Andrew Bolt vs Kevin Rudd: A Total Refusal To Answer Anything

PRIME MINISTER Kevin Rudd appeared today on Andrew Bolt’s Sunday talk programme, The Bolt Report; it may be surprising that Bolt was fairly easy on Rudd, but what will surprise nobody is the fact the Prime Minister steadfastly refused to meaningfully answer any question of substance Bolt put to him.

I have to say I was disappointed by this effort; the Bolt/Rudd interview has been given a lot of hype on News Limited websites in the past few days, even to the point of being described as “confrontational at times.”

Based on the version broadcast, it was nothing of the sort.

It goes without saying that this pre-taped interview needed to be edited to fit the available airtime allocated to it on Bolt’s show, and I accept that.

But even so, there are things to be taken from Rudd’s performance.

The unruly mess (and significant loss of life) emanating from Labor’s various regimes on asylum seekers since 2008 was the result of Labor honouring a 2007 election commitment to abolish the Howard government’s Pacific Solution.

This is the facile defence Rudd used to deflect any responsibility on the ALP’s part.

He is sticking, obliquely, to his contention that Coalition policy on asylum seekers and “turning back the boats” could start a war with Indonesia.

On climate change, Rudd refuses to give any specific answer to any question mandating a response to scientific propositions Bolt put to him, or — significantly — to explain his own position on climate change when he disagreed outright with the material Bolt presented.

The Global Financial Crisis is repeatedly trotted out to hide behind whenever Bolt attempts to pin Rudd down on the ALP’s shocking record on debts.

Readers can access the full 19-minute interview here.

I really didn’t think I would find myself saying this, but Rudd clearly bested Bolt today.

Perhaps Bolt was trying too hard to keep the tone of the discussion light, or perhaps it was simply the case that there was too much ground to be covered in a relatively short time.

Either way, I expected Bolt to rip Rudd to shreds, and I suspect so too did most viewers.

He didn’t.

But it provides a very stark illustration of the type of election campaign we seem destined to endure from the ALP; lots of open and empty statements and generalisations, no detail, no admissions of error, and absolutely no accountability whatsoever.

And that’s the point.

Rudd, however much he seeks to run from it, is not only responsible for the entire six-year record of Labor in government, but must be held accountable for it.

Many of the problems caused by this government, that are now clear, originated on Rudd’s watch as Prime Minister the first time.

And rolled by Gillard he may have been, the simple truth is that Rudd voted for every decision taken and every measure implemented by Gillard — good, bad or shocking — during her Prime Ministership.

The fact the ALP is still in office at all, given the finely balanced parliamentary numbers, is sufficient to puncture any denials on Rudd’s part, direct or implied, of his explicit support for Gillard, her government, and the decisions it undertook.

Even if stories of subterranean white-anting activities, undertaken concurrently, are right.

I wasn’t looking for Bolt to tear Rudd to shreds just for the look of it; such a notion is grotesque, and doesn’t serve any purpose in terms of meaningful journalistic scrutiny.

That said, however, I expected better.

Labor generally and Rudd specifically have an awful lot to answer for, and if this is the best effort a ferociously anti-ALP identity can mount, then the coming election campaign may very well be the updated version of “Kevin ’07” most of us on the conservative side expect.


20 thoughts on “Andrew Bolt vs Kevin Rudd: A Total Refusal To Answer Anything

  1. Your glib appraisal “The unruly mess (and significant loss of life) emanating from Labor’s various regimes on asylum seekers since 2008 was the result of Labor honouring a 2007 election commitment to abolish the Howard government’s Pacific Solution.” fails to acknowledge the years of bipartisan policy when the WW 2 was fresh on everybody’s mind. The core value of Australians know that we have responsibilities in the theatres of war in which we enter which includes settling the displaced. It was Howard’s cowardliness and cruelty that changed all that.
    Laurie Keim

    • Hi Laurie (and welcome — I don’t think we’ve seen you here before).

