Andrew Bolt: Bolt: K-Rudd has once again talked himself into strife with the US

While it’s amusing to see Australia’s media left look puzzled and mock-shocked by Trump’s whack at wacky Kevin Rudd as our ambassador in Washington, Anthony Albanese now faces a diplomatic crisis.

Anthony Albanese’s “captain’s pick” has blown up in his face. If only he’d listened to Penny Wong telling him no, please don’t make your mate Kevin Rudd our ambassador in Washington.

And now Prime Minister Albanese faces a diplomatic crisis because former PM Rudd really is a megalomaniacal blow-hard with a big mouth, who has once again talked himself into strife.

Wong, our foreign minister, never wanted Rudd as our ambassador to the United States, and now Donald Trump doesn’t either.

Trump was asked in an interview with Nigel Farage on Tuesday if he’d deal with Ambassador Rudd once he became president after the November election, as polls suggest, given Rudd had said “the most horrible things” about him: “Would you take a phone call from him?”

Trump bit: “I heard he was a little bit nasty. I hear he’s not the brightest bulb, but I don’t know much about him. If he’s at all hostile, he will not be there long”.

It’s amusing and instructive to see the media Left here look all puzzled and mock shocked by Trump’s whack at wacky Rudd.

“Wow,” gasped ABC presenter Patricia Karvelas. “It’s quite the statement!”

Is Anthony Albanese totally unaware of what a dingbat Kevin Rudd has been? Picture: Supplied

David Crowe, chief political correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, agreed this had “come out of the blue”, like much from this supposedly crazy Trump: “We haven’t seen the back story as to anything that Kevin Rudd has done that has antagonised Donald Trump in this way.”

Seriously? Do these guys live in some Bubbleland with Albanese, totally unaware what a dingbat Rudd has been? Or totally unaware that lunatic criticisms of Trump really are just that – lunatic – and that Trump might think less of the lunatic who makes them?

Two months ago I started a column here like this: “Kevin Rudd, get ready to pack your bags. Because bad news: Donald Trump just had another win in his cruise to the White House.”

Trump’s rise must mean Rudd’s fall. How could it be otherwise?

That’s why Albanese was so wrong to pick Rudd. He should have known that Trump, who’d already nominated, could well be president again, and, second, that Australia would therefore need an ambassador who could also get Trump on the phone to ask him for a favour for Australia.

Foolish Kevin Rudd helped to poison the world against Donald Trump. Picture: Getty Images

That meant no to Rudd. Why would President Trump lift a finger for Rudd, knowing how freely he had smeared him around the world?

Here are some of Rudd’s unhinged character assassinations of Trump in the years before he was appointed ambassador.

Donald Trump “is a traitor to the West” and “the most destructive president in history”.

Trump “drags America and democracy through the mud” and “abuses Christianity, church and bible to justify violence”.

And then there was this sneer at Trump, on the ABC, where Rudd, an applause-junkie, played up to a hooting anti-Trump ABC mob: “I think the general consensus amongst anyone concerned with a public policy process, domestic or international, thinks he’s nuts.”

There are two problems with all this, which is why Trump’s reaction has certainly not come “out of the blue”.

The first is Rudd’s lousy judgment. Trump can be erratic and volcanic, but he is not “nuts”, does not abuse Christianity to justify violence, is not a “traitor to the West” and definitely not “the most destructive president in history”. Just look at the old fool who’s president now.

For now, Wong must swallow her ‘I told you so’ and defend Rudd. Picture: Martin Ollman

So this foolish Rudd helped to poison the world against Trump, which brings us to that second problem: would a President Trump be likely to come to the phone or rearrange his schedule to take a call from a man who’s vilified him like that?

In the words of Trump himself: “If he’s at all hostile, he will not be there long.“

But for now, Wong must swallow her “I told you so” and defend Rudd. Asked on Wednesday if she regretted his appointment, she gave no direct answer but claimed he was doing a good job and was talking to politicians on both sides of the US Congress. He wouldn’t be replaced.

What else could she say, while Joe Biden is still president and Albanese her boss?

But what a dumb call by Albanese, appointing this joker. And when – or if – Trump is president again, what then? Keep Rudd to save Albanese from looking like a goose? Or sack Rudd to save Australia from being a pariah in the White House?

Which will Albanese choose: his country or his comrade? For him, that’s been a tough choice.