A sad truth of life is the mainstream media is largely secular left in outlook, so it makes its bed with secular left politics and politicians. It will side with the leftists nine times out of ten at least, as it attacks conservatives and religious types.
This is a fact of life, and we see it played out all over the Western world. We certainly see it here in Australia. Thus we get the complete foolishness coming from the MSM that the reason Julia Gillard is attacked so much is because she is a woman. Never mind that it might be her really bad policies, beliefs and agendas.
Never mind her string of lies and broken promises. Never mind her record low approval ratings. To the MSM, this is somehow all because there are a bunch of sexists out there, and they are just attacking her gender. Sorry, but average Australians know what a lot of baloney that is. They don’t like her and Labor because there is not much there to like.
Yet the mudslinging and double standards continues apace. Margie Abbott recently gave a speech to defend her husband against the media/Labor beat-up that he is somehow anti-women. It was quite a good speech, but already the Labor henchmen and henchwomen are unleashing their bile, along with their media lapdog.
Margie’s speech provided us with a good portrait of the Opposition Leader’s wife, and her normal routines. Nothing arrogant here – just a discussion of what her life is like: “I don’t pretend to be a public speaker, or indeed a public policy expert. There are no formal letters after my name and I have never been elected to public office. So I can only speak to you today about my experiences – as a mother, a small business operator, a child care worker, a volunteer and as Tony’s wife and life partner. Like so many women, I’ve had to juggle the joys and struggles of raising children, managing a career, lending a hand to causes I believe in and giving back to others.”
She also defended Tony from charges that he does not “get” women: “I must admit, I’m not an active follower of politics. In part it’s easier and less stressful simply to leave the politics to the politician in the family, and to make our home a refuge from the battle rather than a place where there is no respite. Having said that, I do want to respond to this idea that somehow Tony doesn’t get women and that he is somehow immune to the influences of the women in his life.
“I believe a disservice is being done to women when the gender card is played to shut down debate about policy. I say to the people who claim that Tony Abbott doesn’t ‘get’ women: You get this – Tony Abbott is surrounded by strong women – in fact not only strong but capable women!
“He grew up in a household with three sisters. He has encouraged me and supported me in whatever I have chosen to do. And he has three daughters who are young women living the life that feminists aspire for every young woman. They are educated, confident, grounded and happy young women making their own way in the world.”
Yet for daring to defend her own husband from the relentless attacks upon him, the Labor machine and its cronies in the media have gone ballistic. They have been relentless in their attacks on her, just as they have been on him. A typical such attack came from veteran Labor sycophant, Laurie Oakes.
He spent his whole piece rehearsing the Labor complaints against Abbott. He might as well be getting paid by Labor for what he writes, so perfectly in tune is it with their boring mantras. Oakes even managed to aim at two birds with one stone, suggesting that Mitt Romney is in the same camp, and does not appeal to women. Yeah right.
His entire piece was simply a free pass for the Labor propagandists. Yet we have come to expect all this from the MSM. But the media was not alone in its nasty attacks. The Labor machine also pulled out the attack dogs as well. Thus we have Attorney-General Nicola Roxon unleashing her venom today as well.
As one news item reports, “Attorney-General Nicola Roxon says she will not stop attacking Opposition Leader Tony Abbott despite a rare public plea from his wife. Ms Roxon is one of several senior female Government ministers who have publicly stated Mr Abbott has a problem with women.
“On Friday, Mr Abbott’s wife Margie went on a media blitz to condemn the comments and showcase her husband’s soft side. Ms Roxon has told the ABC’s Insiders program Mrs Abbott is entitled to defend her husband, but that does not mean his personal traits are not fair political game.”
Her animus shows through here big time: “‘Usually that’s a very friendly sort of environment because you’re a little bit off-duty, but not so with Mr Abbott,’ Ms Roxon said. ‘It’s known that we don’t like each other, but I don’t think that’s any reason why I’m not able to express those views…’.”