      Just a couple of points in answer to your comment:

      1. I may have summarised “The unruly mess (and significant loss of life)…” but the point is that Rudd himself repeatedly used the “honouring an election commitment” excuse as a fallback to avoid any responsibility for anything that has happened on the Labor Party’s watch.

      2. You make a reasonable point about WWII and resettling displaced persons Australia has responsibilities to help resettle in conflicts we have been involved with. Even so, a huge proportion of boat arrivals are/have been from places like Sri Lanka and Iran (countries in which we have never been involved in conflict) and in any case, many asylum seekers overall (irrespective of where they originate) are not refugees but so-called “economic migrants.” There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. Paying people smugglers to attempt to “jump the queue” and come to Australia by boat — destroying identity documents along the way — is the wrong way.

      And 3. We may differ on whether Howard was “cowardly and cruel.” I certainly don’t think he was. There is ample evidence that a significant majority of the electorate do not favour an open border-style free-for-all in which boat arrivals are guaranteed access to mainland Australia, and then use the fact they are on Australian soil as ammunition in Court to attempt to win legal determinations they can stay. Tactics like incinerating their temporary accommodation and sewing their mouths shut are appalling tactics that should never be capitulated to. The Greens advocate along those lines, which is why they will be lucky to break into the double figures this year in terms of their percentage of the vote.

      Finally, if Howard was “cowardly and cruel,” what is Rudd for attempting to sell the line that no asylum seeker will ever be allowed to settle in Australia if arriving by boat? What of the PNG government’s increasing openness about the fact very few (if any) arriving persons sent there for processing will actually be resettled there? If you want to call Howard’s program draconian, Rudd’s MUST be regarded as more so. What are your thoughts?

  2. IMHO, I thought Andrew Bolt did a great job, as Kevin Rudd was refusing to answer some of the questions.

  3. ‘Core values of Australians know’….WTF does that mean? These boat people must have had serious money to get here. Their costs would have included…1. Cost of exiting their own country. 2. Air fares to Indonesia. 3. Cost of living in Indonesia for an extended period, including all of the bribes they would have to pay. 4. Payment to people smugglers – around $10k per person. So a family of 4 would need to have had a lazy $60 to $70 thousand dollars to get here. Genuine refugees they are not – they are illegal queue jumpers who are costing Australia billions. They are also jumping ahead of the true, stateless refugees held in terrible conditions in refugee camps around the world who need our help.

    • Core? I do recall a retarded gimp from sydney that suggested ‘non-core’ is this any different? Ha thought not. Oh when are the retarded hillbilly nats going to learn, that they have NO sway in this country, and walk away from the retarded rabble that is, the soon to be dismissed conservative party.

  4. Yale ,Have a listen to Krudds answer 11min into The Bolt Report. He says ‘ The second source of authority is the Prime Minister of Australia’ in response to climate change. Unbelievable.

    • Hi Robert, I think he said “the second source of authority AS the Prime Minister of Australia is the CSIRO.” Even so, it doesn’t make any sense — just more grandiose, grandstanding bullshit from Rudd to rub in the fact he’s PM to whoever is in earshot.

      Incidentally, if the CSIRO is the second source of authority, it would be anyway irrespective of whether Rudd were PM or not. The guy is so obsessed with his own ego he can’t even master simple grammar…

      • Yes Yale. I think he meant to say AS but it came out IS. A stammering grammar mistake.I agree .sorry.

    • He stated that there are 2 authorities, one being the IPCC, the other being CSIRO. Rudd never says the PM himself should be an authority.

