Home > Oz Politics > Orthenticity

Orthenticity

March 9th, 2010

I’m kind of late to the party on this, but Tony Abbott still seems to be running with claims that various conservative politicians, most notably himself, are ‘authentic’. This label seems to bear approximately the same relationship to ‘honest’ as ‘truthiness’ does to ‘truth’.

Categories: Oz Politics Tags:
  1. March 9th, 2010 at 18:27 | #1

    I’m finding the switch in Australian politics fascinating at the moment. Labour are becoming centre-right technocrats, while the Libs have forsaken economic rationalism and have turned squarely towards populism.

  2. Alice
    March 9th, 2010 at 18:38 | #2
  3. Alice
    March 9th, 2010 at 18:38 | #3
  4. Alice
    March 9th, 2010 at 18:43 | #4

    Malfuntion this end.
    Foib

    I think you have nailed it. Tony Abbot has just announced a higher tax on business to fund 26 weeks paid parental leave.

    Two guess who’s votes he is trying to buy

    a) male
    b) female

    b is correct. Does this have any hope of flying from the libs. No. its lying from the oppositio libs. Yes – its empty populism…so ladies dont fall for Abbot. He only wants your vote for free.
    He must have akready realised he is deficient in female votes to pull a stunt like this.

    Either that or the mother of his three daughters had something real to say to him.

  5. David Allen
    March 9th, 2010 at 19:20 | #5

    Is it possible that Abbott along with 99% of elected officials in this country are dumb as a box of rocks. And getting dumber. Where are the grown ups?

  6. Michael
    March 9th, 2010 at 20:39 | #6

    @David Allen
    The Libs have figured out;
    1. You can contradict yourself and the Australian media is too dumb and discredited to call you on it.
    2. You can also get a rise in the polls by doing a lot of cheap populism.
    3. There are a lot of bogans and Howard got a lot of miles dog whistling to them.
    4. They probably aren’t going to win the next election so the smart ones are keeping their heads down while the extremists have there day in the sun.
    Maybe the libs have forgotten that there is compulsory voting in Australia.

  7. Tony G
    March 9th, 2010 at 20:45 | #7

    No one is listening, so who cares what you say about him; he is looked on as (and is) the hero who saved Australia from the ‘alarmists’ and their fictional doomsday predictions and ill-conceived ets

    Look at this post of JQ’s stating Abbott was doomed (We are Laughing out Loud about this prediction JQ);

    Turnbull defeated, Hockey discredited, Abbott doomed.

    Anyway, Economists (and alarmists) need to explain: why should we keep listening?

  8. Fran Barlow
    March 9th, 2010 at 21:09 | #8

    My view is that Abbott (or whoever leads the coalition at election time in July/August) will lose ground in both houses. Probable 2PP 55-45

  9. wilful
    March 9th, 2010 at 21:20 | #9

    I wouldn’t mind a decent deconstruction of what an ‘authentic’ professional politician is.

  10. March 9th, 2010 at 22:44 | #10

    Pr Q said:

    Tony Abbott still seems to be running with claims that various conservative politicians, most notably himself, are ‘authentic’. This label seems to bear approximately the same relationship to ‘honest’ as ‘truthiness’ does to ‘truth’.

    Abbott is refreshingly candid and straight-spoken in comparison to Rudd, whose combination of bureaucratic prose and gruesome chumminess make me want to run screaming from the room after about five minutes. As Barry Humphries said, its like being ruled by ones dentist.

    Abbott may be an elitist when it comes to economics, what with Work Choices and so on. But he is a populist in civics matters, with views far more in touch with those of the common man who has little time for the intellectual dishonesty so rampant amongst the politically correct.

    I don’t see that the L/NP are any worse in the honesty or authenticity department than the ALP. When I see some of the dodgy characters on parade in the ALP, the Richardsons, Dominicans, Burkes, Aribs, Neales, Kaisers I tend to think the L/NP are on the whole better.

    The ALP smells worse than the L/NP simply because political cronyism is a way of life for most Labor officials. Whereas most L/NP officials appear to have a life outside of politics.

    For the umpteenth time I wonder if Pr Q realises that he comes across has having a partisan animus against parties and politicos of the Right, irrespective of their administrative performance. The air is much clearer when one reaches the Olympian heights of detachment, avoiding investments in either side of politics, both psephologically and ideologically.

