He's a popular Australian columnist and radio commentator, this and has his own blog.

Australia's most visited blog in fact.



Apparently our strident Andrew Bolt isn't entitled to his own opinion, on his own blog...well according to Bob Brown who has nominated himself Gillards keeper and PR assistant so it seems.

The thing is, the vocal left hold Giillard just as accountable for the tragic boat affair as do the probably less vocal right....but do you see Bob Brown requesting their resignations or their web-sites pulled in accordance with their views?

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46401


When it's become clear...


"DO as we say, not as we do"

I don't agree with all Bolt writes/says, but I do happen to think he's right on the mark about allot of what he writes.

Andrew Bolt thrashes issues your more conventional (MSM) columnists, journalists wont...which is probably why he's so loved here in Australia.

He's an aussey patriot and larriken at heart...and knows much of what he talks about.

What's not to love about Andrew the bold?

He's one of my favourites.

codswal wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 4:32pm:


The very fact that Bolt is masquerading as a journalist is the problem. Bolt is subverting the chain of cause and effect to suit his political ends. To claim Gillard "has blood on her hands" is to make Gillard responsible for the weather, rough seas, rocks, crappy boats, the people on the aforementioned boat, and the smugglers. Where is the responsibility of those on the boat? and the smugglers? How can anyone be blamed for bad weather? Miss Anne Dryst couldn't answer this question and departed from this discussion once she had to contemplate using logic, rather than an aversion for someone (gillard).
Logic 101: having an aversion for something does not make that something responsible for the act in question. Are you intellectually honest? Or are you, like many others here, passing off your hatred for Gillard as if that amounts to any to anything when one epistemologically examines the chain of cause and effect?
If Gillard is responsible for this incident, then, using Bolt's own unique brand of "logic", Bolt is responsible for the deaths of innocents in the Iraq war.

George wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 4:50pm:


No. You need to look at how Bolt "reasons" his position.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 5:40pm:


The very fact that Bolt is masquerading as a journalist is the problem. Bolt is subverting the chain of cause and effect to suit his political ends. To claim Gillard "has blood on her hands" is to make Gillard responsible for the weather, rough seas, rocks, crappy boats, the people on the aforementioned boat, and the smugglers. Where is the responsibility of those on the boat? and the smugglers? How can anyone be blamed for bad weather? Miss Anne Dryst couldn't answer this question and departed from this discussion once she had to contemplate using logic, rather than an aversion for someone (gillard).
Logic 101: having an aversion for something does not make that something responsible for the act in question. Are you intellectually honest? Or are you, like many others here, passing off your hatred for Gillard as if that amounts to any to anything when one epistemologically examines the chain of cause and effect?
If Gillard is responsible for this incident, then, using Bolt's own unique brand of "logic", Bolt is responsible for the deaths of innocents in the Iraq war. [/quote]



hey you cant have it both ways... if you want every word spoken/written taken as gospel.. then it has to go for everyone..'

Blood on her Hands... in fact meant responsibilty for the boat being in our waters in the first place.

if the govt isnt responsible who should be????...

was the capt of the Navy ship asleep at the wheel when they slipped past??

so we can blame him... how about Smith the defence force minister isnt he responsible for the Navy

you see we need someone to step up and accept responsibility, something this Labor govt finds very hard to do.

govts are there to make decisions that we cant make.. that includes going to war, or not going to war.

in this case this govt chose to cancel the pacific solution, that was working, as best anything like that could work.

but they saw a vote in their decision, and they took it.. stopped some voting green I believe.

now whether it was right or wrong. is anyones guess. but from where I sit.. it was this very action that increased the boat activity. nothing else just that very act.

and the boats started coming in all shapes.no matter what the risks...

with the end result being what we have seen this week.we should count our lucky stars this hasnt happened over and over again.

but dont blame the messenger..and dont twist it all around to say.. well yes we can hold you responsible.

Bolt/ we dont make these decisions.  we pay someone higher to do that

codswal wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 4:50pm:


I would call him a columnist - he is a talented writer and uses humour very well (not always intentionally).

To me a journalist should be able to pass the journalists ethics tests and in my opinion a writer who is so obviously biased and incapable of objectivity does not qualify.

darkhall67 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2010 at 4:34pm:


Forget it mate. Some of these people wouldn't know journalism if it smacked them right between the eyes.