Ex-Prime Minister, Paul Keating, labels Paddy McGuinness a ‘fraud and a liar’ on the eve of Paddy’s funeral. Keating has always (quote) ‘made it a rule never to speak ill of the dead; to not criticise someone who can no longer respond to the criticism’ but on this occasion has made an exception because Paddy failed to recognise all that Keating had done for Australia.
Indeed, to Keating, McGuinness had an ‘intellectually corrupt mind that was all over the shop depending on what suited his miserable purposes at the time’.
Keating’s own way with the truth in relation to McGuinness are pointed out by Kate McClymont.
There are some stinker ex-Liberal PMs – Malcolm Fraser probably the worst – but Keating takes some beating in the Labor stakes. Would he have made these sorts of remarks while McGuinness was alive? If not then why wait until now? These statements say more about Keating than McGuinness.
This is a decent obituary. Paddy's funeral is today.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Harry,
you are well behind the times and obviously have no idea of how this fued originated.
Keating being Keating indeed state it to his face.
you glossed over Carr's piece which essentially backed up Keating without the spleen.
I think Lord Paddy would have done the same to Keating if the roles were reversed knowing Lord Paddy.
He did go quite batty in old age.shame givenhe was our best economics editor
Paddy was not my favourite conservative commentor. I don't think he was 'batty'.
But I think this outburst by Keating does say a lot about Keating and the exaggerated idea he takes of his own importance.
The Carr comments were strong but reasoned.
But I think this outburst by Keating does say a lot about Keating and the exaggerated idea he takes of his own importance.
He's a coward. He was always a bully, but now he's a coward. And he wonders why the country got rid of him and were happy to see the end of this creature.
jc
When Australia intervened in East Timor in 1999, McGuinness wrote, in all seriousness, that Indonesia would now invade Australia, and it would be justified if they did.
He was not merely batty. He was nuts.
The author of the so-called decent obituary just can't help himself, putting in the regulation dig about Quadrant receiving some financial support from the CIA decades before Paddy became editor, as if it had anything to do with Paddy.
I'd like to see the text of the East Timor reference Spiros talks about. However I can tell you that on September 9, 1999, the luvvie publication, the SMH, advocated in its main editorial that Australia unilaterally invade East Timor well before John Howard was able to persuade the UN to take some action.
Spiros
Do you have a link to that Timor intervention quote or are you referring to PP's statement (SMH, 11/09/99) that if Indonesia invaded Australia, the ABC would be to blame?
Seems like a different thing to me and certainly doesn't justify Keating's bilious outpourings this week.
Paddy was only ever half a man, and then a fraction again as a writer.
Keating writes about Keating, and Keating's contribution to the Keating Australian Keating economy.
But Paddy was still rubbish, by any standard.
Procrustes,
"if Indonesia invaded Australia, the ABC would be to blame"
And that isn't nuts?
McGuinness also defended the Indonesians after the Dili massacre of 1991. He just couldn't help himself.
By the way, this habit by some people, who never met him, of calling him Paddy, as if they were close friends, is weird and somewhat creepy.
Spiros
So where's your quote that Indonesia would be justified in invading Australia?
Found it yet?
Spiros, this habit of making unattributed assertions about Paddy's views is one thing I find creepy. Unless you can show your sources I really can't place any credence in what you say. This is an honest request - I'd be intrigued to see the sources for your assertions.
Also, people have called him Paddy for decades - I remember chortling with my workmates over his AFR editorials in the early/mid 1980s and someone would always remark something along the lines that "it must have been another two bottle night for Paddy".
Procustes, if you can point me to an on line archive of what he wrote at the time, I'll look it up. If not, you'll have to take my word for it.
Didn't your mother tell you it's rude to call people by the first name unless they give you permission?
Spiros
The burden of proof rests with you.
I usually look forward to a Paul Keating fusillade, both because they usually score bullseyes on their targets and because of their colourful metaphors. He has a great instinct for where the weaknesses are in an opponent's position, and expresses himself in delightfully inventive language (a true example of the richness of Aussie working class argot).
But this column was very disappointing. PP McGuiness' behaviour certainly gave enough fuel for specific criticisms without resorting to a stream of vague abuse. The rant had little of substance and even less inventiveness in it.
Interesting to read Keatings comments on Paddy McGuinness. More interesting seems to be the lack of commentary from Keating regarding Suharto. Where are the critical words on this occassion?
Post a Comment