As Channel Seven excitedly leads up and counts down to its revelations about Premier Mike Rann and his secret, married ex-girlfriend, an affair (according to her version, shortly to air, and previewed in today's Sunday Mail) that ended five years ago, the Channel 7 reporters were asking other pollies what they thought. Cut to shot of the Prime Minister saying, with mysterious irrelevance (or was it?): "I know of nobody who sticks up for his state more than Mike Rann."
**CRINGE**
Either he knew what he was saying, in which case there's no doubt left about Rudd's general attitude to SA, or he didn't, which is almost sort of worse.
Posts
Loyalty trumps everything – what we know about the 47th president-elect’s
cabinet
-
There are some surprising and controversial choices, but all Trump’s
cabinet picks have made their allegiances very clear.
39 minutes ago
11 comments:
Ruddy Freudian alright.
Thankfully, I don't think that many people care about who various politicians are having sex with.
M-S -- heh.
Couldn't agree more about sex and politicians, Fine, except for the way that what they do and the way they do it speaks to the quality of their judgement, which was what troubled me most about Monica Lewinsky. That and the difficult questions that this kind of thing poses for any serious feminist.
But I was far more appalled (if hugely entertained) by Rudd's double entendre, whether intentional, semi-intentional or not intentional at all, than I was by anything Rann has done in this affair.
There are loud mutterings in rusted-on Labor SA circles that this government has become insufferable because of its arrogance, and this episode seems to bear that out -- clearly a matter of 'I can have and do whatever I like and nothing can hurt me', which Rann has always exuded and which is certainly the way they're all behaving now. The other most interesting thing about the affair is, again, not the sex but the way the meeja are using the episode to make a little money. Or, as Nick Bolkus said to the horde of journos thrusting mics under his nose, 'So, Kerry Stokes paid someone $200,000 to say that Mike Rann had sex before marriage. Get real, guys.'
1. feminism, while acutely aware of my St.Germaine's opinion of marriage, Mrs Chatelaine really should have declined that initial "come up to my office and see my policy speeches" invitation.
2. hypocrisy re "as Nick Bolkus said to the horde of journos thrusting mics under his nose, 'So, Kerry Stokes paid someone $200,000 to say that Mike Rann has sex before marriage. Get real, guys.' "
media-ising adultery by the same Stokes family which ran outta town that silly pretty young actress after she misbehaved when her live-in boyfriend ( Stokes Jnr)was absent; and Stokes Snr was seriously vile to his wife PetaToppano. hypocrisy.
3. re 'sticking up for his State':
is Mrs.Michelle Champenoise an Opposition plant re the dirty tricks in advance of March 2010 ?
Ms O'Dyne, that was certainly the first thing that came to my mind. This business has been rumbling like a volcano ever since Chantelois' estranged husband Rick [ALLEGEDLY as one must say] physically attacked Rann with a rolled-up magazine at a fundraising dinner a month or two ago, and was reported as yelling something about his wife as he did so. The meeja was thrilled as you can imagine, but that, at least, did not seem staged.
Ms Chantelois has now been paid who knows how much by not only Stokes but also New Idea for her tawdry revelations of what sounds like a dreadfully tawdry episode, but if she is buyable then the SA Libs may well also have bought her. Though if they have, it will almost certainly have been behind the leader Isobel Redmond's back.
Well, it's all very tacky and I've kind of lost track of SA politics. The Nick Bolkus quote is fantastic, though.
I remember meeting Mike Rann at a party about 20 years ago in Adelaide. To me he was just this bloke talking about indigenous political issues. I said, 'You seem to know a lot abou this'. He said, 'I am the Minister for Indigenous Affairs'. Oops!
AnnO'Dyne that episode you're referring to re Kerry Stokes son was a really disgusting little insight into money and sex.
It seems to be that there are a lot of media people who are not without sin themselves casting stones, but not at each other. Our society today accepts sex before and without marriage, multiple partners and raunchiness in general, so how come the media suddenly and hypocritically gets hysterical about the possibility of a politician having extra-marital sex. Obviously most of us cannot possibly know who is telling the truth, but there is nothing like a media funded accusation to make mud stick. Not to mention the teary 'he had me' face straight out of a Victorian melodrama.
Had to let out my inner Ms Slocombe, as that link to the old blogge below will show. Pardon me in advance.
My big problem with this is that it turned out to be so prosaic. Where's the grand passion?
Or at least "then I ravished him twice in succession in his official car as we drove to the Awards."
Nell Gwynn and Chuck 2 it is not.
Though "The Barmaid and The Premier" does have a certain antipodean short story ring about it.
And her husband publicly striking the Premier about the chops with a rolled up glossy wine magazine really does suggest some kinda Lawson and Lower meets Waugh and Saki mashup.
Im tempted here. Sorely tempted.
But in the meantime...
Cats finally take a definitive position on climate change!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thyAeCIqLA0
Or not...
I note the door bitch for this comment has asked me to tap out "tickclin"...which is pretty much how I'd name any short story about a menopausal Australian pollie's sex life.
Oh fuck it, I'll write it.
Oh, I think you must. Apart from anything else, you are now twice-blessed by doorbitch: cartio. As in cartio blanchio.
nabs - all I could think about was Mo McCackie's "The Barmaid and The Butcher"
Strike me lucky - cop this young 'arry
Post a Comment