Comments Andrew Bolt: “Memo to Roxon: people can find you personally unpleasant – smarmy and a scold – without having a single problem with women generally. In this case it really is about you. Or should we deduce from Roxon’s admission she doesn’t like Abbott that she has a problem with strong men?”
Yes, maybe that is our real problem here. But don’t expect the MSM to take that angle anytime soon. For Labor and the MSM there is only one view which is correct here. And any cheap excuse will do to attack Abbott and the conservatives, and no amount of mud-slinging is too much for either group.
But why is all this not surprising? When anyone dares to attack Julia it is obviously a case of blatant and ugly sexism. But when Margie Abbott gets attacked, it is just free speech and political to and fro-ing. Sorry, but the double standards are just too glaring here.
The whole political discourse and tone of debate has degenerated to this level since Julia Gillard has come to power. I have a powerful uncle who believes a lot of it has to do with sexism from the Liberal side.
I don’t like either party because I believe the system itself is flawed but I believe she is entirely incompetent at best, and a career criminal at worst. The fact that she is a woman makes scarcely any difference at all. The sooner we get rid of this silly woman from the prime minister’s office the less we have to put up with her blatant lies and political spin.
Ben Mathewson
Don’t forget what the current speaker of the house said about women to Ashby. Not one peep from Labor about those disgusting words yet they live in a fantasy world trying to pin mud to Tony Abbott.
Ian Nairn
I read Oakes’ article.
The first conclusion to be drawn from all this is that Abbott’s so-called women problem is real.
Assertion without evidence.
It would not provoke such a response unless it was showing up as a serious issue in party polling.
Is that the only possibility? How about defending Abbott from hacks who call themselves ‘journalists’ who continue to assert something without evidence?
One reason Abbott needs help from his wife and family here is that, at times, he does little to help himself.
Oakes ends up talking about Alan Jones (!) here, which has about as much to do about the subject as the best time of day to milk cows. Then he speculates about the Liberal Party and then writes about Mark Latham. Well, thanks Laurie, obviously Abbott has a problem with women here because all you’re writing about is Abbott’s personal hatred for women… Well, no, that’s actually the about the only thing you’re not writing about.
Then we get a historical insight into more of this kind of false reporting Oakes has done on Abbott for 18 years, and comparisons to Michelle Obama and Ann Romney.
I don’t know, but I was hoping Oakes would’ve given us point by point examples of Abbott’s great crimes against women by now, but his article seems to mention anything but. In fact, by the time I finished the article, I must conclude that I know more about Oakes than I do about Abbott.
And that is, that he is a pathetic excuse for a journalist, using grubby and baseless accusations as a basis for a narrative, sold to a largely unthinking public that he knows is largely conditioned to be unable to parse truth from spin. Why would I bother to consider him any kind of expert on political commentary? Rather it is clear he has moved to becoming someone who wants to actually direct public opinion himself. And that doesn’t actually make him useless, but dangerous.
Since writing articles about political players to create public perceptions about them is so simple, maybe I should consider writing about Oakes and his hatred for women too.
After all, as Oakes has demonstrated, who needs evidence? Just throw mud. Same goes for most of his ‘journalist’ colleagues.
This is actually evidence, Laurie: Abbott grew up with three sisters, has been married for over two decades, and has three grown-up beautiful daughters who love him. The idea he actually hates women is patently absurd.
Let me be clear – I’m not a total fan of Abbott – he disappoints me on a few levels in regard to conservative principles, but his so-called hatred of women is not remotely one of those problems. He’s certainly a thousand times better than Julia. The above evidence about his family relationships with women just needs to be stated and restated to the AbbottAbottAbbott haters. Let them stew in their loathing.
Well, I glad to say that’s as much time as I’ve given Laurie Oakes in well over 10 years. I wish the rest of Australia would give him no time either and he can find a job he might actually be good at. If Laurie wrote a fully public blog he would likely quickly discover how poorly his own ‘journalism’ fares in the real “coalface” with commentators able to confront him with that thing he almost seems hardwired to avoid: evidence.
