The latest two-week rolling online panel survey by Essential Research shows federal Labor retaining its record 61-39 lead from last week, although the preferred prime minister gap has narrowed from 41 per cent to 35 per cent. Tellingly, the government’s handling of the financial crisis has the favour of 63 per cent of respondents against 18 per cent disapproving, compared with 31 per cent and 35 per cent for the opposition. Also covered are attitudes to the US presidential race.
[Rudd has not denied that the source of the story is from his office. In fact when asked he said this:]
Rubbish ltep. He denied it AGAIN today:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24593957-29277,00.html
[The Prime Minister today again denied Mr Bush had made the remark attributed to him in the newspaper’s account.
“The President did not make remarks that have been attributed to him in the article in question ” Mr Rudd said. ]
[HSO they have not denied that the source of the story, that is the details of the conversation were provided by the Prime Minister’s office.]
If they have denied the details in the ‘leak’ were true, then how can an ‘untrue’ leak be a leak??? Seriously, what a beat up.
That is him denying the President made the comments in the story. Where does he deny that the details of the conversation were leaked from his office?
[It’s hardly a categorical denial that the source of the story was from his office.]
Are you suggesting that because he gave an answer that suggested he had no idea that he in fact has an idea? Isn’t that like saying that because a denial was not given (as in “no comment”) we must assume guilt?
Because the office could’ve leaked an untrue version of the conversation to the press. If their office is definitely not the source of the story Rudd could easily say so. Instead he says this:
“On the source of individual stories … there are multiple conversations with multiple people from political offices and elsewhere which leads to the construction of a story,” he said.
No 49
HSO, once again all the bluster about the ABC. Seriously, the opposition has a right to criticise if its chooses to do so. I cannot believe you are criticising her right to free speech! You are a disgrace, seriously.
Gawd Almighty, Itep, why would the highly disciplined Rudd do such a thing as reveal the detail of a conversation with Bush. It just does not make sense. At all.
How can anyone ‘leak’ comments which were never made?
OK…here goes…
Malcolm Turnbull, in private, looking into his mirror, said today that he thought he was terribly good looking.
Now, if MT denies it, I will ask where I got the information from, if it wasn’t from him.
No 54
Yes. Rudd is obfuscating exactly like during the election campaign where he said “I haven’t read the article” whenever something critical emerged about Labor or his character. Of course he’s bloody read it. And of course he bloody knows where the leak came from.
Then why not deny his office has anything to do with the story?
I urge fellow bludgers to formally complain to the ABC about the distorted coverage of the “who said what oh yeh they didn’t say it but should have denied it more often and its destroying the US alliance” affair currently running on ABC radio. Don’t just whinge (even if its fun) take action.
ltep
I respectfully and totally disagree with the tripe your pushing.
please read the story from day one
ps-the line you are pushing ie that rudd is “hiding something” runs parallel to the fib talking points Ive seen on other blogs/sites
co-incidence old chap?
[Instead he says this]
One quote ltep? That’s it?
Oh goody, Generic Person, I’ve made it to disgrace. What do I have to aspire to now? Obscene disgrace? Disgraceful obscenity? What do I have to do to qualify?
[Then why not deny his office has anything to do with the story?]
Because he may simply have no idea where it came from. What if one of his staffers made a joke to a reporter who then a la Neill Mitchell beat it up into a serious story?
No 62
It only took one quote to embarrass Australia thanks to Rudd’s leaky ship.
If it runs parallel to ‘talking points’ it may just be that these ‘talking points’ are an objective viewing of the facts presented by the parties.
It’s not that difficult for Mr Rudd to just categorically say “The story printed in the Australian is wrong in its entirety. No portion of the story has been provided by me or any member of my staff’.
Instead he’s said one comment is untrue but declined to comment on whether any of the rest of the story is true or whether the outline of the conversation provided in the story was given to the journalist by a member of his staff.
GP, that is an obscene allegation
If he doesn’t know whether the source of the story comes from his office he should find out. Perhaps ask around a bit? He has responsibility for the actions of his staff so he ought to at least do that much.
ltep, so Rudd should say his office didn’t leak a conversation that didn’t take place. Am I reading “Yes Prime Minister here”? That makes no sense whatsoever.
