can afford to do that. He is not a Wilson Tuckey or a Bill Heffernan but potentially our future Prime Minister. What he did was unforgivable and if people really thought about it should forever disqualify him as our leader.

csteele,

"Very few people would have the temerity or pathological blind partisanship to twist this into something that was the Prime Minister's fault."

Right on the button!

Abbott is man-shaped representation of scintillating mediocrity.

After I'd pointed out that there is a certain percentage of the population who'd support the ALP no matter what, Csteele then decided that that must mean that I support Abbott's attack on JG via her daddy.

Now somewhere in the dark recesses of Csteele's mind, that segue makes logical sense. But in the grown-up...not so much.

Of coarse, Abbott didn't mention the JG father. He simply used a phrase that he'd used often before but which had taken on some notoriety because someone else (Jones) had used a similar phrase in an entirely different context earlier. It was a linking of events born out of the desperation of those with an agenda.

It was blind partisanship at its ugliest. The Csteele's of this world will vote ALP under any and all circumstances. But they need, for their own self-esteem, an excuse to give that decision a veneer of respectability.

mhaze,

You have to admit that it takes a certain amount of inanity (dumbness) to employ the controversial phrase of the moment (even if you have habitually used it on other occasions).

Abbott used it in a puerile manner to provoke the Prime Minister - keeping in line with his artless style.

<Abbott used it in a puerile manner to provoke the Prime Minister - keeping in line with his artless style>

You are mind reading and using your own prejudicial attitudes towards Abbott to interpret his meaning. Please go back to my quote of what both Abbott an Gillard said and identify the words that support your opinion. See here;

onthebeach, Thursday, 21 February 2013 5:44:24 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5635&page=8

There is no doubt whatsoever. It is there in black and white that Abbott referred generally to government as he has done in the past. Gillard introduced her father and shamelessly used his death to sledge Abbott.

I say again and the evidence is there in the quote, it would take a ruthless, self-obsessed feminist to use the recent bereavement of a father to king hit her opponent. Not a good look at all. Gillard is a damned liar and she is an embarrassment to all all past Prime Ministers and to the federal parliament.

OTB,

".....it takes a certain amount of inanity (dumbness) to employ the controversial phrase of the moment......" in order to provoke the Prime Minister.

If you don't mind, I can't be bothered backtracking through your stuff in order to "identify words that support my opinion."

Abbott was revisiting the phrase in an attempt to be oh-so-clever - and it was puerile rubbish.

It's blatantly clear that you judging csteele's and my opinions as being "prejudicial" is a case of pot/kettle.

The king-hitting, OTB, was all Jones'...followed lamely by mediocre...middling...muddling Abbott attempting to squeeze a little more mileage out of it.

Lame.....

Poirot,

There is no pot v kettle.

There NO evidence only prejudicial mind reading. Mind reading and thought control that is reminiscent of the Gillard/Greens Government's racial vilification laws.

As stated, there evidence supports the entire opposite of what you would assert, that it was Gillard who exploited her father's bereavement.

Of course you want to sweep the evidence under the mat. But see the actual words and quote here:

onthebeach, Thursday, 21 February 2013 5:44:24 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5635&page=8

There is no doubt whatsoever. It is there in black and white that Abbott referred generally to government as he has done in the past. Gillard introduced her father and shamelessly used his death to sledge Abbott.

My third para should read:

"As stated, there evidence supports the entire opposite of what you would assert and in fact it was Gillard who exploited her father's bereavement."

I think I'd give Gillard the benefit of the doubt regarding her initial response to Abbott on that just as I give Abbott the benefit of the doubt regarding his choice of words. The PM was probably quite raw regarding those words and is of a mindset to assume the worst of Abbottnso she quite possibly did think it was a deliberate play on Jones comments. I could easily be wrong about both of them but I'vegot no way of telling.

I think it does real harm to constantly assume bad motives to those on the other side (and good to our own). I' ve got plenty of rason to believe that both the PM and opposition leader are ruthless egotists desperate for power, that neither has a very high regard for truth or fair play. I'm also aware thats the nature of the filters that our system puts on what it takes to get to their roles. From what I've seen both also have some interest in what they see as the wellbeing of the county, the pragmatic point of contention comes in how well their visions as demonstrated by their actions coincide with my preferences.

