A deliberately barren case

No case to answer
Have you shared my feeling that the attack by the government and the big end of town on the opposition’s IR policy lacks substance? Can there be any doubt about this after the government's response to Senator Heffernan’s latest outrage? The Senator said that Julia Gillard, the main proponent of the opposition’s IR policy, is deliberately barren and therefore unsuitable for high office. What do government members not like about this foul mouthed utterance? Firstly and most importantly, it was simply unacceptable for anyone to say such a thing about someone else. So far so good. But then! But then!! They reveal another motive for their displeasure with their colleague: it has blunted their attack on the opposition’s IR policies. Hello? A vicious personal remark has blunted their case against an opposition policy? How is this possible? If the case against the policy consists of sound reasoning, the validity of that reasoning cannot be diminished by remarks that are irrelevant to the debate. The only way that the Senator’s remarks can have blunted their case is that their case is deliberately barren - there is no case to answer.