I read the same things into Meg Howard's (I love that!) utterances as
you did. There is a pattern here. Hmmm, using tax to get the message across
on she would like people to behave...thou shalt eat healthy food is another
expression of how tax was used.
I'm afraid I'm just as cynical about her commitment to 'core values'
as you are since she didn't need much persuading to betray them even though
she was holding all the cards.
Nope, I think the whiff of power corrupted very thoroughly.
Natasha demonstrated that her principles weren't for sale and even
if she never makes leader, I believe she will last longer and have far
more influence in the long run.
Trudy
tim dunlop wrote:
Hi Suzie, No, no offence taken, definitely not. I might have misinterpreted what Lees said but I didn't take the quotes out of context - apart from anything, I provided the entire article so people could read them in the context in which I read them. As well, the overall context is that they are the comments by someone who I think - and a lot of other people think - has to some extent betrayed her "core values" in allowing the GST through without further modification. I guess I'm just not willing to cut her much slack at the moment. As I say, the comments might be open to a different interpretation, but I'm afraid I read "we will have major problems" as a pretty equivocal statement, and given her willingness to "deal", and her willingness to rescind even categorical statements (as in her partial capitulation over books, for eg), I'm very wary of anything she says that has the slightest whiff of compromise. My equating of her expression "core values" with Howard's expression "core promises" is fair enough, I think. Howard used this as a fudge for explaining why he kept some post-1996 election promises and broke others - it was a classic piece of political doublespeak. And it seems to me, Lees is doing something very similar - she acknowledges that she has had to compromise her position in negotiating the GST (which is just another way of saying, she didn't do what she said she'd do) so she can longer say she stuck to her principles (even she admits that) so she has to find another way of talking about values that doesn't contradict the fact that she has compromised herself but that still lets her talk about having values - thus is born the expression, "core values". If there is no fudge in using such an expression, then why doesn't she just say "values"? Or perhaps she can explain the difference between "values" and "core values". As I say, given her recent performance, I'm not willing to cut her any slack and to my ears (eyes) "core values" sounds too much like "core promises" and is full of the same sort of deceit. So again, I admit her comments might be open to a different interpretation, but I don't think I took her out of context and I do think that what she said supports the sort of implications I was drawing - at least prima facie. Anyway, I guess she can prove me wrong over the next few years by the way she uses the balance of power in the Senate. And I agree with you - Natasha would be preferable. Cheers Tim -----Original Message-----
From: Frac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, July 02, 1999 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] Meg Howard
>Dear Tim,
>
>Don't take this wrong now, but I think you've taken Meg Lees' comments out
>of context, and the text doesn't support your implications. I'm not a Lees
>fan; 'Tasha's my kind of gal, but I believe we hurt our cause more than help
>it by falling into the same trap of misrepresentation as do the Libs don't
>you? So let's be fair here and not hang Lees for what she *didn't* say and
>stick to hanging her for that which she *has said or done*.
>
>cheers,
>
>Suzie
>
>
>>Meg Lees makes some Interesting comments in the article below (reproduced
>from the newsclips):
>>
>>Senator Lees said "it is through tax that we get messages across about how
>we would like people to behave".
>
>>"We will have major problems with any watering down of human rights, and
>any erosion of environmental powers. Our bottom line on our core values
>remains intact. Nothing has changed ..."
>>
>>Core values?! She really has been spending too much time with Howard. And
>I'm all sure we're all glad to hear she will have "major problems" with
>watering down human rights. "Major problems" doesn't exactly sound like the
>same thing as "we will never water down human rights". Maybe they aren't a
>core value?
>>
>>Tim
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/
>To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
>of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
>This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the
>copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair
>use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without
>permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
>
>RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
>