I generally prefer Abbott to Gillard not because I think he is a better person that Gillard but because I think he is less dangerous to my freedom and future than Gillar has shown herself to be. Others have formed a different opinion, that does not make them evil.

R0bert

Julia Gillard did not recant her remark.

onthebeach, that thought occurred to me but I'm willing to assume that part of the mind set of assuming the worst of your opponent than a deliberate initial intent to play on the death of her own father.

I don't think that there is enough evidence to suggest that either deliberately used that exchange to play on Gillards fathers death to score a point against the other. At most evidence of how a passion on both sides to assume the worst of the other side in all circumstances.

A toxic trend that blinds us the the really dirty players on both sides.

R0bert

RObert,

In the subject quote you might notice that Julia Gillard led with, "The government is not dying of shame", which showed the lawyer fully aware of what Abbott was referring to and meant. She then used a trick of rhetoric to tag and malign, implying that Abbott was actually referring to her father, "my father did not die of shame, what the Opposition Leader should be ashamed of is his performance in parliament". A judge would have pulled her up immediately.

Abbott explained himself later and regretted if any should have taken his remark other than as worded and as used previously used by him. It would have been nice if Julia Gillard could have withdrawn her attack on the same basis.

While I agree that politicians are prone to making personal attacks, that should not prevent us from straightening out comments as they arise. I do that for all politicians as should be obvious from my posts. A lie repeated easily becomes the truth. It is only after this lie has been repeated so often on this site that I have come forward to remind of the actual words used and to challenge by proposing a more plausible interpretation.

I realise that one cannot challenge without being accused of taking sides. But that is life.

Dear R0bert,

I have little problem with your stance on the issue, it is not one I ascribe to but we are all individuals and giving people the benefit of any doubt you may have is a perfectly understandable trait. However without labelling Abbott I am keen to hear your thoughts on whether you would ever seek to bait anyone about the recent death of their parent and how would you regard someone who did just that to their face?

Finally do you think this type of behaviour, if proven beyond doubt, is grounds for disqualifying a person from the Prime ministership?

I should note that while Alan Jones' effort at the Young Liberals was in glaringly bad taste I do not think he would ever have addressed his remarks directly to the PM.

A circular argument.

csteel I can't imagine doing so unless I was very very upset at the time.

As for the rest of your questions, a lot of things should disqualify someone from that job, many of which we don't seem to take seriously. Failure to honour a commitment given during an election campaign would be higher up the list in my opinion.

R0bert

Dear R0bert,

Thank you for your considered reply.

While I can't imagine doing such a thing even if I were very, very angry I will not say I would be completely incapable of such an act given some very extreme circumstance, because I just don't know.

But here is my point. Mr Abbott was in the middle of a parliamentary debate where the rules of conduct enforce some measure of curtailed behaviour and nothing in his delivery indicated anything but a measured and calculated response.

Therefore as you do not think his use of the words was a deliberate attempt to sledge the PM you are able to let it pass. However, if like a large number of Australians, I think he was then the conclusions I have drawn about the man are valid. It was an extraordinary thing to have done and if indeed premeditated then something the both of us agree would only be excusable in the most extreme situations but totally inexcusable at any other time.

csteel, there are a lot of things our pollies do that I can't easily imagine myself doing. If Abbott was deliberately baiting the PM then it was very ugly but I don't think even that should be treated in isolation.

The vile tactics used by Abbotts opponents to play on his response to a question about the advice he would give to his daughters if they asked was in my view as bad as what you are suggesting Abbott did. If there was any strain between father and daughters that particular mud could have done real harm.

The PMs play on Abbotts seemingly honest response to a question about homosexuals was also very dirty. Its a very ugly game they play, both sides play it to a level that I think harms our society. Likewise I think the tactic if prtenting your own side is innocent and overplaying the failings of the other side is dirty and does harm to our nation. Its a downward spiral that will just keep getting worse and worse until people ar willing to choose differently.

