The Rudd and the stripper post I had to have

It originally seemed that there was not much to add to the commentary swirling around this, but on second thoughts here's my take on it:

1. Doesn't it irritate anyone else that news websites (and, presumably, the papers) have today got photos of Rudd and his wife standing together with the "wife stands by Rudd" angle? He can't always help what photos newspapers choose to run, but still it seems to me Rudd milks this marriage for political advantage in a more directly cynical fashion than most politicians. It's also kind of pathetic that he should be talking of his wife's forgiveness for something that, on his version, he has little to apologise for.

2. Rudd again uses his "I expect to take a belting in the polls" as his magic formula for ensuring that he doesn't. He's either naive or cynical in the way he uses this mantra in circumstances where most people's immediate reaction is that it won't hurt much, if at all.

3. The fact that he rang his wife about it the next day seems to suggest that he thought she may find out pretty quickly. But how exactly does he think she would have found out at all if it were not for his call? Did he think Col Allen (who, seemingly, was the one who suggested the venue) was taking him there as a "set up" so that he could publish the story in the paper the next day?

OK, maybe it was not the main reason for the phone call at all, but the way Rudd seems to be running the story, that's the impression we are left with. I think most men in Rudd's situation would tell their wife as a precaution if they ended up, more or less by accident, in a strip club, and left as quickly as they politely could; most women in a secure marriage would laugh it off. But I don't think there would be any urgency to tell their wife, and I don't know that saying they had been "a goose" for going there is the terminology that many would use for what he alleges happened.

It seems to me that this part of Rudd's response actually should increase suspicion that something a bit untoward (by which I mean, a bit more than merely looking) happened at the club.

4. How did Downer or Foreign Affairs find out about this? Again, with just the three of them there for a quick drink and then departure, it seems a little peculiar that the story got out at all.

5. Snowden and Rudd both seem to be hedging their bets about recollection by talking about the amount of drinks. (Even this morning, I think Snowden on Radio National used the phrase "as far as I can recall" at least once, while still insisting that it is all a beat up and they left because feeling "uncomfortable".)

6. Col Allen's claim that Rudd "acted like a perfect gentleman" seems capable of having a double meaning when the venue is a club at which "gentlemen" may (I am guessing here) be expected to slip money into the g-string of the performer. Maybe the more bucks you pay, the more gentlemanly you can be deemed! Anyway, if News Ltd is hedging its bets over who is the next PM, Allen would say this, wouldn't he?

7. What's the bet that there are half a dozen Australian journalists doing their best to find someone who worked at the strip joint at the time who can remember if there was a red-cheeked round faced man with an unfashionable haircut asked to leave two years ago. It's very unlikely that further information will be forthcoming.

Although Caroline Overington says the original rumour that has been around for months included nothing about Rudd's behaviour while there, the points noted above all seem to me to suggest that there probably is something more to this story. Whether we will ever find out though seems unlikely.

But still, if this is the only damaging rumour around that journalists have about Rudd's character, I'm very disappointed. He should work on the assumption that he could be even more "humanised" by doing something obviously bad. I am arranging for a carton of K-Y to be delivered to his office, and updating his profile at Australian-Swingers.com, as I write. It's all for his electoral good, you know.

UPDATE: Here's the link to Rudd's interview on AM this morning where they attempted to probe the issue of whether he could actually recall what he did while at the club:

GILLIAN BRADFORD: You're now saying there you had a bit to drink, but yesterday you were saying you were too drunk to remember. That's quite a big difference.

KEVIN RUDD: Well, I've said repeatedly that I'd had too much to drink and I fully accept that and I was asked yesterday whether this had occurred at any stage before. I said, "Well, yeah, actually." 35… When I turned 35 I remember having a family birthday party at home and I'd had too much to drink. I certainly recall that. And on this occasion I had too much to drink as well. But I am not by habit or by reputation or by instinct, you know, a heavy drinker. People who know me around Parliament House would affirm that.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: So just clarifying that, are you relying on Col Allan and Warren Snowdon to tell you you didn't do anything inappropriate, or do you remember yourself that you didn't do anything inappropriate?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, a combination of the above. As I said, I have absolutely no recollection of that, and nor does Warren Snowdon.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: But were you too drunk to remember?

