We’ve been debating whether to write an editorial comment about SA Premier Mike Rann’s current predicament (in the form of a most inconvenient former friend who keeps popping up at parties and awkwardly, on radio …) — but we now defer to this letter from Crikey reader Charles F Kane, who put it best:
When Grahame Dudley writes that he’s “totally disinterested in (Mike Rann’s) private life”, he misses the point. It’s also beside the point that personally, I love a salacious scandal.
So what is the point? Well it’s Rann’s honesty, or otherwise. Rann went on record immediately after Chantelois alleged they’d had sexual intercourse, and denied that claim.
But … if nothing happened, why was Chantelois’ husband so upset that he whacked Rann with a newspaper? If nothing happened, why didn’t Rann sue Chantelois for defamation? If nothing happened, why is Chantelois so publicly and repeatedly asserting that it did? If nothing happened, why would Chantelois go through multiple polygraphs on topic? If nothing happened, why was Channel Seven’s statement of 14 February so glaring in what it didn’t say?
Adulterous politicians are one thing. But lying politicians are another.
In this case, we have to concur with Citizen Kane.
Nooooooooooo
I couldn’t give a damn even if he is lying. As far as I am concerned if he wants to lie to cover for something that is none of our business (being this is his private life, and has cheated on noone, unlike Chantelois) I really couldn’t care less. It’s not like Clinton, who lied *under oath* about his various affairs.
My suspicion is that Chantelois will disappear into obscurity as soon as the election is over, and the Liberal party shadow men have lost interest in dragging her around to public events. Her 15 minutes have dragged on too long as it is.
It’s reminds me of the old joke… How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
Crikey, this is bloody ridiculous … and the first time I’ve written in. I frequently defend Crikey as serious journalism and not a gossip monger . but today’s lead has me now wondering. None of that crap matters about whether she has taken lie detectors and is insistent etc , its his private life and should be of no concern to us. What consenting adults do in private is their business.
This is just chapter one of “Are you being served?”
But Crikey’s right John Griffin- and so is C. F* Kane, it’s about honesty in public life. Rann isn’t (yet) Joe Randyman next door, he’s premier of the city-state of churches.
Clinton lied everywhere about his affairs, under oath, under duress and under Hillary…Senator John Edwards, photographed holding a baby, denied that he knew the baby. (“What baby? This isn’t a baby, and if it is, I’ve never met it before”).
Rann admits to flirting. I feel a John Edwards coming on…
So you agree with “Citizen Kane” who was a failure of a human being pining for a childhood bob sley called rosebud on his deathbed? ….
I think it get it. The Old Media like Ch7 want to know in this time of web 2.0 that they can still fatally beat up a politician, even a 2nd string state premier on a tenth order issue of sexual honesty, to feel reassured about their own traditional power. Even if it’s the exception that proves the rule the old empire is crumbling away: Witness Peter Garrett aka Batt Man is still there regardless of News Corp etc.
So why exactly is Crikey doing the networks dirt for them?