Mungo MacCallum, Peter Garrett and Nicole Cornes
I have been re-reading Mungo MacCallum’s lazy opus “Run Johnny Run: the story of the 2004 election” in preparation of this year’s Federal Election Hottness. In case you haven’t read it, it is essentially an anecdotal history book with no footnotes, few traceable references, full of supposition, bias and the author’s personal impressions.
I have always found that Mungo’s particular style of political anecdotery is right up my alley in a way that, say, the heterosexist ramblings of Barry Cohen and other Labor Party historians/bards/tellers of lore are not. Mainly, I think, because his slight looseness with the facts is tempered by his superb production of the sorts of absolutely outrageous bons mots that make the whole experience of reading about politics on the train quite joyful. Like this assessment of Garrett, which made me laugh out loud so I thought I would share it:
But: he was still an ageing rocker, eight years older than Mark Latham and three years older than his fellow Christian, the National Party leader, John Anderson. While the youth vote, which used to support Labor but which was now increasingly alienated from politics altogether, might have heard from him, it was hardly likely to identify with him…
And indeed, the sight of Garrett on television at a Labor Party race day at Randwick, his huge bald head protuding through an improbable tie as he lurched threateningly through the crowd like a giant, rampant penis, was hardly reassuring. One felt that his appeal could well be restricted to his mother and a very specialised breed of voter.

I wonder what MacCallum will make of this year’s crop of ‘celebrity’ candidates, such as Nicole Cornes, whose apparent qualification to join the ranks of Labor women includes writing a regular column in the Adelaide Advertiser on ‘life issues’. Like this one, where she sagely dishes out advice to women about not emulating Lisa Robertson, the flight attendant who infamously joined the mile-high club with Ralph Fiennes:
If she didn’t sleep with him, he’d probably be sending her flowers right now, not to mention she’d still have her job. However, I hear Richard Branson might offer her a job with Virgin!
Men always want what they can’t have. Don’t make yourself so available if you want more from him.
and this column, where Cornes discusses the reasons behind her brave casting down of social convention in marrying an older man:
An older man knows what physically, emotionally and intellectually satisfies a woman. Although I don’t require my husband to satisfy me intellectually – that I can get from Marie Claire.
I will be sure to purchase MacCallum’s next book purely on the promise that he will write something about this, although to be honest it kind of writes itself.

anonymous (not verified) wrote:
I am reading that book at the moment and he sure does pour a bucket of diahrea on Howard. That bucket of shit don’t make the rat smell any nicer, though. The shit would help clean the lying little rodent up and the shit clustered visage of Howard is more attractive than than he normally is.
arleeshar wrote:
Such anger!
I’m thinking of declaring a site-wide moratorium on the use of the word ‘rodent’ in relation to John Howard. Thoughts?
liam wrote:
Such anger… and such coprophilia. Could a bucket of shit ever make anything smell nicer?
I don’t mind the word ‘rodent’ when used in its original context—an expression of admiration at his tenacity and determination.
Used as an epithet, it ought to be summarily punished with a spray from Mark Latham. Get your hand off it you fucking floggers.
anonymous (not verified) wrote:
Thinking of banning the word rodent as it relates to John Howard eh? Now that would not be nice, because Federal Liberal senator George Brandis would then be banned from openly expressing himself if he ever wanted to leave a comment on this blog. As he George was the one who described Howard as a “lying rodent” in Howards deception of the electorate in the children overboard affair, ( http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/31/1093938916433.html http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/01/1093939000766.html ) thus having the term go from being an internal Liberal Party term for Howard to a term widely used in the general public. I am sure George Brandis was not alone inside the Liberal Party in calling Howard a rat. Obviously it originated from within the party itself, the term rat to describe Howard, so banning it is a very regressive, Howardesque move. Apparently he also known IN THE PARTY by the charming moniker ‘cunt’, by his party ‘friends’ and ‘loyal colleagues’. Maybe we could get his second name into wider circulation as it is just as appropriate as ‘rodent’.
Post new comment