I don't particularly like Abbott, the dirty tactics he used on Pauline Hanson put me off, I didn't much like Hanson either but she was speaking for a part of society that feels cut out. Rather than dirty tricks thoughtful and honest responses to their concerns might have gone a long way to helping heal rather than create even deeper divisions.

R0bert

Dear R0bert,

You wrote;

“there are a lot of things our pollies do that I can't easily imagine myself doing”

Indeed, I agree, but I think the operative words are 'can't easily'. For me this was so far beyond the pale and my imagination that it struck me with real horror. Perhaps having lost a father early might well be jaundicing my take on it but to me ugly doesn't do it justice, it was monstrous. In a way I felt the PM's speech served to take the spotlight off his remarks and if she had left the parliament floor abruptly and in real distress he would be in a lot more trouble now.

And I hear you on the rather debased way politics is being played currently by both sides, yet Abbott's taking down of Pauline Hanson and the 'died of shame' remark seems, in my eyes at least, shows a man who plays for keeps and does whatever it takes. 'If you beat me at the ballot box then watch your back because I will find another way to get you'.

It is a pity because I have a bit of time for our local Liberal candidate.

csteel and I've got no time left for my local Liberal candidate, his office repeatedly failed to get back to me last year when I really needed some help (or a least so sense that someone in government cared).

I tend to agree with you about Abbott's ruthlessness, where we appear to differ on that is the view that Gillard and co are any less brutal.

I don't know what candidates I'll have available in my electorate next round, if possible neither of the major parties will get my first preference vote unless the Libs come out with some major reforms around family law before then.

Overall through out my adult life the coalition have hurt me less with their policies and seem to have either managed the economy better (or being consistently luckier') than Labor. It may be that the Qld LNP is about to change that first point, the next six months will tell on that.

R0bert

csteel, for the record as I've already listed a few attacks on Abbott that I consider very low that I also find attacks on the PM over "Barrenness" to be dirty.

I don't know how hard that particular barb hits (if at all) but it's any ugly attack used by some of her opponents.

R0bert

Political correctness makes it interesting.

It is OK to slam Abbott for his choice to be Christian and worse apparently a Catholic, but it is not OK to refer to a woman's choice to be childless.

But then again it is fine for women to boast of their singledom (always too much information), but then there is hurt claimed if that single status is referred to by others, or in other than gushing complimentary terms.

Oscar winners could be humbled by some of the 'hurt' performances of our politicians. The Left have always had first dibbs on hurt and it is no surprise that I would award the Oscar for the best hurt performance to Penny Wong for her hurt performance in 'Meow', with Tanya Plibersek winning best supporting actress for the same. By comparison, Julia Gillard's misogynist performance was only 'so-so', a result of miss-casting for that hurt rant. Any of Penny, Tanya or Nicola could have nailed that script. Instead it was just a short fizz on social 'Me, Me, Me' sites. A flop.

Maybe there should be s Wa, Wa, Wambulance permanently stationed outside Parliament House for the dears inside. Certificates and Compo for hurts, that would go down well with our mercenary pollies as well.

onthebeach, "It is OK to slam Abbott for his choice to be Christian and worse apparently a Catholic"

Being a christian and a catholic should not be subjects of attack in themselves, relevant in some contexts but not as an across the board failing.

The PM's choices (if that's way it is) regarding children should only be an issue to voters if there is a case to indicate she is attempting to impose that choice on others. That would be a big stretch target.

All that I can see being achieved by the barren comment is possibly some hurt to the PM if it's an issue of regret but mostly alienation of a lot of people who don't like that kind of attack. Those who use the barren term might feel good about it amongst themselves but overall they are probably doing the PM more good than harm electorally.

R0bert

Usually insulting comments rebound on the originator.

Political correctness is something else though.

onthebeach, why is it regarded as PC to think that some attacks which don't seem to have any real relevance to the issues other than potentially being hurtful are bad taste?

Simply put, I don't like the gutter tactics when they are employed by either side. I think that hurts us all.

It's not as though there are not enough real issues to make regarding Gillard's performance as PM or her judgement.

Is it a PC tactic to call someone else's comments PC?

R0bert