And to people reading this who still watch mainstream news thinking they are getting facts, especially about politics: Please switch off.
Mark Rabich
Well done Mark!
Ben, you wrote:
“The whole political discourse and tone of debate has degenerated to this level since Julia Gillard has come to power.”
Ben this goes back a lot further than Julia Gillard’s term of office.
It became open when Graham Richardson published his book on political power entitled “Whatever It Takes”.
The title revealed the moral bankruptcy of the “new” ALP, and was confirmation of suspicions I have held ever since the days of Victorian Labor’s financial fiascos – Tricontinental, State Bank, and the Pyramid Building Society group.
The party has adopted a strategy to obtain and hold power at all costs, and for its own sake. So all the MPs of the current century have been imbued with this same moral bankruptcy, and consequently, I believe that they are incapable of actually doing any lasting good for this country.
John Angelico
I admit that I would prefer Turnbull to Abbott in the Lodge but the recent and ongoing attacks on Abbott are getting a bit of a sympathy vote amongst my contacts. Maybe the ALP agenda is going to backfire?
Patricia Rogers
I think Labor is really worried.
They’re too scared to dump Julia, and the only alternative is to badmouth Tony Abbott, using the theory that if you repeat a rumour often enough it becomes truth.
I think we can expect a lot of this baseless stuff leading up to the election. That’s why they tried to blame Tony Abbott for Alan Jones’ outburst.
John Bennett
Thanks Patricia
Yes I must say I think Turnbull would make a great Prime Minister – for the Labor Party. There is really nothing much conservative about him, and he would be just another Julia basically if he got in. So we will need to disagree here I am afraid on that one!
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I just don’t understand why Turnbull is even part of the Liberal Party since he shares few of the core principles that make a conservative a conservative.
Ian Nairn
Dear Bill, I am curious that some people say Tony Abbott has a problem with women. He is happily married with three daughters. He also has three sisters with whom he gets on just fine. Perhaps some people believe that itself is a problem.
Regards,
Franklin Wood
Thanks guys
A few pieces today defending the Abbotts. Piers Akerman says this:
“Far from being the one-dimensional stereotype Labor’s phony feminists have attempted to paint her, she comes across as a capable, decisive, well-rounded, mature woman who knows her own mind.While Fairfax and the ABC buy and promote Labor’s propaganda unquestioningly, Mrs Abbott challenged those who claim he doesn’t get women and mock his Lycra-garbed contribution to charity.”
“Next time you meet someone who says that Tony doesn’t get women, ask them when was the last time they cycled 1000km raising $148,000 for their local women’s shelter? Which is what Tony did this year for Manly Women’s Shelter. And in 2006, he ran 24 hours non-stop up and down the stairs of Centrepoint Tower with Pat Farmer to raise much needed funds and to help lift the profile of ovarian cancer, a silent killer of Australian women.”
“IT’S a sad comment on our political discourse that Margie Abbott, a dignified and private woman, has been compelled publicly to defend her husband of 24 years against the relentless lie that he has a peculiar inability to relate to women. For someone uncomfortable in the public eye, the Opposition Leader’s wife did a sterling job of humanising her husband, in large part because she appeared natural, independent and un-phony.”
Think of the difference in public perception painted about Abbott and Rudd. But as Michael Kroger said on the Bolt Report recently;
“The more you know Tony Abbott the more you get to like him. The more you get to know Rudd the less you like him”
But its interesting comparing Abbott to Romney. Both, in contrast to their opponents, are noted for volunteering their time (and money) to others. They are actually doers and not just spruikers for other people’s money like Gillard/Obama. What personal time have the latter donated? And being paid activists in socialist causes doesn’t count.
But then this is the difference between conservatives and leftists.