  11. Tim Dymond
    March 9th, 2010 at 23:08 | #11

    I’m pushing the Godwin’s Law envelope here, but the old Frankfurt school Marxist Theodor Adorno wrote the book on ‘The Jargon of Authenticity’. Political and religious thought that prizes authenticity ‘accommodates itself to the goal of subordination even where it aspires to resist that goal. The authority of the absolute is overthrown by absolutised authority’.

    In other words if leaders are to be granted some kind of authority because they are ‘authentic’ – then we shlubs should submit ourselves to their will without any troublesome questioning. After all if you don’t ‘get’ their authenticity – you just ain’t authentic enough yet! Your doubts are your own fault, not the leader’s.

  12. paul walter
    March 10th, 2010 at 01:46 | #12

    Don’t follow it.
    The ‘flu can be “authentic”, too, but does it seem automatic that one therefore, irrationally heads off seeking to acquire a shivering, aching great dose of it?

  13. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 10th, 2010 at 04:36 | #13

    Abbott has the redeeming feature of not being Rudd. I liked Beazley. I even thought Latham was authentic. However Rudd annoys me with his fog of superflous word and self directed questions and has done since day one. Although lately I’m inclined to feel more pitty for Rudd because I suspect that rather than being a tactic to conceal things it actually is just a terrible habit.

    This week Andrew Bolt stuck the boot into Abbott for his qualified “discomfort” with homosexuals. I suspect this discomfort still resonates with many older Australians, and perhaps it is an authentic outlook, but I don’t think it is altogether that positive. Not that the ALP has proven any better. What we have learnt is that both sides of the house are in practice social conservatives and both sides will mix it around on economic liberalism and pragmatic populism. It is Pepsi and Coke with a few exotic ice cubes thrown in.

    I think Abbott will do well in the election but not well enough to win.

  14. Fran Barlow
    March 10th, 2010 at 05:07 | #14

    Authenticity is about physical, cultural and intellectual proximity. At it’s most banal, it’s really a manifestation of the desire of humans (in the absence of the capacity to directly access the minds of other people) to trust that others really are at one with their interests and will act in concert. “One of us!” is the underlying refrain. It’s parochialism and xenophobia in microcosm. All of us I suspect feel it on our skin.

    Accordingly, it would be astonishing if it didn’t provide the foundation for popular politics. The very notion of soveregnty is to be ruled by people like you. Yet really it’s just like any other rubric, open to ignorant generalisation and spin, in which superficail posturing counts as a statement of identity you can beleive in, and equally, it is subversive of the most important feature of humanity — our capacity and impulse to bond with our fellow humans intellectually, notwhithstanding their physical, cultural, and intellectual difference.

  15. boconnor
    March 10th, 2010 at 05:37 | #15

    Fran Barlow :
    Accordingly, it would be astonishing if it didn’t provide the foundation for popular politics. The very notion of soveregnty is to be ruled by people like you.

    Actually, I’d prefer to ruled by people much better than me – smarter, more access to relevant data, across all the ins and outs of public policy.

    One of the attractions of the West Wing TV series was the romantic notion that leaders could be super smart, moral and compassionate. I would set that as the goal for the leaders we deserve.

  16. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 10th, 2010 at 05:52 | #16

    Fran – On this occassion I think you are spot on. The essence of representative democracy is that those in parliament should be representative of those in society. When the illusion fades people yearn for authenticity.

    Personally I think we could and ought to have a highly representative senate where senators are not elected (hence not party loyal politicians) but appointed using sortition. Sortition gives you representation without politicians and it would in my view be spot on for a house of legislative review.

  17. Tim Dymond
    March 10th, 2010 at 05:54 | #17

    The point about the quality of ‘authenticity’ in political leaders is that it is usually presented to us voters as a kind of argument from authority. Voting for or against policy becomes a secondary consideration. Of course politicians don’t present themselves as authentically evil, and in a democratic polity they can’t afford to be judged just on their authenticity. Unfortunately in contemporary Australia it manifests itself in pointless commentary about supposed ‘issues’ such as whether Kevin Rudd uses too many big words – despite that having no bearing on his capacity for governing.

