SA Footy

1982

US forces give the nod, its a setback for your country
Bombs and trenches all in rows, bombs and threats still ask for more
Divided world the cia, who controls the issue



2007

LABOR frontbencher and former Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett says he fully supports his party's endorsement of a new US military communications base planned for Western Australia.

WTF?

Sojourner wrote:1982

US forces give the nod, its a setback for your country
Bombs and trenches all in rows, bombs and threats still ask for more
Divided world the cia, who controls the issue



2007

LABOR frontbencher and former Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett says he fully supports his party's endorsement of a new US military communications base planned for Western Australia.

WTF?

Was pretty funny when Alexander Downer started reciging the words to US Forces.

That's the difference between someone like Garrett and someone like Jane Lomax-Smith.
Jane will tow the line no matter what her partie's stance is on something. She has credibility.
Garret's just another career orientated politician willing to throw a lifetimes stances out the window. He has no credibility.

I think he is allowed to change his mind? havent we all done that at some stage? 25 years is a long time

Dutchy wrote:I think he is allowed to change his mind? havent we all done that at some stage? 25 years is a long time

Yeah, but most of us would have the integrity to not let our "employer" change our mind for us hence the comparison with Jane Lomax-Smith.

Dutchy wrote:I think he is allowed to change his mind? havent we all done that at some stage? 25 years is a long time

Dutchy I like Midnight Oil, their music and how they convey their message but its not 25 years, he was sprouting the rhetoric in 2002 at the Capricornia concerts in Darwin....

Jane Lomax-Smith is under a "slightly" less blowtorch than Peter Garrett in the total scheme of things.

McAlmanac wrote:Jane Lomax-Smith is under a "slightly" less blowtorch than Peter Garrett in the total scheme of things.

Agreed, but integrity is integrity in my book and seeing as Jane's a North supporter she has plenty of it.

Two words for Garrett, opportunist hypocrite. If Jane Lomax Smith really had integrity she would resign her cabinet post and go to the backbench and express her opinions there. Rann should have sacked her, but allowing her to express her "integrity" might just get enough champagne socialists who are against ANY DEVELOPMENT to vote for her and retain the seat of Adelaide for the ALP.

Two words for Garrett, opportunist hypocrite (he's right up there with Bono). If Jane Lomax Smith really had integrity she would resign her cabinet post and go to the backbench and express her opinions there. Rann should have sacked her, but allowing her to express her "integrity" might just get enough champagne socialists who are against ANY DEVELOPMENT to vote for her and retain the seat of Adelaide for the ALP.

Two words for Garrett, opportunist hypocrite. If Jane Lomax Smith really had integrity she would resign her cabinet post and go to the backbench and express her opinions there. Rann should have sacked her, but allowing her to express her "integrity" might just get enough champagne socialists who are against ANY DEVELOPMENT to vote for her and retain the seat of Adelaide for the ALP. As far as Jane being a North Supporter..........guess what electorate takes in a large part of the traditional North supporter base?

Christ what happened here

mick wrote:Two words for Garrett,

.....and 3 posts for mick

..

One thing to recognise about the difference between the Labor and Liberal Parties is that Liberal politicians in theory dont have to vote with the party, although if you do vote against a bill, you need to have some good reasons why if you dont want to lose your preselection next time! The Labor party have no such agreement and you have to vote with the party on the vote that the party leadership says. If it is a Yes vote to arse kiss to the U.S government, you have no choice but to vote yes - As Peter Garrett has clearly discovered and affirmed.

I thought it was pretty funny that Brendan "I have never voted Liberal - I never would vote Liberal" Nelson had a go at Garrett.
Politicians....unbelievable.

Wedgie wrote:
That's the difference between someone like Garrett and someone like Jane Lomax-Smith.
Jane will tow the line no matter what her partie's stance is on something. She has credibility.
Garret's just another career orientated politician willing to throw a lifetimes stances out the window. He has no credibility.

Toeing the line no matter what = credibility???

Oh dear....

Sojourner wrote:One thing to recognise about the difference between the Labor and Liberal Parties is that Liberal politicians in theory dont have to vote with the party, although if you do vote against a bill, you need to have some good reasons why if you dont want to lose your preselection next time! The Labor party have no such agreement and you have to vote with the party on the vote that the party leadership says. If it is a Yes vote to arse kiss to the U.S government, you have no choice but to vote yes - As Peter Garrett has clearly discovered and affirmed.

Spot on there isn't much room for dissenters in the ALP, I would call it a limited democracy. In the ALP the PM or Premier is told by the factions who he or she is to have in cabinet. I personally think the US has the right idea, the President can pick people outside of politics and even a different political persuasion to be in cabinet, although this has worked too well with Bush as his advice has been very poor.

With regard to Garrett and Lomax Smith I see them both as minority party people, where you can do your own thing. They are highly pricipled perhaps, but forced into the discipline that major political parties demand. I've been amazed they have been able to tow "party line" for so long. It will be interesting to see how Garrett will go if the ALP gets elected, he will have enormous pressure when that happens.

Dutchy wrote:I think he is allowed to change his mind? havent we all done that at some stage? 25 years is a long time

Writing a song like that is more than an opinion Dutchy. It is a statement, a passion and a deep down gut wrenching feeling that time should never change.

Unfortunately I've lost all respect for Peter Garrett. Watch him now as he changes his opinion, thoughts and messages from other Oils songs to suit Labor party policy and direction. He is on the way to becomming the typical bullshit party politician and will sell out just like all the others.

While we're talking about shadow Ministers, how about this article from the Age on the weekend about Ruddock.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hypocrites-breaking-our-law-at-every-turn/2007/02/17/1171405502477.html

I wonder what he really thinks

I think he sold his soul with the cigarettes to the black market man