KEVIN RUDD: When you have had a few drinks obviously your complete recollection of events is not going to be perfect. I accept that, I think that just passes the commonsense test. But when I checked with Warren, that was certainly our recollection, and both our recollection is that we were out of there before much time had elapsed.

Ah well, at least reading such discomfit has given me some fun out of all this.

I think what he is trying to avoid saying is something like this: I had such a skinful that, even if I did misbehave in the club, I may not remember it. That's why I immediately rang Teresa the next day to apologise, just in case. But if my mates now say I didn't do anything wrong, well I guess I mustn't have, hey?

UPDATE 2: It's just occurred to me, after reading the AM interview, that now that Kevin claims at least a partial recall of the visit, why hasn't anyone asked him the detail of what he did there? Simply watch with some discomfit (who cares?); be on the receiving end of a lap dance (danger danger Will Robinson;) or shoving a $50 in a g-string (Kevin actually pays for the exploitation of women).

Of course, even if he did do the latter of those things (which are not "inappropriate" for customers to do, but still cast a very different light on the visit,) I suppose no one would expect an honest answer anyway.

But what fun it would be to ask.

UPDATE 3: I just realised that Laurie Oakes did ask Rudd yesterday "were there semi naked ladies there and what were they doing?" To which Kevin07 replies: "....we can't actually recall anything that you wouldn't see at most pubs across Australia..."

Not exactly full of detail. I want to see him squirm more, with direct questions on his activities there, whether they be "appropriate" or "inappropriate."

I am still betting that such details would influence the public perception of his character. I am not saying it would be necessarily fatal to his campaign, but my impression is that everyone is currently painting it as "he came, he saw, he left quickly". I still think the phone call to the wife and "explaining" to her what happened (in the interview he doesn't use the word "confess", even though other media does) is suspicious.

UPDATE 4: Over at Rudd's MySpace page, there are lots of comments of the "good on you mate" variety. Glad to see Kevin has gained the yobbo, stripjoints-are-all-a-bit-of-good-fun vote. (And hey, lefty bloggers, we are talking of a 46 year old bloke dropping in on the joint, not a silly single man in his 20's.)

UPDATE 5: Given that the media knew of this story years and years ago, why is every lefty so certain that it's timing is Liberal party smear campaign?

Even Kevin is not adamant that this is the case. From his AM interview today:

"I've seen reports in the paper today about interjections in Parliament by Mr Downer some months ago, but I make no particular allegations against him," he said.

UPDATE 6: With all the outrage about this at LP, there are few comments with which I can agree, but this one comes close (except for the part about "normally sensible") :

(Sigh) I wish the normally sensible commenters on here were not in such a rush to reassure everybody that of course strip clubs are just a normal part of blokedom, of course the women are all doing this stuff because they really prefer it and of course the pornulation of everything and the insistence of providing naked female flesh everywhere for male enjoyment is just fine and dandy.

UPDATE 7: (Gosh, I just can't stop): Crikey has some interesting background on how this became a story, and it doesn't jibe well with the Libs being behind it. I like this part about Col Allen (whose denial that Rudd did anything improper is being treated as gospel by all Kevvie defenders):

And, for goodness sake, Col Allen, who is variously described in today’s papers as “knockabout”, “larrikin”, “famously brash” and “pugnacious”. They are all euphemisms. There is a nice profile here in which Allen is described as a bully by Stuart Littlemore, and Allen himself admits to occasionally pissing in his office sink during news conferences.

One wonders by what standard Allen judged Rudd’s behaviour in order to pronounce it gentlemanly.