Friday 8 December 2017
The comments arising from my post yesterday were wide and varied. Here are a few that support either side of my argument.
Neil Hogan – Facebook
“The fact that Shorten was so adamant that Labor had no problems has turned into an own goal, whether the government can add to that score is entirely up to the MSM”
“Disappointed John! You have been quick to jump on the LIEBERALS bandwagon re Labor and the citizenship saga! Four of Labors MP had completed and submitted their renunciation papers prior to nominating. The delay came only in the responses from the other countries. So all reasonable steps were taken which is what Shorten has said with the exception of Feeney who claims he can’t find his paperwork.”
Neil Mitchell (prominent Victorian 3AW radio commentator)
Yesterday Neil said “Shorten has a problem here re dual citizenship. He has either been conned or he has lied to the Australian people. Both are unacceptable. His road to the Lodge has now become more difficult.”
Joe Hildebrand writing for news.com.au says that Shorten is the superior tactical politician. Over time this has proven so.
“This is Bill Shorten’s 1812 Overture and he is playing the Prime Minister like a violin. Labor didn’t create the citizenship crisis but it knows too well the infamous political mantra that you should never let a crisis go to waste. If that involves sacrificing a few pawns to get to checkmate then it’s even more of a no-brainer. Labor will cop a kick up the arse over its own fiasco, but it has already kicked the government square in the nuts.”
On reading the many comments on both THE AIMN and Facebook, I am forced to examine my words, because having the ability to admit that you are wrong is an absolute prerequisite to discernment and knowledge. And I am wrong, in so much as it would seem that Labor is more right than the Coalition in submitting their renunciation papers. I would also have to agree that Shorten is the better tactical politician.
However, when I raise points like those that follow I cannot see where I am wrong. The crux of what I was saying was a criticism of how we practice politics. These are arguments for a superior way. The moral way in which we do it. The way that the people are reacting against. Whichever way you look at it, the present practice still looks grubby. Endeavouring to change it, I think, is a very worthwhile pursuit. People who know me and read more deeply would know that.
“Why is it our politicians cannot raise themselves above the petty nonsense they squabble about and govern for the common good?”
“It is the very reason voters are deserting mainstream parties. They are all playing this stupid political game believing that they are actually fooling us. For God sake grow up. You are not fooling us at all. Why do you think you are? All Bill Shorten is doing is enhancing the appetite of those who think he is shifty.”
“To see two graduates of Oxford yesterday acting like adolescents going through puberty was a shameful sight to behold. No matter what side of politics you support we should all be appalled at the behaviour of our politicians.”
My thought for the day.
“It seems to me that the wisest people I know are the ones that apply reason and logic, and leave room for doubt. The most unwise are the fools and fanatics who don’t.’’