To: Wayne Swan, Shadow Treasurer, Australia
Re: Prime Minister's charges that the Australian Council of Trade Unions is actually plotting to help Labor overthrow him -- no!!!
Mr Swan,
The ABC reported today your response to Howard's charges that "the ACTU is only interested in using the Labor leader Kevin Rudd as a puppet to secure power for union bosses" and that its manual on how to influence swing voters was "a dirty tricks manual and it is calculated through techniques of misrepresentation, push polling and the like to achieve one purpose... That is to install the leader of the Opposition as the prime minister."
According to the ABC: "Labor treasury spokesman Wayne Swan says the strategy is preferable to automated messages, such as those employed by the Liberal Party at the last election"; the ABC also reports that you said: "I'll tell you what's not really appropriate, it's the use by the Liberal Party of those spooky campaign robots that they bring out every election. At least there'll be some real people out there campaigning for the Labor Party."
Why, I wonder, do you play into Howard's hands by granting his weasel comments any respect – and, hence, credibility – at all? Why not just say: "In this matter, the PM is, as so often in the past, laughable. He really is a twit, sometimes. His claims are two-faced, stupid, and so steeped in hypocrisy as to beggar the imagination of the voting public. Still, let's agree that we do need to grant him some small measure of pity, because he is rapidly returning to the pathetic, snivelling hole that he dug for himself in the 1980s and 1990s before stumbling into power: the dark rut of an insignificant, puling, crawling also-ran. Long may he return again to insignificance, inconsequentiality, and invisibility."
Why don't you go on the attack, instead of mounting mealy-mouthed defenses that only permit the little weasel to seem to be doing something vaguely statesmanlike as he snivels to the larger dimwits in the populace? Please don't tell me that you employed a diplomatic response because that is what your hired consultants have advised you to do. I suspect, however, that that is what they are telling you and your colleagues in this era of the Labor Party, when the memory of men with guts, like Keating, Hawke, and Whitlam, have become dim ones, indeed.
It is most telling how clearly delineated Howard's real nature appears, when one lives away from the daily dosing of the voters by his well-oiled PR machine; it's also clear, from here, how easily influenced are some of Labor's leaders in whom we place out hopes of deliverance from him. The country may well not be delivered, if you and your colleagues don't act like you have some iron in your blood.
Sincerely
Re: Prime Minister's charges that the Australian Council of Trade Unions is actually plotting to help Labor overthrow him -- no!!!
Mr Swan,
The ABC reported today your response to Howard's charges that "the ACTU is only interested in using the Labor leader Kevin Rudd as a puppet to secure power for union bosses" and that its manual on how to influence swing voters was "a dirty tricks manual and it is calculated through techniques of misrepresentation, push polling and the like to achieve one purpose... That is to install the leader of the Opposition as the prime minister."
According to the ABC: "Labor treasury spokesman Wayne Swan says the strategy is preferable to automated messages, such as those employed by the Liberal Party at the last election"; the ABC also reports that you said: "I'll tell you what's not really appropriate, it's the use by the Liberal Party of those spooky campaign robots that they bring out every election. At least there'll be some real people out there campaigning for the Labor Party."
Why, I wonder, do you play into Howard's hands by granting his weasel comments any respect – and, hence, credibility – at all? Why not just say: "In this matter, the PM is, as so often in the past, laughable. He really is a twit, sometimes. His claims are two-faced, stupid, and so steeped in hypocrisy as to beggar the imagination of the voting public. Still, let's agree that we do need to grant him some small measure of pity, because he is rapidly returning to the pathetic, snivelling hole that he dug for himself in the 1980s and 1990s before stumbling into power: the dark rut of an insignificant, puling, crawling also-ran. Long may he return again to insignificance, inconsequentiality, and invisibility."
Why don't you go on the attack, instead of mounting mealy-mouthed defenses that only permit the little weasel to seem to be doing something vaguely statesmanlike as he snivels to the larger dimwits in the populace? Please don't tell me that you employed a diplomatic response because that is what your hired consultants have advised you to do. I suspect, however, that that is what they are telling you and your colleagues in this era of the Labor Party, when the memory of men with guts, like Keating, Hawke, and Whitlam, have become dim ones, indeed.
It is most telling how clearly delineated Howard's real nature appears, when one lives away from the daily dosing of the voters by his well-oiled PR machine; it's also clear, from here, how easily influenced are some of Labor's leaders in whom we place out hopes of deliverance from him. The country may well not be delivered, if you and your colleagues don't act like you have some iron in your blood.
Sincerely
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home