The Labor party slime merchants have to paint Abbott this way or else it won’t distract from their own disastrous record.
What liars the modern Labor party has become.
Damien Spillane
Hi Bill, Well written, and as we appear to be in the season for ‘being offended’ and demanding an apology where is mine from the ALP, firstly for the pre-election lies (carbon tax, removal of support of the definition of traditional marriage etc) and secondly for the double standards on speech standards? It seems that the winds of apology blow Left all 4 seasons.
Paul Connelly WA
Ian, have you ever heard of “the maul”?
Malcolm Turnbull is one of those in the Liberal Party. What Margie Abbott did was very brave and yes, she spoke very confidently. I commend her for what she did.
On the other hand I find it sad that a man is not considered a real man until he “is surrounded by strong women” or has no problem handling a tea towel. Does that mean a woman is not considered a real woman until she can change a tire or do an oil change?
Many blessings
Ursula Bennett
However, a strong man or woman is and remains married to their spouse of the opposite sex if at all possible. Go Tony!
Many blessings
Ursula Bennett
Ursula, you will need to explain “the maul” since I don’t understand what that is about and what it has to do with my comment.
Ian Nairn
Ian, she may have meant “the mole”.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I apologize for my lack of spelling ability. Since my computer did not alert me to a spelling mistake… Bill is correct, I meant “mole”.
Ursula Bennett
Bill, I greatly admire what you write and find myself in agreement some 95% of the time. Now, I freely admit to being a pedant, but I do believe that to defend correct usage and the true meaning of words is to deny the enemy control over our language. That is why I deride and pour scorn over that ridiculous non-word: “homophobia”! And it is why I refuse to abuse the word ‘gay’ and insist on using it in its original senses of ‘frivolous’, ‘playful’, and ‘happy’. And it is also why I keep being astounded by the misuse of the word ‘gender’!
For heaven’s sake, friends, ‘gender’ is an attribute of nouns, not of human beings! The word ‘gender’ is only correct when used in dictionary definitions of nouns, whereas the only correct word for describing the sex of animals and of human beings is ‘sex’!
Here is some telling evidence for my fierce criticism of the misuse of the word ‘gender’: We never talk about ‘genderism’, we say ‘sexism’!
Whenever I come across the misuse of ‘gender’ on an official form, for instance, I cross it out and write in ‘sex’.
Let us all do likewise and thereby regularly defeat ‘political correctness’ in all its ugly manifestations!
The whole political discourse and tone of debate has degenerated to this level since Julia Gillard has come to power. I have a powerful uncle who believes a lot of it has to do with sexism from the Liberal side.
I don’t like either party because I believe the system itself is flawed but I believe she is entirely incompetent at best, and a career criminal at worst. The fact that she is a woman makes scarcely any difference at all. The sooner we get rid of this silly woman from the prime minister’s office the less we have to put up with her blatant lies and political spin.
Ben Mathewson
Don’t forget what the current speaker of the house said about women to Ashby. Not one peep from Labor about those disgusting words yet they live in a fantasy world trying to pin mud to Tony Abbott.
Ian Nairn
I read Oakes’ article.
Assertion without evidence.
Is that the only possibility? How about defending Abbott from hacks who call themselves ‘journalists’ who continue to assert something without evidence?
Oakes ends up talking about Alan Jones (!) here, which has about as much to do about the subject as the best time of day to milk cows. Then he speculates about the Liberal Party and then writes about Mark Latham. Well, thanks Laurie, obviously Abbott has a problem with women here because all you’re writing about is Abbott’s personal hatred for women… Well, no, that’s actually the about the only thing you’re not writing about.
Then we get a historical insight into more of this kind of false reporting Oakes has done on Abbott for 18 years, and comparisons to Michelle Obama and Ann Romney.
I don’t know, but I was hoping Oakes would’ve given us point by point examples of Abbott’s great crimes against women by now, but his article seems to mention anything but. In fact, by the time I finished the article, I must conclude that I know more about Oakes than I do about Abbott.