No 68
Obscenely truthful allegation. 😉
[Obscenely truthful allegation]
GP, it is obscene to have the word truthful in a sentence delivered by yourself
Well obviously Rudd had a conversation with Bush. His office may have leaked details of the conversation and some of those details may have been factually incorrect.
Itep – ‘declined to comment on’ implies that he was given the opportunity to, and declined.
I would suggest that this demonstrates not only your bias, but the difficulty Rudd is faced with.
Obviously, no matter how much he denies this one, the media is going to find a reason not to be happy with the wording of the denial.
The more he denies it, the longer it stays a story.
So his best action is to deny it and move on, not stick around playing semantic games to make sure he’s crossed every single conceivable ‘t’ the media might come up with.
I can just see some smart arse journo – if Rudd used the form of words you suggest – coming out with ‘Ah, but he didn’t say which story in ‘The Australian’ he was referring to.”
[ltep, so Rudd should say his office didn’t leak a conversation that didn’t take place. Am I reading “Yes Prime Minister here”? That makes no sense whatsoever.]
It does sound like it doesn’t it. And this is the best the Libs have lol.
Just one question. Does this whole issue make Rudd look good or bad?
Dawson @ 74:
“Mr Rudd would not confirm if the source of the story came from his office.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/03/2408662.htm?section=justin
The media will have to be happy with his denial if he words it plainly.
If it makes him look bad then wouldn’t you think Rudd and his office would have seen this coming? Of course they would have. This is coming from a source (try Chris Mitchell for a start off) that has it in for Rudd.
But look at the way the sentence is phrased – it’s contorted in an effort to make it sound evasive.
A more accurate way of phrasing this would be “Mr Rudd didn’t say if the source came from his office’.
You can ‘not confirm’ something if you haven’t been asked it, or indeed if you’ve denied it.
The very sloppiness of the wording makes it suspect.
Julie Bishop says, Julia G, you look like you need a big free kick, so here you go:
[The Government should rethink its roll back of workplace relations reforms,” she said.
“The Government should pull the unfair dismissal legislation that it is proposing to impose on small businesses across Australia.
“The laws that Labor are proposing are job destroying.”]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/03/2408968.htm?section=justin
Any idea how that will square with what Michael Keenan said last Friday:
[“When the electorate delivers you a verdict on a particular policy, you don’t turn around and argue the toss with them,” he said. “We therefore accept that the Government has a right to make changes to our workplace relations system in keeping with the policy announced prior to the last election.”]
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/coalition-backdown-on-laws-for-workplace/2008/10/31/1224956332616.html
Dawson, without seeing footage of that press conference it’s hard to say. I assume there will be a transcript somewhere.
I generally tend to believe the ABC over politicians but acknowledge the sloppiness of ABC journalism of late when it comes to the finer details.
Gary Bruce, it’s possible the story is a complete fabrication from a journalist at the Australian. If it is a complete fabrication Kevin Rudd should be able to categorically deny that the source of the story is from his office.
The problem is, some of you will criticise the media or other posters for even questioning who the source is.
stock standard MSM tactics …
1. put out some unverified accusation
2. … which is then denied and proven false
3. then change the story to THE COVERUP of the original story
… ffs same old crap every time
Itep – what we’re questioning is if there is a source (as such) at all.
If one doesn’t exist, because the comment was never made, then how can anyone confirm or deny where it came from?
If a journo misheard a wisecrack….”What were you and the PM laughing about? Doesn’t GB know what the G20 is?” “Yeah, got it in one.” ….then there is no source.
Well it’s possible that’s what’s happened here. Where did all the other details of the story come from?
Details such as?
All the details in this story:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24549090-5013404,00.html
For instance:
“Rudd, the former diplomat and Mandarin speaker, advised Bush that the G7 plan, largely being pushed from within Europe, was out of touch with the reality of the Asia-Pacific century.
It made no sense, he said, to take action on the crisis without engaging China.”
