- Joined
- Jun 19, 2006
- Posts
- 6,698
- Likes
- 9,499
- AFL Club
- Geelong
A number of those involved have now stated that she was actively canvassing support for a tilt at the PM position up to a month before the trigger was pulled.
For somebody who accepts that all politicians lie you're very willing to take a politician's statement as gospel truth when it fits your narrative. No matter that the person spilling the beans has a vested interest in doing so or that they likely wouldn't have known what they're saying anyway.
Who else? Tanner? Anybody without obvious bias who would likely have actually known?
Here's Richo who has a very different opinion:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ng-to-oust-kevin/story-fnfenwor-1226505623136
Is his opinion worth much? Well he's constantly criticised Gillard since she took the reigns so he's hardly standing up for his nearest and dearest. Would he have that sort of knowledge? Well considering he's one of the best known Labor figures in the media and a former factional player I'd say he'd have a fair idea.
So why should we take McKew's version, which is undoubtedly biased and likely ignorant over a conflicting account that comes from a less biased source (either way) and somebody more likely to have the knowledge they claim?