And that is, that he is a pathetic excuse for a journalist, using grubby and baseless accusations as a basis for a narrative, sold to a largely unthinking public that he knows is largely conditioned to be unable to parse truth from spin. Why would I bother to consider him any kind of expert on political commentary? Rather it is clear he has moved to becoming someone who wants to actually direct public opinion himself. And that doesn’t actually make him useless, but dangerous.
Since writing articles about political players to create public perceptions about them is so simple, maybe I should consider writing about Oakes and his hatred for women too.
After all, as Oakes has demonstrated, who needs evidence? Just throw mud. Same goes for most of his ‘journalist’ colleagues.
This is actually evidence, Laurie: Abbott grew up with three sisters, has been married for over two decades, and has three grown-up beautiful daughters who love him. The idea he actually hates women is patently absurd.
Let me be clear – I’m not a total fan of Abbott – he disappoints me on a few levels in regard to conservative principles, but his so-called hatred of women is not remotely one of those problems. He’s certainly a thousand times better than Julia. The above evidence about his family relationships with women just needs to be stated and restated to the AbbottAbottAbbott haters. Let them stew in their loathing.
Well, I glad to say that’s as much time as I’ve given Laurie Oakes in well over 10 years. I wish the rest of Australia would give him no time either and he can find a job he might actually be good at. If Laurie wrote a fully public blog he would likely quickly discover how poorly his own ‘journalism’ fares in the real “coalface” with commentators able to confront him with that thing he almost seems hardwired to avoid: evidence.
And to people reading this who still watch mainstream news thinking they are getting facts, especially about politics: Please switch off.
Mark Rabich
Well done Mark!
Ben, you wrote:
Ben this goes back a lot further than Julia Gillard’s term of office.
It became open when Graham Richardson published his book on political power entitled “Whatever It Takes”.
The title revealed the moral bankruptcy of the “new” ALP, and was confirmation of suspicions I have held ever since the days of Victorian Labor’s financial fiascos – Tricontinental, State Bank, and the Pyramid Building Society group.
The party has adopted a strategy to obtain and hold power at all costs, and for its own sake. So all the MPs of the current century have been imbued with this same moral bankruptcy, and consequently, I believe that they are incapable of actually doing any lasting good for this country.
John Angelico
I admit that I would prefer Turnbull to Abbott in the Lodge but the recent and ongoing attacks on Abbott are getting a bit of a sympathy vote amongst my contacts. Maybe the ALP agenda is going to backfire?
Patricia Rogers
I think Labor is really worried.
They’re too scared to dump Julia, and the only alternative is to badmouth Tony Abbott, using the theory that if you repeat a rumour often enough it becomes truth.
I think we can expect a lot of this baseless stuff leading up to the election. That’s why they tried to blame Tony Abbott for Alan Jones’ outburst.
John Bennett
Thanks Patricia
Yes I must say I think Turnbull would make a great Prime Minister – for the Labor Party. There is really nothing much conservative about him, and he would be just another Julia basically if he got in. So we will need to disagree here I am afraid on that one!
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I just don’t understand why Turnbull is even part of the Liberal Party since he shares few of the core principles that make a conservative a conservative.
Ian Nairn
Dear Bill, I am curious that some people say Tony Abbott has a problem with women. He is happily married with three daughters. He also has three sisters with whom he gets on just fine. Perhaps some people believe that itself is a problem.
Regards,
Franklin Wood
Thanks guys
A few pieces today defending the Abbotts. Piers Akerman says this:
“Far from being the one-dimensional stereotype Labor’s phony feminists have attempted to paint her, she comes across as a capable, decisive, well-rounded, mature woman who knows her own mind.While Fairfax and the ABC buy and promote Labor’s propaganda unquestioningly, Mrs Abbott challenged those who claim he doesn’t get women and mock his Lycra-garbed contribution to charity.”