    ‘Authenticity’ in politics also appears to manifest itself only in particular ways – usually as a blokey, sporty machismo. If Kevin Rudd was declared by his supporters as ‘authentically’ a nerdy policy wonk – would his critics on this blog suddenly feel he wasn’t that bad after all?

  18. Fran Barlow
    March 10th, 2010 at 06:12 | #18

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)

    Personally I think we could and ought to have a highly representative senate where senators are not elected (hence not party loyal politicians) but appointed using sortition.

    As you know Terje … I too favour resort to sortition though for the parliament as a whole and with deliberative voting as a factor. I also favour creation of a broad policy development environment led by those in the parliament but ultimately the result of a form of direct democracy. I’d also extend the sortition principle lower down the governance chain to include other areas of public goods provision.

    @boconnor

    Actually, I’d prefer to ruled by people much better than me – smarter, more access to relevant data, across all the ins and outs of public policy.

    In part this desire rather turns on what one means by “like me”. Presumably, the “better” people than you at least share your broad cultural perspectives and your broad aims for public policy. Being ruled by smarter and better connected people who thought your interests were less important than theirs and should always take second place in any zero sum process would not be most people’s idea of good government. The vision as you describe it was precisely the 18th Century patrician view, to some extent shared by JS Mill a century later who fancied that democracy was a bother because stupid people would have as much of a say as wise people.

    Certainly, one does want those developing and implementing public policy to be well-informed and scrupulously rational. Yet one wants them also to be concerned with (and therefore knowledgeable about) the interests and condition of the community as a whole, favouring the greatest good for the greatest number and respectful of the robust frontiers between the state and civil society that are necessary if humans are to retain the scope each of us needs to achieve our full humanity. It’s in these senses that authenticity becomes a proxy for reading off these attributes.

    Of course, in practice, it’s not a very good proxy because what tends to shape policy is not, by the time one becomes a career operator, one’s personal psychology or cultural history but the interests of the dominant stakeholders in the system mapped onto the usages of political discourse.

  19. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 10th, 2010 at 07:23 | #19

    If Kevin Rudd was declared by his supporters as ‘authentically’ a nerdy policy wonk – would his critics on this blog suddenly feel he wasn’t that bad after all?

    Bob Carr was a nerdy policy wonk but you could feel like he wasn’t trying to obscure things with a fog of words. I agree that substance matters more than style but I can’t figure out Rudds substance. He has the creativity to appoint a minister of deregulation and yet he gives grand speeches about the folly of deregulation. I feel like he is in it for the pose.

  20. Michael
    March 10th, 2010 at 07:38 | #20

    The opposite of authentic is “synthetic” and I found this interesting regarding the media’s role –
    http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2006&base_name=post_338

    “This is truly something. If voters “sniffed” any “hypocrisy” about the last two Dem candidates, it was largely because pundits like Broder, and much of the press, told them to. The press relentlessly portrayed both Dems as willing to say and do whatever it took to get elected. Every move Al Gore made, no matter how obscure, was said to have political and questionable motives. Then once the press had made that Gore’s narrative, the pundits proceeded to argue that Gore himself was the author of this storyline — exactly what Klein has now done once again. If there’s one thing pundits love doing, it’s describing voter perceptions as if they themselves have played no role in determining how those perceptions were formed — when of course they played a critical role.(my emphasis)

    After all Dubya was THE authentic politician.

    Jack Strocchi :
    Abbott may be an elitist when it comes to economics, what with Work Choices and so on. But he is a populist in civics matters, with views far more in touch with those of the common man who has little time for the intellectual dishonesty so rampant amongst the politically correct.

    What’s the exact electoral breakdown for the “common man” 10-20%?
    “Sociologist Considers Own Behavior Indicative Of Larger Trends” http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28670

  21. Alphonse
    March 10th, 2010 at 09:14 | #21

    He’s not as authentic as Pauline Hanson, but he does project authenticity rather well.

    Failure to measure up to objective standards does testify to a necessary subjectivity.

  22. frankis
    March 10th, 2010 at 09:26 | #22

    “Authenticity” in our politicians? It must be time for that excellent Mencken quote:

    The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

    The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.[17]

  23. Fran Barlow
    March 10th, 2010 at 09:38 | #23

    @frankis

    And when Reagan achieved office, Mencken’s vision was realised.

