i know you are but what am i?

It is frustrating that Health Minister Tony Abbott wastes taxpayer dollars strutting around his office dictating pointless articles like the one the Herald printed yesterday ("From nice to nasty but still wishy-washy"). Do you think Fairfax had to pay for it as well?
According to Abbott, John Howard would never personally offend an opponent:

"Imagine the reaction if John Howard ever told someone to 'take your tablets', let alone abused an opponents as 'weak' and 'worthless'."

Strangely, he then proceeds to refer to Howard's classic insult to Beazley, "He hasn't got the ticker", which many interpreted as a criticism not only of weak character but of Beazley's physical condition. And that's not personally nasty?
Look at Abbott's semantics. Beazley's words are "aggressive" "abuse" and "uncivilised discourse", but when Howard insults someone, it is framed as a "damning verdict", essentially a truth handed down with judge and jury-style authority.
Ultimately, Abbott seems to be arguing that he and Howard are intrinsically nasty but that Beazley can only fake it. How else to interpret this comment?

"In the back of [Beazley's] mind, no doubt, is the Prime Minister's damning verdict about lack of ticker. Presumably the press gallery has concluded that contrived nastiness [in Beazley] is less of a problem than the intrinsic kind [in who? Howard and Abbott?].

Sorry, Tony, but my damning verdict of your article is that you've gone from nasty to nasty and you're still wishy-washy. Why don't you stop worrying about who's the nastier boy and get on with your real job. You know, that boring old Health stuff.