Monday, September 28, 2015

Andrew's love letter

Andrew Bolt is getting much ridicule on twitter for his embarrassing love letter to Tony Abbott which takes the approach that he was too good a man to be Prime Minister:

This is a rather strange take on the matter of a politician who admitted lying to journalists and specifically warned them never to trust anything he said off the cuff.  Also odd when you consider that Abbott dumped his promise to fix up the Racial Discrimination Act so that something like the action against Bolt couldn't happen again.

Perhaps Andrew is suffering from the same sort of syndrome that stops abused spouses from leaving their partner?

Update:   Steve Kates, the nutty economist, joins in the mourning: 
 The media and the left are among the people least capable of seeing goodness in others. And it’s not as if these qualities were invisible even to those of us who were not among his friends. If you are part of the anti-Abbott collective of this country, you are part of the problem and in no way part of the kind of humane solutions Tony Abbott tried to bring to political decision making in this country. We are all the worse for his departure. There are some who do not know this because they are so shrivelled inside that they incapable of knowing this. But there are some, thankfully, who understood what a great Prime Minister we had and know exactly what we have lost.
On the "That's ludicrous!" scale of 1 to 10, that opening sentence scores a 12.   It seems to come from a man who never reads the threads at the blog he posts at. 


Homer Paxton said...

I have wriitten about this today. Naturally Bolt being Bolt and Katesy being Katesy getting wildly inaccurate and lie considerably.

The deficit was 1.9% and coming into balance as PEFO pointed out. It is now 2.1% with spendings at the same levels as when the GFC hit us. the 'free trade 'deals provide very little extra jobs as Peter Martin pointed out. The Asylum seekers started to fall considerably after Rudd part 2 but being numerate is not really their suit isn't it.

It does show how utterly delusional they were and are though.

Jason Soon said...

the Cat commenters have been reduced to a bunch of fuddy duddy retirees well past their economic prime which is of course why the only think they care about (which isn't even a concern because of the commitment Turnbull made to preserving current policy) is cheap heating at winter

John said...

Used to be a premium political blog though Jason. Shame to see it sink so far.

Jason Soon said...

I should clarify I meant commenters, not bloggers. With the exception of the appalling Steve Kates, the writers at the Cat are top-notch (and Rafe is mostly harmless)

Steve said...

"With the exception of the appalling Steve Kates, the writers at the Cat are top-notch"

Oh come on! She hasn't been posting much lately, but I didn't think you cared for most of Judith Sloan's style or content over the last couple of years. And Alan Moran, sacked from the IPA for being over the top on Muslims, and his continual hysteria about the economic doom that acting against CO2 emissions will impose?

And what about Sinclair's gullibility and wilful ignorance on temperature adjustments, and his enduring love affair with coal, beautiful coal? (I won't even mention the "stagflation as a natural consequence of keynesian policies" line: whoops, I did.)

What I think you meant to say is something like this: "when the writers are talking about small government and low taxes, and deregulation in a general sense, I agree with them. Otherwise, they're frequently wrong, bitchy, and/or ill informed."

Jason Soon said...

I had forgotten about Moran.

As for Judith yes she is usually ok when discussing economics

Jason Soon said...

In defence of Sinclair, everyone has their blind spots. Mine is probably transhumanism. Sinc has chosen climate science for his. But at least he doesn't get obsessively emotional about it the way the Turnbull haters who basically hate Turnbull just because he is a 'warmist' do

Steve said...

I'm not sure how transhumanism is your "blind spot". I thought you found the idea strongly appealing, but that's not a factual thing you can be right or wrong about, as AGW is.

Steve said...

And the reason I think Sinclairs stagflation warning was important was not so much because it was a failed quasi-prediction, but because of the part where he said this:

"It is the consequence of pursuing Keynesian economic policy. It should come as no surprise that the return of Keynesianism during and after the Global Financial Crisis could see the return of stagflation."

which indicates to me that, although he is not often explicit about it, he is all on board with the Kates-ian, American Republican, simple minded paranoia about Keynesian economics. Which I am pretty sure you have criticised in the part.