  24. Fran Barlow
    March 10th, 2010 at 09:42 | #24

    That said, as both Reagan and Bush showed the advantage of being a downright moron is that you can say anything and believe it. You need not be devious if others are devious on your behalf.

  25. frankis
    March 10th, 2010 at 10:30 | #25

    Yes Fran it helps greatly in life to believe in your own lies, punters have always found that irresistible in their politicians and conmen.

    Sincerity is the key thing – once you can fake that you’ve got it made [Jean Giraudoux]

  26. smiths
    March 10th, 2010 at 11:03 | #26

    i think Obama was the true heir of Menckens comment,
    he was all things to all people, he gave speeches days apart to different audiences that were totally contradictory,

    authentic – not false or imitation

    but imitation what? human, australian, ordinary? buggered if i know
    was bon scott more authentic than Julian Burnside?
    is there an admission in Tony Abbotts’s alleged authenticity that Australians dont like inteligence?
    i dont think Abbott is genuine, i think he is almost as contrived as Rudd,
    i detest Rudd.
    i am in the process of writing a letter to my local labor MP explaining why they have lost my up coming vote, but to make a mid-length letter short – Rudd

  27. Fran Barlow
    March 10th, 2010 at 11:25 | #27

    @smiths

    i think Obama was the true heir of Menckens comment,

    I don’t agree. Obama is clearly no kind of moron, and indeed may well be the most cerebral leader the US has had since …. well just since. He is however a lawyer/politician with the usages to go with that. If the US had a higher proportion of engaged, informed and cerebral voters than it does, one suspects Obama (or whoever made it to the top) could conduct a more candid and rational approach to policy.

    I say that as someone who is rather disappointed with Obama. I was fairly positive in January 2009, but the odd thing is that he has failed in the one are where I thought he’d find the going easiest — managing the media and political cycle. He has allowed the politically discredited Republicans to escape censure for their past political failures and allowed the Democrats to take on some of the odium for their rule. He failed to cash in on the goodwill he had and wedge them on left-of-centre populist lines.

    He could have spent much of 2009 releasing embarrassing documents about Repug rule, and then invited repentant repugs to join him in “retooling America”. He could have had his own version of Truth and Reconciliation and on that basis redone health and energy and national security policy.

    Very disappointing.

  28. smiths
    March 10th, 2010 at 12:01 | #28

    He could have spent much of 2009 releasing embarrassing documents about Repug rule

    no he couldnt, because it doesnt work that way, its more like the mafia,
    you dont get to that point unless they have something on you,
    you dont betray the network,
    and honestly fran, have closer look at the ruling pattern in the US,
    there is not one bit of the sickness in that system that the Dems arent equally responsible for,
    honestly, the characterisations that people give to the political system baffle me,
    they are one part history, one part fairytale,
    are we really all still waiting for the Principe to wake us up

  29. smiths
    March 10th, 2010 at 12:10 | #29

    Demorat Jay Rockefeller, the most earnest, dogged Senate champion of a nationwide public health insurance plan on the Public Option: “I Will Not Relent”

    Demorat Jay Rockefeller threw a wrench into Democratic efforts to get a public option passed, saying that he thought the maneuver was overly partisan and that he was inclined to oppose it. . .

  30. may
    March 10th, 2010 at 12:51 | #30

    but but

    he is authentic. he IS.

    he is an authentic proffessional religious ideologist grasping at sound bites.

  31. boconnor
    March 10th, 2010 at 13:43 | #31

    Alphonse :
    He’s not as authentic as Pauline Hanson, but he does project authenticity rather well.

    Interesting to use Pauline Hanson as an example of an “authentic” politician. It prompted me to think about what criteria I would use to decide if a politician was “authentic”, based upon my reaction to what they were saying.

    My judgement of authenticity would be that there is a direct correlation, as far as I can perceive, between what someone believes and what they end up saying. So, for example, when you listened to Hanson you did get a sense that there was a thought inside her head something like “there are too many Asians in Australia” and then what she said was pretty much a direct correlation with that thought. So you really did believe that what she was saying was a reflection of her true beliefs. Of course pretty much all the things that she was saying were either factually wrong or simply bad public policy. But at least you could reject them knowing she was being honest.

