my gut feel is that Rudd has no reason to object but he also has no reason to support. if the benefit was not happening, it would not have reflected negatively on his govt. if the oils hadnt participated it would not have reflected. if the oils do participate it would not have reflected positively on his govt. but it can reflect negatively on his govt.
this is politics - you dont do something unless you have a good reason for doing it. a neutral action normally gets into the "no" bucket
if any of you listens to question time you will notice that the opposition desperately grasps onto anything that could portray the govt in a negative light, whether it is significant enough to merit a parliamentary debate or not. i am sure we can all agree that PG is clever enough to keep his mouth shut and
whatever he sings about is just that - a song. however i can totally understand Rudd's fear that some moron would rise in chamber and stir shit up for no good reason. and sadly enough, with the gullibility of the average Ozzie Bruce has the potential of some negative press
Miron
How could people get so unkind?
From: RM <m2k9@liveonthe. net>
To: powderworks@ yahoogroups. com.au
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 2:58:23 PM
Subject: Re:
[powderworks] Kay Rudd
david earle wrote:
And what is Kruddster's problem with PG doing this
exactly??
|
.... votes ....
KRuddy: is the probable net effect of anything: more votes or less
votes .... ?
PG rant goes the wrong way = less votes.