“Next time you meet someone who says that Tony doesn’t get women, ask them when was the last time they cycled 1000km raising $148,000 for their local women’s shelter? Which is what Tony did this year for Manly Women’s Shelter. And in 2006, he ran 24 hours non-stop up and down the stairs of Centrepoint Tower with Pat Farmer to raise much needed funds and to help lift the profile of ovarian cancer, a silent killer of Australian women.”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/why-women-should-put-faith-in-abbott/story-e6frezz0-1226489915547
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
And Miranda Devine:
“IT’S a sad comment on our political discourse that Margie Abbott, a dignified and private woman, has been compelled publicly to defend her husband of 24 years against the relentless lie that he has a peculiar inability to relate to women. For someone uncomfortable in the public eye, the Opposition Leader’s wife did a sterling job of humanising her husband, in large part because she appeared natural, independent and un-phony.”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-gender-issue-a-distraction/story-e6frezz0-1226489727144
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Think of the difference in public perception painted about Abbott and Rudd. But as Michael Kroger said on the Bolt Report recently;
“The more you know Tony Abbott the more you get to like him. The more you get to know Rudd the less you like him”
But its interesting comparing Abbott to Romney. Both, in contrast to their opponents, are noted for volunteering their time (and money) to others. They are actually doers and not just spruikers for other people’s money like Gillard/Obama. What personal time have the latter donated? And being paid activists in socialist causes doesn’t count.
But then this is the difference between conservatives and leftists.
The Labor party slime merchants have to paint Abbott this way or else it won’t distract from their own disastrous record.
What liars the modern Labor party has become.
Damien Spillane
Hi Bill, Well written, and as we appear to be in the season for ‘being offended’ and demanding an apology where is mine from the ALP, firstly for the pre-election lies (carbon tax, removal of support of the definition of traditional marriage etc) and secondly for the double standards on speech standards? It seems that the winds of apology blow Left all 4 seasons.
Paul Connelly WA
Ian, have you ever heard of “the maul”?
Malcolm Turnbull is one of those in the Liberal Party. What Margie Abbott did was very brave and yes, she spoke very confidently. I commend her for what she did.
On the other hand I find it sad that a man is not considered a real man until he “is surrounded by strong women” or has no problem handling a tea towel. Does that mean a woman is not considered a real woman until she can change a tire or do an oil change?
Many blessings
Ursula Bennett
However, a strong man or woman is and remains married to their spouse of the opposite sex if at all possible. Go Tony!
Many blessings
Ursula Bennett
Ursula, you will need to explain “the maul” since I don’t understand what that is about and what it has to do with my comment.
Ian Nairn
Ian, she may have meant “the mole”.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I apologize for my lack of spelling ability. Since my computer did not alert me to a spelling mistake… Bill is correct, I meant “mole”.
Ursula Bennett
Bill, I greatly admire what you write and find myself in agreement some 95% of the time. Now, I freely admit to being a pedant, but I do believe that to defend correct usage and the true meaning of words is to deny the enemy control over our language. That is why I deride and pour scorn over that ridiculous non-word: “homophobia”! And it is why I refuse to abuse the word ‘gay’ and insist on using it in its original senses of ‘frivolous’, ‘playful’, and ‘happy’. And it is also why I keep being astounded by the misuse of the word ‘gender’!
For heaven’s sake, friends, ‘gender’ is an attribute of nouns, not of human beings! The word ‘gender’ is only correct when used in dictionary definitions of nouns, whereas the only correct word for describing the sex of animals and of human beings is ‘sex’!
Here is some telling evidence for my fierce criticism of the misuse of the word ‘gender’: We never talk about ‘genderism’, we say ‘sexism’!
Whenever I come across the misuse of ‘gender’ on an official form, for instance, I cross it out and write in ‘sex’.
Let us all do likewise and thereby regularly defeat ‘political correctness’ in all its ugly manifestations!
Dominic Baron, NZ