    In contrast, with Abbott I don’t get any sense that there is a correlation between what he actually believes and what he says. In fact quite the opposite. He seems chameleon like in being prepared to say things that will get a good result in the electorate, independent of what he truly believes. Of course it’s really hard to know for sure because we don’t have privileged access to what are his true beliefs. I found it interesting that when he let his guard down and started to talk explicitly about the role of women and domestic chores it seemed he was really showing us his true beliefs. And they weren’t pretty.

  32. smiths
    March 10th, 2010 at 13:48 | #32

    john howard was authentic by that definition
    he presented the persona of an ideological heartless scheming backward facing rat,
    and of course inside he was an ideological heartless scheming backward facing rat

  33. boconnor
    March 10th, 2010 at 13:57 | #33

    smiths :
    john howard was authentic by that definition
    he presented the persona of an ideological heartless scheming backward facing rat,
    and of course inside he was an ideological heartless scheming backward facing rat

    smiths…..I really like your turn of phrase

  34. smiths
    March 10th, 2010 at 14:05 | #34

    i did a search on google trends “Tony Abbott, authentic”
    the top reference was to Sarah Palin being ‘authentic’
    essentially it is the opposite of polished, in this sense Pauline is authentic whereas Tony is not,
    yet the fact that Tony is going for this label is interesting,
    the attack on the sophisticated wordplay of politicians and the claim to rough gritty common authenticity is as old as politics itself,
    i was reading some Athenian claiming it last night in Thucydides on the eve of the Sicilian expedition
    to me the dangger of going for the label is that it has the double meaning of a stupid person

  35. smiths
    March 10th, 2010 at 14:06 | #35

    thankyou b.o.

  36. Alex
    March 10th, 2010 at 14:39 | #36

    Abbott as the arch conservative religious zealot was I think an authentic representation of the man, making his latest guise utterly ridiculous.

  37. Jim Birch
    March 10th, 2010 at 15:26 | #37

    Less then 8 press secretaries = authentic.

  38. Paul Norton
    March 10th, 2010 at 15:44 | #38

    Jack Strocchi #10, I think you might have meant “Domicans” rather than “Dominicans”.

  39. March 10th, 2010 at 15:48 | #39

    Am I the first to use ‘non-core’ describing anything said under Abbott as we head to this year’s election?

  40. Grim
    March 10th, 2010 at 19:49 | #40

    smiths @26

    Well I sympathise with you, truly I do. Though I am just a little inclined to question why it took you so long – Rudd hasn’t exactly hidden behind a bushel over the previous 4 or so years. But I take it you are young (and therefore inclined to think that your disappointment is in some way significant).

    All I ask, before I shuffle off this mortal coil, is that whoever or whatever it is that runs this universe will grant me one – just one – opportunity to vote FOR some politician, rather than always AGAINST the greater evil.

  41. smiths
    March 11th, 2010 at 10:42 | #41

    well Grim, like you, i voted against at the last election,
    against Howard,
    i didnt really trust Rudd but i was prepared to give him a chance to prove my cynicism wrong,
    he didnt,
    the reason i am writing to my local labor lady is that i want them to understand that if they were true to their professed ideals my vote would be theirs,
    at heart i am a greens voter, and until the last election i have voted green each time
    as i have said here before, amongst friends of my age (36) and my family the vote is either green or labor, the tendency is strongly to the left,
    and everyone of my friends and family detest Rudd, i think that is a bad sign

  42. Grim
    March 11th, 2010 at 20:00 | #42

    smiths,

    Trouble is, it’s ALWAYS against. And especially if you’re really a Greens voter, since most of the time you’re actually voting for whichever of the major parties you score highest in your 2nd and lower preferences (other than sometimes in the Senate, of course, and even then, only for one seat per election).

    I don’t think that I detest Rudd as much as it seems you and perhaps your friends and family do, but that just may be lower initial expectations on my part. As the ancient tribal wisdom has it: “Blessed are they who expect nothing, for they shall not be disappointed”.

    Trouble with sticking to professed ideals is that in an elective autarchy like Australia, you just may not get elected very often. And you know the pronouncement of Prof Herbert Simon, of course: prolonged failure to achieve your objectives will normally result in lowering them. I instance the ALP in the ‘wilderness years’ (1949 – 1972).

    But plenty of time before the election for one or the other to truly cement their position as ‘Biggest Evil’, and therefore determine my vote. May each do his worst.