Given that Rudd had been advocating G20 publicly for some time, who knows where the comment came from
GP, as you and your fellow tories ponder the important of the G20 story, I wonder what the general public thinks?? Well the numbers at the top 61/39 might give you some indication. The opposition, running on its issue of the day fed by the OO, Glen Milne or his ilk, has no direction and appears to not be doing the groundwork to be a viable alternative government. You see, Turnbull SAYING he’s going to win the next election aint gonna make it happen. It might be good for Labor for your lot to keep their heads in the sand for a few more terms, but I kind of think its good for democracy to have a viable opposition
Good to see the Joyce experiment as leader of the NAtionals in the Senate is working so well:
[A SPLIT has emerged in Coalition ranks over Labor moves to reintroduce a compulsory fee for university students, with senior Liberals demanding Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce vote against the measure.
But Senator Joyce returned fire this afternoon, suggesting other Nationals may join him in abandoning the Liberal Party’s holy grail of voluntary student unionism because it had been a “fiasco” that had punished country students who enjoyed playing sport.
He was already won the support of NSW Nationals John Williams, who told The Australian Online: “If this fee was just directed at sporting clubs and wasn’t political, I don’t have a problem with it.”
The looming row could provide the first test of Malcolm Turnbull’s ability to manage tensions within the Coalition and the Nationals’ new rebel leadership, which is determined to mark out an independent political identity. ]
At last! Turnbull has “a test” 😆
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24595307-601,00.html
87 – Come off it ltep. Do you seriously believe someone from Rudd’s office would make fun of the POTUS to a reporter to big note Rudd?
I’ll ask again, is this story good or bad for Rudd’s and the government’s reputation here and overseas? If bad, doesn’t that shoot the “big noting himself” theory?
Ok Dario, what about this:
“During the spirited 30-minute discussion that followed, Rudd continually brought Bush back to his contention that political imperatives and economic common sense demanded the involvement of China in any response to the crisis.
He told Bush he had heard “through back channels” that the Chinese believed the economic collapse underscored the inherent failures of capitalism and the benefits of a planned economy.”
Grog
“Well it’s possible that’s what’s happened here. Where did all the other details of the story come from?”
Gary Bruce, if you read the story it paints a good picture of Rudd, as someone in charge and saying all the right things.
The question is are the details of the conversation plucked from mid-air as you seem to be suggesting or are they part of a strategic leak by Rudd’s office or another source?
ltep,
Please accept the truth. There was no leak, that article you linked yo in # 77 the story of the words used was denied 3 times.
The story on what the conversation was about, that is the G20 and the G7 and China is not a leak it was the truth as stated by our Kev.
The real issue here is not the invented issue but the obvious corruption in the ABC that now sees it present it’s stories regularly in such a way as to attack the government and give every assistance to the Liberal party.
The ABC is quite obviously being coached or instructed how it has to present its political stories to ensure the greatest possible negative portrayal of the government.
This evening’s ABC radio story on the current issue is a blatant example of such corruption, ensuring it gave every opportunity to Bishop to attack and make repeated attacks using a strawman issue that they all know is straw. It is apparent that this was organised and scripted with the Liberal party.
It is corruption because the ABC being a tax payer funded body has a duty to be non partisan. But it has gone beyond just being occasionally partisan or leaning to one side to being an all out Liberal party promotional arm. It has all the hallmarks of being a preplanned, intentional move to strongly promote the Liberal party and or undermine the government.
It is time I think for the Govt to split up the ABC and get the Howard plants out of news and current affairs, away from radio and its web site.
The story is just rubbish. That’s the long and short of it. It’s garbage, c*%p.
Muskiemp, what about this part:
“Sources said Bush spent the first third of the conversation attempting to keep Rudd at bay. Although the President was seeking input, he was initially resistant to the idea of allowing nations like China into the tent.
But over time, Rudd appeared to convince Bush he had a reasonable point.
“He was like a bull terrier,” said one source. “He was polite but firm. He was not deferential at all. I could not have imagined John Howard talking to Bush like that.”
Where did that part of the story come from?
I’m with you Thomas Paine. I’ve never seen such garbage from such places such as PM.
HSO, if that’s the case why doesn’t Rudd just say that? They’ve disclaimed one part of the story rather than the entirety of the story. Why not just say “No part of the story is true and no member of the Prime Minister’s staff played any part in the creation of this story”