      • Notice that he never gave the IPCC its correct name. He constantly said “International” instead of “Intergovernmental” panel

  5. I don’t blame Andrew Bolt for seeming to ‘go easy’ on this hustler.
    As I have often explained to my wife, it is impossible to carry a rational discussion with someone who is totally irrational.
    Fundamentally, the Ruddy spin revolved around three cleverly disguised misconceptions.
    The first pertains to illegal immigration. Rudd flatly denies being aware of the warnings from various agencies about his policy, without even a blush. Then he goes on to maintain that the failure of his fledgling PNG policy will succeed, given time. He then insists that if we do not allow illegal immigration boats passage into Australian ports, the smugglers will scuttle them. Nowhere does he admit that as a sovereign nation we have every right, and the government a responsibility, to maintain border security. If this were not the case, why would any sovereign nation have a navy? There have been an unknown number of drownings due to the ALP’s policy, but they certainly number more than a thousand, and I suggest that it is possibly two thousand. If a boat or two were scuttled, it would not be any worse. To continue with this insanity guarantees more drownings anyhow. He slyly refuses to answer the estimated cost of his folly, and insists that his plan was that it would take months to show results. What nonsense!
    Then he has the unmitigated gall to suggest that by wasting $50 billion dollars he “averted” the GFC. There is no evidence that this is the case whatsoever. Keynsian economics is flawed to start with, but at least borrowing in order to build infrastructure leaves something worthwhile to show for it. What did he and Swan procure with this collateral that exists today?
    His justification for the destructive tax on air is that “climate change is happening”. Where? What are the symptoms? Where is the evidence? His argument is based on two logical fallacies. The first is argumentum ad publicum; everybody knows, so it must be true. This is the same argument used in the dark ages to justify witch trials and the Inquisition. The second is argumentum ad veracundiam; the call to authority. The claim about the corrupt IPCC consisting of four thousand ‘scientists’ is demonstrably false. The IPCC is political and has nothing to do with science. The so-called “scientists” are activists employed by the WWF and Greenpeace. Regardless of the constructions of these activists, nothing is published until edited by five individuals namely Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, and Tom Wigley. The Climategate emails betray these individuals for their lies and cheating. Investigative journalist Donna LaFramboise has exposed the extent of the corruption in the fake “peer review” process often defended by the train engine driver that runs the IPCC. The CSIRO, which depends on the Commonwealth government for funding, has a poor reputation in this field. Rudd says he “believes them because he pays them”. Yet previous employees insist that CSIRO’s activities in the realm of climate is disgusting.
    Then Rudd tries the same nonsense as the gormless Anna Rose. “Are you a ‘climate scientist’ Andrew?” Where did this silly term come from? It became popular at some stage to reference anything technically challenging as “rocket science”. There is no such thing as “rocket science” unless it is in the world of finance. The people who design rockets are for the most part engineers (applied scientists) of a variety of disciplines. Hence, when global warming was obviously a bust and the IPCC adopted the nebulous ‘climate change’ I suppose someone decided that it would further con the public by inventing the term “climate science” which is apparently some sort of voodoo performed by “climate scientists”. The extremely complicated system that governs the climate of planet Earth necessarily involves many disciplines including geology, mathematics, physics, and palaeontology. The disciplines that are best prepared to study and understand it are meteorologists and atmospheric physicists. It would take several lifetimes of study to become sufficiently qualified in all of the fields involved to pretend to be a “climate scientist”. Few universities offer such a degree. Those that do, such as the University of East Anglia, boast a simple curriculum that obviously prepares a person to be an activist with sufficient jargon that they can seem to have knowledge.
    It is completely unnerving that there are people alive in this country that will accept the snake oil that this Rudd shyster peddles. God help us all.