  43. Fran Barlow
    March 11th, 2010 at 20:02 | #43

    @Grim

    I’m in the same camp as you. I haven’t cast a valid vote in any election since 1977 …

  44. Grim
    March 12th, 2010 at 08:29 | #44

    @Fran Barlow

    I sometimes regret not having kept my Purity Of Essence too, but I got a little sucked into Lizard World (as popularised by Albert Langer, here if you’d like to be reminded: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/red_politics/lizard.htm – just look for the extract from ‘So Long and Thanks For All the Fish’)

  45. Alice
    March 12th, 2010 at 08:38 | #45

    Wilson Tuckey gave Tony Abbott six of the best over his great big new tax on business to fund 26 weeks paid parental leave.
    I think that means even Wilson thinks Tony isnt orthentic.

  46. Fran Barlow
    March 12th, 2010 at 09:18 | #46

    @Grim

    Indeed, though personally, I find lizards of the literal kind to be a lot better than those of yore

    I’m not as pure as I’d like to think though. In the end, if I thought my vote would make any difference, I’d be tempted to jump ship and vote for a bird, if not a lizard. The realisation that it doesn’t allows me to be a lot more ethically upstanding.

  47. Grim
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:07 | #47

    @Fran Barlow

    Yes, that’s what it comes down to, doesn’t it. My only concern has been to do my best to prevent either major party ‘owning’ the Senate. Though seeing the results (Harradine, Fielding, Xenophon etc), I sort of wonder whether I’m more a part of the problem than a part of the solution.

  48. Peter Evans
    March 12th, 2010 at 20:14 | #48

    July 1, 2011. That’s the latest possible data the L/NP can stay obstructionist in the Senate. After that, they are out of the equation.

  49. March 16th, 2010 at 10:42 | #49

    98% of the popular vote comes from voters, who are plain stupid. 2% won’t get you into office. You think Rudd is talking to you, when he addresses the nation, it is to the dumbest bastard in the country. Or a 3 three year old in the audience. You get what you deserve as long a a large part of the populace remain ambivalent. Then you Get Mc Donalds Politics. Neither Rudd nor Abbott are dumb they just know their audience

  50. March 16th, 2010 at 11:31 | #50

    authentic,

  51. March 16th, 2010 at 11:39 | #51

    Squarely towards populism re the Libs, would be an oxymoron. They were unpopular the last time. Did they get in. Kevin 07 did. On the wave of the most well conducted media hyped campaign since Whitlam. Mostly piss and wind thus far. The most benevolent of Societies are the rich ones. And there has never been a Government in all of Christian-dome that has generated wealth and or income. Governments consume. Governments should write the cheques, keep a hand on the tiller. And let the clever people get on with it.

  52. SJ
    March 16th, 2010 at 18:11 | #52

    Now Howard is getting into the act:

    John Howard tips ‘authentic’ Tony Abbott for election battle

    “Tony has a great potential to appeal to middle Australia, because he is more authentic than Rudd,” he said.

  53. Alice
    March 16th, 2010 at 20:47 | #53

    @SJ
    You mean Tony Abbott is now as orthetic as Joh Howard?? You mean a man of his very own mold? SJ – you must mean as “orthentic as Iraq”…or perhaps as “orthentic as workchoices?” or perhaps even as “orthentic as the good works of JHs productivity commission?’ Or perhapsthe good works of JH’s “welfare to work” (for women).

    Oh sorry SJ – I realise you are joking and dont have the irony alerts on. You dont mean “orthentic” at all…I think you mean something quite different…like if JH approves Tony it can only mean one thing……Tony is a???

    complete sham.

  54. Donald Oats
    March 16th, 2010 at 21:27 | #54

    So now Tony Abbott is authenticky; boy am I sure glad to hear that. And he was authenticky right up to and immediately after shafting Malcolm “Turncoat” Turnbull.
    And Nick “The Knife” Minchin is no doubt authenticky too.

    Sigh.

  55. SJ
    March 16th, 2010 at 21:29 | #55

    Alice, “authentic” is just U.S. right-wing code for “white”, or more precisely, “white male who knows how to keep women and niggers in their place”.

    The Liberal Party morons who have tried to transplant the code here are building for a massive fail.

Comments are closed.