Now on this day of troubled polls, and uncertain policies, and talk of DDs, and fluttering futtering agile Malware futility, it would have been exceptionally remiss of the pond not to notice the valiant attempt of the wall puncher to stay in the public eye ...
First up, the obvious question. Are the reptiles choosing wisely with that hero shot of Abbott in demonic glare mode?
Couldn't they find a more engaging, human snap, one which invites the readership to bond?
Oh okay, maybe not, maybe it's too hard, maybe the smouldering, glowering, grim, 'in your face', you 'lookin' at me punk?' glare is the right one ...
But now it's on to the text, which the pond could write in its sleep.
We must be ready to shirt front someone, we must be ready to punch a wall, we must be ready to do violence. We must tackle China, we must destroy Putin, we must be at war in the middle east... and with a decent set of gimmicks so that real warriors have the best set of toys with which to pose ...
Oh okay, the pond is just delaying the moment, but that's because there's really only one point to the read.
How many times will "Abbott" be referenced, preferably in a third person way, as might the Queen or some royal?
You know, some idle chatter about the "Abbott government", in some preening, boastful, desperate way designed to enhance the memories and burnish the legend ...
Now the pond confesses to being a tad disappointed with this beginning.
Oh sure there's the requisite war-mongering, and the 'be alert and be alarmed' words of wisdom, and the boots on the ground mantra, and the need to be ready to shirtfront Putin and to crash tackle China - perhaps a coathanger would be better? -and to take out the caliphate, with a follow up stiff arm, since even at this very moment the caliphate threatens to swamp Newtown, but where was the Abbott hagiography?
Must try harder, must do better ...
Oh that's much better, each of the last three pars has an Abbott reference, including a very cute joke about Abbott-proof fencing.
Now the pond must commend this agile student, always on the hop, but there are further areas for improvement. For example, surely the header could have read "Why the Abbott government beefed up defence ... and why we need to follow Abbott, in maintaining the beefing-up of defence."
Sure, it's a little prolix, but how else to stand on a wonderful shirt-fronting, onion-munching record.
And it's always wise to introduce the key theme in the opening paragraph, before enlarging the argument and then re-stating it in the conclusion.
Then the opening lines could have read "It's good that ministers have been told to stop spending because the Turnbull government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, unlike the Abbott government, which had no problems at all. The forthcoming, reconstructed Abbott government will demonstrate that the solution to spending problems is to spend more on defence by importing goods from manufacturing countries - Japan please ready your subs, United States please get the Malware ready - in a way that uniquely avoids a spending problem ..."
The niceties of the argument can then be teased out in the body of the text.
The pond suggests that in future exercises, the writer be diligent and make a point of mentioning Abbott or the Abbott government in the key entry points ... even the splash would have benefited from a little humour, such as "We need to beef up Tony, so here's his beef about beefing up defence."
The pond has always found that politicians who deploy this deprecating sense of humour and sharp wit will eventually be returned to government leadership ... witness the invigorating sense of humour always on display in Chairman Rudd ...
Oh dear, did clicking heels and speaking of the former Chairman result in this?
But no, the pond can't be bothered going there this day ... those who want their fill of the dog botherer can find it ... and they can snigger as much as they like at the sanctimonious Kenny rabbiting on about editorial standards as if he had the first clue what they might be or what they might mean ...
Others who can remember Chris Uhlmann writing for the reptiles as if he's the ABC's political editor, rather than expressing personal views, can chortle and marvel at the dog botherer's line about those at the ABC "who understand their roles, try to keep their politics out of their work and impose high standards of editorial integrity..."
Sheesh, if that were the case, why would anyone at the ABC be allowed to have anything at all to do with the Murdochians ...?
And so to a couple of cartoons and more cartoons here.