  6. Addendum:
    Regardless of the complexity of Earth and her climate control, it requires very little to understand the scam of CAGW.
    “Global Warming”………Never do we discuss the temperature in terms of one hundredths or tenths of one degree. If the forecast for Hobart is 12 degrees, it is never stated as 11.75 degrees, or 12.10 degrees. All the scary graphs that the alarmists distribute are purposely misleading. Since 1850 the average air at surface temperature has increased by at most eight tenths of one degree. Displayed graphically and rounded to one degree, it is a straight, flat line. We live in an interglacial, and since the last significant drop in temperature called the “Little Ice Age”, between 1550 and 1850. It is understandable that the trend is upward, albeit less than a degree.
    Anthropegenic………..If the cause were human activity, the only connection is the colourless, odourless, tasteless trace gas carbon dioxide, emitted when fossil fuels are burned. Since this has by and large been the case since the Industrial Revolution, and has affected average temperature by less than a degree, it is foolish to suggest that it is the cause.
    Catastrophic…………..Atmospheric temperatures are controlled by Earth’s natural systems even though solar cycles have long been recognised which cause slight increases and decreases. One such cycle has a period of on thousand years. At the apex of this cycle, mankind thrives. Examples include the Egyptian Old Kingdom, the Minoan, the Roman, and the Medieval warming. At the nadir, when temperatures trend a few degrees colder, mankind suffers. Unfortunately, there is far more evidence that the apex of this cycle peaked on schedule at the millennium, and that the nadir is some five hundred years hence. While no one can predict the future, the cyclical nature of our sun suggests that mankind will consider the current warmth with affection for the next few centuries.
    Climate change……While climates changes naturally over eons of geologic time, ask yourself if there is any location on the planet that has experienced a change in climate since 1850? Was it cold at the poles, and warm at the equator? Did the great deserts of today exist in 1850, and the productive plains of cereal crop production? It is a nonsense dreamed up to compensate for the fact that ‘global warming’ could not be demonstrated.

  7. When is that retard abbott going to grow a pair and go on Q&A? Oh, thats correct, gina owns the ‘pair’ so, we will never see the turd disgrace itself further. The election is over. Rudd wins. abbott fails twice I expect its head to explode. There will be rejoicing, and much laughter.

  8. My goodness, obviously there is more than one Andrew Bolt…
    To paraphrase King Kevin…
    1. Andrew Bolt was bending over backwards to be polite to this….person…. even though KK kept speaking over him…
    2. King Kevin didn’t answer one single question…
    I thought there would have been bloodshed- but look closer, I think Andrew got his point across.

    Some Prime Minister …

  9. I thought Bolt burnt valuable minutes trying to argue the validity of climate change with the PM. It was time better spent attacking the specific backflips, contradictions and failures of Rudd/Labor. While Bolt has strong anti-warmist convictions (with which I am not unsympathetic), he should have kept his hobby horse stabled on this occasion. The election will not be fought on the validity of climate change theories, and in any case he was never going to have enough time on such a complex subject to score any real hits. Moreover handpicked quotes from scientists supportive of his view were always going to be deflected with a simple parry: “the majority says otherwise”.

  10. The sheer stupidity and hate of the conservative comments here, clearly shows why Labor will be returned with an increased vote. The conservatives only have their hate, their 3 word slogans, their “no, no, no, no , no” …….. plus …….. the longest dummy spit in political history. How will Turnbull get them out of this mess they’re in, when he becomes opposition leader after the election? He’s got a really BIG job on his hands.

  11. I thought Kevin Rudd did well. Not sure how many other extremists he plans to chat with, as ultimately they’re a waste of time. Whether its Bolt or extreme left elements, what’s the point?

    • Welcome David, yes I am no friend of Rudd’s at all but you have to give credit where it’s due — Rudd won that one easily. My disappointment stems from the fact that there is ample evidence to convict Rudd (and Labor) with, but someone with the reputation for fearlessness that Bolt has should have done better. Stuffing around with ultimately minute points over the vagaries of climate change is hardly the way to conduct an effective interview, and you’re right — some of the Lefties who do the same thing to Coalition politicians are no better. I wonder what Kerry O’Brien is doing in August? 🙂

    • Andrew Bolt is an EXTREMIST??? In what universe do you live?
      How about Freidrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises, or Murray Rothbard and Hans Hermann Hoppe?
      Or Bastiat or Ayn Rand?
      Do you brand any sheep that does not buy in to the status quo an extremist?
      If you are a student of history, you might well conclude, after reading Sir Henry Parkes, and Sir Edmund Barton, that were they alive today they would brand Brown, Milne, Gillard, Conroy, and Rudd, in rank order, “extremist socialists”. Possibly even Turnbull, Hunt, and Abbott would be extremists from their viewpoint. Federation was intended to be a lasso binding the states together; not a government of tyrants licenced to steal from the general public.

Comments are closed.